MEMORANDUM FROM: Administration TO: Chair Rooke, Reeve Harwood, All Councillors SUBJECT: Planning Committee Meeting

A meeting of the Planning Committee will be held on:

Monday, August 14, 2017 @ 11:30 a.m. R.M. Council Chambers

AGENDA 1. Call to Order 2. Adopt Agenda 3. Planning Carryforward Action List 4. In-Camera: City of Martensville – Proposed Annexation • Review of Proposed Boundary Alteration Request 5. In-Camera: Town of Dalmeny – Proposed Annexation • Review of Proposed Boundary Alteration Request 6. Saskatoon North Partnership for Growth (P4G) Regional Plan • Endorsement of P4G Regional Plan 7. 2013 Call for Proposals – Multi-parcel Country Residential Development Update • Update on Proposals Requested by Council 8. Drainage Study Terms of Reference • Review Terms of Reference in Request For Proposals (RFP) 9. Adjourn PLANNING Carryforward Action List - CURRENT **Yellow highlighted text indicates latest status update**

Date/Source Action Item/Request Status 1. 2012 Apr 23 Septic Utility Policy 2012 Nov 26 Council Meeting Council Motion: Motion: That Brent Latimer be invited to speak at a future Public Works Meeting That the issue of Septic Utility Policy be Committee meeting regarding septic systems. deferred to the Administration committee Presentation from Brent Latimer occurred at January 7, 2013 Council for further discussion meeting.

2013 Jan 7 Council Meeting Motion: That all septic utility agreements are hereby cancelled and bylaws or motions rescinded. All septic system requirements and the RM of Corman Park will meet the requirements of Saskatchewan and the Saskatoon Health Region requirements as the standard. Motion Deferred to January 14, 2013 Planning Committee

2013 Jan 14 Planning Committee Meeting Direction: That Administration should arrange changes as required to the current RM and District OCP and Zoning Bylaw to remove any requirements related to septic utilities. • Currently underway, draft amendments will be presented at May Committee meeting

2013 May 21 Council Meeting Motion: The language used in the OCP and Zoning Bylaws is altered to increase the flexibility of when to apply additional regulations of a private septic utility on a proposed development. This includes: • Should, Shall or May (from current definitions): ° Shall is an operative word which means the action is obligatory; ° Should is an operative word which means that in order to achieve plan objectives, it is strongly advised that the action be taken. ° May is an operative word meaning a choice is available, with no particular direction or guidance intended. • Replacing Septic Utilities with Homeowner Associations as this may be an opportunity to expand the control of area residents beyond septic utilities, to matters that they feel are important to their locality such as Municipal Reserve/park space leasing, snow removal, drainage works, and architectural controls for example.

Page 1 of 14 Printed Date: August 8, 2017 PLANNING Carryforward Action List - CURRENT **Yellow highlighted text indicates latest status update**

Motion – This item be deferred until the next Planning Committee meeting, when a representative from the RM of Rosthern will present to the Committee regarding this matter.

2013 August 19 Council Meeting Motion Defeated – That Administration be directed to prepare a bylaw for first reading to provide for increased flexibility and discretion to Council in requiring that a septic utility be formed as a condition of approval on multi- parcel country residential development. • Proposed bylaws 43/13 and 44/13 (for the RM) and bylaws 45/13 and 46/13 (for the District) provided to Committee for review. Bylaws 45/13 & 46/13 were also provided to the District Planning Commission for comment.

2013 Sept 16 Council Meeting Motion: That the District Planning Commission expresses concerns and reservations with the proposed bylaw amendments and the District Planning Commission recommends that RM Council revisit the issue. Planning staff have included a new report for consideration.

2013 Oct 21 Council Meeting Motion: That Administration be directed to prepare a bylaw for Fist Reading to provide for increased flexibility and discretion to Council in requiring that a homeowner’s association be formed as a condition of approval on multi- parcel country residential development.

2014 February 18 Council Meeting Motion: That Council utilize the current wording of the Septic Utility Bylaw, changing the word association to organization. • Bylaw for First Reading presented at March 5 DPC meeting

2014 March 10 Planning Committee: • The City of Saskatoon attended the meeting to discuss a new proposal and provide additional information on the raw water intake

2014 March 18 Council Meeting Motion: That Council supports the City of Saskatoon’s proposed amendments to the District Official Community Plan and Zoning Bylaw as

Page 2 of 14 Printed Date: August 8, 2017 PLANNING Carryforward Action List - CURRENT **Yellow highlighted text indicates latest status update**

noted in the report presented to Council at the March 10, 2014 Planning Committee meeting subject to confirmation from the Saskatoon Health Region on the implementation of the policy. • In progress; meeting with Saskatoon Health Region & Community Planning with Administration scheduled for Apr. 29 • RM and City Administrations are drafting revised amendment wording due to the Apr. 29 meeting with Community Planning and will advise DPC and the Planning Committee by the end of the year. • The DPC meeting was canceled in December so the item will be addressed in February 2015. • The amendments to the District OCP and Zoning Bylaw will be considered with the rest of the District amendments. • A bylaw for consideration was on the November 9, 2015 Planning Committee agenda; DPC amendments will follow given ongoing discussions with the City on bylaw amendments • Bylaw 59/15 and 60/15 were deferred at the November 16, 2015 Council meeting for edits; updated bylaws 31/16 & 32/16 were on the July Planning Committee agenda for consideration and discussion • Amended Bylaws 31/16 & 32/16 were given First Reading at the July 18, 2016 Council meeting; public hearing at August Council meeting. Bylaws given final readings and sent to Community Planning for Ministerial approval; the Ministry is currently going through their referral process approval is pending • The Ministry would like the R.M. to seek legal advice on a number of questions related to The Municipalities Act and The Planning & Development Act prior to approval. • Our legal counsel responded that there are no concerns with the proposed amendments and we have asked Community Planning to consider approving them as presented; verbal response from Community Planning indicates that they will not be providing Ministerial approval. It is likely Council will have to consider a different approach to the bylaws; an update and further direction will be provided at an upcoming Planning Committee meeting. R.M. Administration has followed up for written comments. • Community Planning has advised that authority for a municipality to require a private on-site septic utility is established under The Municipalities Act not The Planning & Development Act. They have

Page 3 of 14 Printed Date: August 8, 2017 PLANNING Carryforward Action List - CURRENT **Yellow highlighted text indicates latest status update**

suggested that the following wording be included in planning documents and a separate bylaw be prepared under the provisions of The Municipalities Act. “As a condition of approval of a multi-parcel country residential, commercial, or industrial subdivision, Council may in accordance with a septic utility bylaw adopted pursuant to The Municipalities Act, require the developer to create and administer a private on-site septic utility to monitor the ongoing operation and maintenance of an on-site wastewater system.” • The options for Council to consider include: o Leave the policies as-is and require all multi parcel developments to include a septic utility with the terms to be detailed at the discretion of the municipality; or o Edit the current bylaw wording to include the above noted wording and create a new bylaw for septic utilities under the provisions of The Municipalities Act. If this option is chosen our solicitors will have to be engaged to draft the bylaw as Administration does not have the expertise in this regard. Also, Council should give consideration for septic nuisances and other septic related issues under this bylaw.

2017 June 19 Council Meeting Motion: That the wording recommended by Community Planning regarding the authority of a Municipality to require a private on-site septic utility under The Municipalities Act be added into the Official Community Plan and that a new separate bylaw regarding septic utilities be prepared. • Solicitors have been forwarded the materials to draft the bylaw; ongoing

2. 2014 Apr 22 R.M. of Corman Park Zoning Bylaw • A list of Zoning Bylaw topics for discussion and prioritization was on Council Motion: That a list of topics for potential the February 16, 2016 Planning Committee agenda Meeting revision to the R.M. Zoning Bylaw be • At the December 2016 Strategic Planning session it was determined compiled and discussed at a future that the review of the overall RM Zoning Bylaw would be deferred Planning Committee meeting. until the Regional Plan is implemented; however resourcing would be secured to home based businesses (as set as priority in Feb

Page 4 of 14 Printed Date: August 8, 2017 PLANNING Carryforward Action List - CURRENT **Yellow highlighted text indicates latest status update**

2016), farm hand/secondary residences and other minor amendments needed on a case by case basis 2014 February 17 Council Meeting • An item on priorities is on the February Planning Committee agenda; Motion: Council decided to prioritize lot sizes/densities and ILO regulations That the Bare Land Condominium as the first two items to be followed by signage, secondary Development report be received as residences and sea cans as time allows. Resourcing is being information and consider bare land secured and discussion topics will be added to upcoming Planning condominium policy, process and Committee agendas. A discussion on ILOs was on the July 10 development standards in conjunction Planning Committee agenda; the consultant is currently researching with the 2015 review of the R.M. Official information on discussion topics to bring back to Committee. Community Plan and Zoning Bylaw 2016 April 18 Council Meeting Motion: That two (2) acre industrial parcels be added to the R.M. Zoning Bylaw review prioritization list. • The item was added to the prioritization list; a report briefing Council of the proposed amendments is on the September 12, 2016 Planning Committee agenda. • At the September 19, 2016 Council meeting a meeting date of the morning of October 24, 2016 was set to further discuss this item with the consultant • Updated amendments were discussed at the November Planning Committee meeting; public consultation was requested and will occur in early 2017 due to time of year • Public consultation meetings were held in January 2017; an update was on the February Planning Committee agenda. • Proposed bylaws were on the March Planning Committee agenda; First Reading was given at the April 18, 2017 Council meeting, a public hearing is scheduled for May 15, 2017. Another public hearing is scheduled for June 19, 2017 to provide for additional time to discuss the amendments with ratepayers. Final readings were provided and a bylaw package has been sent to Community Planning for approval; approval pending.

3. 2013 Nov 18 MuniCode Services Open Building • 45 letters (signed by the RM and MuniCode) will be sent out on Council Permits Motion: That RM February 28, 2014 regarding open building permits Meeting Administration works with MuniCode • In progress; second batch of 55 letters (signed by the RM and Services to create a more proactive MuniCode) sent out March 7, 2014 regarding open building permits

Page 5 of 14 Printed Date: August 8, 2017 PLANNING Carryforward Action List - CURRENT **Yellow highlighted text indicates latest status update**

approach to ensure that contractors and • An update on concerns with open building permits and other building ratepayers are aware of their permit issues was on the February 2015 Planning Committee responsibility to have their project agenda to begin discussions. inspected, and in turn, certifying that their construction project is being 2015 February 17 Council Meeting constructed in accordance with all RM Motion: standards. Administration is directed to draft standards or criteria for Council review under which agricultural buildings must receive development and building permit approval with no exemption from following the Building Standards as defined by the Universal Building Accessibility Standards Act • At the December 2016 Strategic Planning session it was determined that the review of agricultural buildings would be considered in 2017

2015 May 19 Council Meeting Motion: That further discussion of Building Permit Issues regarding Farm Buildings be deferred to a future Planning Committee Meeting. • In progress; a follow up conference call was held on July 9 with RM staff, MuniCode and the provincial Building Standards Branch for more information and to discuss alternatives. • An item was on the August 10, 2015 Planning Committee agenda for consideration

2015 August 17 Council Meeting Motion: That further discussion be deferred until the potential further appeal of the Saskatchewan Building and Accessibility Standards Appeal Board decision and a canvassing of Agricultural Producer organizations regarding the proposed changes. • An appeal to the Court of Queen’s Bench was heard on Nov. 5, 2015. An update on the outcome was requested by RM Administration • The appeal is being reheard in March 2016 as the judge stated the appeal board didn't follow proper procedures when relying on an opinion from the Ministry of Justice;

4. 2014 Feb 18 District Sq. Footage Increase • Administration provided a Bylaw for First Reading at the March 5 Council Motion: That Council receives the DPC meeting. Meeting Commercial Square Footage Increase report as information and requests that

Page 6 of 14 Printed Date: August 8, 2017 PLANNING Carryforward Action List - CURRENT **Yellow highlighted text indicates latest status update**

Administration draft a bylaw for first 2014 March 18 Council Meeting reading that removes the commercial Motion: That Council defers the First Reading of Bylaw 04/14 to allow for maximum square footage restrictions in additional discussion between the R.M. of Corman Park and City of the Planning District. Saskatoon on Bylaw 04/14 Proposed Textual Amendment: Corman Park – Saskatoon Planning District Zoning Bylaw – Commercial Square footage.

5. District Interim Development Strategy • Initial Administrative discussions with the City took place on May 7, In response to development pressures, 2014. Research on the Interim Development Strategy is taking place a commitment to the R.M. by the City of on options and a follow up meeting with the City will be held on July Saskatoon relating to boundary 17, 2014. alteration negotiations, as well as a • In-camera update provided at August 11, 2014 Planning Committee proposed amendment to the District meeting. Planning staff is continues to work with the City of Zoning Bylaw by the R.M. to remove the Saskatoon on an Interim Development Strategy to help address the limit on commercial square footage in issues. the District, the Administrations from the • An in-camera update was provided to the District Planning City and the R.M. have agreed to work Commission at its Nov. 21 meeting. together to finalize an Interim • An in-camera update was provided at the Dec. 8 Planning Development Strategy for the Corman Committee meeting. Park-Saskatoon Planning District before • RM and City Administrations met on Jan. 7 to debrief after the in- the Regional Plan is completed. camera updates provided to their Committees in 2014. • At the May 11, 2015 Planning Committee meeting a presentation was made by the City of Saskatoon on servicing and further discussion was had on the proposed amendments to the Corman Park-Saskatoon Planning District Official Community Plan regarding the District Interim Development Strategy. • A delegation will attend the July Planning Committee meeting from the City of Saskatoon to discuss proposed revisions to the amendments. • First reading on revised bylaws was given by RM Council on July 20, 2015. A request for a complementary resolution will be sent to City Council. Final readings of the bylaws were deferred for further discussion

2015 September 21 Council Meeting Motion: That on behalf of Reeve Harwood a letter be sent to City of Saskatoon Council regarding a joint meeting hosted by the R.M. between Councils to be held at the end of October.

Page 7 of 14 Printed Date: August 8, 2017 PLANNING Carryforward Action List - CURRENT **Yellow highlighted text indicates latest status update**

• A letter has been sent to the City and initial communications with Administration has been held on the meeting. • A verbal update was presented at the February 16, 2016 Planning Committee meeting • At the February 16, 2016 Planning Committee meeting a sub- committee consisting of Reeve Harwood, Councillors Chuhaniuk, Rooke and Trask was established, with the purpose to meet with a sub-committee of City of Saskatoon Council members. • A meeting between the entire R.M. and City Councils took place on April 18, 2016

6. 2015 Grasswood Mixed Use Node Market • The RFP for the Market Impact Study was released by the RM on February 17 Impact Study February 19 with the proposals due March 16, 2015. Council Motion: That the R.M. of Corman Park • A recommendation on a preferred consultant for the Market Impact Meeting partner in the Grasswood Mixed Use Study is expected to be given to RM Council on April 20, 2015 to Node Market Impact Study with the City enter into a Consulting Services Agreement; which was entered into of Saskatoon and that a on May 15, 2015. recommendation be brought back to • The consultant for the project is Cushing Terrell Architecture R.M. Council on the selected consultant • An in camera presentation from the consultant was held at the in order to award the contract and enter January 2016 Planning Committee into a Consulting Services Agreement. • The final report is being revised by the consultant based off of new First Nations and regional information that was recently provided. The final draft is will be circulated to the DPC and Committee later this year; the project was delayed due to miscommunication and negotiation on implementation between the R.M. and City • The Ministry of Highways & Infrastructure has indicated that a public release of the SE Saskatoon Freeway route will be provided online beginning May 12, 2017; since the final Grasswood Mixed Use Node report would vary depending on this location Administration will be working with the information provided by the province to finalize the study; ongoing.

7. 2014 June Furdale DCR3 Overlay Removal • Planning Administration is researching this request because 16 Council Request removing the overlay will not allow for further re-subdivision. Meeting Motion: That the Furdale DCR3 Overlay • An update was provided at the Oct Committee meeting; the item was Removal Request report be received as deferred until the Hamlet Board can consider the report. information.

Page 8 of 14 Printed Date: August 8, 2017 PLANNING Carryforward Action List - CURRENT **Yellow highlighted text indicates latest status update**

• A meeting was held with residents of Furdale on January 20 to provide clarity on the planning report provided in October and to answer any questions there were. The Hamlet is considering their options with respect to undertaking the components of the suggested CDR; the next Hamlet Board meeting is scheduled for May 2015. • The Hamlet meeting was held on May 12, 2015 • Furdale held an AGM on April 18, 2016 and members of the Board met with Planning Administration following the AGM to discuss partnering with Silver Sky as well as doing the CDR independently as the Hamlet. • A group of Furdale residents, which was formed to provide info to residents about Silver Sky’s progress and how they are addressing the concerns raised, is still active. They have also requested any servicing updates as they come available; R.M. Administration will be following up as part of the Call for Proposals update requested for Silver Sky. • The Furdale AGM is on May 9, 2017. At the AGM Furdale residents determined that they may look at doing a CDR on their own to determine the viability for further resubdivision in Furdale. More information will be provided when available from the Hamlet.

8. 2014 May Robert Cannon Building Bylaw • Correspondence sent by registered mail on May 22, 2014. Item was 20 Council Violation - SW 12-35-6-W3 successfully delivered to the applicant on May 27, 2014. Meeting Motion: That Administration drafts a • A follow up letter was sent to the applicant on October 30, 2014 to letter to Mr. Cannon informing him of the ensure he is aware of the timeframe and that the RM will proceed revised Estimated Peak Water Level with a Court Order after the 6 month timeframe. elevation of his property and that his • A site inspection was performed on December 2 and confirms the property is located in the floodway and buildings are still on the property. development cannot be supported. Mr. • Administration obtained legal advice on how to address resolving the Cannon has six (6) months from matter; the response received included: Council’s endorsement to remove the o The RM should apply to the Court of Queen’s Bench for a residence from Parcel D, SW 12-35-6- further Order of Compliance. Changes to the Planning & W3 and failing this request that the R.M. Development Act, RM Zoning Bylaw and provincially will take action to remedy the non- regulated Estimated Peak Water Levels necessitate this compliant development in an Order of recommendation. Compliance. • Administration is following up with the Water Security Agency to confirm that the property is located in the floodway prior to drafting a

Page 9 of 14 Printed Date: August 8, 2017 PLANNING Carryforward Action List - CURRENT **Yellow highlighted text indicates latest status update**

new Order of Compliance. WSA followed up with the RM on Aug. 4 to confirm the location of the building to review whether it is located in the floodway and if there is a safe building elevation. Discussions are ongoing to confirm floodway/flood fringe areas. • This item should be addressed as part of the proposed hydraulic modeling study.

2017 July 17 Council Meeting Motion: That Administration investigate the current status of the Cannon property with information, including mapping, to come back to Council. • Information was provided at the July 17 Council meeting with no further action related to the enforcement necessary at this time

9. 2015 April 7 Hydraulic Modeling Study • The Water Security Agency (WSA) has been contacted to see if Council Motion: That the Water Security Agency federal or provincial funding is available. The RM has been added Meeting be contacted regarding the availability of to the funding request list and WSA feels we could rank high given joint funding to undertake a hydraulic the development pressures. modeling study. • Administration also inquired into the requirements/suggestions for drafting a Request for Proposals should the RM decide to pursue a study even without funding. • WSA and RM have begun information/data sharing to determine exactly what type of studies will be required. • A hydraulic modeling study is considered as part of the 2016 Planning Department budget; WSA has been contacted to discuss the requirements of the study RFP • A meeting was held between RM and WSA reps regarding the study requirements; an update was on the May 9, 2016 Planning Committee agenda

2016 May 16 Council Meeting Motion: That R.M. Council directs Administration to prepare a Request for Proposals for Phase 1, including the potential for optional scope, of the South Saskatchewan River Flood Risk Area Study and that a recommendation be brought back to R.M. Council on the selected consultant in order to award the contract and enter into a consulting services agreement. • An RFP was drafted by Administration with input from the WSA.

Page 10 of 14 Printed Date: August 8, 2017 PLANNING Carryforward Action List - CURRENT **Yellow highlighted text indicates latest status update**

• On June 22, 2016 the WSA contacted the RM to submit an application under the National Disaster Assistance Program which is administered by Public Safety Canada. A funding request has been made to produce flood hazard mapping for the South Saskatchewan River in the RM as 1 of 3 pilot projects in the province. • If successful on this application for federal funding (50%), the WSA will contribute the other 50% to hire consultants to undertake the flood hazard mapping project at no cost to the RM. The adjudication of the applications should be complete in September 2016; the project must be completed by March 31, 2018. • If funding is not successful the RM would likely release an RFP later this year to complete the flood hazard mapping on our own. • Updates will be made to Planning Committee as they are available; WSA advised we may hear something back by mid-October. • The WSA recently indicated that the application to Public Safety Canada (PSC) for the national disaster assistance program was successful and that the WSA will be obtaining flood hazard mapping for Corman Park south. • Next steps for WSA include receiving Cabinet approval, signing funding agreements and obtaining a consultant firm to deliver on the project. Since LiDAR data is available we can anticipate progress over the winter of 2016/17. • The WSA has indicated that discussions on commitments to the funding are still ongoing but they have indicated to PSC that no work nor expenditures within the project will occur within this fiscal year ending March 31, 2017. The RM inquired whether the project is being considered during the 2017 budget but no commitment could be made by WSA. No PCS deadline on the funding could be provided and it was suggested the RM could help partner with the province but it would still require provincial spending which is the concern due to the government-wide fiscal constraint. Administration will continue to follow up with WSA however political support is required to ensure this project receives government support to proceed. • The Watershed Management division has yet to receive a response from senior management on their budget allocations; the Reeve has inquired with the Minister regarding the hold up. More information will

Page 11 of 14 Printed Date: August 8, 2017 PLANNING Carryforward Action List - CURRENT **Yellow highlighted text indicates latest status update**

be provided at upcoming Planning Committee meetings in order to determine a course of action. • A verbal update was provided at the July Planning Committee meeting that WSA was likely to reject the federal funding due to timing and resourcing concerns. They suggested that the R.M. taking over the funding was a decision the Ministry of Government Relations (MGR) had to make as they controlled the programming. • R.M. Administration followed up with MGR representatives after the Planning Committee meeting. A response was received that for municipalities to access the program, the province would be required to administer a new program. For a number of fiscal and administrative reasons, this has not happened. • However, MGR advised that they would submit a NDMP application to the federal government, and help administer the required paperwork, but Corman Park would be responsible for filling out the applications and paying the full project cost until reimbursed up to 50% from the federal government. In this instance, the province is simply “flowing through” the application, agreements and required reports for the R.M. to access the monies. The new funding stream closes in October however MGR is also working with WSA to see if the current funding can be reallocated. R.M. Administration will be working to secure this federal funding. No direction from Council is needed at this time.

10. 2016 June Development Servicing Security • At the June 13, 2016 Planning Committee meeting, delegations 20 Council Requirements representing two proposed industrial developments requested that Meeting Motion: That a policy regarding future Council review the amount of security required within R.M. servicing security requirements to come back to agreements. Council for review. • At the June 20, 2016 Council meeting, a motion was passed asking Administration to bring back options on security requirements for Council to consider a new servicing security policy; at item was on the October 11, 2016 Planning Committee agenda for consideration

2016 October 17 Council Meeting Motion: That direction be provided for Administration to draft a policy for Council’s review that includes the following security requirements:

Page 12 of 14 Printed Date: August 8, 2017 PLANNING Carryforward Action List - CURRENT **Yellow highlighted text indicates latest status update**

a) security requirements be 125% if security is provided in cash or a letter of credit; b) security requirements be reduced to 90% if a Performance Bond, Labour Material Bond and Maintenance Bond is provided; and c) Permits will only be issued after the issuance of a Construction Completion Certificate (CCC). • The motion was deferred for discussion at Strategic Planning • At the December 2016 Strategic Planning session it was determined that a process for vetting developer’s past performance and financial records should be developed along with insight into what other jurisdictions are doing • Based on the discussions at Strategic Planning; Administration is drafting revised policies for Council to consider; an item for discussion was on the May 8, 2017 Planning Committee agenda

2017 May 15 Council Meeting Motion: That Administration further investigate options related to a subdivision application/deposit fee and that in relation to proposed multi- parcel residential, industrial, and commercial subdivisions the servicing security be set at 80% of the estimated cost of constructing the services and that no building permits will be issued until the Construction Completion Certificate is issued. • Discussions continue with Community Planning on fees

11. 2017 Drainage Studies • Drainage study areas include Highway No. 11/12 corridor/North February 27 Motion: That the three drainage studies Corman Industrial area; BizHub/Yellowhead/Korpan Industrial area Council be prioritized to be completed in 2017 and East Floral Industrial area Meeting under one Request for Proposal. • Now that the budget is passed Administration is currently drafting an RFP with assistance from WSA; a brief on the project is on the August 14 Planning Committee agenda.

12. 2017 March Call for Proposals • Correspondence letters have been sent out by R.M. Administration 27 Council Motion: That the re-evaluation of the with responses required by August 1, 2017; update item is on the Meeting 2013 Multi-parcel Country Residential August 14 Planning Committee agenda. Subdivision proposals be received as information and that Administration send correspondence as directed to noted

Page 13 of 14 Printed Date: August 8, 2017 PLANNING Carryforward Action List - CURRENT **Yellow highlighted text indicates latest status update** applicants, remove noted applicants from the list and that the remainder be re- evaluated after the P4G Regional Plan is completed.

Page 14 of 14 Printed Date: August 8, 2017

Planning Committee Presentation Item 4 August 14, 2017 Reeve and Councillors Re: In-Camera: City of Martensville – Proposed Annexation Background: The City of Martensville recently submitted a boundary alteration proposal to R.M. Administration for review and discussion. The lands include both City owned lands such as the lagoon site and cemetery, as well as privately owned lands in the R.M. The City provided a document summarizing the proposed boundary alteration; it will be provided to Council in-camera at the meeting. It is anticipated that there may be further questions or discussions needed with the City of Martensville prior to a complementary resolution being provided. This item is viewed as the first opportunity to review and discuss the City’s annexation proposal. Recommendation: “That due to the nature of the discussions that the review of the boundary alteration proposal from the City of Martensville occur in-camera as per Section 16(1) of the Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.”

Planning Committee Presentation Item 5 August 14, 2017 Reeve and Councillors Re: In-Camera: Town of Dalmeny – Proposed Annexation Background: The Town of Dalmeny recently submitted a boundary alteration proposal to R.M. Administration for review and discussion. The lands include both Town owned lands as well as privately owned lands in the R.M. The Town provided a document summarizing the proposed boundary alteration; it will be provided to Council in-camera at the meeting. It is anticipated that there may be further questions or discussions needed with the Town of Dalmeny prior to a complementary resolution being provided. This item is viewed as the first opportunity to review and discuss the Town’s annexation proposal. Recommendation: “That due to the nature of the discussions that the review of the boundary alteration proposal from the Town of Dalmeny occur in-camera as per Section 16(1) of the Local Authority Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.”

Planning Committee Presentation Item 6 August 14, 2017 Reeve and Councillors Re: Saskatoon North Partnership for Growth (P4G) Regional Plan Background: As Council will recall, the Regional Oversight Committee (ROC) endorsed in principle the P4G Regional Plan, Servicing Strategy and Governance & Implementation Strategy in May 2017; the documents are attached. As part of the proposed P4G Regional Plan a new Planning District is envisioned to be created, including membership from the R.M., Saskatoon, Warman, Martensville and Osler. This will include expanded Planning District boundaries as well as an expanded 13 voting member P4G District Planning Commission. In order to create this new P4G Planning District a new Official Community Plan (OCP), District Planning Agreement and Zoning Bylaw must be drafted and given Ministerial approval by the Ministry of Government Relations. The current P4G Regional Plan will act as the new OCP therefore municipal and legal review of this document is currently being coordinated. However drafting of the P4G District Planning Agreement and P4G Zoning Bylaw has not yet begun. Since this official approval will upwards of 1 year, a recommendation is being presented at this time.to have all the municipal Councils “endorse in principle” the draft P4G Regional Plan, Servicing Strategy and Governance & Implementation Strategy. The documents would be filed with the Ministry of Government Relations so development proposals in the region can be evaluated on the draft policies contained within. This would allow for more development and subdivision opportunities in Corman Park under current bylaws, prior to the new P4G Planning District being officially created. Analysis: The P4G Regional Plan, which includes the Regional Land Use Map, will guide future growth in the region to a population of one million people by establishing a coordinated approach to land use, development, infrastructure and governance. The Regional Plan was developed based primarily on the Corman Park – Saskatoon Planning District OCP and includes: • general policies relating to economic development, aboriginal inclusion, natural and heritage resources, natural hazards as well as water resources and wetlands; • land use policies for rural land uses, future urban growth areas, the Green Network Study Area, Wanuskewin Heritage Park, agricultural research, regional infrastructure and institutional facilities, Corman Park – Osler Agri Food Node, Recreation, Mineral and Aggregate Resources, as well as Waste Management and Remediation Industries; and, • policies relating to servicing as well as governance and implementation. A P4G Servicing Strategy document provides recommendations to the partner municipalities for strategic investments in regional infrastructure development and service delivery. The Governance & Implementation Strategy provides an outline for the next steps for the Regional Plan. It also includes details for the proposed new P4G Planning District, dispute resolution, amendments and future considerations. Providing for “endorsement in principle” is beneficial to the R.M. as it will allow for additional development proposals to be reviewed and considered. Also, since the P4G Regional Plan includes a Servicing Strategy, it will allow the R.M. to continue important discussions on potable water, drainage and transportation with other elected officials in the region. Continuing with the momentum of the discussions is important for implementation in the future. However, in order to support this short term implementation, amendments to the R.M. or Planning District Official Community Plan (OCP) and Zoning Bylaw may be required to align with the P4G Regional Plan. Adequate resourcing of these amendments should be considered by Council as the amendments to R.M. or Planning District policies will vary between the jurisdictions. For example the framework for allowing for “5 per 1/4” residential subdivision and development is already in place in the R.M. OCP and Zoning Bylaw but not in the Planning District versions. This means that to allow residential densities to align with the P4G Regional Plan (and thus allowing for more “5 per 1/4” opportunities in some areas), is more straightforward in the rest of the R.M., over providing for them in the Planning District. However, within the Planning District there is a better policy framework for more industrial, commercial and denser residential/recreational development than can be enhanced more efficiently with alignment to the P4G Regional Plan. For example, in 2015 text and map amendments were being considered to allow for more development in the Planning District. In the two years that have passed, additional policy and servicing discussions have taken place that should allow for text and map amendments to be reconsidered in these areas and be mutually acceptable to both the R.M. and City. Since all of the P4G policy changes will take place with the new P4G Planning District, Council should only consider any immediate policy changes that are needed prior to official approval which will be considered in 1 years’ time. Bylaw amendments take 3-6 months to complete at a minimum and given the scope of some of the changes needed it could be 6-9 months or longer. A balance will have to be struck between staff time working on the new P4G Zoning Bylaw and amending the current R.M. and District policies. Next Steps: If endorsement in principle is provided today than Council should also identify their priority policy considering so R.M. Administration can begin to draft a list of the needed bylaw amendments for Council’s consideration. If endorsement in principle is not provided, Council should identify what information is required in order to consider it. Any items for discussion at the upcoming ROC meeting should also be identified for discussion with the R.M. representatives, for example the new Planning District boundary or requested changes to the R.M.’s “5 per 1/4 Constraints Area”. As noted earlier, legal review of the P4G Regional Plan is currently being coordinated to ensure the documents meet the Statements of Provincial Interest Regulations and The Planning & Development Act, 2017 (the Act) prior to submission to the province. Also since a new P4G Planning District is being created a new P4G District Planning Agreement and P4G Zoning Bylaw have to be drafted for official approval with the Regional Plan (which will act as the P4G OCP). The current District Planning Agreement and Zoning Bylaw will be used as templates for the new versions. The P4G District Planning Agreement will formalize much of the information in the Governance & Implementation Strategy such as the official P4G boundary, Planning Commission composition, dispute resolution, amendment process, etc. as required under the Act. The draft Short Term Implementation Plan suggests that the P4G Project Manager position be extended through 2018 to complete this; currently the term ends in 2017. Public consultation is also expected during the development of the P4G Zoning Bylaw. The Planning & Administration Committee (PAC) has provided a draft Short Term Implementation Plan to ROC for review; a final draft is anticipated at the September 14 ROC meeting. More resourcing and short term implementation details for the R.M. will be known at the October 10 Planning Committee meeting. Once legal review and drafting of the other required documents is complete, the new P4G Planning District can be considered by all municipal Council’s for official approval by Bylaw. Additional public hearings, including the consideration for a joint public hearing between the five municipal Councils, will take place in 2018. More details will be provided to Council on these next steps once available. Recommendation: “That the Saskatoon North Partnership for Growth (P4G) draft Regional Plan, Regional Servicing Strategy and Regional Governance and Implementation Strategy be endorsed in principle.”

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ...... i Introduction ...... 1

The Saskatoon North Partnership for Growth ...... 1 Plan Area ...... 1 Plan Contents ...... 1 Regional Vision ...... 3

Vision ...... 3 Principles ...... 3 Strategic Directions ...... 4 General Policies ...... 6

1. General ...... 6 2. Economic Development ...... 7 3. Aboriginal Inclusion ...... 8 4. Natural and Heritage Resources ...... 10 5. Natural Hazards ...... 12 6. Water Resources and Wetlands ...... 16 Land Use ...... 18

7. General ...... 18 8. Agriculture ...... 22 9. Country Residential ...... 27 10. Rural Commercial ...... 31 11. Rural Industrial ...... 33 12. Future Urban Growth Areas...... 37 13. Green Network Study Area...... 42 14. Wanuskewin Heritage Park ...... 46 15. Agricultural Research ...... 47 16. Regional Infrastructure and Institutional Facilities ...... 48 17. Corman Park–Osler Agri-Food Node ...... 49 18. Recreation ...... 51 19. Mineral and Aggregate Resources ...... 53 20. Waste Management and Remediation ...... 55 Servicing ...... 58

21. General ...... 58 22. Potable Water ...... 60 23. Wastewater ...... 61 24. Stormwater and Drainage ...... 63 25. Transportation ...... 65 26. Infrastructure Corridors ...... 68 27. Servicing Agreements ...... 69 28. Development Levies and Servicing Agreement Fees ...... 71

Governance and Implementation ...... 72

29. Governance ...... 72 30. Implementation...... 75 Glossary ...... 87

INTRODUCTION

THE SASKATOON NORTH PARTNERSHIP FOR GROWTH

The Saskatoon North Partnership for Growth (P4G) is a voluntary regional collaborative that includes political and administrative representation from five partnering municipalities: the Rural Municipality (RM) of Corman Park; the Cities of Martensville, Saskatoon, and Warman; and the Town of Osler. The P4G also includes advisory representation from the Saskatoon Regional Economic Development Authority (SREDA).

Given the pressures of rapid regional growth, the P4G recognized that a comprehensive approach to regional planning and servicing was needed to sustain economic prosperity, support a high quality of life, and protect the region’s natural beauty, ecology, and heritage. The Regional Plan (the Plan) represents a new vision for regional partnerships and regional planning, and will guide future regional growth through a coordinated approach to land use, development, and servicing.

PLAN AREA

The area managed by the P4G Regional Plan is indicated in Exhibit 1 and called “the Region” throughout the Plan. The Plan is intended to coordinate urban growth and development for the Cities of Martensville, Saskatoon, Warman, and the Town of Osler, in addition to managing surrounding rural areas within the RM of Corman Park that will urbanize as the population of the Region increases to one million residents. Plan areas in Corman Park are also intended to manage an effective transition from urban to rural land uses.

PLAN CONTENTS

The Plan includes the following:

• The Regional Vision provides the statement of intent for the Plan and describes the Principles and Strategic Directions used to develop and manage the Plan

• The General Policies section outlines policies for the Region in areas such as economic development and natural resources management

• The Land Use section outlines major land-use policies related to the Regional Land Use Map and regional development

• The Servicing section outlines regional policies related to the construction and management of infrastructure and the delivery of regional services through P4G

• The Governance and Implementation section describes the processes for administering and carrying out the Plan, including building capacity for ongoing management

• The Glossary defines the terms used within this document

REGIONAL VISION

VISION

Our vision for the future is a vibrant, prosperous, and internationally competitive region. We are known for a high quality of life; a thriving and diverse economy; healthy and connected ecosystems; and efficient infrastructure supporting sustainable growth and development.

The five municipalities of the Region - Osler, Martensville, Warman, Saskatoon, and the RM of Corman Park - provide a rich range of opportunities and lifestyle choices for residents and newcomers. The aesthetic beauty and ecological values of the South Saskatchewan River and prairie landscapes are key components to our quality of life. We work in partnership on issues of common interest through integrated, coordinated efforts that support our success while respecting the individual aspirations of all partners.

PRINCIPLES

Partnership

Developing and carrying out the Plan is not simply the work of one organization. Achieving the vision for the future will be based on ongoing collaboration and partnerships between the members of P4G, as well as the Province, First Nations, other organizations in the community, and the broader public. Integrated, coordinated approaches to managing regional opportunities and challenges will be adopted.

Efficiency

A primary aim is to increase efficiencies in the provision of regional infrastructure and services, both for current development and new growth. Regional initiatives will work to reduce costs as well as increase the quality of services through coordination between partners, alignment of land use and infrastructure strategies, planning to common goals and standards, and reduction of service overlaps.

Sustainability

A sustainable approach to planning will consider economic, social, and environmental implications in an integrated manner. Actions will support economic vitality and complete communities and ensure the needs of the present are met while preserving the welfare of future generations. Natural resources and environmental processes essential to the regional ecological health and productivity will be maintained and conserved.

Opportunity

The Regional Plan will work to provide a diverse, vibrant regional economy and a high quality of life that provides opportunities for all. Regional investments will be fairly and strategically distributed recognizing the different needs of municipalities. Planning will provide direction, consistency, and stability to attract and support strategic investment and economic development in the Region.

Equity + Inclusiveness

The Regional Plan is committed to ensuring that costs and benefits will be equitably distributed amongst the communities in the Region. Regional planning and cooperation will be transparent and consistent, and must work to build consensus-based solutions to incorporate the varying needs and perspectives of all stakeholders. All communities involved will have an equal voice and opportunity to be involved in the process.

Flexibility + Resilience

Long-term success will depend on the ability of the Region to evolve when faced with a changing environment. The Plan must accommodate change through adaptive, flexible approaches and incorporate innovation and creativity to address unexpected events.

STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS

The Plan is based on seven primary Strategic Directions, which shape the focus and content of the policies and strategies included for regional action.

Regional Infrastructure + Services

Regional coordination to develop world-class infrastructure, facilities, and services will be pursued, with the aim to realize cost-effectiveness and improvements in quality through shared systems. Regional planning for public investment will consider life-cycle costs and future development in decision-making, and ensure that costs and benefits are shared in a fair and equitable way through a consistent financial model. Systems of particular interest will include a regional transportation network; water and wastewater infrastructure; and stormwater and drainage. Future coordination on recreation facilities, emergency services, and other investment will also be considered.

Settlement Patterns + Complete Communities

Meeting the needs for future growth will be done through efficient and well organized development. Development will consider existing and planned infrastructure as well as life-cycle impacts. It will also meet the diverse needs and growth requirements for all communities as defined by consistent growth

projections. Where possible, development shall be clustered in contiguous areas, corridors, and nodes. Interim uses may also be permitted where they will not impact future urban growth needs or development potential.

Regional Economy + Economic Development

The economy of the Region must be flexible, diversified, and globally competitive. Efforts to support economic growth will consider the strengths of the Region as a whole. Planning will provide the direction and guidance to encourage coordinated development and investment that builds upon the joint strengths of the Region, as well as opportunities within individual jurisdictions.

Quality of Life

Providing a high quality of life for all residents is critical to the future of the Region. The Plan will provide for diversity in lifestyles and recognize the unique character of individual communities. It will conserve and enhance the environmental, social, and economic resources that are key to well-being.

Governance + Funding

Regional action must be coordinated between all partners in a fair and equitable manner, with a focus on transparency and public accountability. Cost and benefits from joint actions must be shared equitably across the partners and the Region as well. Regional initiatives will respect the individual aspirations of the partners while providing responsive, consensus-based approaches for collaboration and governance.

Natural Environment + Drainage

The Plan will recognize sensitive ecological systems in the Region as important amenities and resources to be preserved for future generations. Key ecological areas will be conserved, enhanced, and connected to promote the health and sustainability of the regional landscape. Flooding and drainage issues will be linked with an understanding of natural systems and considered at local and regional levels, with a focus on reducing risks through integrated approaches.

Agriculture + Natural Resources

Agricultural and natural resource industries are an important part of the history of the Region, and are recognized as key drivers of the regional economy and its future. Land uses will be managed to ensure a balance between needs for growth and the sustainability of these economic sectors. Lands will be identified for these uses, and economic development activities will be integrated with these sectors to promote spin-off industries and economic clusters.

GENERAL POLICIES

1. GENERAL

1.01 Qualifiers. Should, shall or may in the context of this Plan denote the following:

a. Shall is an operative word that means the action is obligatory; b. Should is an operative word that means that to achieve the objectives of the Plan, it is strongly advised that the action be taken; and c. May is an operative word that means a choice is available with no particular direction or guidance intended.

1.02 Figures, Distances and Quantities are Guides Only. All figures, distances, and quantities in the Plan are guidelines only. Any deviations are subject to the provisions of the Regional Zoning Bylaw.

2. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

The strong and vibrant economy of the P4G Region has been a key driver of economic prosperity in Saskatchewan, and the area is a centre for much of the economic activity in the broader region. A regional approach to economic development, focusing on coordination between P4G members, rather than competition, will ensure the region supports current activities and can respond to future economic opportunities and trends. This is not intended to replace local economic development work as an economic development agency. Instead, the policies reinforce that land use and development are linked to economic development, and regional cooperation is necessary to achieve economic success.

Objectives

2-1 Support and encourage regional economic prosperity and entrepreneurship.

2-2 Support initiatives to strengthen and diversify the regional economic base.

2-3 Support efforts by municipalities and economic development organizations in increasing economic opportunities in the Region.

2-4 Enhance regional competitiveness.

Policies

2.01 Regional Coordination of Economic Development Planning. Municipalities shall work to coordinate economic development planning with other affiliated municipalities and the Saskatoon Regional Economic Development Authority.

2.02 Business Retention, Expansion and Attraction. Municipalities shall coordinate land use and development policies to attract, retain, and promote the growth of businesses beneficial for the Region.

2.03 Distribution of Employment. Municipalities shall support an equitable distribution of employment that reflects local community infrastructure and resources, and encourages job growth in all municipalities.

2.04 Agriculture in the Region. Municipalities shall support the farming and agricultural industry as an important component of the regional economy.

2.05 Value-Added Agricultural Development. Municipalities shall encourage the development of value-added businesses in rural areas to support economic growth, including Agri-Food Nodes.

2.06 Regional Tourism. Commercial tourism and related development shall be supported throughout the Region. This shall include opportunities for agritourism and regional recreation.

3. ABORIGINAL INCLUSION

P4G supports the inclusion of First Nation communities and Aboriginal organizations in planning for the Region. The general intent of these policies is to encourage collaboration and partnerships with rightsholders, and support the provincial and federal governments in meeting Treaty obligations that would impact the Region. This is important not only to provide for ongoing dialogue on issues of mutual concern, but also to collaboration on projects that can provide regional benefits to all participants.

Objectives

3-1 Collaborate with First Nation communities and Aboriginal organizations to achieve effective, efficient, and coordinated land use and development in the Region.

3-2 Develop partnerships with First Nation communities and Aboriginal organizations based on respect for each other’s jurisdiction and a common understanding of mutual interests.

3-3 Support federal and provincial governments in meeting their obligations within the Treaty Land Entitlement Framework Agreement and other relevant land claim agreements.

3-4 Support the Crown’s legal duty to consult First Nations and Métis communities when actions or decisions could impact Treaty or Aboriginal rights.

Policies

3.01 Dialogue with First Nations and Aboriginal Organizations. P4G members shall engage in ongoing dialogue with First Nations and Aboriginal organizations to understand issues of joint interest, cooperate on strategic planning, and support regional development.

3.02 Compatible Land Use Agreements. Where land has been selected as Treaty Land Entitlement within the boundaries of a municipality, the associated municipality will engage in discussions with the First Nation to enter into a land use compatibility agreement.

3.03 Dialogue with First Nations during Review. Where a development review is required under the Regional Plan and the proposed development is adjacent to a reserve or adjacent to land that has been selected as Treaty Land Entitlement, adjacent municipalities will engage with the First Nation regarding the proposal.

3.04 Integration of Land Uses. New subdivision or development adjacent to existing reserve development shall endeavor to complement and, where possible, integrate with, reserve development that is compatible with the Plan.

3.05 Collaboration on Infrastructure. P4G members shall seek to collaborate with First Nation communities and Aboriginal organizations in the construction and upgrade of infrastructure and facilities.

3.06 Land Use Compatibility with the Plan. While not required, development on reserve lands that is compatible with the provisions of this Plan will be encouraged.

4. NATURAL AND HERITAGE RESOURCES

The P4G Region includes significant natural and heritage resources that are valued and enjoyed by both residents and visitors. These resources include elements of the natural environment, such as significant species and habitats, as well as human-created features, such as heritage buildings and cultural sites. Natural and heritage resources create a sense of place and tell the story of the Region’s history and its people. The P4G recognizes that strategies are needed to identify, protect, and enhance these resources so they can be enjoyed today and by future generations.

Objectives

4-1 Conserve and enhance the Region’s natural systems and biodiversity

4-2 Encourage the protection and conservation of heritage properties in the Region, including sensitive buildings, structures, and lands

4-3 Promote awareness of the natural and heritage resources and visual amenities in the Region to both residents and visitors

Policies

4.01 Identification of Significant Natural and Heritage Resources. Where a natural or heritage resource is deemed significant to a municipality or any provincial or federal government department or agency, the municipality will encourage the designation of such resources for conservation and management through an evaluation process that reflects criteria identified by provincial and federal departments and agencies and The Standards & Guidelines for The Conservation of Historic Places in Canada.

4.02 Regional Natural and Heritage Resource Inventories. P4G should develop a regional inventory for natural and heritage resources.

4.03 Development of a Regional Natural Areas Strategy. P4G should develop a Regional Natural Areas Strategy to help to maintain and enhance natural features of the Region. The Strategy should include coordination with public and private agencies regarding the identification, protection, and rehabilitation of natural areas, and the development of natural and naturalized corridors for species movement.

4.04 Habitat Conservation Encouraged. The conservation, enhancement, and restoration of habitats for Species at Risk under The Wildlife Act, 1998 shall be encouraged through development reviews, conservation initiatives, and cooperation with landowners.

4.05 Consideration of Impacts to Natural and Heritage Resources. Subdivisions and development shall be designed and constructed to ensure that alterations to the landscape or

other natural conditions avoid or mitigate on- and off-site impacts to natural and heritage resources.

4.06 Integration of Natural Features. Development should integrate and complement natural features and landscapes including the incorporation of natural vegetation and conserved wetlands.

4.07 Reuse of Municipal Heritage Properties. The adaptive re-use of designated Municipal Heritage Properties shall be encouraged where appropriate.

4.08 Coordination with the Province. Efforts in protecting, conserving, and restoring natural and heritage resources shall be coordinated with the Province.

5. NATURAL HAZARDS

Natural hazards include risks such as flooding, slope instability, erosion, or subsidence. Development should be appropriately designed or limited where natural hazards exist in the region to avoid risks to people, property, infrastructure, and the environment. Preventing risk is more effective than responding after an event or damage has occurred.

Objectives

5-1 Prevent injury and loss of life, and minimize the potential for property damage within areas with potential for flooding

5-2 Avoid or minimize potential impacts of slope instability and subsidence on development, services, and infrastructure

5-3 Avoid development where there is the potential to cause erosion or increase the potential for erosion or slope instability

Policies

General

5.01 Identification of Hazard Lands. Municipalities should identify and map hazard lands within the Region.

5.02 Subdivision and Development on Hazard Lands. Subdivision and development shall not be permitted on hazard lands unless mitigation of the hazard is proven to the satisfaction of the municipality.

Unstable Areas

5.03 Identification of Subsidence Risks. Development applications in areas subject to mining leases shall require consultation with mining companies with local operations as well as appropriate provincial agencies to identify potential subsidence risks.

5.04 Geotechnical Report Required for Development in Unstable Areas. When considering a proposal for rezoning, subdivision, development or redevelopment on lands that may be prone to slumping, subsidence, landslides, erosion or any other instability, the municipality shall require the proponent to prepare and submit a geotechnical report assessing all pertinent hydrological, geological, and other natural or built conditions on site, and any proposed measures that would avoid and/or mitigate hazards. This report shall be prepared by a professional engineer with the appropriate specialization licensed to practice in the Province of Saskatchewan, and shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the municipality that the proposed development may be safely accommodated on the subject property.

5.05 Mitigation Measures for Safety and Protection of Property. A municipality shall require the proponent to implement, at the proponent’s sole expense, any mitigative actions required to ensure the safety of persons and the protection of property for development on hazard lands.

5.06 Renovations and Additions to Existing Structures. Applications for the redevelopment of or additions to structures in hazard areas identified within an existing geotechnical investigation shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the municipality, that the additional development can be accommodated within the scope of the original investigation.

Flood Plains

5.07 Two-Zone Flood Policy. A two-zone flood management policy shall be utilized where the flood plains for the South Saskatchewan River, Opimihaw Creek, and other watercourses and water bodies are divided into the flood way and the flood fringe for a 1:500 flood or other standard as provided in provincial legislation or regulation.

5.08 Defining Flood Plains. Potential flood plains for the 1:500 flood or other standard as provided in provincial legislation or regulation of the South Saskatchewan River, Opimihaw Creek, and other watercourses and water bodies as required shall be determined based on historical information, in consultation with the Water Security Agency and other provincial agencies, and confirmed through a site-specific legal land survey that includes contour lines provided by the proponent at the time of the proposed development or subdivision.

5.09 Coordination of Flood Plain Mapping. P4G shall coordinate with the province to provide mapping of the 1:500 flood or other standard as provided in provincial legislation or regulation for the Region.

5.10 Flood Plain Maps. The flood plain maps included in the Appendix identify the flood plains within the previous Corman Park-Saskatoon Planning District, and shall be used for information prior to full mapping of the 1:500 flood or other standard as provided in provincial legislation or regulation in the Region. Flood plain policies shall not be limited to the areas identified by the attached maps and may be applied to areas deemed to be susceptible to regular flooding based upon historical data, high water marks, photographs of past flooding and in consultation with the Water Security Agency.

5.11 Restricted Development in Flood Plains. Development will be restricted in flood plains to protect against loss of life and to minimize property damage associated with flooding events.

5.12 Land Uses within a Flood Way. Except as otherwise provided for in the policies contained herein, the use of land within a flood way shall be prohibited, except for agricultural and passive open space uses.

5.13 Subdivision within a Flood Way. The subdivision of land for non-agricultural purposes within a flood way shall be prohibited.

5.14 Types of New Development Prohibited within a Flood Way. Dwellings, commercial or industrial buildings, or any building intended for public occupation or for the storage of materials vulnerable to damage by flood waters, and including structures where agricultural products are processed, treated, or packaged shall be prohibited in the flood way.

5.15 Development Agreement Required for Subdivision within a Flood Plain. Applicants for the subdivision of lands within a flood plain shall be required to enter into an agreement with the municipality acknowledging the terms of the approval including, but not limited to, requirements for flood proofing.

5.16 Limited Development within a Flood Fringe. Where development may be permitted in a flood fringe:

a. the proposed construction shall not obstruct or divert the flow of water; and b. the structure shall meet the requirements of proper flood proofing and can withstand the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic effects of flood waters at the 1:500 flood or other standard as provided in provincial legislation or regulation without experiencing damage, as demonstrated in a report prepared by a professional engineer licensed to practice in the Province of Saskatchewan.

5.17 Requirements for Flood Proofing in the Flood Fringe. Where development may be permitted, flood proofing in the flood fringe shall be required to an elevation 0.5 metres above the 1:500 flood or other standard as provided in provincial legislation or regulation of the South Saskatchewan River, Opimihaw Creek, and other watercourses and water bodies as required for:

a. public buildings and structures; b. dwellings; c. commercial and industrial buildings; d. septic tanks; e. well heads; f. buildings and structures containing regulated amounts of chemicals, including petroleum storage; g. lagoons and liquid waste management systems; h. intensive livestock waste disposal facilities; i. accessory buildings (attached and detached); and j. structures where agricultural products are processed, treated, or packaged.

5.18 Two-Stage Building Permit Process. Every application for a permit to construct, erect, place, alter, repair, renovate, relocate or reconstruct a building or structure subject to flood proofing shall require a two-stage permit to ensure that the building or structure is designed and constructed to meet safe building elevations.

5.19 Flood Proofing Techniques. Every building or structure subject to flood proofing requirements shall be constructed on a site raised by fill; be raised by piles; implement an alternative flood proofing technique deemed acceptable to the municipality; or a combination thereof.

5.20 Certification of Flood Proofing Techniques. All proposed flood proofing shall be designed and certified by a professional engineer licensed to practice in the Province of Saskatchewan. The submission of the design shall be accompanied by a written report identifying the limitations to the design, expected lifespan, and required maintenance.

5.21 Flood Proofing and Elevation Requirements. Every building or structure subject to flood proofing shall have all well heads, liquid waste disposal systems, mechanical or electrical systems, windows, exterior doors, or other exterior openings, located at or above the design flood elevation unless they are part of an approved alternative floodproofing technique.

5.22 Development Agreements for Flood Proofing. As a condition of approval for the construction, erection, placement, alteration, repair, renovation, relocation, or reconstruction of a building or structure subject to flood proofing, the applicant shall be required to enter into an agreement with the municipality acknowledging the terms of the approval including any reporting and maintenance requirements deemed necessary by the municipality.

5.23 Flood Proofing for Existing Buildings and Structures. Existing buildings and structures that do not conform to the flood proofing requirements in this section may continue to be used. Structural repairs, alterations and additions to existing buildings must conform to flood proofing requirements.

6. WATER RESOURCES AND WETLANDS

Water resources are one of the most valuable features of the regional landscape, providing services such as drinking water, recreation opportunities, and habitat. These resources include the South Saskatchewan River and Opimihaw Creek that weave through the region, as well as other surface waters and groundwater. The prairie pothole landscape gives rise to wetlands that provide a place for water to settle after snowmelt and storm events, add to the beauty of the landscape, and support flora and fauna.

Objectives

6-1 Protect and enhance the South Saskatchewan River Valley, other watercourses and water bodies, and wetlands to support ecological and human health and the enjoyment of these resources

6-2 Protect groundwater resources from contamination and depletion to ensure a safe drinking water supply

6-3 Achieve responsible stewardship of wetland resources that balances the need for conservation with other considerations such as development, transportation, economic impacts, and quality of life

Policies

6.01 Source Water Protection and Development. Development shall not restrict the use of groundwater or surface water, or alter the flow of surface water in a way that detrimentally affects other property or the ecology of the drainage system.

6.02 Regional Wetlands Inventory. P4G shall explore the development of a regional inventory of wetlands. Wetlands located within the Green Network Study Area shall be a priority. Prior to the development of this inventory, the conceptual map of regional wetlands in the Appendix shall be used to inform and guide considerations in this section.

6.03 Regional Wetlands Policy. P4G should develop a Regional Wetlands Policy to guide the protection and restoration of wetlands identified in the Regional Wetlands Inventory.

6.04 Wetlands Protection and Development. Development in the Region should strive to:

a. avoid impacts to wetlands where reasonably possible; b. address impacts to wetlands where avoidance cannot be fully achieved; and c. undertake compensatory mitigation for any negative impacts to significant wetlands from development.

6.05 Least Disturbance to Wetlands. P4G shall encourage development and subdivision designs that ensure the least possible disturbance and/or alteration of retained wetlands.

6.06 Designating Environmental Reserve. Where subdivision is proposed adjacent to a watercourse or wetland, the municipality shall explore the designation of the watercourse or wetland, an associated buffer, any adjacent floodplain, and significant natural habitat as Environmental Reserve to protect sensitive areas and preserve the potential for public access where appropriate.

6.07 Coordination of Regional Initiatives. P4G shall, in coordination with the Province, investigate initiatives to promote regional source water protection and wetlands conservation.

LAND USE

7. GENERAL

These general policies are intended to apply to all considerations of land use management in the Region, including the definition of the overall Regional Land Use Map attached to this Plan as Exhibit 2 to guide current and future development to 1 million residents.

Objectives

7-1 Provide for rural and urban development that minimizes land-use conflicts and ensures orderly, cost-efficient, and context-appropriate development

7-2 Encourage development that supports complete, innovative, and context-appropriate communities with diverse opportunities for living and working through a compatible mix of land uses

7-3 Ensure that land uses and development patterns are clearly defined to provide certainty for investment and development

7-4 Provide for effective interjurisdictional coordination and management in land use and development policy and planning

7-5 Provide for consistent standards for development in the Region managed under this Plan

Policies

General

7.01 Land Use Compatibility. Development shall be compatible with surrounding uses.

7.02 Regional Land Uses. The general land uses for the Region are identified on the Regional Land Use Map attached to this Plan as Exhibit 2. These land uses are intended to guide refinement through more detailed planning.

7.03 Future Urban Growth Areas. Areas identified for future urban growth are identified in the Future Urban Growth Areas Map, attached to this Plan as Exhibit 3. This map includes:

a. future urban growth areas required to accommodate a regional population of 700,000, and b. future urban growth areas required to accommodate a regional population of 1,000,000.

7.04 Development Standards in the P4G Zoning Bylaw. Appropriate standards for development shall be applied through the P4G Zoning Bylaw.

Separation Distances

7.05 Measuring Separation Distances. In determining proximity, separation distances shall be measured from:

a. the area of confinement of the animals or livestock waste storage for intensive livestock operations; b. the property boundary of the closest developable parcel for a vacant country residential subdivision; c. the property boundary for a vacant agricultural residential subdivision; d. the foundation of a dwelling for other dwellings not otherwise identified; e. active areas for construction and demolition materials industry facilities; or f. the property boundary for recreational development, Wanuskewin Heritage Park, and all other uses.

7.06 Separation Distances for Residential Uses. No residential development, other than a dwelling accessory to the use, shall be located within:

a. 305 m (984 ft) of a non-refrigerated anhydrous ammonia facility licensed by the Province of Saskatchewan; b. 600 m (1969 ft) of a refrigerated anhydrous ammonia facility licensed by the Province of Saskatchewan; c. 1 km (0.6 mi) of a chemical plant; e. 100 m (328 ft) of a building or structure containing more than 200 kilograms of waste dangerous goods other than used oil or waste antifreeze solutions as prescribed by The Hazardous Substances and Waste Dangerous Goods Regulations; f. the separation distances as specified in provincial regulations for bulk fuel storage facilities; g. the separation distances as per Policy 19.04 for aggregate resource industries; h. the separation distances as per in Policy 20.08 for waste management industries; i. the separation distances as per Policy 8.05 for intensive livestock operations; j. the separation distances from railways and rail facilities as described in Policy 25.16; and k. the separation distances specified in provincial regulations, where separation distances have not been prescribed in this Plan.

Separation distances shall be measured according to Policy 7.05.

7.07 Separation Distances from Residential Development. Industrial development shall not be permitted within 1 km (0.6 mile) of a country residential development or an urban residential neighborhood.

7.08 Separation Distances for Recreational Uses. No recreational uses shall be located within:

a. 305 m (984 ft) of a non-refrigerated anhydrous ammonia facility licensed by the Province of Saskatchewan; b. 600 m (1968.50 ft) of a refrigerated anhydrous ammonia facility licensed by the Province of Saskatchewan; c. 1 km (0.6 mi) of a chemical plant; e. 100 m (328 ft) of a building or structure containing more than 200 kilograms of waste dangerous goods other than used oil or waste antifreeze solutions as prescribed by The Hazardous Substances and Waste Dangerous Goods Regulations; f. the separation distances as specified in provincial regulations for bulk fuel storage facilities; g. the separation distances as per Policy 19.04 for aggregate resource industries; h. the separation distances as per Policy 20.09 for waste management industries; i. the separation distances as per Policy 8.05 for intensive livestock operations; j. the separation distances from railways and rail facilities as described in Policy 25.16; and k. the separation distances specified in provincial regulations, where separation distances have not been prescribed in this Plan.

Separation distances shall be measured according to Policy 7.05.

7.09 Separation Distances from Residential Development. No use indicated in policy 7.08 shall be located within the associated separation distance to any residential development, other than the dwelling accessory to the operation. Separation distances shall be measured according to Policy 7.05.

7.10 Separation Distances from Recreational Uses and Wanuskewin Heritage Park. No use indicated in policy 7.08 shall be located within the associated separation distance to any recreational use or Wanuskewin Heritage Park. Separation distances shall be measured according to Policy 7.05.

Land Use Categories

7.11 Intent of the Land Use Categories. The major land use categories included in the Regional Land Use Map attached to this Plan as Exhibit 2 are identified as follows:

a. The Agriculture category accommodates agriculture and pasture uses as well as agricultural residential uses. b. The Country Residential category accommodates multi-parcel Country Residential subdivisions at rural densities.

c. The Rural Commercial/Industrial category accommodates general commercial and industrial uses, including lightly-serviced industrial, storage, and commercial areas that require a large land base. This area shall be differentiated into Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial areas through future planning. d. The Urban Residential Neighbourhood category is intended to accommodate future urban residential and supporting commercial and institutional uses, all with urban servicing. e. The Urban Commercial/Industrial category is intended to accommodate future general commercial and industrial uses including office, retail, and industrial areas that are connected to urban servicing. This area shall be differentiated into Urban Commercial and Urban Industrial areas through future planning. f. The Green Network Study Area includes connected areas of wetlands, swales, natural areas, the South Saskatchewan River corridor, and other areas providing stormwater storage and conveyance, groundwater recharge, viewshed protection, wildlife habitat, and, where appropriate, multifunctional green space.

7.12 Special Policy Areas. In addition to major regional land uses listed under Policy 7.11, the Regional Land Use Map attached to this Plan as Exhibit 2 includes Special Policy Areas with location-specific policies:

a. Wanuskewin Heritage Park includes significant natural and archaeological resources and is an important cultural centre for First Nations and non-First Nations. The site is a National Historic Site of Canada, and the Park intends to pursue a UNESCO World Heritage designation in the future. b. Agricultural Research areas identify high-quality agricultural lands that have been used for agriculture research plots and facilities. c. Regional Infrastructure areas include lands required to support regional infrastructure systems and services, including water, wastewater, and waste management facilities. d. Regional Institutional Facilities areas include lands required to support major regional infrastructure and institutional facilities that are critical to growth and development, such as hospitals, schools, and places of worship. e. Corman Park-Osler Agri-Food Node is a development node that is intended to provide opportunities for rural and urban development that supports agricultural producers of value-added products and related services. f. Urban Mixed-Use Nodes are locations that are intended to accommodate a compatible mix of future commercial (retail and office), institutional, and residential uses, such as mixed-use suburban centres.

8. AGRICULTURE

The Agriculture category enables agriculture and pasture uses, as well as agricultural residential uses, while preserving important ecosystem services such as local food production, habitat protection, and maintenance of the land’s natural drainage characteristics.

Objectives

8-1 Minimize land use conflict between agricultural and non-agricultural uses

8-2 Accommodate suitably located agricultural and agriculturally related commercial and industrial developments

8-3 Promote agricultural innovation, conservation, and value-added industries related to agriculture including agricultural tourism

8-4 Encourage innovative agricultural residential subdivisions in appropriate locations that are sustainable, provide for rural housing and rural convenience commercial needs, and integrate with existing rural development

Policies

General

8.01 Fragmentation of Agricultural Land. Fragmentation of agricultural land for uses other than intensive agricultural operations is discouraged.

8.02 Subdivision of a Quarter Section. Quarter sections designated as Agriculture on the Regional Land Use Map attached to this Plan as Exhibit 2 may be subdivided to permit:

a. the creation of two equal agricultural holdings subject to compliance with the policies contained herein; b. the establishment of up to five (5) discretionary uses per quarter section (64.8 hectares, or 160 acres) or three (3) discretionary uses per 32.4 hectare (80 acre) parcel, subject to Council approval; c. the establishment of up to five (5) agricultural residential building sites per quarter section (64.8 hectares, or 160 acres) or three (3) agricultural residential building sites per 32.4 hectare (80 acre) parcel, subject to rezoning to an appropriate district; or d. a combination thereof to a maximum of five (5) building sites per quarter section (64.8 hectares, or 160 acres) or three (3) building sites per 32.4 hectare (80 acre) parcel.

8.03 Subdivision for Intensive Agriculture. Intensive agricultural operations may be allowed on parcels less than 32.4 hectares (80 acres) at the discretion of Council if such a parcel can accommodate the proposed use.

8.04 Valued-Added Developments. Multiple related value-added agricultural developments may be considered on a single agricultural parcel at the discretion of the RM subject to these developments meeting all applicable development standards.

8.05 Separation Distances for Intensive Livestock Operations. Intensive livestock operations shall comply with the separation distances in Table 1. The uses listed in Table 1 shall also maintain the following minimum separation distances from intensive livestock operations, except as otherwise indicated by policies of this Plan.

Table 1. Required Separation Distances

Other Uses 100-300 301-600 601-1000 1001-2000 Animal Animal Animal Animal Units Units Units Units Single-Family Dwelling not 305 m 457 m 0.8 km 1.6 km owned by the Intensive (1000 ft.) (1500 ft.) (0.5 mile) (1 mile) Agricultural Operator

Multi-Parcel Country 0.8 km 1.2 km 1.6 km 3.2 km Residential Development (0.5 mile) (0.75 mile) (1 mile) (2 miles)

Urban Boundary 0.8 km 1.2 km 1.6 km 3.2 km (0.5 mile) (0.75 mile) (1 mile) (2 miles)

Commercial Use 305 m 457 m 0.8 km 1.6 km (1000 ft.) (1500 ft.) (0.5 mile) (1 mile)

Rural Industrial Park or Use 305 m 457 m 0.8 km 1.6 km (1000 ft.) (1500 ft.) (0.5 mile) (1 mile)

Recreation Use 305 m 457 m 0.8 km 1.6 km (1000 ft.) (1500 ft.) (0.5 mile) (1 mile)

Wanuskewin Heritage Park, 0.8 km 1.2 km 1.6 km 3.2 km excluding operations within (0.5 mile) (0.75 mile) (1 mile) (2 miles) the Park

8.06 Separation Distances for Agricultural Residential Dwellings. Notwithstanding Policy 8.05, single family dwellings in agricultural residential subdivisions shall maintain a separation distance from existing intensive livestock operations that is one level of intensity higher than the current number of animal units permitted for the intensive livestock operation as described in Table 1.

8.07 Relaxation of Separation Distances for ILOs. When all landowners are in written agreement, separation distances for ILOs may be relaxed at the discretion of the municipality.

8.08 Location Requirements for Agricultural Commercial and Agricultural Industrial Development. Agriculturally related rural commercial or rural industrial development shall locate on lands in the Agriculture category that:

a. are in or adjacent to existing or planned commercial or industrial areas; b. have access to municipal roads that can support the use; and c. are located outside of future urban growth areas.

8.09 Alternate Locations Considered. Notwithstanding Policy 8.08, agriculturally related rural commercial or rural industrial developments may be permitted in alternate locations on lands designated as Agriculture on the Regional Land Use Map attached to this Plan as Exhibit 2 where it can be clearly demonstrated to the satisfaction of the RM that the use has site- specific location requirements that limit its location to an Agriculture area.

Agricultural Residential

8.10 Location Requirements for Agricultural Residential Development. New agricultural residential development shall not be located:

a. on significant wildlife habitat lands; b. in locations where it may cause or contribute to the degradation of ecological and hydrological systems; and c. on hazard lands, unless mitigation of the hazard is proven to the satisfaction of the municipality.

8.11 Disruption of Agriculture Minimized. Agricultural residential subdivisions shall be designed and sited to minimize the disruption of agricultural activities on an agricultural holding through buffering, setbacks, and screening. Where applicable, compact designs should be encouraged that do not inhibit cultivation.

8.12 Minimize Fragmentation of Agricultural Lands. Agricultural residential subdivisions shall be encouraged to locate on sites that are appropriate and contiguous to existing building sites to minimize the fragmentation of agricultural lands.

8.13 Site Area Relaxation. Where a proposed subdivision involves a yard site that existed prior to the adoption of the initial RM Official Community Plan (June 30, 1982), the site size may exceed the maximum site area permitted in the P4G Zoning Bylaw to include all essential yard site features, including but not limited to shelterbelts and a dugout.

8.14 Farm Related Secondary Residences. Temporary residences may be permitted on an agricultural holding where associated with an intensive agriculture operation, or as supplementary housing on farmsteads for farm employees whose primary income is earned on that farm.

8.15 Agricultural Residential Development on Fragmented Parcels. Parcels fragmented by a natural or manmade feature, such as a river or highway, may be considered for agricultural residential development subject to rezoning to an appropriate district and the following conditions:

25 a. the parcel is located in an area where only two (2) residential building sites per quarter section are allowed; b. the parcel, due to its size or its location, is incapable of cultivation or the production of forage crops; c. each parcel proposed for residential development contains a minimum of 1 hectare (2.47 acres) of contiguous developable land for a building site and can accommodate on-site sewage disposal and water services; d. development does not exceed a total of four (4) residential building sites per quarter section; e. the proposed use of the parcel does not negatively impact adjacent agricultural uses; and f. the proposed development complies with the general location and access policies contained herein.

9. COUNTRY RESIDENTIAL

Land within the Country Residential category will accommodate multi-parcel residential subdivisions that are rural in character. These subdivisions have relatively large lots but are designed according to cluster or conservation subdivision principles to preserve open space and farmland.

Objectives

9-1 Provide for planned country residential development and subdivision that is economical, safe and sustainable.

9-2 Encourage innovative Country Residential subdivisions in appropriate locations that are sustainable, provide for rural housing and rural convenience commercial needs, and integrate with existing rural development

9-3 Provide for planned country residential development that optimizes the use of existing and planned infrastructure.

9-4 Provide well designed developments that minimize land use conflicts.

Policies

9.01 Designation on Regional Map. Country residential development shall be sited in areas designated as Country Residential on the Regional Land Use Map attached to this Plan as Exhibit 2.

9.02 Location Requirements for Country Residential Development. New Country Residential subdivisions shall not be located:

a. on significant wildlife habitat lands; b. in locations where it may cause or contribute to the degradation of ecological and hydrological systems; c. on hazard lands, unless mitigation of the hazard is proven to the satisfaction of the municipality; and d. within the separation distances as detailed in Policy 7.06.

9.03 Considerations for Country Residential Development. When reviewing Country Residential subdivision proposals, the RM should consider the capacity of existing school and bus facilities or the feasibility of expanding this capacity to accommodate the proposed development

9.04 Preferences for Country Residential Development. Preference shall be given to Country Residential subdivision proposals that:

a. minimize the pressure to develop, expand or upgrade services and infrastructure inconsistent with Concept Plans and servicing plans; b. include significant natural or built amenities or other features that provide for a high-quality living environment; and c. incorporate innovative features to promote environmental and social benefits to the community.

9.05 Considerations for Country Residential Subdivision Design. Proposed Country Residential subdivision designs shall have consideration for:

a. the carrying capacity of the lands proposed for development and the surrounding area based on site conditions, environmental considerations and potential impacts, and other factors that may warrant consideration in the design of the proposal; b. minimizing impacts on regional drainage patterns and other regional ecological systems; c. the suitability and availability of municipal and other services and infrastructure necessary to support the proposal; and d. the compatibility of the proposed subdivision design with that of the surrounding area.

9.06 Sustainable Country Residential Subdivision Design Principles. New Country Residential subdivision proposals shall incorporate environmentally sustainable subdivision design principles including but not limited to:

a. protecting and incorporating existing features and landscapes including natural areas, natural vegetation buffers, habitat corridors for wildlife movement, cultural and heritage resources, important ecological areas, topographic features and environmentally sensitive lands, wetlands, drainage systems, and groundwater recharge areas and b. minimizing the length of roads constructed within the subdivision.

9.07 Integrated Recreation in Country Residential Subdivisions. Integrated recreational development shall be considered within a Country Residential subdivision where it complements existing and proposed communities, subject to:

a. submission of a Comprehensive Development Review; b. rezoning the parcel to an appropriate zoning district; and c. satisfying the recreational policies contained herein.

9.08 Area and Density of Country Residential Subdivision with Integrated Recreation. Where a substantial active public recreational amenity is being proposed as part of a Country Residential subdivision, the RM may relax the maximum development area requirement in an

amount equivalent to land allocated to the amenity, and/or reduce minimum lot sizes for the subdivision.

9.09 Consideration of Adjacent Development. Where a Country Residential subdivision is proposed on lands abutting an existing Country Residential development, the RM shall require the proposed development to be designed to complement the existing development. This may include measures such as visual buffering, building site separation, complementary lot sizing or any other measures necessary to achieve compatible land use and development.

9.10 Country Residential Development Adjacent to Urban Areas. New Country Residential subdivisions shall not be located adjacent to the boundary of an urban municipality unless the proposal:

a. is compatible with current and planned urban land uses within the adjacent urban municipality; b. will not place pressure on the adjacent urban municipality to develop, expand or upgrade services and infrastructure without an agreement for servicing and infrastructure costs between the urban municipality and the RM; and c. is referred to the adjacent urban municipality for review in accordance with the policies of this Plan.

9.11 Country Residential Development Adjacent to Future Urban Growth Areas. Country Residential subdivisions located adjacent to future urban growth areas shall be referred to the adjacent municipality for review and comment under the referral process established in Policy 29.07.

9.12 Home-Based Businesses in Country Residential Areas. At the discretion of the RM, home- based businesses may be located within Country Residential subdivisions, where these uses are consistent with the residential use and character of the area.

9.13 Integrated Commercial Development in Country Residential Areas. Rural Convenience Commercial development may be located within a Country Residential subdivision where it complements existing communities. This is subject to:

a. submission of a Comprehensive Development Review; b. rezoning the parcel to an appropriate zoning district; and c. satisfying the commercial policies contained in this Plan.

9.14 Conditions of Subdivision of Existing Country Residential Lots. The re-subdivision of lots within existing Country Residential developments may be considered subject to rezoning the parcel to an appropriate zoning designation and compliance with the following criteria:

a. the parcels for subdivision are at least one and a half (1.5) times larger than the average lot size of the original registered subdivision plan area;

b. the resulting lots shall be larger in size than the smallest lot in the original registered subdivision plan area; c. the subdivision is not intended to provide for a uniform increase in density throughout the original registered subdivision plan area d. the subdivision shall be consistent with all relevant policies within this Plan; e. the subdivision shall not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare of the existing community; f. the resulting lots shall each be connected to a centralized potable waterline; and g. the subdivision shall make efficient use of existing infrastructure.

9.15 Requirements for Subdivision of Existing Country Residential Lots. The re-subdivision of lots within an existing Country Residential development shall require:

a. referral to the Hamlet Board, if located within an Organized Hamlet; b. consultation with the condominium board, if located within a condominium; c. an assessment of the servicing and transportation impacts of the re-subdivision; and d. public consultation, if two (2) or more new parcels are created.

10. RURAL COMMERCIAL

Lands within the Rural Commercial category are suitable for convenience commercial uses and other commercial activities to meet the needs of the RM. These lands have rural servicing, and are not expected to be required for urban growth as the Region grows to 1 million residents. The category is represented on the Regional Land Use Map attached to this Plan as Exhibit 2 as Rural Commercial/Industrial, and commercial areas will be designated through more detailed planning.

Objectives

10-1 Promote economic development by designating suitable areas for rural commercial development

10-2 Encourage rural commercial developments to cluster so they provide for the efficient development of rural infrastructure and community services.

10-3 Provide for the convenience and commercial service needs of the suburban population

Policies

10.01 Delineation of Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial Areas on the Regional Land Use Map. The lands designated as Rural Commercial/Industrial on the Regional Land Use Map attached to this Plan as Exhibit 2 should be delineated into Rural Industrial areas and Rural Commercial areas through more detailed planning.

10.02 Designation of Rural Commercial Areas. Rural Commercial development shall be sited in areas designated as Rural Commercial/Industrial on the Regional Land Use Map attached to this Plan as Exhibit 2, and in areas that have been identified as suitable for Rural Commercial development through the detailed planning referenced in Policy 10.01.

10.03 Designation of Rural Commercial Land Use Classifications. Concept Plans and other detailed planning developed for Rural Commercial areas shall be required to differentiate areas between two types of commercial land use areas:

a. Arterial Commercial Districts, which include:

1. medium- and large-scale commercial activities where location adjacent to and exposure from major highways is essential; 2. commercial activities providing goods and services not customarily associated with urban commercial developments to the travelling public; and 3. highway frontage uses for existing or planned industrial parks.

b. Rural Convenience Commercial, which includes:

1. small-scale convenience commercial activities where location near a rural residential population is essential; and 2. activities intended to provide for the basic convenience needs of a local rural population to minimize automobile dependence.

10.04 Location Criteria. Rural Commercial developments should be directed to locations where:

a. existing roads and infrastructure are sufficient to support the development; b. nodal development is planned where key intersections of provincial highways, municipal roadways, and the Saskatoon Freeway can support access; c. impacts to existing roadways and additional costs of maintenance are minimized; and d. any other costs to the RM associated with the development are minimized.

10.05 Integration of Rural Convenience Commercial with Residential Development. Rural Convenience Commercial development may be located adjacent to Country Residential development where it minimizes land use conflict and complements existing communities subject to:

a. submission of a Comprehensive Development Review; and b. rezoning the parcel to an appropriate zoning district.

10.06 Urban Servicing in Rural Commercial Areas. Uses requiring urban servicing in Rural Commercial areas shall require servicing agreements with the relevant urban municipality.

10.07 Agricultural Subdivisions in Rural Commercial Areas. Lands designated as “Rural Commercial” on the Regional Land Use Map attached to this Plan as Exhibit 2 may be subdivided to permit:

a. the establishment of up to two (2) discretionary uses per quarter section (64.8 hectares, or 160 acres) or one (1) discretionary use per 32.4 hectare (80 acre) parcel, subject to Council approval; b. the establishment of up to two (2) agricultural residential building sites per quarter section (64.8 hectares, or 160 acres) or one (1) agricultural residential building site per 32.4 hectare (80 acre) parcel, subject to rezoning to an appropriate district; or c. a combination thereof to a maximum of two (2) building sites per quarter section (64.8 hectares, or 160 acres) or one (1) building site per 32.4 hectare (80 acre) parcel.

11. RURAL INDUSTRIAL

Lands within the Rural Industrial category are suitable for light and heavy industrial uses and storage facilities. These lands have rural servicing, and are not expected to be required for urban growth as the Region grows to 1 million residents. The category is represented on the Regional Land Use Map attached to this Plan as Exhibit 2 as Rural Commercial/Industrial, and industrial areas will be designated through more detailed planning.

Objectives

11-1 Promote economic development by designating suitable areas for rural industrial development

11-2 Encourage rural industrial development to cluster in industrial parks to provide for the efficient development of rural infrastructure and community services.

11-3 Minimize conflicts between rural industrial development and other regional land uses

Policies

11.01 Delineation of Rural Commercial and Rural Industrial Areas on the Regional Land Use Map. The lands designated as Rural Commercial/Industrial on the Regional Land Use Map attached to this Plan as Exhibit 2 should be delineated into Rural Industrial areas and Rural Commercial areas through more detailed planning.

11.02 Designation of Rural Industrial Areas. Rural Industrial development shall be sited in areas designated as Rural Commercial/Industrial on the Regional Land Use Map attached to this Plan as Exhibit 2, and in areas that have been identified as suitable for Rural Industrial development through the detailed planning referenced in Policy 11.01.

11.03 Designation of Rural Industrial Land Use Classifications. Concept Plans and other detailed planning developed for rural industrial areas shall be required to differentiate areas between three types of industrial land use areas:

a. Business Districts, which include:

1. mixed use light industry, storage and associated business development where the potential conflict with adjacent land uses is minimal and location adjacent to major highways for exposure is important; 2. small and medium-sized, value-added manufacturing and service industries; 3. fully landscaped sites, screened loading areas, an absence of outdoor storage of raw materials and an overall quality of site development that is superior to light or heavy industrial areas; and

4. a buffer or transitional area between more intensive industrial uses and incompatible uses, such as residential areas.

b. Light Industrial Districts, which include:

1. developments that have moderate potential for conflicts with adjacent land uses and are less dependent on exposure to high traffic areas; 2. a variety of industrial uses, including but not limited to manufacturing, assembly and repair, warehousing, wholesale distribution, and limited retailing as an accessory use. 3. limited outdoor storage of raw materials subject to screening to the satisfaction of Corman Park and an overall quality of site development that is superior to heavy industrial areas; and 4. buffers or transitional areas between more intensive uses and incompatible uses, such as residential areas.

c. Heavy Industrial Districts, which include:

1. developments with a high potential for conflicts with adjacent land uses, that are not dependent on exposure to high traffic areas; 2. land uses and processes that may potentially create land use conflicts with regard to noise, vibration, dust, smoke, aesthetics or odour; and 3. the outdoor storage of raw and processed materials, subject to the provision of screening to the satisfaction of the RM.

11.04 Industrial Parks. Industrial uses shall be restricted to industrial parks except where it can be clearly demonstrated to the satisfaction of the RM that an industrial use has specific location requirements that limit its location to a specific alternate site.

11.05 Contract Zoning. In considering proposals to rezone property for site specific industrial uses, Council may require the rezoning to be undertaken according with the provisions of Section 69 of the Act.

11.06 Industrial Development Adjacent to Urban Areas. New industrial development shall not be located adjacent to the boundary of an urban municipality unless the proposal:

11.07 Buffered Uses in Industrial Parks. Planning for proposed industrial parks shall ensure that industries with a high potential for land use conflicts are located to provide for buffering from non-industrial uses of land through:

a. distance separation and landscaping, b. visual buffers from potentially impacted properties, and/or c. siting of uses with less impacts (e.g., arterial commercial, light industrial, business district) near roadways and other potential areas of conflict.

11.08 Hazardous Industries. Industries using hazardous materials or producing waste dangerous goods as defined by The Environmental Management and Protection Act, 2002 may be considered subject to providing clear evidence of compliance with The National Fire Code, The Hazardous Substances and Waste Dangerous Goods Regulations, and any other applicable codes, standards and provincial and federal approvals.

11.09 Urban Servicing in Rural Industrial Areas. Uses requiring urban servicing in Rural Industrial areas shall require servicing agreements with the relevant urban municipality.

11.10 Location Criteria. Industrial developments shall be directed to locations where:

a. existing roads and infrastructure are sufficient to support the development or the costs of extending roads and infrastructure are minimized; b. impacts to existing roadways and additional costs of maintenance are minimized c. lands are not prone to natural hazards; d. lands do not have unique historical or archaeological significance; e. lands do not have significant wildlife habitat; f. lands do not have high-quality recreational resources; g. surface and groundwater resources will not be impacted; h. drainage considerations can be mitigated; i. land use conflicts are minimized; j. lands are outside the separation distances detailed in Policies 7.07 and 7.09; and k. any other costs to the RM associated with the development are minimized.

11.11 Agricultural Subdivisions in Rural Industrial Areas. Lands designated as “Rural Industrial” on the Regional Land Use Map attached to this Plan as Exhibit 2 may be subdivided to permit:

35 c. a combination thereof to a maximum of two (2) building sites per quarter section (64.8 hectares, or 160 acres) or one (1) building sites per 32.4 hectare (80 acre) parcel.

12. FUTURE URBAN GROWTH AREAS

The future urban growth areas identified on the Regional Land Use Map include the expected urban footprint as the Region grows to a population of 1 million. These areas include areas for future residential neighbourhoods, commercial and industrial development, and conceptual nodes for mixed-use centres.

Objectives

12-1 Provide for planned urban residential development and subdivision that is sustainable, supports a high quality of life, and encourages the development of complete communities

12-2 Support commercial and industrial development in future urban growth areas where it can be integrated into urban municipalities

12-3 Optimize the use of existing and planned infrastructure consistent with municipal and regional servicing plans

12-4 Coordinate urban expansion and staged boundary alterations in future urban growth planning

12-5 Support standards for interim uses that allow for redevelopment and future integration into urban municipalities

Policies

General

12.01 Urban Intensification. Urban municipalities shall promote the intensification of developed urban areas to help accommodate long-term regional growth.

12.02 Interim Uses in Future Urban Growth Areas. Interim uses on lands identified as future urban growth areas may be allowed prior to urban development, subject to requirements established through detailed planning that support efficient and cost-effective urban development in these areas.

12.03 Development Standards for Interim Uses. Interim uses in future urban growth areas shall use development standards that consider the standards used in the adjacent urban municipality. These standards shall be coordinated with the urban municipality to allow for these developments to be integrated with the urban municipality in the future.

12.04 Development of Concept Plans for Future Growth Areas. Concept Plans shall be prioritized for the future urban growth areas required to accommodate a regional population of 700,000 as identified in the Future Urban Growth Areas Map, attached to this Plan as Exhibit 3. Concept Plans shall rely on existing detailed planning where possible, and the RM and adjacent urban municipality shall determine through mutual agreement:

a. the priority of a Concept Plan and a timely schedule for completion, b. additional restrictions on interim development prior to completion of a Concept Plan, and c. any additional requirements for the development of a Concept Plan that are necessary to consider the local context.

12.05 Requirements for Interim Land Use in Future Urban Growth Areas. An interim use of any type shall not be permitted in a future urban growth area unless the proposal:

a. is consistent with more detailed planning for the area, b. is designed to transition to future urban servicing when included in an urban municipality, c. provides a site design that limits fragmentation of the parcel, and d. presents a subdivision design that allows for re-subdivision to urban-sized parcels.

12.06 Servicing Agreements Required for Interim Uses as Required. Notwithstanding other requirements under this Plan, Interim developments requiring subdivision shall, when required by a municipality, enter into servicing agreements to provide any necessary services for the subdivision.

12.07 Agricultural Residential Subdivision in Future Urban Growth Areas. Lands in future urban growth areas may be subdivided to permit the establishment of:

12.08 Agricultural Residential Subdivision in Urban Residential Neighbourhood Areas. Notwithstanding Policy 12.07, lands in Urban Residential Neighbourhood areas that are outside of areas required to accommodate a regional population of 700,000 in Exhibit 3, may be subdivided to permit the establishment of:

a. the establishment of up to four (4) discretionary uses per quarter section (64.8 hectares, or 160 acres) or two (2) discretionary uses per 32.4 hectare (80 acre) parcel, subject to Council approval;

b. the establishment of up to four (4) agricultural residential building sites per quarter section (64.8 hectares, or 160 acres) or two (2) agricultural residential building site per 32.4 hectare (80 acre) parcel, subject to rezoning to an appropriate district; or c. a combination thereof to a maximum of four (4) building sites per quarter section (64.8 hectares, or 160 acres) or two (2) building sites per 32.4 hectare (80 acre) parcel.

12.09 Country Residential Development Prohibited. Country Residential development shall not be permitted in future urban growth areas.

12.10 No New ILOs in Future Urban Growth Areas. New intensive livestock operations shall not be permitted in future urban growth areas.

12.11 Existing ILOs. Existing intensive livestock operations may expand within future urban growth areas at the discretion of the RM, subject to consultation with the adjacent urban municipality and consideration of the required separation distances in Policy 8.05.

12.12 Dedication of Reserves in Future Urban Growth Areas. In determining the recommended dedication of Municipal Reserve land or cash-in-lieu for new subdivisions for interim uses in future urban growth areas, the RM shall consider:

a. current and future land use planning and development standards for the area; b. the potential for significant public amenities, including open space recreational opportunities, integrated trail systems, and continuous pedestrian linkages; and c. the costs to the RM and the adjacent urban municipality.

The adjacent urban municipality shall be consulted regarding dedication of Municipal Reserve and any necessary transfer of dedicated land or cash in lieu.

12.13 Information Regarding Interim Land Uses. Information about regional land use planning and potential future urban development shall be made available to the public and provided to applicants for interim land uses. This shall include:

a. information on expected future land uses in the area, b. limitations on current land uses, c. expected timing of boundary alteration and urban development, and d. relevant infrastructure and servicing planning,

derived from this Plan, the P4G Zoning Bylaw, and applicable Concept Plans.

Urban Residential Neighbourhood Areas

12.14 Designation on Regional Land Use Map. Future urban residential neighbourhoods shall be sited in areas designated as Urban Residential Neighbourhood areas on the Regional Land Use Map attached to this Plan as Exhibit 2.

12.15 Urban Residential Neighbourhood Area Density Targets. New Concept Plans and other development plans for Urban Residential Neighbourhood areas shall achieve a minimum of:

a. 17.3 housing units per gross developable hectare (7 units per gross developable acre), or b. 50 residents and jobs combined per gross developable hectare (20.2 residents and jobs combined per gross developable acre).

12.16 Low Capital Intensity Developments Encouraged for Interim Commercial Uses. For interim rural commercial uses in Urban Residential Neighbourhood areas, low capital intensities are encouraged.

12.17 Temporary Development Preferred for Interim Uses. Interim uses in Urban Residential Neighbourhood areas required to accommodate a regional population of 700,000 in Exhibit 3 are preferred to be temporary, with uses, structures, and equipment that can be easily relocated to a new site.

12.18 Minimal Environmental Impacts. Interim uses in Urban Residential Neighbourhood areas shall have minimal environmental impacts.

12.19 Urban Commercial and Industrial Development Prohibited. Urban commercial and industrial development is prohibited as an interim use in Urban Residential Neighbourhood Areas.

Urban Commercial/Industrial Areas

12.20 Delineation of Urban Commercial/Industrial Areas on the Regional Land Use Map. The areas designated as Urban Commercial/Industrial areas on the Regional Land Use Map attached to this Plan as Exhibit 2 shall be delineated into Urban Commercial areas and Urban Industrial Areas through Concept Plans.

12.21 Designation of Urban Commercial Areas. Future urban commercial uses shall locate in areas designated as Urban Commercial through Concept Plans.

12.22 Designation of Urban Industrial Areas. Future urban industrial uses shall locate in areas designated as Urban Industrial through Concept Plans.

12.23 Detailed Planning for Interim Commercial and Industrial Development. Detailed planning shall be required for interim commercial and industrial development in Urban Commercial/Industrial areas. If no Concept Plan has been adopted under this Plan, interim

commercial and industrial development shall not contradict existing detailed planning for the site, and a Comprehensive Development Review shall be required.

12.24 Requirements for Detailed Planning. Concept Plans and Comprehensive Development Reviews developed for Urban Commercial/Industrial areas shall be developed to the satisfaction of the RM and the adjacent urban municipality, and shall include:

a. interim subdivision and site design that facilitate a transition to urban development; b. interim roadway and other infrastructure planning that facilitates a transition to urban development; c. consideration of the location and timing of future urban development; and d. for uses that could have a significant impact on transportation systems, a transportation impact assessment.

12.25 Agreements for Future Urban Servicing Provision. Intermunicipal agreements developed for interim development in Urban Commercial/Industrial areas shall include, to the satisfaction of the RM and adjacent urban municipality, consideration for future cost recovery for urban infrastructure. The level of detail provided in the agreement shall take into consideration:

a. Current land uses and/or current allowable parcel sizes; b. Future land uses and/or future allowable parcel sizes; c. Expected timing of boundary alteration and urban development; and d. Relevant infrastructure and servicing planning

12.26 Environmental Considerations of Interim Uses. A mitigation and remediation plan shall be required for interim commercial/industrial uses that could have an environmental impact, at the discretion of the municipality.

Urban Mixed-Use Nodes

12.27 Delineation of Urban Mixed-Use Nodes in Concept Plans. Urban Mixed-Use Nodes shall generally be based on the conceptual locations identified on the Regional Land Use Map, and Concept Plans shall delineate these future areas for integrated residential, commercial, institutional, and recreational uses in comprehensively planned mixed-use areas.

12.28 Density and Intensity Targets. As part of Concept Plan development, urban municipalities shall develop population density and employment intensity targets for Urban Mixed-Use Nodes that reflect their role and function as neighbourhood or suburban centres, with a minimum intensity of 75 residents and jobs combined per gross developable hectare (30.4 residents and jobs combined per gross developable acre).

13. GREEN NETWORK STUDY AREA

The Green Network Study Area includes connected areas of wetlands, swales, natural areas, the South Saskatchewan River corridor, and other areas providing stormwater storage and conveyance, and recharge of groundwater supplies. This area helps address regional stormwater issues and, where appropriate, supports multifunctional green spaces that deliver environmental and recreational benefits.

Objectives

13-1 Maintain and enhance a connected natural infrastructure system to manage storage and drainage and address regional stormwater issues

13-2 Reduce the impacts of pollutants on wetlands, creeks, streams, and rivers to increase surface water quality, including the health of the South Saskatchewan River

13-3 Minimize the impacts of development on native vegetation to protect the habitat necessary for wildlife to thrive and move throughout the area

13-4 Maintain important natural views, such as views from Wanuskewin Heritage Park

13-5 Encourage a connected open space system with opportunities for hiking, cycling, bird- watching, and other passive recreation activities

Policies

Boundary Refinement

13.01 Need for Refinement. P4G shall coordinate refinement of the boundaries of the Green Network Study Area.

13.02 Refinement Criteria. Refinement of the boundaries of the Green Network Study Area shall be conducted according to a standard, consistent methodology that considers:

a. wetlands; b. drainage areas; c. conveyance areas, such as streams, rivers, and swales; d. habitat corridors for wildlife movement; e. important viewsheds, such as the viewshed of Wanuskewin Heritage Park; and f. important ecological areas.

13.03 Local Refinement Through Concept Plans. Prior to the development of a region-wide study, the Green Network Study Area may be refined by a Concept Plan or other detailed assessment. This refinement shall be consistent with the criteria under Policy 13.02.

Land Uses

13.04 Intended Uses. The following uses may be permitted in the Green Network Study Area:

a. Agriculture (cultivation and pasture); b. Parks, open space, and protected areas; c. Outdoor recreation; and d. Public utilities (stormwater management infrastructure only).

Related activities that are consistent with these uses may also be permitted, subject to the provisions of the Zoning Bylaw. Related activities may be allowed in the Zoning Bylaw.

13.05 Agricultural Residential Uses Restricted. Agricultural residential uses may be permitted in the Green Network Study Area as follows, subject to a development review that is undertaken according to the policies of this Plan and the standards provided in the Zoning Bylaw:

a. where land in the Green Network Study Area is inside the areas identified in Exhibit 3 as accommodating a regional population of 700,000, a maximum of two residential building sites per quarter section may be permitted; and b. in other locations, a maximum of five residential building sites per quarter section may be permitted.

13.06 Intensive Livestock Operations Restricted. Intensive livestock operations may be permitted in the Green Network Study Area, subject to the intensive livestock operations policies included in Section AG and a development review that is undertaken according to the policies of this Plan and the standards provided in the Zoning Bylaw.

13.07 Public Utilities. Public utilities may be permitted in the Green Network Study Area as follows:

a. stormwater management infrastructure may be permitted in the Green Network Study area; and b. other public utilities other than waste management and remediation industries may be permitted, subject to a development review that is undertaken according to the policies of this Plan and the standards provided in the Zoning Bylaw.

13.08 Siting of Development. Development located within the Green Network Study Area shall be sited to avoid and address any potential negative impacts.

13.09 Development Review Requirements. A development review conducted for development within the Green Network Study Area shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the municipality that any potential negative impacts to the Green Network Study Area are avoided or mitigated, and the development complies with the policies of this Plan.

Wetlands

13.10 Integration with Stormwater Management. Wetlands in the Green Network Study Area should be integrated with the regional stormwater management system where feasible. Integration should consider the sensitivity and ecological functions of wetlands and their associated riparian areas to ensure sustainability within their context.

13.11 Wetland Buffers. Buffers are required to maintain and improve wetlands quality by reducing pollutant loading and other disturbances. A 30 m buffer shall be required around significant wetlands in the Green Network Study Area where no development shall occur. Native vegetation should be maintained within this buffer.

13.12 Best Practices for Grazing. Best practices should be used to manage impacts of commercial grazing animals on wetlands and buffers.

13.13 Wetlands Mitigation Plan. If a development would cause impacts to significant wetlands in the Green Network Study Area, a Wetlands Mitigation Plan shall be provided to describe how impacts will be avoided and/or addressed by the development.

Surface Water and Drainage

13.14 Riparian Buffers. Buffers are required to maintain and improve surface water quality by reducing pollutant loading and other disturbances. A 30 m buffer shall be required around ponds, lakes, rivers, creeks, brooks, or other watercourses in the Green Network Study Area where no development shall occur. Native vegetation should be maintained within this buffer.

13.15 Runoff from Site Development. Untreated stormwater runoff from a multi-parcel development in the Green Network Study Area should be directed to a retention pond, or similar feature, to reduce sediment and pollutants inputs into surface water and wetlands.

Natural Vegetation and Habitat

13.16 Minimize Impacts to Vegetation. Impacts to natural vegetation and native habitat from development in the Green Network Study Area shall be minimized.

13.17 Habitat Corridors. Habitat corridors should be preserved in the Green Network Study Area to maintain connections for wildlife movement throughout the Region.

Viewsheds

13.18 Minimize Visual Impacts of Building Sites. Building sites in the Green Network Study Area that can be seen from Wanuskewin Heritage Park shall be screened or designed to minimize impacts to the view, in consultation with the Wanuskewin Heritage Park Authority.

Recreation

13.19 Passive Recreation Opportunities. Development of passive recreation opportunities should be encouraged for the Green Network Study Area, where appropriate.

14. WANUSKEWIN HERITAGE PARK

The Wanuskewin Heritage Park, designated a National Historic Site of Canada in 1986, contains archaeological features that represent most of the known elements that characterize Northern Plains prehistory. According to its mission and vision, the park and its facilities are intended to advance the understanding and appreciation of the evolving cultures of the Northern Plains Indigenous peoples, and be a living reminder of the peoples’ sacred relationship with the land. Wanuskewin Heritage Park is also pursuing United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) designation as a World Heritage Site.

Objectives

14-1 In cooperation with the Wanuskewin Heritage Park Authority, protect the natural, historic, and cultural resources of Wanuskewin Heritage Park.

14-2 Maintain the quality of the viewshed from Wanuskewin Heritage Park

14-3 Ensure that municipal and regional plans and policies consider and complement planning for Wanuskewin Heritage Park

Policies

14.01 Dialogue with Wanuskewin Heritage Park. P4G and municipalities shall conduct and encourage dialogue with the Wanuskewin Heritage Park Authority regarding applications, plans, and policies that may impact the Park.

14.02 Viewshed Protection. P4G shall coordinate with the Wanuskewin Heritage Park Authority to identify and protect important viewsheds from the Park.

14.03 Support for Park Planning. P4G should coordinate with ongoing efforts by the Wanuskewin Heritage Park Authority to develop plans for site management and facility improvements, natural resource management, and cultural and heritage conservation through joint planning and technical support.

15. AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH

Land within the Agricultural Research category includes some of the best soils in the region and the area is the site of a number of agriculture research plots and facilities. These lands are important to the region's economy and identity, and research activities on these sites should be supported by mitigating potential land use conflicts

Objectives

15-1 Support regional agriculture and farming through special use areas that provide opportunities for research

15-2 Prevent conflicts between long-term agricultural research areas and surrounding urban and rural land uses

Policies

15.01 Intended Uses of Agricultural Research Lands. Intended uses on lands designated as Agricultural Research include farming and associated research, as well as other related agricultural uses.

15.02 Restricted Development. Designated Agricultural Research areas shall be protected from uses and development incompatible with long-term agricultural activities. Dwellings that are accessory to the agricultural uses on a site may be allowed.

15.03 Redesignation of Agricultural Research Lands. The redesignation of Agricultural Research Areas to other uses shall require the development of a Concept Plan to outline proposed changes to land uses. This Concept Plan shall include the rationale for converting these areas from long-term agricultural research use, and compatibility with adjacent urban areas.

15.04 Adjacent Development. Proposed development in locations adjacent to Agricultural Research should be reviewed in consultation with the relevant research agency or business to ensure that impacts are sufficiently mitigated through separation, buffers, or site design.

16. REGIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE AND INSTITUTIONAL FACILITIES

Regional services and institutions often require larger-scale facilities and other types of infrastructure that can be land intensive. In many cases, these land uses have specific location requirements, may conflict with other land uses within an area, or need to be sited close to the populations they serve. Appropriate planning for the locations of these uses are integral to ongoing land use planning and management for the Region.

Objectives

16-1 Accommodate major regional infrastructure and institutional facilities that are critical to regional growth and development

16-2 Prevent potential land use conflicts involving regional infrastructure and institutional facilities

16-3 Site regional institutional facilities close to the populations they serve, as appropriate

16-4 Coordinate land use demands for infrastructure and institutional facilities with regional and local plans

Policies

16.01 Regional Infrastructure Locations. Regional public utilities, waste management and remediation industries, and other regional infrastructure uses that require a significant land base to operate shall locate in areas identified as “Regional Infrastructure” on the Regional Land Use Map.

16.02 Regional Institutional Facility Use Locations. Regional community, institutional, and governmental uses that require large facilities and a significant land base to operate, such as regional health care facilities, places of worship, or educational facilities, shall locate in areas identified as “Regional Institutional Facilities” on the Regional Land Use Map.

16.03 Incompatible Uses Prohibited. Designated areas for regional infrastructure and institutional facilities shall be protected from uses and development incompatible with the indicated use of the site.

16.04 Identification of Regional Infrastructure and Institutional Facilities Lands. P4G shall identify and coordinate the designation of lands required for regional infrastructure and institutional facilities in cooperation with regional service providers.

17. CORMAN PARK–OSLER AGRI-FOOD NODE

The Corman Park-Osler Agri-Food Node is envisioned as a joint policy area between the RM and Town. Portions of these lands are intended to transition into a future town centre with complementary amenities. The initial vision is to support small scale, basic food/artisan production, sales and living, which would evolve into more intensified facilities. There is also a concentration of other producers and artisans in the rural areas that could be part of the Node and would contribute to local and regional economies. Increasing the amount of food produced, marketed, and consumed locally food is an important goal for the Town into the future.

Corman Park and Osler want to explore the coordination of land uses and servicing in this area to promote diversification of land use activity while maintaining positive intermunicipal relationships and shared environmental values, resource capabilities, and community goals.

Objectives

17-1 Support local food production and value-added agricultural activities to provide opportunities for economic development

17-2 Provide for joint planning between the Town of Osler and the RM of Corman Park to encourage development compatible with food and agricultural activities

17-3 Coordinate extensions of urban infrastructure to support value-added food and agriculture industries

Policies

17.01 Intermunicipal Support for Value-Added Agriculture. The Agri-Food Node may be established by agreements between the RM and the Town of Osler in the general area specified on the Regional Land Use Map, where urban servicing can support local food production and value-added agricultural industries in a rural setting. The focus of the Node will initially be on supporting small-scale artisanal production and sales with compatible residential uses that will intensify over time.

17.02 Support for Food Systems. The RM and the Town of Osler shall encourage value-added production and delivery activities in the Corman Park-Osler Agri-Food Node that support local agricultural producers while minimizing land use conflicts.

17.03 Joint Concept Plan. A Concept Plan may be developed for the Corman Park-Osler Agri-Food Node jointly by the Town of Osler and the RM. In addition to the requirements included in this Plan, this Concept Plan shall include information on:

a. shared economic development policies,

b. defined recreation/amenity areas, c. intermunicipal servicing requirements, d. special land use policies, e. compatibility with urban development, and f. shared development standards to support transitional, small-scale rural residential and value-added agricultural uses.

17.04 Future Urban Growth. The Corman Park-Osler Agri-Food Node shall be planned to allow for interim agricultural, commercial, and residential uses compatible with the surrounding rural- urban areas. These uses shall be coordinated to allow future redevelopment and intensification of the area.

17.05 Distinctive Development Style. The Regional Zoning Bylaw shall provide development standards that promote an attractive visual and aesthetic style for the Corman Park-Osler Agri-Food Node, including architectural detail, visual enhancement, consistent design themes, and signage that supports place-making and distinctive branding for the area.

17.06 Promotion of Economic Development and Tourism. The RM and the Town of Osler shall collaborate between each other and with other agencies to promote awareness of the cultural, historical, and tourism resources located in the Corman Park-Osler Agri-Food Node, and coordinate economic development planning to support activities within the Node.

18. RECREATION

Recreation opportunities are essential for a high quality of life in the Region. The Region includes many valued recreational resources, including the South Saskatchewan River Valley and important natural areas. Coordinating the development of regional and local recreational opportunities can help to build a connected system that provides a range of high-quality experiences for residents and visitors while complementing communities and natural areas.

Objectives

18-1 Accommodate passive and active recreational opportunities in the Region

18-2 Encourage the development of a connected open space system that links regional and local parks, corridors, and facilities

18-3 Acknowledge the potential for recreational development in the South Saskatchewan River Valley

18-4 Ensure recreation development is located and designed to conserve and complement natural areas and contributes to a high quality built and natural environment

18-5 Provide recreational opportunities for the enjoyment, health, and well-being of the residents of the Region

Policies

Regional Coordination of Recreation

18.01 Trail Systems and Pedestrian Linkages Encouraged. Municipal reserve dedication should consider areas that support regional open space recreational opportunities, the development of integrated regional trail systems, including connections to the Trans Canada Trail, and continuous pedestrian linkages.

18.02 Partnership Agreements for Recreation. Partnership agreements may be considered between municipalities, and with other groups including First Nations, Aboriginal organizations, Wanuskewin Heritage Park, the Meewasin Valley Authority, and local community organizations to jointly develop and support recreational amenities.

18.03 Recreation along South Saskatchewan River. Development of recreational open space along the South Saskatchewan River shall be undertaken in a manner that enhances and complements the natural and heritage features of the river valley, subject to the policies of this Plan, and coordination with the Meewasin Valley Authority, where appropriate.

Recreational Development

18.04 Comprehensive Development Review. A Comprehensive Development Review shall be required prior to rezoning or subdividing land in the RM for new recreational development, except in cases where a Concept Plan would be required under Policy 30.11.

18.05 Integrated Recreational and Residential Development. Integrated recreational development shall be considered adjacent to or within the boundaries of a multi-parcel country residential subdivision where it is complementary to the existing community, subject to:

a. significant public consultation, b. submission of a Comprehensive Development Review, and c. rezoning to an appropriate district.

18.06 Compliance with Commercial Policies. Commercial recreational developments shall also comply with the commercial objectives and policies contained herein.

18.07 Emergency Services. Recreational development shall be located and designed in a manner which allows for adequate provision of emergency services.

19. MINERAL AND AGGREGATE RESOURCES

Mineral and aggregate resource industries provide significant economic benefits to the Region. The sustainable management of these industries must include long-term planning that considers how mineral and aggregate resource industries interact with other types of development. The benefit provided by these industries should be balanced with the need to minimize impacts to communities and the environment.

Objectives

19-1 Promote the sustainable development of mineral and aggregate resource industries to support the local economy

19-2 Minimize land use conflicts and community disruption that may be caused by mineral and aggregate resource industries

Policies

19.01 Extraction Prior to Land Development. Municipalities shall encourage the extraction of significant commercial mineral and aggregate resources prior to planned development that would preclude or constrain future extraction of the resource.

19.02 Criteria for Mineral and Aggregate Resource Industries. In reviewing applications for mineral and aggregate resource industries, the following matters should be considered by the municipality:

a. the effect on adjacent land uses due to conflicts with noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odour, or potential environmental contamination; b. minimizing the effect of the use on infrastructure and services, including but not limited to municipal roads; c. the manner in which the pit, quarry or storage site is to be operated; d. potential impacts to surface water, groundwater, drainage patterns, slope stability, wildlife habitat, heritage resources and rare or endangered species; e. the environmental implications of the operation including storage of fuel tanks or chemicals, and/or measures for the release of contaminants; f. plans for reclamation of the land for an approved end use; and g. in future urban growth areas, the adjacent urban municipality confirms the proposal is compatible with the location and timing of urban development.

19.03 Aesthetic and Environmental Impacts. Mineral and aggregate resource industries should not be located where they would adversely impact aesthetic or environmental quality.

19.04 Separation Distances for Aggregate Resource Industries. New aggregate resource industries shall not be located within:

a. 305 m (1000 ft.) of an existing or approved country residential subdivision, vacant agricultural subdivision, recreational development, or Wanuskewin Heritage Park; or b. 150 m (492 ft.) of any other existing or approved residence not associated with the operation

Separation distances shall be measured according to Policy 7.05.

19.05 Separation Distances from Aggregate Resource Industries. No country residential subdivision, vacant agricultural residential subdivision, agricultural residential development, or recreational development shall be located within the separation distances indicated in Policy 19.04. Separation distances shall be measured according to Policy 7.05.

20. WASTE MANAGEMENT AND REMEDIATION

Waste management and remediation are important activities that will expand as the Region grows to a population of 1 million. Siting waste management and remediation industries can be challenging, however, given the potential nuisances and environmental impacts. Regional coordination n and planning for waste management will ensure these industries are sited to minimize impacts and land use conflicts, while providing the services necessary to support growth.

Objectives

20-1 Accommodate appropriately located waste management and remediation industries to minimize community and environmental impacts

20-2 Provide for and regulate waste management and remediation industries by purpose and scale

20-3 Support innovative and safe waste management and remediation alternatives that meet regulations

Policies

20.01 Differentiating between Waste Management and Remediation Industries. The regulation of waste management and remediation industries will be differentiated by:

a. the permanency of the management activity; b. the scale of the management activity; c. the source and type of waste being managed; and d. the potential offsite impact of the management activity on municipal services and adjacent land uses.

20.02 Regional Waste Management and Remediation Facilities. Regional waste management and remediation facilities, including municipal wastewater facilities, shall locate in areas identified as “Regional Infrastructure” on the Regional Land Use Map.

20.03 Coordination of Waste Management. Where possible, municipalities shall consider intermunicipal coordination of their waste management industries and the development of new regional facilities to accommodate protection of the environment and requirements for growth.

20.04 Comprehensive Development Review or Concept Plan Required. A Comprehensive Development Review shall be required prior to rezoning or subdividing land in the RM for waste management and remediation industries, except in cases where a Concept Plan would be required under Section 30.

20.05 Criteria for Waste Management and Remediation Industries. In reviewing applications for waste management and remediation industries, the following matters should be considered by the municipality:

a. the effect on adjacent land uses due to conflicts with noise, vibration, smoke, dust, odour, or potential environmental contamination; b. minimizing the effect of the use on infrastructure and services, including but not limited to municipal roads; c. the manner in which the facility is to be operated; d. a needs assessment for the activity proposed; e. potential impacts to surface water, groundwater, drainage patterns, slope stability, wildlife habitat, heritage resources and rare or endangered species; f. the environmental implications of the operation including storage of fuel tanks or chemicals, and/or measures for the release of contaminants; g. plans for reclamation of the land for an approved end use; and h. in future urban growth areas, the adjacent urban municipality confirms the proposal is compatible with the location and timing of urban development.

20.06 Development Adjacent to Urban Municipalities. Waste management and remediation industries shall not be permitted adjacent to the boundary of an urban municipality or within a future urban growth area unless the RM and adjacent urban municipality agree that the proposal:

a. is compatible with adjacent land uses; and b. will not place pressure on the urban municipality to develop, expand, or upgrade services and infrastructure without an approved Concept Plan and agreement for servicing and infrastructure costs between the urban municipality and the RM.

20.07 Clean Fill Operations in Future Urban Areas. Clean fill operations in a future urban growth area shall be compatible with the location and timing of future urban development.

20.08 Separation Distances from Residential Uses. The following waste management industries shall not be located within the associated listed distances from any urban residential development, country residential subdivision, vacant agricultural residential subdivision, or agricultural residential development:

a. Liquid waste management industry, as per provincial regulations; b. Solid waste management and remediation industry, as per provincial regulations; c. Construction and demolition materials industry: 305 m (1000 ft); d. Type II clean fill operation: 305 m (1000 ft); e. Land farm: 305 m (1000 ft); and f. Snow management facilities: 457 m (1500 ft).

Separation distances shall be measured in accordance with Policy 7.05.

20.09 Separation Distances from Recreational Uses and Wanuskewin Heritage Park. The following waste management industries shall not be located within the associated listed distances from any recreational use or Wanuskewin Heritage Park:

a. Liquid waste management industry as per provincial regulations for urban residential uses; b. Solid waste management and remediation industry as per provincial regulations for urban residential uses; c. Construction and demolition materials industry: 305 m (1000 ft); d. Type II clean fill operation: 305 m (1000 ft); e. Land farm: 305 m (1000 ft); and f. Snow management facilities: 457 m (1500 ft).

Separation distances shall be measured in accordance with Policy 7.05.

20.10 Separation Distances for Residential Uses. No urban residential development, country residential subdivision, vacant agricultural residential subdivision, or agricultural residential development shall be located within the separation distances indicated in Policy 20.08. Separation distances shall be measured according to Policy 7.05.

20.11 Separation Distances for Recreational Uses. No recreational development shall be located within the separation distances indicated in Policy 20.09. Separation distances shall be measured according to Policy 7.05.

20.12 Contract Zoning Required. In considering proposals to rezone property to accommodate regional waste management and remediation industries, the municipality shall require the rezoning to be undertaken according with the provisions of Section 69 of The Planning and Development Act, 2007.

20.13 Geotechnical Engineering Required. Waste management and remediation industries involving land filling or excavation shall be designed and engineered by a geotechnical engineer who is licensed to practice in the Province of Saskatchewan.

20.14 Servicing Agreements Required. Subdivisions for waste management and remediation industries shall enter into servicing agreements when deemed necessary by the municipality to provide services that directly or indirectly serve the subdivision.

20.15 Local Waste Management Industries as Discretionary Uses. Local waste management industries involving land filling or excavation shall be considered at the discretion of the municipality.

SERVICING

21. GENERAL

A coordinated approach to servicing and infrastructure can provide for more efficient delivery of high- quality services in the Region. Long-term planning provides greater certainty to support the expansion of regional infrastructure servicing, which can result in economies of scale for communities in the Region.

In this Plan, detailed policies regarding services and infrastructure include potable water, wastewater, transportation, and stormwater and drainage systems. It is expected that over the long term, P4G will explore the coordination of additional regional services and infrastructure.

Objectives

21-1 Ensure infrastructure systems and servicing are consistent with Sector Plans, Concept Plans, and other detailed planning.

21-2 Guide growth and development in the Region to areas that support and facilitate efficient infrastructure that is economical and environmentally sustainable.

21-3 Plan and manage transportation and utilities systems for the Region in cooperation with provincial government departments, First Nations, neighbouring municipalities, and other stakeholders.

21-4 Encourage innovative, safe, and efficient strategies for providing regional infrastructure and services that meet regulatory requirements, including roadways, sanitary sewage treatment, storm water management, water supply, and other systems.

Policies

21.01 Regional Servicing Plans. P4G should maintain regional servicing plans to identify the level of services required to accommodate land development as indicated on the Regional Land Use Map. Extensions of urban infrastructure into future urban growth areas shall be generally accommodated and phased according to these plans.

21.02 Coordination of Development and Infrastructure Planning. Subdivisions and developments shall be designed and constructed to respect the planned extensions of infrastructure as detailed in Concept Plans and regional servicing plans.

21.03 Services Provided at Developer Expense. The proponent will be responsible for all costs associated with providing the infrastructure and services required for a development, and the municipality may require a servicing agreement to address these costs.

21.04 Municipal Infrastructure Coordination. Municipal infrastructure plans shall be coordinated to align with the Regional Servicing Strategy and regional servicing plans where possible.

22. POTABLE WATER

Available supplies of potable water are an important component in supporting regional growth. In the P4G Region, the City of Saskatoon provides potable water supplies, and SaskWater and other third- party providers manage delivery to other municipalities and rural customers. Regional coordination is necessary to ensure that regional potable water treatment capacity and the potable water distribution system are developed in an efficient way and support overall development goals, and that sources of potable water are protected from risks to water quality and availability.

Objectives

22-1 Provide safe, clean drinking water for residents and businesses in the Region

22-2 Coordinate the orderly development of potable water infrastructure to support regional and local land use policies

22-3 Minimize potable water infrastructure costs through coordination between municipalities

22-4 Support water providers in securing emergency water supplies for the Region

22-5 Promote the efficient use of potable water across the Region

Policies

22.01 Regional Potable Water Servicing Plan. A Regional Potable Water Servicing Plan should be developed to coordinate actions by P4G regarding potable water systems in the Region. This plan should be supported by ongoing consultation with regional potable water providers and distributors.

22.02 Coordination with Regional Providers. P4G shall engage with regional potable water providers to coordinate future infrastructure planning and promote capital investments in potable water infrastructure that align with the goals of the Regional Plan.

22.03 Centralized Potable Water Lines for Country Residential Subdivisions. All new Country Residential subdivisions shall be serviced by a centralized potable waterline administrated in a legal form acceptable to the RM.

22.04 Connections to Municipal Potable Waterlines. Applications to connect to municipal potable waterlines shall be in accordance with policies, bylaws, and agreements established by the relevant municipality.

22.05 Innovation in Water Conservation. P4G shall support efforts to promote innovative water conservation strategies to reduce per capita demands for water.

22.06 Development of Emergency Water Supplies. P4G shall support regional water providers in securing options for emergency supplies in the case of contamination or severe shortages.

23. WASTEWATER

Wastewater collection and treatment in the P4G Region are managed either by centralized systems or on-site treatment options. Safe and effective wastewater infrastructure development and service provision are essential not only to support growth, but also to address potential impacts to human and environmental health.

Objectives

23-1 Provide regional approaches to wastewater collection and treatment that protect human health and the natural environment

23-2 Coordinate the planning of wastewater infrastructure to support efficient patterns of regional development

23-3 Minimize wastewater infrastructure costs through coordination between municipalities

23-4 Support the planning and development of a second wastewater treatment plant to provide for regional needs

23-5 Promote measures to reduce wastewater production rates per capita across the Region and extend the capacity of infrastructure

Policies

23.01 Regional Wastewater Servicing Plan. A Regional Wastewater Servicing Plan should be developed to coordinate actions by P4G regarding regional wastewater systems. This plan should be supported by ongoing efforts to define required infrastructure and facilities, potential alternatives, and costing implications.

23.02 Connection of Drains Prohibited. Municipalities should prohibit the connection of new storm and foundation drains into the wastewater collection system, to reduce wet-weather flows and minimize required capacity.

23.03 Reduce Groundwater Infiltration. Municipalities should work to inspect sewer systems and conduct repairs to mitigate infiltration and inflow, and reduce wet-weather flows.

23.04 Rural On-Site Wastewater Disposal. Rural development shall meet or exceed the on-site sewage treatment requirements provided by the Saskatoon District Health Region within the Review Process for Onsite Wastewater Disposal Systems for Developments and Subdivisions.

23.05 Septic Utilities. As a condition of approval of a multi-parcel country residential, commercial, or industrial subdivision, Council may in accordance with a septic utility bylaw adopted pursuant to The Municipalities Act, require the developer to create and administer a private

on-site septic utility to monitor the ongoing operation and maintenance of an on-site wastewater system.

23.06 Wastewater Flow Management. P4G shall support municipal water conservation initiatives to reduce average and peak wastewater flows, and extend wastewater system capacities.

23.07 Innovation in Septic Treatment Encouraged. P4G should encourage the use of innovative and safe sewage treatment technologies for on-site and municipal treatment that meet regulatory requirements.

24. STORMWATER AND DRAINAGE

Stormwater and drainage infrastructure in the Region is typically managed at the scale of a development or neighbourhood. However, regional actions can provide common standards for development and coordinate projects of interest, including those in partnership with other organizations.

Objectives

24-1 Reduce the risks from surface ponding, flooding, and erosion to people and property in the Region

24-2 Minimize the environmental impacts of stormwater quantity and quality on groundwater, surface water, wetlands, and habitat, and encourage the use of stormwater as a resource to improve environmental performance

24-3 Support municipalities in improving stormwater management to minimize local flooding issues and enhance system performance

24-4 Promote innovative solutions to stormwater management that integrate cost-effective natural and engineering solutions

Policies

24.01 Integration of Green Network Study Area. Planning for and refinement of the Green Network Study Area shall consider the role of this area for stormwater management and drainage.

24.02 Drainage Plans. Drainage plans shall be required to ensure development is designed and constructed to avoid or mitigate on- and off-site impacts from alteration to drainage to the satisfaction of the municipality. This should incorporate site designs that minimize impervious surfaces and site grading, and provide other on-site controls, and shall be provided at the expense of the developer.

24.03 Existing Watercourses and Wetlands. Existing water courses and wetlands shall be retained in their natural state as much as possible. Inflows should be managed to reduce peak flows and minimize pollutant and sediment loading.

24.04 Pollution Source Control. Municipalities shall endeavor to reduce the pollutants entering surface waters through the stormwater drainage system.

24.05 Emerging Stormwater Management Technologies. Municipalities shall encourage developers and landowners to adopt new, innovative approaches, such as low-impact development (LID) techniques to stormwater management, to address water quality, quantity, and storage in a more efficient, cost-effective, and sustainable way. As part of these efforts,

P4G shall encourage the sharing of information between municipalities about these technologies, including performance data and life-cycle costing.

24.06 Alignment of Hydrologic Modeling. Municipalities shall use common hydrological models, assumptions, and standards when developing assessments of local runoff and stormwater management facilities.

24.07 Inventory of Culverts and Drainage Infrastructure. Municipalities should support maintaining a comprehensive inventory of culverts and other drainage infrastructure to allow for accurate hydrological modeling.

24.08 Master Drainage Plans in Concept Plans. Concept Plans shall incorporate a master drainage plan that reviews existing area conditions and provides a preferred strategy for managing stormwater. These plans shall be developed with a sufficient level of detail to support stormwater management plans at the site level, and should identify long-term needs for land dedications and easements to support drainage infrastructure.

24.09 Stormwater Management Plans in Future Urban Growth Areas. Stormwater management plans shall be required as part of Concept Plans or Comprehensive Development Reviews, or at the site development stage, whichever comes first, that detail stormwater control facilities and related improvements, and demonstrate that water quality and quantity impacts from development have been minimized.

24.10 “No Net Impact” Standard Encouraged. On-site stormwater management controls for site development will be encouraged to meet a “no net impact” standard, incorporating sufficient capacity to accommodate surface water runoff for a 1:100-year storm event with no incremental increase in offsite flows in excess of what would have been generated from the property prior to the new development.

25. TRANSPORTATION

Coordination of transportation infrastructure in the Region is an essential component to accessibility and mobility. Although the province manages the development and maintenance of highways and related infrastructure, municipalities have an important role to play with coordinating local transportation improvements, including potential interjurisdictional projects. Additionally, other transportation systems, such as rail, airports, and transit should be considered as the Region grows and develops.

Objectives

25-1 Support accessibility, connectivity, and mobility in the regional transportation system

25-2 Integrate transportation planning with regional land use planning and development policies to provide more effective responses to future development and mobility needs

25-3 Support efforts by P4G members to improve local circulation and build fiscally sustainable transportation infrastructure

25-4 Coordinate regional transportation planning with the province to support efficient, integrated solutions to mobility requirements

25-5 Explore future opportunities to expand mobility options and improve accessibility in the P4G Region

Policies

Roadways

25.01 Regional Transportation Plan. A Regional Transportation Plan should be developed by P4G to coordinate regional actions for transportation systems. This plan should be supported by ongoing studies to define transportation systems, potential alternatives, and costing implications.

25.02 Future Roadway Planning. Roadways shall be established within the context of the Regional Transportation Plan, Concept Plans, and Comprehensive Development Reviews, as appropriate.

25.03 Roadway Access. Development shall meet all municipal and provincial regulations respecting access to and from provincial highways and municipal roads.

25.04 Minimize New Roadway Construction. To make the most efficient use of existing roadway facilities, municipalities will encourage residential, commercial, and industrial subdivisions and developments to locations adjacent to existing roads that have been designed and constructed to accommodate them.

25.05 Access Requirements for Developments. Residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, and regional infrastructure and institutional developments shall have year-round, legal, all weather physical access to a municipally maintained roadway.

25.06 Ensure Safe Access and Egress. Developments shall include safe access and egress from adjacent roadways without disruption of the roadway function. The type and number of access points provided onto municipal roadways may be limited through shared points of access along shared driveways or service roads where applicable.

25.07 Access to Uses Provided at Developer Expense. Where subdivision or development requires year-round, all weather access, the expansion or upgrade of the roadway to such a standard shall be provided at the developer’s expense.

25.08 Road Maintenance Agreements. Where a development is expected to result in the accelerated deterioration of municipal roadways, the municipality may require the applicant, as a condition of approval, to enter into a road maintenance agreement with the relevant municipality to recover the costs of maintaining all affected roadways.

25.09 Road Widening. Subdivisions shall include allocations as necessary for the expansion of roads to standards as prescribed by the municipality and, in the case of subdivision in future urban growth areas, the adjacent municipality.

Airports

25.10 Saskatoon John G. Diefenbaker International Airport. Nothing in this plan shall interfere with the continued safe operation of the Saskatoon John G. Diefenbaker International Airport.

25.11 Land Use Near the Airport. Land use near the Saskatoon John G. Diefenbaker International Airport shall be of such type, height, and density as to be compatible with airport operations.

25.12 Assessment and Consultation Required for Development. Development applications for lands around the Saskatoon John G. Diefenbaker International Airport will require detailed study and impact assessments that comply with NAV CANADA standards, and consultation with the Saskatoon Airport Authority prior to designation for other uses.

25.13 Airport Expansion Areas. Areas adjacent to the Saskatoon John G. Diefenbaker International Airport that are identified as expansion lands will be preserved for expansion of airport facilities and associated development that will benefit from proximity to the airport and be compatible with airport operations. Planning will be coordinated with the Saskatoon Airport Authority.

25.14 Richter Field Aerodrome. Development in proximity to the Richter Field Aerodrome, located to the west of Martensville, should be of such type, height, and density as to be compatible with current Aerodrome operations.

25.15 New Airports. No new airports, aerodromes, or airstrips shall be located within 1.6 km (1 mile) of an urban municipality.

Railways

25.16 Setbacks from Railways and Rail Facilities. Development in proximity to rail yards or rail lines should be located to be consistent with the Guidelines for New Development in Proximity to Railway Operations prepared for the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and the Railway Association of Canada.

Other Transportation Modes

25.17 Future Review of Regional Transit and Active Transportation. P4G shall regularly evaluate the need to incorporate coordinated policies for regional transit and active transportation modes in the Regional Plan.

26. INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDORS

Infrastructure corridors can be a critical component for coordinating regional-scale services. By co- locating multiple types of public and private utilities within the same linear alignment, the costs of land acquisition and the potential conflicts with surrounding land uses can be minimized. This effort requires coordination with multiple stakeholders, including the province and regional service providers, and involves long-term planning at larger scales.

Objectives

26-1 Plan for the use of rights-of-way by multiple linear infrastructure systems to reduce costs of planning, land acquisition, and construction

26-2 Coordinate with the province to utilize highways as major infrastructure corridors where feasible

26-3 Coordinate with regional service providers to identify and use corridors for linear infrastructure

Policies

26.01 Consideration of Regional Corridors in Planning. P4G shall consider opportunities for regional corridors and support the use of corridors for locating infrastructure where feasible.

26.02 Co-Location of Infrastructure in the Green Network Study Area. Linear infrastructure within the Green Network Study Area shall co-locate with other linear infrastructure where such siting is feasible and will reduce disturbance.

27. SERVICING AGREEMENTS

Servicing agreements provide municipalities with a clear understanding of how certain infrastructure will be provided to support new development. From a regional perspective, this is important as there may be a need for the intermunicipal provision of services, typically from an urban municipality. Coordination of these agreements at a regional level can allow for consistency and predictability in the availability of urban services to support development.

Objectives

27-1 Support servicing agreements between municipalities to allow for efficient local coordination of infrastructure

27-2 Support funding and development solutions that provide for required intermunicipal infrastructure extensions and servicing

Policies

27.01 Servicing Agreements Required. If there is a proposed subdivision of land, the affected municipality may require a developer to enter into a servicing agreement in accordance with the Act to provide services, infrastructure and facilities that directly or indirectly serve the subdivision.

27.02 Intermunicipal Agreements. Intermunicipal servicing agreements and/or intermunicipal development agreements shall be required in situations where urban servicing is being provided between municipalities. These Agreements shall be administered between the receiving municipality and providing municipality in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

27.03 Intermunicipal Agreements for Interim Development in Future Urban Growth Areas. Intermunicipal agreements developed for interim development in Urban Commercial/Industrial areas shall include, to the satisfaction of the RM and adjacent urban municipality, consideration for future cost recovery for urban infrastructure. The level of detail provided in the agreement shall take into consideration:

27.04 Intermunicipal Agreements and Boundary Alterations. Intermunicipal agreements developed for interim development in Urban Commercial/Industrial areas shall address the

69 timing and conditions for future boundary alterations, including general provisions for tax loss compensation.

28. DEVELOPMENT LEVIES AND SERVICING AGREEMENT FEES

Development levies and servicing agreement fees provide a mechanism to provide funding for capital projects to service new development. For the Region, there is a need both to coordinate how levies and fees are managed by municipalities to support future growth identified in this Plan, and to provide options for a future regional levy/lee structure to fund regional infrastructure projects.

Objectives

28-1 Provide for consistent and predictable development levies and servicing agreement fees across the Region

28-2 Support funding and development solutions that provide for required intermunicipal infrastructure extensions and servicing

Policies

28.01 Calculation of Fees and Levies. Municipalities should work to standardize the approaches used to calculate development levies and servicing agreement fees, and share information on levy and fee calculations.

28.02 Regional Fees and Levies. P4G should establish regional development levies and servicing agreement fees for the purpose of recovering all or a part of the capital costs of providing, altering, expanding or upgrading regional services and facilities associated with a proposed subdivision or development. This shall be done in accordance with the requirements of the Act.

GOVERNANCE AND IMPLEMENTATION

29. GOVERNANCE

The governance of the P4G Region is intended to balance regional needs for planning and coordination with the ability for each member to develop their own approaches to meet the needs of their communities. Consistent regional processes and decision-making that involves all members will be used to ensure that future work by P4G represents the needs of the entire Region.

Objectives

29-1 Support ongoing interjurisdictional collaboration.

29-2 Provide for transparent, accountable, fair, and equitable processes for managing regional issues.

29-3 Ensure that regional initiatives reflect individual aspirations of jurisdictions while providing joint action on areas of common interest.

29-4 Maintain representation from all jurisdictions in the management of the Region.

Policies

Regional Oversight Committee

29.01 Functions of the Regional Oversight Committee. The P4G Regional Oversight Committee (ROC) shall provide guidance and direction to Regional Committees and the P4G Planning Commission, and represent the interests of the municipalities in regional initiatives. The responsibilities of ROC shall be consistent with the P4G District Planning Agreement.

P4G Planning Commission

29.02 Functions of the P4G Planning Commission. The P4G Planning Commission (P4GPC) shall be responsible as an advisory body for facilitating the discussion and providing recommendations on matters of mutual interest to the P4G Region. The responsibilities of P4GPC shall be consistent with the P4G District Planning Agreement and the Act.

Referral Processes

29.03 Permitted Uses. Permitted uses shall not require referrals to other municipalities. The municipality may decide to refer an application for a permitted use to another municipality at their discretion.

29.04 Referrals of Applications to Adjacent Municipalities. Referrals of applications to rezone, subdivide, or establish discretionary uses on lands will require referrals to adjacent municipalities if they may:

a. pose a significant impact on adjacent lands or growth areas; b. encourage discontinuous growth; c. place pressure on the adjacent municipality to expand or upgrade services and infrastructure; and/or d. have significant local service and infrastructure demands.

29.05 Concept Plan Referrals. Concept Plans and amendments to Concept Plans shall be referred to adjacent municipalities for comment on aspects that relate the Regional Plan.

29.06 Referrals of Applications to All Municipalities. Referrals of applications to rezone, subdivide, or establish discretionary uses on lands will require referrals to P4G if they have significant regional implications for services and infrastructure or other region-wide impacts that would affect all municipalities.

29.07 Referral Process. The process of referring applications and proposed plans shall be consistent with the process in the P4G District Planning Agreement.

Amendments to the Plan

29.08 Detailed Planning Required. No amendments to the Regional Land Use Map in Exhibit 2 shall be considered unless a Concept Plan or other detailed planning for the area has been completed by the municipal Councils, except as provided otherwise in the P4G District Planning Agreement or the policies of this Plan.

29.09 Consideration of Impacts. When considering an amendment to the Regional Plan, the impact of the proposed change on the rest of the Regional Plan and the future development of the Region should be examined. Any changes to the Regional Plan should be consistent with the Vision, Strategic Directions, and Objectives of the Plan.

29.10 Plan Amendment Process. The Plan Amendment process shall follow the requirements of the Act and the P4G District Planning Agreement.

Dispute Resolution

29.11 Intent of the Dispute Resolution Process. The dispute resolution process for the Plan is intended to provide options for resolving differences over the administration and interpretation of the Regional Plan. This process may be used to resolve disputes related to:

a. amendments to the Plan, b. boundary alterations, c. servicing agreements and development levies, and

d. any other regional dispute relevant to the Plan.

29.12 Dispute Resolution Process. The dispute resolution process shall proceed according to the process provided in the P4G District Planning Agreement.

30. IMPLEMENTATION

Although the Regional Plan provides a direction forward for the P4G to coordinate regional growth, the Region will also need to provide additional plans, policies, and processes to guide future development and cooperation. These steps towards implementing an overall framework for managing the Region shall be enabled by this section, and will be the focus of future work by P4G and municipalities.

Objectives

30-1 Ensure that the intent of the policies and objectives of the Regional Plan are adhered to in the decision-making process.

30-2 Provide opportunities for stakeholders and rightsholders to be engaged in regional decision- making.

30-3 Ensure that the Regional Plan is updated as necessary to adapt to changes in regional needs and contexts.

Policies

Conformity of Planning

30.01 Compliance with Requirements. Land use, development, and other regional concerns managed under this Plan shall comply with all relevant municipal, provincial, and federal regulations and statutes. If the requirements of this Plan conflict with municipal, provincial, or federal requirements, the higher or more stringent standard prevails.

P4G Zoning Bylaw

30.02 Implementation of Regional Plan Policies in the P4G Zoning Bylaw. The Act requires the adoption of a P4G Zoning Bylaw in conjunction with the Regional Plan. The P4G Zoning Bylaw will be used to achieve the objectives and implement the policies of this Regional Plan by prescribing the uses of land and the buildings or other improvements that will be allowed in the different zoning districts established in the Region. In addition, the P4G Zoning Bylaw regulates how these uses may be carried out and the standards that developments must meet.

30.03 Objectives of the P4G Zoning Bylaw. The objectives of the P4G Zoning Bylaw are to ensure that:

a. land-use conflicts are avoided; b. future development will meet minimum standards to maintain the amenity of the Region;

c. that development will be consistent with the physical characteristics of the land and of reasonable engineering solutions; d. that development does not place undue demand on any municipality for services; and e. that future land use and development are consistent with the goals and objectives of P4G and its municipalities.

30.04 Consistent with the Regional Plan. The P4G Zoning Bylaw must be consistent with the policies and the intent of this Regional Plan. In considering a P4G Zoning Bylaw or an amendment to the P4G Zoning Bylaw, the RM Council shall refer to the policies contained in the Regional Plan to ensure that development objectives are addressed.

30.05 Contract Zoning. Any request to rezone land under the P4G Zoning Bylaw to permit the carrying out of a specified proposal may be made the subject of an agreement pursuant to the contract zoning provisions of the Act.

30.06 Holding Provision. A holding provision may be applied on a property to restrict the timing and conditions of development in any zoning district under the P4G Zoning Bylaw subject to the provisions of the Act.

30.07 Direct Control Districts. Where it is considered desirable to exercise particular control over the use and development of land and buildings within a specific area, a municipality may, in the Regional Plan and P4G Zoning Bylaw, designate an area as a Direct Control District.

30.08 Architectural Control Districts. Where it is considered desirable to preserve the physical character of an area or to promote a selected design theme for an area, a municipality may designate the area as an Architectural Control District in the P4G Zoning Bylaw, using the symbol "AC" in conjunction with any zoning district.

Concept Plans

30.09 Purpose of a Concept Plan. A Concept Plan may be adopted for the purpose of providing a framework for subsequent subdivision and development of a portion of the Region that exhibits common future development opportunities and challenges.

30.10 Preparation of a Concept Plan. A Concept Plan may be:

a. prepared by a municipality or municipalities in response to a need for more detailed planning for a specific area of the Region as described herein; or b. required by a municipality to be undertaken by a developer.

30.11 Concept Plans Required for Intended Development. Concept Plans shall be required prior to development approval for intended development in future urban growth areas, and elsewhere as required under this Plan.

30.12 Components of a Concept Plan. In addition to any other requirements of this Plan, Concept Plans shall identify:

a. proposed land uses; b. servicing strategies and proposed alignment and locations for infrastructure and facilities; c. transportation systems; d. natural and heritage resources; e. development densities; f. sequencing of development.

30.13 Cost-Benefit Considerations for a Concept Plan. Concept Plans shall consider the costs and benefits of subdivision and development on present and future social, economic, and environmental considerations in the area and Region.

30.14 Consistent with Regional Plan. Concept Plans shall be consistent with this Plan and other adopted Concept Plans.

Comprehensive Development Review

30.15 Comprehensive Development Review Required. For the following purposes, a Comprehensive Development Review shall be completed by any person proposing to rezone or subdivide land in the RM for:

a. industrial development; b. the establishment of more than one agriculturally-related commercial or industrial activity on a quarter section within an agricultural zoning district; c. Country Residential development, unless a Concept Plan is otherwise required for the proposal under the policies of this Plan; d. recreational development; e. commercial development; or f. regional waste management industries;

prior to consideration of an application by the RM.

30.16 Standards for the Comprehensive Development Review. Comprehensive Development Reviews shall be undertaken according to standards provided in this Plan and the P4G Zoning Bylaw and shall address all matters of land use integration, potential conflict mitigation and the provision of services to the development.

30.17 Scope of Investigation. The geographic area and the extent of analysis considered within the review shall be determined by the complexity and the potential offsite effects of the development application, but at a minimum shall encompass all adjacent properties including all properties contained within existing adjacent multi-parcel subdivisions.

30.18 Consultation with Public Utilities. The applicant shall consult with public utility companies and provide the findings within the Comprehensive Development Review to protect existing and provide for future utility easements and to ensure new development is located in a way that will not compromise the long-term operation or future expansion of the utility.

30.19 Additional Public Consultation. Where the RM, or an adjacent municipality in consultation with the RM, deems that the public consultation undertaken within the Comprehensive Development Review has been too limited or ineffective, additional public consultation by the proponent may be required.

30.20 Consistent with Regional Plan. Comprehensive Development Reviews shall be consistent with this Plan and any adopted Concept Plans.

Public Engagement

30.21 Provisions for Public Engagement. Special provisions for public engagement may be required by a municipality that are appropriate to the nature and scope of the planning matter being addressed under the Regional Plan, to ensure that the public is engaged in a timely manner regarding planning and development processes, including applications for rezoning, discretionary uses, and other appropriate matters.

30.22 Engagement Required Prior to Designation of Land. A municipality may require the proponents of significant development proposals that entail amendments to the Regional Plan, rezoning, or the subdivision or re-subdivision of multiple lots, to undertake significant public engagement as part of the application process.

30.23 Additional Public Engagement. Where a municipality deems public engagement to have been less than thorough or effective, additional engagement by the proponent may be required.

Boundary Alterations

30.24 Incremental Boundary Alteration. The incremental alteration of urban municipal boundaries under The Cities Act and The Municipalities Act is preferred.

30.25 Timing of Boundary Alteration. The timing of boundary alteration shall take into account the lead times necessary to have lands planned, serviced, and available for development.

30.26 Criteria Supporting Boundary Alteration. In deciding whether a specific boundary alteration proposal will be supported, the following shall be considered:

a. whether the proposed boundary alteration is within a future urban growth area identified as accommodating a future regional population of 700,000 in Exhibit 3; b. the rationale for requesting the boundary alteration;

c. whether it is evident that the policies of this Plan have proven to be unable to adequately safeguard the subject area from development that would potentially conflict with future urban growth; d. whether the installation of and investment in significant urban infrastructure has been planned for the subject area; e. whether public consultation has been completed with assessed owners of land located adjacent to and within the subject area, to gain understanding of the issues of the assessed owners regarding boundary alteration; and f. the proposed financial compensation.

30.27 Boundary Alteration Should Follow Legal Property Boundaries. Where possible, boundary alteration shall follow legal property boundaries and natural features that avoids a fragmented pattern of municipal jurisdiction.

30.28 Resolution of Disputes in the Boundary Alteration Process. Municipalities shall be encouraged to pursue the resolution of disputes over boundary alterations through the dispute resolution process in this Plan.

Regional Cooperation

30.29 Continued Regional Cooperation. The P4G and municipalities shall continue to consult with other jurisdictions and organizations in the region, including the Meewasin Valley Authority, Wanuskewin Heritage Park, the Saskatoon Regional Economic Development Authority, the Saskatoon Airport Authority, as well as senior government departments and agencies and First Nations to coordinate planning, development and operating strategies, and to encourage complementary growth.

30.30 Regional Coordination for Funding. The P4G and municipalities should work to coordinate joint applications for funding from senior levels of government and other sources. This should include assessments of joint regional projects requiring funding, and actions to be taken by P4G to solicit funding for

Policy Alignment and Performance Reporting

30.31 Alignment Statements. Municipalities shall prepare statements for their Official Community Plans and other statutory plans related to land use, development, infrastructure, and service delivery to demonstrate that they align with the provisions of the Regional Plan.

30.32 Reporting on Regional Planning Goals. P4G should provide an annual report on progress towards regional planning goals to the municipalities and the public. This should include information on the activities of the P4G, as well as statistics on land use, infrastructure, and development in the Region.

Review of the Plan

30.33 Regular Regional Plan Review. The Regional Plan shall be reviewed regularly to determine whether:

a. the stated objectives are still relevant, b. the policies as set out are being effective in achieving those objectives, and c. the policies remain consistent with the Act.

30.34 Reviews as Required. The Regional Oversight Committee may direct a review of the Plan or a portion of the Plan to address regional issues.

GLOSSARY

If a definition is not included in this section, the definitions contained in the Regional Zoning Bylaw or relevant statutes shall apply to this Regional Plan.

Act, the: means The Planning and Development Act, 2007.

Adjacent: means contiguous, or otherwise contiguous if not for a river, stream, railway, road, or utility right-of-way.

Adjacent urban municipality: means the urban municipality (or municipalities) that:

a. is closest to a particular location within the RM of Corman Park, or b. may require a particular location for future urban growth identified in the Regional Land Use Map in Exhibit 2.

Aggregate Resource: means raw materials including sand, gravel, clay, earth, or topsoil found on or under a site.

Agricultural Residential Subdivision: means the subdivision of rural residential parcels from an agricultural holding where the purpose of the subdivision is to provide for the legal separation of the residential uses from an agricultural holding creating a residential building site and space, rather than productive agricultural property.

Capital Intensity: means the general value of the buildings, structures, improvements, and other capital investments on a site.

Clean Fill: means uncontaminated non-water-soluble, non-decomposable, inert solids such as rock, soil, gravel, concrete, glass and or clay or ceramic products. Clean fill shall not mean processed or unprocessed mixed construction and demolition debris, including, but not limited to, wallboard, plastic, wood or metal or any substance deemed corrosive, combustible, noxious, reactive or radioactive.

Clean Fill Operation, Type I: means the dumping or placement of clean fill from outside sources for the re-grading or levelling a property to reclaim previously excavated properties, correct drainage on a site or make a site more suitable for construction. Type I Clean Fill operations are not intended to accommodate the processing and recycling of fill for commercial distribution.

Clean Fill Operation, Type II: means the dumping or placement of clean fill from outside sources for storage, processing and commercial distribution for financial gain.

Comprehensive Development Review: means a land use plan created by a land developer for a specific local area, undertaken according to standards provided in the P4G Zoning Bylaw, which address all matters of land use integration, potential conflict mitigation and the provision of services to the development.

Council: means the Council of a municipality.

Country Residential Development: means clustered, small lot rural residential development where the essential land requirement is for a residential building site and space, rather than for productive agricultural purposes.

Flood, 1:500: means:

a. a 1:500-year flood; or b. a flood having a return period equal to 500 years; or c. a flood having water surface elevations equal to a 500-year flood; or d. a flood having approximately 0.2 percent risk of occurring during any one year.

The 1:500 flood standard may be replaced with another standard otherwise provided in provincial legislation or regulation.

Flood Fringe: means the portion of the flood plain where the waters in the 1:500 flood or other standard as provided in provincial legislation or regulation are projected to be less than a depth of one metre or a velocity of one metre per second.

Flood Plain: means the area prone to flooding from a water body or watercourse that comprises the combined area of the flood way and flood fringe.

Flood Proofing: means a measure, or combination of structural and non-structural measures, incorporated into the design of a structure that reduces or eliminates the risk of flood damage to a defined elevation.

Flood Way: means the portion of the flood plain adjoining the channel where the waters in the 1:500 flood or other standard as provided in provincial legislation or regulation are projected to meet or exceed a depth of one metre or a velocity of one metre per second

Future Urban Growth Area: means an area of land designated in the Plan for Future Urban Growth on the Regional Land Use Map attached to this Plan as Exhibit 2.

Hazard Land: means land that is contaminated, unstable, prone to flooding or otherwise unsuited for development or occupation because of its inherent danger to public health, safety or property.

Heritage Resource: means the history, culture, and historical resources of an area and its residents, including heritage properties defined under The Heritage Property Act.

Institutional Facility, Regional: means a development used for community, institutional, or governmental uses of a regional significance, such educational facilities, health care facilities, places of worship and accessory uses that require large facilities and a significant land base to operate.

Intended Development: means development reflecting the planned long-term use to be permitted for the area.

Intensification: means the development of a property, site, or area at a higher density than currently exists through redevelopment or infill development.

Interim Development: means development that can be implemented in the short-term before an intended use, and that does not prevent those future intended uses.

Mineral Resource: means mineral resources as defined in The Mineral Resources Act, 1985, excluding aggregate resources as defined in this Plan.

Minister: means the Minister as defined in the Act.

Mitigation Plan: means a plan that describes:

a. an intended development, use, or action; b. the potential impacts of that development, use, or action; c. the proposed actions to be taken to eliminate, minimize, and/or mitigate potential impacts; and d. the proposed actions to be taken to monitor actual impacts and provide further corrective action if necessary.

Natural Area: means an area relatively undisturbed by human activities and characterised by indigenous species including remnant or self-sustaining areas with native vegetation, water, or natural features.

Natural Resource: means the renewable resources of Saskatchewan, which may include but is not limited to fish, wildlife, forest products, resource lands, ecological reserves, and other living components of ecosystems.

P4G Region (or “Region”): means the area subject to this Plan.

Regional Plan (or “this Plan”): means this document.

Remediation Plan: means a plan developed to manage environmental contamination and other risks after the use of a site has ended, to ensure the site may be used again.

Rural Municipality (or “RM”): means the Rural Municipality of Corman Park No. 344.

Saskatoon North Partnership for Growth (or “P4G”): means the parties subject to this Plan.

Subsidence: means the downward movement of the ground surface, potentially due to the settling of earth and rock from mining activities.

Urban Municipality: means a City or Town that is a member of P4G.

Waste Management and Remediation Industries: means the collection, disposition, or processing of waste materials, which includes but is not limited to type II clean fill, recycling, composting, land farming, and solid waste disposal and liquid waste disposal.

Wetland: means land having water at, near, or above the land surface or land that is saturated with water long enough to promote wetland or aquatic processes as indicated by poorly drained soils, aquatic vegetation, and various kinds of biological activity that are adapted to a wet environment. Wetlands can hold water temporarily or permanently, with water levels fluctuating over the course of a single year and over many years with climatic cycles.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ...... i Introduction ...... 1 Potable Water ...... 4

Objectives ...... 4 Context ...... 4 Regional Actions ...... 7

Wastewater ...... 10

Objectives ...... 10 Context ...... 10 Regional Actions ...... 15 Stormwater + Drainage ...... 18

Objectives ...... 18 Context ...... 18 OCWA Initiatives ...... 19 Regional Actions ...... 20 Transportation ...... 23

Objectives ...... 23 Context ...... 23 Regional Actions ...... 24 Other Infrastructure ...... 27

Objectives ...... 27 Context ...... 27 Regional Actions ...... 27 Infrastructure Corridors ...... 30

Objectives ...... 30 Context ...... 30 Regional Actions ...... 31 Fees, Levies, and Intermunicipal Servicing Agreements ...... 33

Objectives ...... 33 Context ...... 33 Regional Actions ...... 34 Sequencing ...... 37

Objectives ...... 37 Context ...... 37 Regional Actions ...... 38 Appendix A: Population Projections ...... 40 Appendix B: Potable Water Demand Projections ...... 41

Introduction ...... 41 Parameters ...... 41 Peak Daily Water Demand Projections (Regional) ...... 42 Peak Daily Water Demand Projections (by municipality) ...... 43 Appendix C: Wastewater Flow Projections ...... 45

Introduction ...... 45 Parameters ...... 45 Average and Peak Wastewater Flow Projections ...... 46

INTRODUCTION

The Regional Servicing Strategy provides recommendations to the P4G member municipalities for strategic investments in regional infrastructure development and service delivery. As the development identified in Land Use Concept takes place, capital investments and extensions of infrastructure will be required to support this growth.

The benefits of regional cooperation with infrastructure and servicing include the following: • Costs for planning, construction, operations, and maintenance of infrastructure can be reduced through economies of scale, especially for smaller municipalities that would otherwise need to build and maintain facilities independently. • Smaller municipalities can achieve higher levels of service through joint infrastructure projects and systems. • Funding for new capital facilities can be pooled through cost-sharing and joint efforts to petition senior governments for support can help the P4G Region draw on additional resources. • Growth planning can be supported and promoted through timely and efficient sequencing of infrastructure and services to new development areas.

Considering these goals, the Strategy provides a coordinated approach for the following infrastructure systems in the P4G Region: • Potable water • Wastewater • Stormwater management and drainage • Transportation

The Strategy also discusses the following topics related to the coordination of infrastructure across the P4G Region: • Other infrastructure. Although the four identified infrastructure systems are the primary focus of the Strategy, considerations of other types of infrastructure will be needed for long- term regional planning and coordination. • Infrastructure corridors. Providing for shared rights-of-way between different infrastructure systems can reduce the costs of land acquisition and improve efficiency of regional service delivery. • Fees, levies, and intermunicipal servicing agreements. Coordination between municipalities is needed to ensure regional and local extensions of services are properly funded and development can pay for itself without burdening ratepayers with the costs of

growth. Mechanisms considered may include common agreements for providing urban servicing, and approaches for cost recovery for infrastructure projects. • Sequencing. Given that development in the P4G Region, identified in the Land Use Map, will occur over an extended period, an understanding of the initial investments in infrastructure can help present immediate priorities versus long-range considerations for planning.

The Servicing Strategy focuses on regional infrastructure solutions where coordination between municipalities is necessary. While this Servicing Strategy currently includes water, wastewater, stormwater, and transportation systems, future areas of regional coordination may include other public services, such as recreation facilities, transit or emergency services, or services provided by the private sector or Crown corporations. The Servicing Strategy should be expanded as required to accommodate these services.

POTABLE WATER

OBJECTIVES

• Provide safe, clean drinking water for residents and businesses in the P4G Region • Coordinate the orderly development of potable water infrastructure to support regional and local land-use policies • Minimize potable water infrastructure costs through coordination between municipalities • Support water providers in securing emergency water supplies for the P4G Region • Promote the efficient use of potable water across the P4G Region

CONTEXT

A summary map for the regional potable water strategy is provided in Exhibit 1. Key elements of this map include the following: • Saskatoon Water Treatment Plant. The current City of Saskatoon Water Treatment Plant (WTP) provides water supplies across the P4G Region. The capacity of the WTP will increase from 258 million litres per day (ML/d) to 300 ML/d with shorter term facility expansion, with the potential to further expand capacity to 350 ML/d on the current site. There is also potential to build a second WTP nearby to increase treatment capacity. • SaskWater pipelines. SaskWater provides water services across the P4G Region, outside of the City of Saskatoon. To supply these communities, which currently include the other P4G members, SaskWater has eight major connections to the City network. • Conceptual Martensville-Saskatoon connection. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) was developed in 2014 to negotiate an agreement for Saskatoon to provide water and wastewater services to Martensville. The alignment for this connection has not been determined, but water delivery services from Saskatoon would replace those currently provided by SaskWater.

Water Supply

At present, potable water for the P4G Region is supplied by the City of Saskatoon Water Treatment Plant (WTP). This facility draws water from the South Saskatchewan River in the south of Saskatoon, and currently has a supply capacity of 258 ML/d that is distributed to customers in the City by Saskatoon Water and in the rest of the P4G Region by SaskWater.

Information on planned expansion of water treatment facilities in Saskatoon indicates this will follow three general stages:

• Further expansion of the existing WTP could accommodate a peak daily capacity increase of up to 450 ML/d. • Construction of a second WTP using current inlet structures and water licenses can accommodate a peak daily capacity of 540 ML/d. • Expanding water intakes will be required to accommodate a peak daily capacity beyond 540 ML/d.

Projections of expected regional water demands using available population projections (see Appendix A) are provided in Appendix B. This assessment considers potential high/low scenarios for water consumption over the next few decades to determine how current capacity will meet future demand. Several conclusions can be reached from this assessment, assuming the City of Saskatoon maintains its role providing potable water to the regional system: • Short-term facility expansion. Expected short-term WTP capacity expansions to 300 ML/d are expected to accommodate peak water demand until about 2021–2031, based on the scenarios assessed. • Long-term facility expansion. Additional capacity expansions to the current WTP would address peak demand until about 2036–2051. After this time frame, a new WTP would be necessary. This will occur near the end of a 20 to 25-year capital facilities planning cycle and should be the focus of long-term facilities planning. • Additional water treatment facility. A second WTP would boost regional water supplies to meet needs until 2043–2059, after which new water licenses would be needed from the province for additional withdrawals. • Coordination of regional funding for capital facilities. Levies, fees, and service charges should be coordinated on a regional basis to ensure capital facilities for water treatment can be funded. • Emergency raw water supplies. Long-term planning to provide safe and sufficient supplies of potable water should be a consideration of the Regional Plan. This would involve the provision for emergency supplies from other sources if the South Saskatchewan River is impacted. • Regional coordination and system efficiency. Regional coordination will be essential for effectively managing long-term water supplies and reducing per-capita demand through conservation. Measures should include more specific requirements for water allocation to communities, incentives for water conservation, and connection fees designed to support future upgrades to treatment capacity.

Water Delivery

In addition to providing an adequate supply of water, the physical delivery of water to the smaller urban municipalities and surrounding rural areas is also a significant regional issue. Water from the City of Saskatoon is supplied by SaskWater to the individual municipalities via the Saskatoon North Treated Supply Pipeline that links to the City system at the 71st Street and Wanuskewin Road booster station.

The Saskatoon North Treated Supply Pipeline has the following capacity characteristics: • The point of delivery to the pipeline has a maximum capacity of 27.0 ML/d. The average supply rate under the existing Master Supply Agreement is 8.3 ML/d and the maximum supply rate is 15.6 ML/d. Delivering water to the pipeline beyond the maximum supply rate, especially given reductions in capacity from new growth within the City, may require upgrades to the mains in this area. • The City of Martensville is supported by two pipelines with capacities of 6.3 ML/d (north) and 2.3 ML/d (south) at the points of delivery. • The City of Warman is supported by a section of the pipeline that can provide 15.7 ML/d at the point of delivery. • Delivery into the Town of Osler is supported by a SaskWater connection, and the municipal waterworks system is expected to support 2,200 residents. • Additional pipelines provide water delivery to municipalities outside the P4G Region, including Dalmeny, Hepburn, and Hague, as well as rural customers of Intervalley Water, Inc. and other commercial and industrial customers in the region.

The assessment of long-term regional water demands included in Appendix B raises concerns with the capacity of this pipeline: • Contracted delivery rates exceeded. Contracted water delivery from Saskatoon Water to SaskWater has been exceeded and future negotiations about additional delivery to the SaskWater system are unresolved. • Short-term capacity issues at point of delivery. Peak water demand will exceed the maximum supply rate of 15.6 ML/d at the point of delivery to the pipeline by 2019–2024. Water delivery exceeding 15.6 ML/day will likely require upgrades to support higher flow rates. • Mid-term pipeline capacity issues. The maximum pipeline capacity of 27.0 ML/d will be exceeded by the assessed customers by 2035–2044 under the presented scenarios.

Although negotiations between Saskatoon Water and SaskWater are ongoing, and may result in changes to regional water delivery, the proposed Martensville-Saskatoon water pipeline, noted above, would resolve certain capacity issues. This solution would need to consider certain issues: • Increased capacity for remaining customers on the pipeline. If demand from Martensville can be fulfilled through a separate pipeline (as suggested in the Saskatoon-Martensville

MOU), the Saskatoon North Treated supply pipeline system will have the capacity to service the remaining customers using the SaskWater maximum supply rate until 2035–2043, and the maximum capacity of the pipeline until 2051 at the earliest. • Other P4G municipalities may not require new pipelines. This assessment indicates that providing a pipeline to Martensville would allow the capacity of the remaining system to continue to serve Warman and Osler over the next 30 years or more, as well as Dalmeny, Hague, Hepburn, and Intervalley Water. Building additional pipelines to service other P4G members would therefore result in unnecessary and redundant regional capacity. Improvements to the connection tie-ins to the north of the City system may still be necessary, however. • Statutory concerns about water delivery outside Saskatoon. As directed by the province, SaskWater exclusively manages water delivery outside the City of Saskatoon. As a result, Saskatoon Water is only allowed to provide water to customers in other P4G municipalities through SaskWater. This complicates efforts to develop regional connections for potable water, and would require provincial action to change.

Other relevant points to consider about regional water delivery include: • System redundancy and emergency supplies. The linear design of the pipelines in the regional system means there is a lack of redundancy in the case of pipeline breaks or other service interruptions. For the smaller urban municipalities in the system, the WSA recommends a minimum water storage capacity equal to two days of average demand, and at least this volume of storage should be maintained to provide an emergency supply. However, in the long term, the development of a regional system should work to provide additional lines for water supplies into these communities to provide redundancy. • Support for implementation of the Regional Plan and certainty of development. Regional water servicing can support the coordination and information exchange necessary to provide clear requirements for the provision of water supplies. This can reduce uncertainty about the availability of water servicing in the P4G Region, and support the development patterns identified in the Regional Plan.

REGIONAL ACTIONS

Considering the current regional context and projected needs for water, P4G should pursue the following actions: • Develop a Regional Potable Water Servicing Study and Plan. P4G should work to coordinate a Regional Potable Water Servicing Plan which can clearly define the expected long-term roles of regional stakeholders in water treatment and delivery. In partnership with regional providers, this document should define how extensions of water servicing and allocations of capacity are managed, and outline how providers must consider the Plan in

decision making. This shall be supported by a regional study of key components of the water distribution system. • Improve regional water efficiency. Even with sufficient supplies in the short term, the need for new infrastructure investment can create challenges for growth in the P4G Region. As such, all municipalities should work to improve water efficiency and extend current capacity through conservation programs, technology pilots, and infrastructure upgrades. • Assist in the development of a second WTP as required. There is a long-term need for a second WTP to support the regional water system. P4G should work to assist P4G members to adjust servicing plans as necessary to account for changes in the system. • Support negotiations between P4G municipalities and SaskWater regarding long-term service provisions. SaskWater and P4G municipalities will need to negotiate the future management of the Saskatoon North Treated supply pipeline to determine a cost-effective solution for all parties. P4G should support these negotiations and encourage infrastructure planning to help coordinate growth planning under the Regional Plan. • Support the development of emergency water supplies. Considering the potential severity of the impacts of emergency situations on water supplies, the P4G Region should work to support the City of Saskatoon in securing options for emergency supplies in the case of contamination or service interruption. • Address requirements for large industrial customers. Potential industrial customers of the regional potable water system may require sufficient capacity in the system. This may include users such as food-related industrial operations and value-added agri-businesses. Planning as part of a regional system should work to coordinate these needs with long-term allocation of infrastructure. • Coordination with First Nations. P4G should work with Saskatoon Water, SaskWater, First Nations, and municipalities to identify needs for potable water servicing on First Nations lands, and determine potential options for planning and constructing joint infrastructure projects.

WASTEWATER

OBJECTIVES

• Provide regional approaches to wastewater treatment and disposal that protect human health and the natural environment • Coordinate the planning of wastewater infrastructure to support efficient patterns of regional development • Minimize wastewater infrastructure costs through coordination between municipalities • Support the planning and development of a second wastewater treatment plant to provide for regional needs • Promote measures to reduce wastewater production rates per capita across the P4G Region and extend the capacity of infrastructure

CONTEXT

A summary map for the regional wastewater system is provided in Exhibit 2. Key elements of the system include: • Saskatoon Wastewater Treatment Plant. The current City of Saskatoon Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) provides wastewater treatment for the City, and may be expected to service the City of Martensville through a joint servicing agreement that is currently under negotiation. The current capacity of the plant is rated at 120 ML/d of average daily flow, with a peak daily flow of 216 ML/d, and a peak hourly wet weather flow of 300 ML/d. The City has outlined a long-term capital investment schedule to improve capacities over the long term, and the current site will be able to accommodate a maximum average daily flow capacity of 170 ML/d. • Urban municipal treatment facilities. The smaller urban municipalities in the P4G Region use lagoon treatment systems to support local wastewater servicing. The capacities of these facilities, including treatment and storage, are as follows:

• Martensville: approximately 13,000 residents • Warman: approximately 14,000 residents • Osler: approximately 2,000 residents The Osler lagoon is located outside of the P4G Region, as noted on the map in Exhibit 2. • Conceptual Martensville-Saskatoon connection. As noted in the potable water section, a memorandum of understanding between Saskatoon and Martensville may establish a major sewer connection to the Saskatoon wastewater system. This alignment has not been

finalized, but would connect with the existing network in the short term, and use the current Martensville lagoon for storage and limited treatment. • Future concepts for regional wastewater collection and treatment. Regional pipeline connections between Saskatoon and the other urban municipalities in the P4G Region would allow for efficient sharing of capacity, and delay the need to build additional treatment capacity elsewhere in the P4G Region. Conceptual alignments for these connections have been noted on the map, but will be contingent on future planning and coordination. • Rural lagoons and on-site systems. In addition to the municipal wastewater collection systems noted on the map, rural lagoons and other on-site systems provide for wastewater collection and treatment in rural areas.

Servicing Extensions

Planning major sewer main alignments is a primary concern for regional wastewater collection and treatment. The following considerations will need to be made in development and sequencing with respect to wastewater servicing (with numbered areas corresponding to the annotations on the context map in Exhibit 2): • Topography challenges for local servicing. The topography of the P4G Region is a challenge for wastewater collection as it does not provide the necessary slope to allow for wastewater drainage by gravity in all areas. Forcemains would be required to pump wastewater from certain flat and low-lying areas to treatment facilities, which would increase costs. This would primarily include part or all of the following areas within the current system:

• Area 1: Saskatoon Northwest • Area 3: Martensville West • Area 4: Martensville/Warman • Area 6: Saskatoon Highway 11 • Area 9: Grasswood/Saskatoon South • Area 10: Corman Park South • Limitations to Saskatoon servicing capacity in the east. Although areas to the east and south of Saskatoon (Areas 7–9) present opportunities for wastewater collection from gravity drainage, the capacity of the Saskatoon wastewater system to make direct connections to future urban growth areas is limited east of Preston Avenue. This is due to the size of the current sewer mains and trunk lines. Because of this, the wastewater collection system in these areas will need to be connected in the north (around Area 7), and link to either the proposed new river crossing at the current WWTP, or be directed to a new treatment facility in the P4G Region . This will strongly impact the desirable sequencing of development, as development along new sewer mains may need to start in the northeast and proceed south, instead of extending directly east.

• Coordination of infrastructure for the Agri-Food Node. The Town of Osler and RM of Corman Park have discussed developing an Agri-Food Node, generally located around Area 5 (Warman-Osler). Support of value-added businesses related to agriculture should consider the wastewater servicing needs of this area, including potential for higher organic and contaminant loadings into the wastewater treatment system and capital costs for new infrastructure. • Coordination with First Nations. For many First Nations in the P4G Region, limitations to wastewater servicing provides the major limitation to development and productive use of treaty land entitlements (TLEs) and reserve lands. Cost-sharing agreements between First Nations and municipalities can help extend services to these locations, and provide greater opportunities for housing and economic development. • Ongoing needs for on-site treatment. Although the Servicing Strategy will strive to coordinate long-term regional infrastructure, the need for on-site treatment solutions will continue as rural development occurs.

Regional Treatment Capacity

An assessment of estimated regional wastewater flows is provided in Appendix C, including projections of long-term wastewater generation. From these flow projections, the following conclusions can be reached: • Upgrades are required for meeting Saskatoon capacity needs alone. Additional upgrades to the Saskatoon WWTP, which has a current capacity of 120 ML/d for average daily flow, are expected to be required by 2024–2033 to accommodate Saskatoon alone. • Managing regional wastewater would require allocation of some capacity by Saskatoon. Capacity of the Saskatoon WWTP will be reached earlier if some or all of the urban municipalities in the P4G Region are connected to the WWTP. This may be minimized by maintaining lagoons for wastewater storage in these communities, and providing for off- peak treatment by the WWTP. However, the additional flows will contribute to a more immediate need for plant expansions. • Capacity needs of the smaller urban municipalities are more immediate. Although the measures of lagoon capacity for Warman, Martensville, and Osler are harder to fix to a specific timeline given changes in population growth and an uncertain split between commercial and residential uses, there are immediate needs for new capacity, especially in Warman and Martensville. This has been recognized as part of the ongoing discussions about Saskatoon-Martensville water and wastewater connections, but further regional growth may be constrained without a solution within the next 5–10 years. • A second regional wastewater treatment plant will likely be required in the long-term. The capacity of a full build-out of the existing Saskatoon WWTP site (170 ML/d) would

support Saskatoon alone until 2038–2050, and all urban municipalities over a slightly shorter period. Unless further capacity expansion is possible, a second treatment option, likely coordinated at a regional level, will be required.

Regional System Connections

Providing for connections between municipalities as part of a regional wastewater collection and treatment system would be ideal in addressing several issues, including: • Short-term requirements to increase wastewater treatment capacity available to Warman and Martensville in a cost-efficient way • Longer-term requirements for additional capacity for all municipalities through an additional WWTP • Urban municipalities with immediate needs for additional treatment capacity within the next 5–10 years (e.g., Warman and Martensville) versus communities with longer-term needs for new or expanded facilities (e.g. Saskatoon and Osler) • Increased treatment effluent quality, according to both current requirements and potential future regulations • Challenges in local servicing over a wider area, including areas not possible to accommodate within current systems as noted above

A phased approach with specific short-term and long-term options will need to be considered and studied by P4G in the future as regional planning for infrastructure is implemented. As part of this Servicing Strategy, the following options have been provided to build the components of a regional system.

Short-Term Regional System

Within the short-term (within the next 20 years), the following steps should be explored by P4G to support a regional wastewater system: • Saskatoon-Martensville connection. A Saskatoon-Martensville pipeline may be constructed to link the Martensville wastewater collection system with Saskatoon to address treatment capacity limitations. This system would provide for off-peak pumping and treatment by the Saskatoon wastewater system to minimize impacts to available capacity. This option is currently being reviewed by the two municipalities, and should be supported by P4G as a step towards regional capacity sharing. • Highway 11 corridor wastewater pipeline. To accommodate wastewater flows from Warman into the Saskatoon wastewater collection system, a forcemain may be constructed to link the communities as shown in Exhibit 2. It is likely that the existing lagoon would remain for storage and emergency treatment capacity as with the Martensville connection.

The Osler system would be able to connect into this pipeline as well, although the need for this capacity would not be immediate. • Expanded Warman treatment facilities. A second option would be to provide new or expanded treatment facilities closer to Warman and Osler, as shown in Exhibit 2. Given the land requirements and expected growth of Warman into the future, the preferred option would be to construct a small WWTP that would replace the facultative lagoon. Although it may be possible to expand this facility later into a regional WWTP (as noted below), accommodating future expansions would likely require high up-front costs for the plant.

The recommended options in this case would include developing Martensville and Warman pipelines to allow for the use of the Saskatoon WWTP capacity, and accommodating additional regional capacity through the Saskatoon plant only. This would require a significant policy change to the City of Saskatoon, to shift its role to one as a regional service provider for wastewater treatment. The options provided here should be explored further to provide more detailed costing information and likely regional and local investments required.

Long-Term Regional System

For the long term (20 years and later), the development of a new wastewater treatment plant will be the primary focus of a regional system. The development of a second WWTP should be triggered before Saskatoon exceeds the maximum capacity of the existing WWTP by 2037–2048. This increased plant capacity would be expected to accommodate Warman, Osler, and Martensville, as well as growth areas in certain parts of Saskatoon.

Considerations for this project include the following: • Location of the WWTP. Potential sites for wastewater effluent disposal into the South Saskatchewan River are significantly constrained. The development of country residential subdivisions along the River will preclude siting in these areas, and sites within the City of Saskatoon are limited. Developing the WWTP further downstream will bring the facility closer to the smaller urban municipalities, but will require realignment of the regional pipeline network and would be further from the urban development to be serviced. • Management of the WWTP. When a second WWTP is required, the management of the plant would need to be determined. This may include a role for P4G, potentially as a Planning Authority. • Design of pipeline system. The location of the plant will strongly impact the configuration of the system. A facility further downstream, for example, would require the construction of longer regional pipelines, but would allow for regional gravity drainage to the new plant. Building new facilities within Saskatoon would require more forcemain systems for wastewater collection, but would keep the facility closer to significant urban growth.

• Capital funding. Although a new regional plant may be managed like an expansion of the current Saskatoon system, a partnership with other municipalities would provide additional resources and options for developing the facility. A regional development levy could provide additional funding for the development and construction of the WWTP, for example, and the P4G as a common lobbying bloc could help to secure federal and provincial funding. • Management of capacity. If a regional facility was to be developed as a joint project, a concern would be the allocation of capacity between the partners, especially if different communities would grow at different rates than expected. This would also conflict with the current City of Saskatoon policy of only allocating surplus capacity to other jurisdictions. Clear agreements would need to be developed to tie in capacity management with expectations of the timing and nature of development under the Regional Plan.

Although the need for additional treatment capacity in the long-term is clear, planning for a new facility will be strongly dependent on the type and rate of growth experienced over the next decades, as well as the regional capacity developed to manage large projects such as these and the long-term objectives of each individual community. To this end, more detailed planning and fiscal assessments of different options for a regional wastewater treatment plant should be coordinated to provide a clearer understanding of preferred alternatives.

REGIONAL ACTIONS

Considering the current regional context and projected needs for wastewater collection and treatment, P4G should pursue the following actions: • Develop a Regional Wastewater Servicing Study and Plan. P4G should work to develop a Regional Wastewater Servicing Plan to provide clear guidance regarding intended regional actions in developing a regional wastewater system. This Plan should be developed after a full study is conducted to provide a clearer understanding of the costs and benefits of regional options, and provide a strong policy direction for future work by P4G and the municipalities. • Support cost-effective expansion of local servicing. To reduce overall servicing costs, development in the P4G Region should be encouraged to consider challenges and limitations with wastewater collection and treatment. The focus of new development in communities should be on areas which will be more cost-effective to service, including areas that can employ gravity drainage collection systems. • Promote the economies of scale in developing a regional wastewater system. P4G shall support the development of shared wastewater treatment systems between Martensville and Saskatoon, and Warman and Osler. These systems should be coordinated initially as bilateral or multilateral municipal agreements, and established to provide a foundation for a region-wide wastewater system. In the short-term, P4G may function as a coordinating body for these projects, but may be more involved with the development and

management of the regional system in the long term, especially if P4G transitions to an Authority model. • Address immediate treatment capacity needs in municipal systems. There is a critical need to expand treatment capacity in Martensville and Warman to meet regulatory guidelines and address future population growth. Martensville and Saskatoon are currently in negotiations to link Martensville to the Saskatoon system. Warman should look to develop a joint approach that includes the development of a pipeline to the Saskatoon system as well, and Osler may elect to link to this network to provide longer-term solutions for their own capacity needs. • Address requirements for large industrial customers. Potential industrial customers of the regional wastewater system may require sufficient capacity in the system. This may include users such as food-related industrial operations and value-added agri-businesses. Planning as part of a regional system should work to coordinate these needs with long-term allocation of infrastructure. • Coordinate planning for a second regional wastewater treatment plant and associated pipelines. A second wastewater treatment plant will be required once the capacity of the Saskatoon WWTP is reached. Planning should be coordinated at a regional level, and the preliminary siting, design, and fiscal analysis of this plant should be conducted as soon as possible to identify any required steps to be carried out by P4G in the short-term. These steps should include the protection of a site, including development of setbacks to discourage incompatible uses, and coordination of financing options for funding the project. • Regional wastewater sewer use bylaw. As a regional system for wastewater collection and treatment is coordinated, it will be necessary to ensure that different communities are applying the same standards to their wastewater collection systems. P4G should coordinate between jurisdictions to ensure that any necessary bylaws and policies are passed to align these standards on a regional basis. • Explore cost-sharing relationships with other partners for servicing extensions, including First Nations. The development of a regional system will involve additional partners aside from P4G members. Several First Nations have land holdings in areas which will require servicing with major trunk lines and new treatment facilities, and these services can support greater development opportunities on these lands. P4G should work to engage with these partners to discuss these arrangements.

STORMWATER + DRAINAGE

OBJECTIVES

• Reduce the risks from surface ponding, flooding, and erosion to people and property in the P4G Region • Minimize the environmental impacts of stormwater quantity and quality on groundwater, surface water, wetlands, and habitat, and encourage the use of stormwater as a resource to improve environmental performance • Support municipalities in improving stormwater management to minimize local flooding issues and enhance system performance • Promote innovative solutions to stormwater management that integrate cost-effective natural and engineering solutions

CONTEXT

A summary map for the regional stormwater strategy is provided in Exhibit 3. Key elements of this map include the following: • Existing wetlands and surface water. Surface water features are provided on the overview map. A cursory assessment of wetland locations, based on visual identification from orthophotos and elevation data, is also included. Impacts to these features shall be considered in the planning and development of regional and local stormwater and drainage solutions. • Wetland DEM Ponding Model (WDPM) results. The map indicates ponding locations following a 200-mm precipitation event in the P4G Region, modeled using a Wetland DEM Ponding Model (WDPM) “fill-and-spill” model. This is provided for reference only, and details are provided in the supporting documentation for the Green Network Study Area. • Green Network Study Area. The Green Network Study Area is indicated as an important component of regional stormwater management, as it incorporates the conservation of swales, wetlands, drainage paths, and surface water to be used for regional storage and conveyance. These features should be maintained after the refinement of this area. • Proposed regional drainage improvements. The map includes the alignments for improvements proposed by the Opimihaw Creek Watershed Association (OCWA) to facilitate drainage in the Opimihaw Creek Watershed around Warman, Martensville and Osler within Corman Park. • Municipal drainage infrastructure. Available information on municipal stormwater drainage infrastructure is provided where relevant.

Drainage systems to manage stormwater are typically managed at the local level in the P4G Region. However, the municipalities of the P4G have been collaborating through the OCWA to manage significant drainage issues north of Saskatoon. The OCWA has developed plans that present an engineering solution to these drainage issues through three reports, with the first and second detailing the general design and cost for regional drainage, and the third providing more detailed engineering designs for the Osler drain.

OCWA INITIATIVES

As noted, the OCWA has conducted a series of studies to examine options for reducing flood damage in the northern area of the RM of Corman Park, the Cities of Martensville and Warman, and the Town of Osler, as well as the Town of Dalmeny outside of the P4G Region. Three main studies for flood control have been coordinated by the OCWA to date.

For the North Corman Park Flood Control Study Phase Two Report, which includes the most detailed studies done to date, elements and assumptions of note include the following: • Complete Information on culverts was not available for this study. Culverts not identified may have impacted the conclusions and recommendations of the analysis. • Peak design flows are based on snowmelt and rainfall estimated from 1:25 year events, allowing for temporary flooding of adjacent land. • Opportunities for wetland storage are not incorporated into the Phase Two Report design estimates. • An additional proposed drain (“Blumenheim Primary Drain”) is located outside of the P4G Region.

The summary map in Exhibit 3 indicates the drainage system alignments within the P4G Region detailed as Option 2 (the preferred option) in the Phase Two Report. This Option includes the following, with costs provided as of August 2013: • RR 3052 Primary Drain North. In the proposed system design, this drain provides the primary drainage for the areas between Warman and Martensville into Opimihaw Creek. This would require the construction of the Opimihaw Creek Primary Drain and Diversion to manage discharges into the Creek. (Estimated cost: $12.7 million) • Opimihaw Creek Primary Drain. The Opimihaw Creek Primary Drain would link the RR 3052 Primary Drain North with Opimihaw Creek to permit discharges of stormwater flow. (Estimated cost: $9.9 million) • Opimihaw Creek Diversion. This diversion mitigates increased stormwater flows into Opimihaw Creek to ensure that the volumes through Wanuskewin Heritage Park are no greater than current levels to prevent damage to the natural, cultural, and historic resources of the Park. (Estimated cost: $1.6 million)

• RR 3052 Primary Drain South. This drain accommodates discharges from Martensville and the southern part of the basin, and links with Opimihaw Creek upstream from Wanuskewin Heritage Park. (Estimated cost: $7.5 million) • Osler Primary Drain. The Osler Primary Drain intercepts the southward flow of water from Buzz Slough located to the north and prevents this flow from impacting areas to the south. (Estimated cost: $13.9 million, revised to $15.3 million in Phase Three report)

Developing drainage infrastructure in the Opimihaw Creek watershed to date has been limited by the availability of funding for this work. Additional studies by OCWA are pending to review proposed drainage solutions and provide additional options, including the use of the Green Network Study Area to provide conveyance and storage.

REGIONAL ACTIONS

It is recommended that P4G pursue the following actions with respect to regional stormwater infrastructure: • Coordination with the OCWA. It is strongly recommended that ongoing efforts by P4G in regional stormwater infrastructure should be coordinated with the OCWA, given the efforts of this organization in managing drainage issues. Additional work may be coordinated between P4G and OCWA to ensure that sub-area and local stormwater infrastructure is developed to manage identified drainage issues and support identified development in the Regional Plan. • Inventory of stormwater drainage infrastructure. During the development of this Plan and the Regional Servicing Strategy, regional hydrological and flood modelling was limited by the lack of information on culverts and other drainage infrastructure that could impact stormwater flows and flooding. An inventory of these structures should be performed to support long-term efforts in stormwater infrastructure planning. • Coordination with First Nations. Ongoing efforts by P4G and municipalities in regional and local stormwater infrastructure should also be coordinated with First Nations. In several cases, requirements for drainage on treaty land entitlement holdings and reserves limit future development, and cooperation can help to reduce the planning, construction, and maintenance costs necessary to support productive uses in these areas. • Incorporation of natural infrastructure into detailed drainage design. P4G should coordinate with OCWA in developing more detailed engineering designs that incorporate wetlands and natural drainage features for detention and storage of stormwater in the north. The future refinement of the Green Network Study Area should be coordinated with these efforts to maintain and enhance drainage and conveyance, and reduce peak design flows.

• Coordination with other regional infrastructure projects. Coordinating identified drainage projects with other regional infrastructure projects, especially transportation projects, can help to mitigate project costs. Planning for these projects by municipalities should be aligned with identified regional drainage infrastructure needs where possible. • Applications for supplementary funding from senior levels of government. Recognizing that the municipalities impacted by this drainage system may not be able to fully fund all improvements, P4G should coordinate with individual municipalities and the OCWA where applicable in presenting grant applications to senior levels of government. Funding applications will focus on the innovative aspects of these improvements, including the integration of green infrastructure into the design to reduce costs. • Support regional development levies, servicing agreement fees, and other cost- sharing for drainage improvements. New drainage infrastructure will allow areas prone to flooding to be used for more intensive development, and provide a significant benefit to impacted landowners. P4G should promote and assist in coordinating efforts between municipalities to collect development levies and servicing agreement fees to support regional drainage projects that impact multiple jurisdictions. These efforts may build a foundation for future cross-boundary efforts to manage fees and levies through regional cost-sharing mechanisms if P4G transitions to an Authority model.

TRANSPORTATION

OBJECTIVES

• Support a balanced regional transportation system that provides accessibility, connectivity, mobility, and economic activity with appropriate levels of service • Integrate transportation planning with regional land use planning and development policies to provide more effective responses to future development and mobility needs • Support efforts by P4G members to improve local circulation and build fiscally sustainable transportation infrastructure • Coordinate regional transportation planning with the province to support efficient, integrated solutions to mobility requirements • Explore future opportunities to expand mobility options and improve accessibility in the P4G Region

CONTEXT

A summary map of the regional transportation system is shown in Exhibit 4. Key elements of this map include the following: • Saskatoon Freeway. Once complete, the Saskatoon Freeway, a future provincial ring road around the current boundaries of the City of Saskatoon, will be an important regional transportation bypass. The map shows both the approved alignments in the north, as well as the options for routes in the southeast and southwest. Once routes are finalized, a functional study will be conducted by the province to develop the design of the freeway. • Freeway interchanges. The interchanges of the Saskatoon Freeway are not yet finalized. Potential locations for interchanges are noted on the map where the freeway will cross existing provincial highways; these locations are pending a functional design by the Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure (MHI). • Grade-separated crossings. The map notes locations where the Saskatoon Freeway will intersect with planned extensions of major routes. Grade-separated crossings, such as overpasses or service interchanges, will be required in these locations. These crossings should be discussed with MHI and may be adjusted or changed to service interchanges based on the final design of the freeway. • Additional interchanges. In addition to the interchanges proposed for the Saskatoon Freeway, other interchanges have been proposed to improve connections between regional transportation routes. Three of these interchanges (Highway 16 at Boychuk Road, Highway 12 at Martensville, and Highway 11 at Highway 305) have been approved, with planning and construction underway.

• River crossings. A major obstacle for highway development and transportation access is the South Saskatchewan River. Although two new bridges associated with the North Commuter Parkway and the Saskatoon Freeway have been planned, additional river crossings will be necessary in the north to facilitate access. The locations provided are conceptual, and should be reviewed through additional studies. • Airports. The Saskatoon John G. Diefenbaker International Airport is a key regional transportation component, and potential airport expansion areas are identified in Exhibit 4. Additionally, the Richter Field Aerodrome to the west of Martensville is currently in use and will impact urban development in future growth areas.

REGIONAL ACTIONS

P4G and its affiliated municipalities should pursue the following actions, given the nature of the regional system and the needs for future planning and coordination:

Regional Planning

• Maintain the regional Travel Demand Model. P4G members have worked with the province to develop a regional Travel Demand Model (TDM) for the P4G Region. P4G should continue to partner with the province to update and use the TDM as needed. The TDM should be used to inform transportation planning for concept and sector plans, and all members should be encouraged to use this model for transportation planning work. • Develop a Regional Transportation Plan. Ongoing efforts by municipalities for developing strategies for long-term transportation investments should be coordinated with a Regional Transportation Plan developed by P4G. This Plan should be informed by the regional TDM, and identify and prioritize joint projects between municipalities. • Plan for road/highway crossings of the Green Network Study Area and other sensitive areas. Transportation access to some areas in the P4G Region will depend on construction activities in sensitive areas, including locations identified as part of the Green Network Study Area. P4G should work to collaborate to ensure that transportation projects in these areas are designed to minimize impacts to natural and ecological resources, and conveyance and drainage of stormwater. • Coordinate with provincial highways planning. The province is currently coordinating the planning of the Saskatoon Freeway, which will include a functional study to establish the right-of-way and determine major access points. P4G should support ongoing efforts to coordinate regional planning with provincial highway planning in this area, with a focus on:

• The final alignments for the southwest and southeast portions of the Saskatoon Freeway

• Determination of interchanges and grade-separated crossings along the Saskatoon Freeway, especially those that provide access to rural and urban growth areas in the east and northeast • Coordination of planning for interchanges to ensure access to future growth areas close to these alignments • Planning for additional grade-separated crossings over other provincial highways

Airports

• Coordinate ongoing dialogue with the Saskatoon John G. Diefenbaker International Airport. As a key transportation and logistics resource for the P4G Region, coordination of development surrounding the Saskatoon John G. Diefenbaker International Airport should be coordinated with the Saskatoon Airport Authority. This should not only be performed to minimize land use conflicts, but also promote expansion of airport facilities and supporting commercial/industrial development in areas identified on the Regional Land Use Map. • Coordinate ongoing dialogue with the Richter Field Aerodrome. The area surrounding Richter Field west of Martensville will experience urban development pressures over time, and the potential for land use conflicts with the Aerodrome should be managed. Ongoing dialogue should be coordinated to ensure that impacts of both the Aerodrome and surrounding urban development are considered.

Local Actions

• Support the identification of local transportation improvements in detailed secondary planning. Identifying and prioritizing local transportation improvements, including the joint projects identified as part of the Regional Transportation Plan noted above, should be coordinated for future urban growth areas through the development of Concept Plans and other detailed secondary planning. Future plans should identify the required improvements necessary to support planned development in these areas, and link with the Regional Transportation Plan to coordinate investment. • Plan for additional river crossings. Future regional mobility will be dependent on coordinating additional river crossings across the South Saskatchewan River. P4G should work to coordinate planning between P4G and the province to identify potential river crossings and protect these areas from incompatible development. • Coordinate with First Nations on transportation improvements. As with other infrastructure systems, municipalities should work to coordinate with First Nations on joint planning and funding for transportation projects that would service treaty land entitlements and reserve lands. This may include cost-sharing arrangements, as well as joint applications of funding for transportation improvements.

Other Transportation

• Future work in regional transit planning. For the purposes of the Servicing Strategy, the consideration of regional transit planning is outside of the scope of this work, but should be considered by P4G as the Region grows. During regular reviews of the Regional Plan and supporting infrastructure and servicing policies, P4G should examine the potential role of regional transit and determine whether further work should be coordinated. • Future work in rail transportation planning. Rail systems in the P4G Region provide important links for cargo transportation that support commercial and industrial activity, and two major regional rail yards are currently located within the City of Saskatoon. Additionally, rail lines throughout the P4G Region provide key transportation connections that support the local economy. P4G should work with rail companies and other agencies to ensure that future planning considers rail infrastructure and potential needs for expansion.

OTHER INFRASTRUCTURE

OBJECTIVES

• Support the development and management of utilities and services by other service providers • Ensure that ongoing regional planning efforts are coordinated by private interests and Crown corporations to promote alignment between long-term plans • Coordinate other municipal services and infrastructure with long-term regional planning

CONTEXT

Although the Regional Servicing Strategy provides a basis for long-term coordination of major infrastructure and services, the focus is primarily on systems which are managed by the municipalities affiliated with the P4G, as this management can allow for stronger linkages between land use and infrastructure policy. These services also represent major capital investments to be coordinated by municipalities that allow regional development to proceed.

In addition to these types of infrastructure detailed in the Plan, there are also other infrastructure systems which need to be considered: • Critical linear infrastructure that is necessary for development may be planned, constructed, and managed by private companies and Crown corporations. This includes telecommunications, electricity, natural gas, and other facilities. This type of infrastructure is important to consider for planning, given the need for planning linear corridors. • Additional facilities and associated services may be maintained by municipalities, private interests, and Crown corporations. These would include landfills and waste management facilities, recreation facilities, emergency services, education, and other systems that would require significant capital investment.

REGIONAL ACTIONS

Although it is recommended that the scope of P4G involvement should focus on potable water, wastewater, stormwater drainage, and transportation, and extend to additional systems as regional capacity is strengthened, certain actions should be considered in the short term: • Provide opportunities for ongoing collaboration with other regional service providers. P4G should look to provide detailed information about the Regional Plan and its implementation to other public and private service providers operating in the P4G Region to ensure that the Plan aligns with their internal planning for future development. P4G should

also provide ongoing opportunities for consultation and review to ensure that any concerns regarding regional infrastructure development are identified and addressed promptly. • Support regional planning for other municipal infrastructure. Municipalities should work to identify opportunities for future collaboration in other types of infrastructure systems. This may include support for regional cost-sharing and joint service provision, as well as the development of region-wide plans for these services. • Support planning for regional institutional facilities. P4G should also support service providers’ efforts to plan for regional institutional facilities, such as hospitals, regional educational facilities, and recreational facilities.

INFRASTRUCTURE CORRIDORS

OBJECTIVES

• Plan for the use of rights-of-way by multiple linear infrastructure systems to reduce costs of planning, land acquisition, and construction • Coordinate with the province to utilize highways as major infrastructure corridors, including the Saskatoon Freeway alignment currently under development • Coordinate with regional service providers on planning to use identified corridors for linear infrastructure, including telecommunications, power, natural gas, and other utilities

CONTEXT

A summary of potential regional infrastructure corridor alignments is provided in Exhibit 5. This generally considers the following: • Highway/road alignments. The alignments of several major provincial highways, transportation routes, and infrastructure alignments are identified as potential locations for linear infrastructure corridors. These locations may be well-suited for siting additional infrastructure but coordination with the responsible jurisdiction is required, as are alignments designed to accommodate the infrastructure. • Conceptual regional alignments. For longer-term planning, the development of broader regional corridors may be necessary to accommodate major infrastructure servicing the area. In addition to the alignments identified in the map, other efforts may extend well outside of the P4G Region and involve provincial coordination. P4G should consider these broader corridors in long-term development, and coordinate this planning with the province.

The summary map in Exhibit 5 also indicates potential infrastructure corridors of specific interest. Some characteristics of these alignments are as follows:

1. Saskatoon Freeway Northwest. The northwest section of the Saskatoon Freeway is a major future transportation route in the P4G Region, and it provides an opportunity to locate major wastewater forcemain alignments that will service locations in future urban growth areas. The corridor also presents an opportunity to co-locate infrastructure connections to Moosomin First Nation to support growth in this area, should they wish to participate in regional servicing.

2. Beam Road / Highway 684. Beam Road and the segment of Highway 684 between Beam Road and Saskatoon presents an opportunity for a corridor that links wastewater collection via a forcemain with mains on Marquis Drive in north Saskatoon. In addition, the provision of water services and improvements of the transportation route could support both interim and long-term commercial and industrial growth in this area.

3. Highway 16. The extension of a sewer forcemain and other services along Highway 16 could accommodate growth to the northwest of Saskatoon. This corridor could also accommodate water services extensions to support development in the rural commercial/industrial node at the Highway 16 / 684 intersection.

4. Saskatoon Freeway North. In the short term, this corridor could provide extensions for wastewater servicing for the urban residential neighbourhoods to the northwest of Saskatoon.

5. Martensville Utilities Corridor. This corridor has the potential to serve as the alignment for water and wastewater pipelines between Martensville and Saskatoon. A comprehensive corridor design that considers the alignments of these pipelines could be explored which also permits the extension of other types of regional infrastructure and utilities.

6. Highway 11. Highway 11 could provide an alignment for wastewater pipelines, such as the potential pipeline between Warman/Osler and the Saskatoon wastewater collection system identified in the wastewater servicing section. Additionally, water distribution lines will be needed to service the urban growth areas directly to the east of the highway which could be located in this alignment.

7. Saskatoon Freeway Northeast. The northeast section of the Saskatoon Freeway could be a critical infrastructure corridor for all types of utilities. This section of the freeway crosses both the South Saskatchewan River and swales northeast of Saskatoon, and co-locating infrastructure could reduce impacts to these sensitive areas.

8. Saskatoon Freeway East. This section of the Saskatoon Freeway provides opportunities for siting local servicing, and could also provide part of the alignment for the major wastewater trunk line proposed to service the eastern portions of Saskatoon.

9. Highway 41. Highway 41 will continue to be a key transportation route and includes a regional water pipeline into the RM of Aberdeen. Additionally, the topography of the area makes this alignment ideal for regional wastewater collection.

10. 8th Street East. The extension of 8th Street East to the east is noted as an extension of planned corridor development in the City of Saskatoon. This alignment could also be recognized as an important area-wide transportation corridor.

REGIONAL ACTIONS

Considering regional infrastructure needs and the potential for colocation of many of the major systems identified in this Strategy, the P4G Region should pursue the following actions for infrastructure corridors: • Support the use of local rights-of-way as regional corridors. There are several locations that could be used for regional corridors by P4G members. As they represent potential locations for a range of infrastructure systems, planning for these areas should be

coordinated between multiple jurisdictions and stakeholders, including utility providers. These efforts should be managed or facilitated by P4G where applicable. • Coordinate with the province to use provincial highways for regional infrastructure. Many of the key locations for corridors identified are along existing provincial highways, which provides an opportunity to co-locate major infrastructure in a wider right-of-way. Infrastructure planning for these corridors, however, will require significant coordination with MHI to ensure that it aligns with current designs and planned expansions. P4G should cooperate where possible with MHI to promote this coordination and support. This should be a particular focus for discussions with the province regarding planning for the Saskatoon Freeway. • Coordinate long-term needs for other corridors with the province. Corridors identified in this Strategy provide for servicing under the time frame of this Plan, over the P4G study area. However, acquisition of land for future infrastructure may be required for both longer- term corridors and for regional servicing over a broader area. P4G should coordinate with provincial efforts to secure routes for these future corridors, and adjust the Regional Plan to consider future corridor alignments.

FEES, LEVIES, AND INTERMUNICIPAL SERVICING AGREEMENTS

OBJECTIVES

• Support mechanisms for cost sharing between municipalities to allow for efficient local coordination of infrastructure • Provide for consistent and predictable development levies and servicing agreement fees across the P4G Region • Support funding and development solutions that provide for required intermunicipal infrastructure extensions and servicing

CONTEXT

For the funding of local and regional infrastructure, development charges are identified as the primary mechanism to receive payments from developers to support on and off-site infrastructure, including both linear infrastructure and facilities. This is intended to ensure that future growth “pays for itself”, and that there is the recovery of the cost of infrastructure necessary to support new development. Two types of charges on development are typically used: • Servicing agreement fees, charged to a developer for subdivision • Development levies, charged to a developer for a change in land use intensity or new development on a site

In addition to these charges, other approaches can be used to finance the costs of growth. Utility rates to customers may be used to finance infrastructure to new development, as well as funding from senior levels of government.

A municipality may also coordinate servicing agreements to allow developments to be serviced directly by a different municipality. This arrangement requires that payments are made directly to the service provider, and can require an agreement that specifies that the other municipality is responsible for capital costs, which would be passed on to the developer. However, these approaches do not allow for charges for indirect costs, such as general facilities expansion costs, which can complicate efforts to recover costs. They also do not address future services that may be available in an area, which complicates interim development in future urban growth areas.

Within the P4G Region, there are several considerations to be made with the coordination of fees, levies, and agreements. • Regional funding support needed for infrastructure projects. Development levies and servicing agreement fees will likely be important to support regional infrastructure development. This may include infrastructure that benefits the entire P4G Region, such as a regional wastewater treatment plant, or areas within a portion of the P4G Region, such as drainage improvements coordinated by the OCWA. These types of multilateral fee/levy

arrangements have not yet been developed within the P4G Region, however, and may require legislative change to implement fully in the P4G Region. • Framework for intermunicipal servicing agreements needed for potential infrastructure extensions. Specific areas within the P4G Region, such as the Silver Sky development, the Grasswood area, and the proposed Agri-Food Node between Osler and the RM of Corman Park, may require urban servicing to be extended to these locations. Providing urban services for growth areas should be supported by a framework for intermunicipal servicing agreements. • Coordination of agreements within future urban commercial/industrial areas. Urban municipalities may be challenged by interim growth in identified future urban growth areas, if that growth does not contribute fees or levies to support infrastructure extensions. Discussions are ongoing between the municipalities to determine a workable solution that enables additional interim rural development in future urban growth areas while considering the needs for cost recovery for infrastructure extension. This may also require legislative change to allow for cost recovery on areas incorporated into urban municipalities. Intermunicipal development agreements, which are agreements between municipalities that can address service provision and funding contributions, could also be explored.

REGIONAL ACTIONS

• Provide support for intermunicipal agreements. Municipalities should facilitate intermunicipal servicing agreements and/or intermunicipal development agreements to support urban and rural development in the P4G Region that aligns with the Plan, and ensure cost recovery for the service provider. • Coordinate joint applications for funding. P4G should work to coordinate applications for funding from senior levels of government and other organizations (e.g., the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, etc.) for projects of regional benefit. These applications would be submitted jointly on behalf of the municipalities, and indicated to be supported by the entire P4G. The schedule and priority for applications should be coordinated through the P4G Business Plan. • Petition the provincial government for legislative change. P4G should continue to lobby the provincial government to change relevant legislation for development levies and servicing agreement fees to consider the needs of urban municipalities for cost recovery for future urban servicing. This shall require ongoing discussion with the Ministry of Government Relations and other agencies regarding the appropriate changes to be made. • Support and, where applicable, manage regional fees and levies. As the municipalities within the P4G cooperate on a greater range of regional projects, there will be a need to provide a consistent system to provide regional funding support through specific mechanisms. This may include both regional projects coordinated by P4G and projects

coordinated separately through multilateral agreements. P4G should provide support for the calculation and use of regional fee and levy systems. • Coordinate servicing with First Nations. First Nations should be engaged in the planning and development of regional services, and agreements should be explored to allow First Nations to share in the costs and receive benefits from regional infrastructure projects. • Support ongoing negotiations regarding servicing agreements for long-term extensions of infrastructure. The continuing negotiations between municipalities regarding long-term servicing agreements to support cost recovery for urban services should be supported. Policies and plans should work to support a fair and equitable approach agreed upon by both parties.

SEQUENCING

OBJECTIVES

• Coordinate land development with available infrastructure capacity and the efficient extension of servicing • Promote the sequenced development of infrastructure that integrates municipal systems for economies of scale and higher levels of service. • Coordinate with senior levels of government to support timing of infrastructure investments that address needs for growth

CONTEXT

Exhibit 6 provides the Regional Land Use Map divided into distinct development areas based on geography and expected general timing of development. These areas generally align with expected planning boundaries, and the lands within each cell would be coordinated and developed as a unit.

Development areas in the map are allocated as follows: • Growth areas to achieve a regional population of 700,000 (areas 1–10). Development cells that are located within the Growth Areas to 700,000 from the Regional Plan are identified as those areas that would be required for the growth of urban municipalities as the P4G Region grows to a population of 700,000. These locations are priorities for Concept Plan development, and regional infrastructure planning should consider this timing in coordinating support for growth. • Growth areas to achieve a regional population of 1 million (areas 11–25). Development cells outside the Growth Areas to 700,000 are expected to be required to support urban growth as the P4G Region grows from a population of 700,000 to 1 million. Planning should be coordinated for these areas to provide for interim uses, and urbanization over a longer transition period. • Rural growth areas (areas 26–32). Although the focus of this Servicing Strategy is on supporting future urban growth, specific areas in the P4G Region have been identified for longer-term country residential, commercial, and industrial uses. These areas will not be impacted by capacity planning for urban infrastructure unless provided through intermunicipal agreements. However, infrastructure planning should still consider the capacities of rural water, transportation, and other rural services.

Major considerations for regional sequencing are as follows: • Need for development flexibility. The general sequencing noted on this map is suggested by lands available to each community for development, projected growth rates, and ease of servicing. Within these areas, municipalities should determine development phasing to meet

their own needs, while coordinating with other P4G municipalities and aligning with regional servicing plans as appropriate. • Long-term urbanization of commercial/industrial areas. Planning for the commercial/industrial areas in areas 1–3 on the map shall consider future needs to urbanize and potentially redevelop these areas. Sequencing and coordination should be examined in the context of Concept Plans for these areas. • Coordination of planning and sequencing with First Nations. Planning for development sequencing in areas 3, 12, 16, 17, and 21 should be coordinated with the First Nations with treaty land entitlement holdings and reserves in these locations. As these First Nations may look to develop their lands within a shorter timeframe, coordination of planning for interim uses and discussions about potential urban servicing needs may be required. • Need for planning of rural growth areas. Significant employment and population growth in the RM of Corman Park into the future will be focused on both the rural growth areas identified in this Plan, and interim development in future urban growth areas will also provide for additional residential and employment uses. The RM should work to coordinate development and planning for these areas to ensure that rural growth considers local and regional servicing capacity.

REGIONAL ACTIONS

Considering regional infrastructure needs, requirements for growth, and coordination of urban development, the following actions should be taken: • Develop Concept Plans for identified urban growth areas. Urban development areas in Exhibit 6, especially those within the Growth Areas to 700,000, should be the subject of Concept Plans coordinated between the adjacent municipality and the RM. These Plans must incorporate not only the expected sequencing of urban growth, but also the sequencing of interim rural uses. These plans should outline in more detail local and regional extensions of servicing, and respect long-term needs for infrastructure capacity. Concept Plans and associated sequencing should also ensure that the extension of urban services is coordinated and sequenced to maximize the use of infrastructure investments. • Phase urban development to ensure the productive use of infrastructure investments. Areas identified as development areas to a regional population of 700,000 in Exhibit 6 largely include locations that would be less expensive to service than long-term development areas. The priority for development should be with short-term areas, with sequencing that reflects efficient extensions of infrastructure. • Coordinate municipal infrastructure and capital planning to align with sequencing. Infrastructure planning by all municipalities should align with the priorities identified in the Sequencing Map, with general sequencing respecting the identified timeframe for

development. This should also include the coordination of municipal capital expenditures and cost recovery through development levies and servicing agreement fees to achieve regional infrastructure goals. n. • Coordinate growth planning and sequencing for rural growth areas. The RM should coordinate with municipalities to ensure that rural growth areas are integrated with overall regional growth patterns. Concept Plans should be used by the RM to coordinate orderly development within identified Country Residential and Rural Commercial/Industrial areas. This process may include agreements with urban municipalities to coordinate any necessary extensions of services.

APPENDIX A: POPULATION PROJECTIONS

For the purposes of projecting future water demand and wastewater generation across the P4G Region, two different population projections were used: • Scenario 1: High. Population growth rates and projections drawn from the values used for the rest of the Regional Plan were assumed to constitute a “high” scenario. Although these growth rates have been used in the development of the Plan, they do represent a higher rate of growth than what has been used by regional and local infrastructure studies developed to date. Although these growth rates will align with Plan assumptions, it may represent a faster use of regional capacity than available engineering studies. • Scenario 2: Low. Population growth rates and projections used in the “low” scenario are based on the general range of values provided by existing studies developed to examine regional water and wastewater systems. This represents general alignment with earlier studies, but it does suggest a rate of growth in the P4G Region that is lower than what is proposed through the Plan.

Values for each scenario are provided in Table 1 below:

Table 1. Population Growth Scenarios for Infrastructure Capacity Analysis.

Saskatoon Warman Martensville Osler

Initial population (2011) 222,190 7,084 7,716 1,088

Population growth rate

Scenario 1: High 2.5% 4.0% 4.0% 4.0%

Scenario 2: Low 2.0% 3.0% 3.0% 2.3%

APPENDIX B: POTABLE WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS

INTRODUCTION

Data on municipal and regional water systems was drawn from discussions with municipal staff and other sources, including: • Technical Memorandum 3 – Water Demand Projections: Water Treatment Plant (WTP) Long Term Capital Development and Expansion Plan (City of Saskatoon, 2009) • Town of Warman Waterworks System Assessment 2010 (City of Warman, February 2011) • Saskatoon North Regional Partners Planning for Growth Corridor (P4G, June 2011) • Technical Memorandum 3-1 Population Growth Projections and Water Demand Study (City of Saskatoon, January 2013) • Saskatchewan Water Use Records 2000–2014 (SK Water Security Agency, November 2015) • City of Martensville Future Growth Plan 2040 (City of Martensville, January 2016)

Note that the 2015 Waterworks Systems Assessments were not available at the time these projections were developed, and are not incorporated into this work.

The projected populations used in this assessment are explained in more detail in Appendix A.

PARAMETERS

For this report, water demand projections were compiled at two scales: • Regional demand for the entire P4G Region, for assessing regional water demand and associated needs for supplies; and • Individual demand for the smaller urban municipalities (Warman, Martensville, and Osler) and other regional customers, for evaluating regional water delivery.

This report assesses two water demand scenarios: • Scenario 1 (high). This scenario assumes relatively high water consumption in the P4G Region. Per capita water consumption rates for Saskatoon are drawn from the Technical Memo 3-1 and for smaller municipalities from the 2011 Corridor study.

Table 2. Inputs for Water Demand Projections, Scenario 1 (high).

Regional Warman Martensville Osler

Gross per capita demand 537.81 300 300 300 (Lpcd)

Peak demand factor 1.85 WSA recommended values based on population2

Required storage 25% max. daily 2x average daily demand demand

1 Note that this gross per capita demand incorporates water demand from Saskatoon and surrounding rural areas. 2 Saskatchewan Water Use Records 2000–2014 (Water Security Agency, 2015)

• Scenario 2 (low). This scenario assumes lower water consumption in the P4G Region. Per capita water consumption rates and peak demand factors for smaller urban municipalities are derived from local infrastructure and growth plans or Water Security Agency assumptions where applicable. For regional consumption, per capita demand is reduced by 15% from the baseline estimate used in Technical Memo 3-1 for consistency with recent trends in consumption.

Table 3. Inputs for Water Demand Projections, Scenario 2 (low).

Regional Warman Martensville Osler

Gross per capita demand 457.11 250 250 200 (Lpcd)

Peak demand factor 1.85 2.33 2.16 2.5

Required storage 25% max. daily 2x average daily demand demand

1 Note that this gross per capita demand incorporates water demand from Saskatoon and surrounding rural areas.

Regional water demand projections incorporate other system customers (e.g., Intervalley Water Inc., Dalmeny, etc.) into regional per capita demand to maintain consistency with Technical Memo 3-1.

These scenarios do not include the potential for acquiring emergency supplies from the North Saskatchewan River or emergency storage in case of contamination of the South Saskatchewan River. Although considering emergency scenarios is outside the scope of this Strategy, further work by the P4G Region should look to support these efforts.

PEAK DAILY WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS (REGIONAL)

Table 4 provides a summary of estimated peak daily demand over the next 40 years under the two scenarios. Three projections from Technical Memo 3-1 are used for the City of Saskatoon.

Table 4. Estimated Regional Peak Demand (in ML/d).

Estimates (Saskatoon 2013)1 Scenario 1 Scenario 2 Year (high) (low) No Reduction Low Reduction High Reduction

2016 269.3 223.0 264.6 248.7 233.6

2026 348.6 273.7 313.2 281.9 252.9

2036 452.0 336.1 352.3 317.0 284.5

2046 587.0 413.0 - - -

2056 763.9 508.0 - - -

1 Technical Memorandum 3-1 Population Growth Projections and Water Demand Study (City of Saskatoon, January 2013)

The Saskatoon 2013 report projections in Table 4 assume a population growth rate of 1.49%. The “low reduction” scenario (defined as Option 2 in the 2013 Saskatoon report) assumes a 10% reduction in peak daily water demand, while the “high reduction” scenario (Option 1 in the report) assumes a 5% reduction in average daily water demand and 15% reduction in peak daily water demand.

PEAK DAILY WATER DEMAND PROJECTIONS (BY MUNICIPALITY)

Projections of the major customers linked to the Saskatoon North Treated Water Pipeline are provided in this section to assess the capacity of the system, and the potential need to upgrade individual segments of the pipeline.

Estimated municipal water demands under Scenario 1 (high) are provided below. Projections for water demand from other SaskWater customers (Dalmeny, Hepburn, Hague, and Intervalley Water) are based on WSA data, and assume a 2% increase in demand per year.

Table 5. Estimated Municipal Demand, Scenario 1 (high).

Peak Daily Demand (ML/d)

Warman Martensville Osler Dalmeny1 Hepburn2 Hague3 Intervalley TOTAL Year Water4 (ML/d)

2016 5.17 5.63 0.99 0.68 0.34 0.47 1.12 14.4

2026 7.27 7.92 1.47 0.83 0.42 0.57 1.37 19.9

2036 10.76 11.72 1.96 1.01 0.51 0.69 1.67 28.3

2046 15.51 16.90 2.58 1.23 0.62 0.85 2.03 39.7

2056 22.97 25.01 3.81 1.50 0.76 1.03 2.48 57.6

1 Base Dalmeny peak demand based on calculated 2010, 2013 values from WSA. 2 Base Hepburn peak demand based on 2012, 2014 average demand, 2.5 peak demand factor. 3 Base Hague peak demand based on average daily demand, peak demand factors 2003–2014. 4 Base Intervalley Water peak demand based on 2014 average daily demand, 2.5 peak demand factor.

The estimated municipal water demands under Scenario 2 (low) are provided below. Water demand is assumed to increase by 1.5% per year for other SaskWater customers (Dalmeny, Hepburn, Hague, and Intervalley Water) and the other parameters are consistent with those outlined for smaller urban P4G members.

Table 6. Estimated Municipal Demand, Scenario 2 (low).

Peak Daily Demand (ML/d)

Warman Martensville Osler Dalmeny Hepburn Hague Intervalley TOTAL Year Water (ML/d)

2016 4.78 4.83 0.61 0.67 0.34 0.46 1.11 12.8

2026 6.43 6.49 0.77 0.78 0.39 0.54 1.29 16.7

2036 8.64 8.72 0.96 0.90 0.46 0.62 1.50 21.8

2046 11.61 11.72 1.21 1.05 0.53 0.72 1.74 28.6

2056 15.60 15.76 1.51 1.21 0.62 0.84 2.01 37.6

APPENDIX C: WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS

INTRODUCTION

To assist in evaluating the future adequacy of wastewater capital facilities, flow rates are projected below for each community to 2056. The population projections detailed in Appendix A are used to provide high and low range estimates of wastewater flow rates. These flow rate estimates are used to evaluate requirements for treatment and storage in each community individually and for the regional system.

Information on municipal and regional wastewater systems was drawn from discussions with municipal staff and other sources, including: • Saskatoon North Regional Partners Planning for Growth Corridor (P4G, June 2011) • City of Martensville Future Growth Plan 2040 (City of Martensville, January 2016) • Technical Memo 01: Influent Wastewater Flow and Loading Projections, City of Saskatoon H.M. Weir Wastewater Treatment Plant LTCDEP (City of Saskatoon, April 2012) • Technical Memo 14: Alternate Flow Projections and Upgrade Schedule, City of Saskatoon H.M. Weir Wastewater Treatment Plant LTCDEP (City of Saskatoon, October 2012) • Environmental Protection Branch Memo 203: Guidelines for Sewage Works Design (Water Security Agency / Saskatchewan Ministry of the Environment, January 2013) • Environmental Protection Branch Memo 503: Sewage Works Design Standard (Water Security Agency, November 2012)

PARAMETERS

Two scenarios are assessed: • Scenario 1 (high). The first scenario, which represent the high-end estimate for wastewater flows in the P4G Region, uses projected population growth rates from existing growth plans for the urban municipalities, which is consistent with the Potable Water section. Per capita wastewater flow rates are drawn from the LTCDEP Technical Memo 01 and include considerations of infiltration and inflow. Peaking factors for the Saskatoon system are based on the design factors for the Saskatoon WWTP and the guidelines in EPB Memo 503.

Table 7. Inputs for Wastewater Flow Projections, Scenario 1 (high).

Saskatoon Warman Martensville Osler

Per capita flow rate (Lpcd) 395 300 300 300

Peaking factor (daily) 2.5 * * *

* Based on Harmon’s Peaking Factor, municipal population.

• Scenario 2 (low). This scenario, which represents the low-end estimate of wastewater flows in the P4G Region, is consistent with the lower population growth rates used in existing reports as described in the Potable Water section. Flow rates and peak flows for Saskatoon are based on the alternate assumptions used in LTCDEP Technical Memo 14, and flow rates for the smaller urban municipalities are assumed to match water usage rates. Infiltration and inflow are incorporated into per capita rates.

Table 8. Inputs for Wastewater Flow Projections, Scenario 2 (low).

Saskatoon Warman Martensville Osler

Per capita flow rate (Lpcd) 356 250 250 250

Peaking factor (daily) 2.4 * * *

* Based on Harmon’s Peaking Factor, municipal population.

Analysis of both scenarios integrated the following design standards: • In cases where peaking factors are not provided in documentation, peaking factors for the smaller urban municipalities are provided as the greater of 2.5 or Harmon’s Peaking Factor.

AVERAGE AND PEAK WASTEWATER FLOW PROJECTIONS

Projections of average and peak flows by municipality are provided in Table 9 for Scenario 1 (high) and in Table 10 for Scenario 2 (low).

Table 9. Wastewater Flow Projections, Scenario 1 (high).

Average Daily Flow Rate (ML/d)

Saskatoon Warman Martensville Osler Saskatoon + Warman + All Martensville Osler Municipalities

2016 99.3 2.6 2.8 0.4 102.1 3.0 105.1

2026 127.1 3.8 4.2 0.6 131.3 4.4 135.7

2036 162.7 5.7 6.2 0.9 168.9 6.5 175.4

2046 208.3 8.4 9.1 1.3 217.4 9.7 227.1

2056 266.6 12.4 13.5 1.9 280.1 14.3 294.5

Table 10. Wastewater Flow Projections, Scenario 2 (low).

Average Daily Flow Rate (ML/d)

Saskatoon Warman Martensville Osler Saskatoon + Warman + All Martensville Osler Municipalities

2016 87.3 2.1 2.2 0.3 89.6 2.4 91.9

2026 106.5 2.8 3.0 0.4 109.5 3.1 112.6

2036 129.8 3.7 4.0 0.5 133.8 4.2 138.0

2046 158.2 5.0 5.4 0.6 163.6 5.6 169.2

2056 192.8 6.7 7.3 0.8 200.1 7.5 207.6

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of Contents ...... i Introduction ...... 1 Plans, Bylaws, and Documents...... 2

P4G Strategic Business Plan ...... 2 P4G Planning District Agreement ...... 2 Regional Plan ...... 3 P4G Zoning Bylaw ...... 3 Concept Plans ...... 3 Regional Servicing Plans ...... 4 Future Studies, Plans, and Policies ...... 5 Governance Framework ...... 8

Structure ...... 8 P4G Referral Process ...... 10 P4G Regional Plan Amendment Process ...... 12 Standard Amendment Process ...... 12 Expedited Regional Plan Amendment Process ...... 14 Interim Regional Plan Changes ...... 16 Dispute Resolution Process ...... 18 Adjustment of Membership ...... 20 Addition of New Members ...... 20 Termination by a Member ...... 21 Future Transition to an Authority ...... 22 Reporting Processes...... 23

Regional Alignment Statements ...... 23 Annual Reports to Councils ...... 23 Funding Strategies ...... 25

Future Budget Items ...... 25 Cost Sharing ...... 25 External Funding ...... 26 Timeline and Workplan ...... 27

Regular Tasks ...... 27 Immediate Tasks (1–2 years) ...... 27 Short-Term Tasks (2–4 years) ...... 28

Mid-Term Tasks (4–8 Years) ...... 28 Long-Term Tasks (9+ Years) ...... 29

INTRODUCTION

This document provides an outline for the next steps in governance and implementation for the Saskatoon North Partnership for Growth (P4G) Regional Plan. Although the Plan and associated materials provide a comprehensive description of policies and processes to be enacted regionally, P4G municipal partners will need to develop a complete system to guide development and cooperation.

In this document, the implementation process and relevant content areas are outlined, including:

• The plans, bylaws, and other documents necessary to implement P4G as a coordinating regional body;

• A governance framework to be used for the Region, including the major participants and processes used to manage the Region;

• Future studies necessary to implement specific elements of the Plan, based on more detailed information and analysis;

• Reporting processes to provide transparency about Plan progress and alignment between the Regional Plan and municipal planning;

• Funding strategies to explore for future initiatives; and

• A general timeline and workplan for developing supporting materials and implementing the Regional Plan.

PLANS, BYLAWS, AND DOCUMENTS

Creating the framework for the P4G Region under the Planning and Development Act, 2007 (the Act) will require certain plans and documents to be completed and implemented, including:

• P4G Strategic Business Plan • P4G Planning District Agreement • P4G Regional Plan • P4G Zoning Bylaw • Concept Plans • Regional Servicing Plans

P4G STRATEGIC BUSINESS PLAN

To ensure that short-term goals of P4G are prioritized during business cycles, a detailed workplan should be created for the Region over a two-year period as guidance to all P4G program areas. The P4G Strategic Business Plan should provide:

• An overview of regional activities coordinated by the P4G and its members

• Initiatives that are ongoing or are to be undertaken by P4G during the planning period

• Project tables that include an overview of the goals, deliverables, expected outcomes, and high- level timelines for work to be undertaken during the P4G Strategic Business Plan period

• Budget summaries for projects and programs coordinated and supported by P4G

P4G PLANNING DISTRICT AGREEMENT

Under the Act, a Planning District Agreement will need to be created by the P4G members and approved by the province so that P4G is instituted as a recognized entity. This should be based on the current planning district agreement created for the Corman Park–Saskatoon Planning District, as well as the requirements for a “district planning agreement” under the Act. Considering these elements, the following content should be included in the Agreement:

• The boundaries of the final Plan area;

• Details regarding the P4G Planning Commission, including composition of the Commission, tenure, remuneration, alternate members, powers, and responsibilities;

• Details regarding the formation, membership, roles, and responsibilities of the Regional Oversight Committee (ROC), Planning and Administrative Committee (PAC) and other Committees, as necessary;

• Requirements for a P4G Regional Plan and Zoning Bylaw;

• A description of the P4G dispute resolution process;

• Processes for amending the Plan and/or Agreement; and

• Processes for incorporating new members and termination of participation by a municipality.

For the Agreement to come into force, it must be approved by the Minister of Government Relations (Section 98), who may issue an order to establish the P4G Region as a planning district (Section 99). This Agreement would replace both the existing Corman Park-Saskatoon Planning District Agreement and the P4G Terms of Reference.

REGIONAL PLAN

The Regional Plan shall fulfill the role of a “district plan” required under the Act. After the Plan has been approved in principle by the ROC, additional tasks will need to be completed to bring it into force:

• Municipalities will need to provide for individual reviews of the Plan as a bylaw, which would include a legal review and any necessary public engagement.

• If changes are required after municipal reviews are conducted, ROC shall review and approve a reconciled list of changes to the Plan, and submit a revised version to all Councils for approval.

• The final Plan must be approved by the Councils of all P4G members and the Minister to be enacted.

P4G ZONING BYLAW

Under the Act, municipalities must pass a zoning bylaw consistent with the Plan for the portion of the municipality included in the Plan area. Currently, there is a District Zoning Bylaw specifically for the jointly managed area of the RM, within the existing Corman Park-Saskatoon Planning District. This Zoning Bylaw is maintained by the RM. The existing District Zoning Bylaw would be repealed and replaced by a new P4G Zoning Bylaw that would apply to the Plan area. This Zoning Bylaw also must reflect the intent and policies of the P4G Regional Plan, and should adapt and transition as many of the policies and districts as possible to maintain continuity in land use and development regulation. The RM will continue to maintain their separate RM Zoning Bylaw which would continue to apply to the balance of the RM outside the area of the Plan.

CONCEPT PLANS

Refinement of the land use areas as defined on the Regional Land Use Map will be expected to occur at a broader scale with the development of Concept Plans. These area-specific documents, as defined under the Act and policies of the Regional Plan, will be expected to provide:

• proposed land uses;

• servicing strategies and proposed alignment and locations for infrastructure and facilities; • transportation systems; • natural and heritage resources; • development densities; and • sequencing of development.

Other detailed planning, such as Comprehensive Development Reviews, may also be used to refine land use areas at a smaller scale.

REGIONAL SERVICING PLANS

Based on the guidance provided by the Regional Servicing Strategy, P4G regional servicing plans are recommended to be developed to coordinate regional actions for key infrastructure systems. These plans should be supported by ongoing studies to define the components of these systems, potential alternatives, and costing implications.

The initial set of infrastructure plans recommended to be developed by P4G include:

• Regional Transportation Plan • Regional Wastewater Servicing Plan • Regional Potable Water Servicing Plan

Additionally, planning for regional stormwater infrastructure should be developed in partnership with the Opimihaw Creek Watershed Association (OCWA). This may involve cooperation on funding applications and initiatives to support the development of regional stormwater infrastructure.

FUTURE STUDIES, PLANS, AND POLICIES

Additional studies, plans, and policies will be needed to review key regional issues and provide supporting information for future planning efforts. This includes studies identified as specific policy items within the Regional Plan, as well as additional studies to support other expected regional plans and initiatives.

From the work conducted to date, this will include the studies listed below. These studies are listed in general order of priority, with the specific timing for each study provided in the Timeline and Workplan section:

• Green Network Refinement Study. As noted in the Regional Plan, the existing Green Network Study Area (GNSA) on the map is delineated based on existing data. Additional work is necessary to refine these areas and define precise boundaries using more complete and accurate information. This will involve the compilation of data regarding:

• Significant wetlands and riparian areas; • Significant ecological areas and landscape connections; • Important conveyance and storage areas for drainage; and • The Wanuskewin Heritage Park viewshed. It is preferred that a single regional Refinement Study address the entire GNSA. If multiple subregional studies are coordinated, a common methodology should be developed and used for all refinement studies.

After the Green Network Study Area is refined, the final delineated areas should be amended in the Regional Plan. Areas that are no longer included within the Green Network should be reclassified according to the surrounding land uses and their location within or outside of future urban areas.

• Inventory of Culverts and Drainage Infrastructure. During the development of this Plan and the Regional Servicing Strategy, regional hydrological and flood modelling was limited by the lack of information on culverts and other drainage infrastructure that could impact stormwater flows and flooding. An inventory of these structures should be coordinated by P4G and performed by the municipalities to support long-term efforts in stormwater infrastructure planning.

• Regional Potable Water Servicing Studies and Plan. In addition to the regional wastewater system, there is a need to provide information regarding the current potable water system and the feasibility of future regional coordination. Regional studies will need to be carried out to supplement the Regional Servicing Strategy with information on:

• The legal status and potential options for the City of Saskatoon and/or SaskWater to provide regional water delivery outside of City limits;

• Financial impacts for assuming control of the Saskatoon North Regional Water Pipeline; • Design options and costing for a Martensville-Saskatoon connection; • Design options and costing for redundancy in the regional potable water distribution system; and • Design options and costing for a second regional water treatment plant. This work should be coordinated with ongoing efforts by SaskWater and Saskatoon Water to plan for regional water supply and delivery. To facilitate this, P4G should work to coordinate a Regional Potable Water Servicing Plan which can clearly define the expected long-term roles of regional stakeholders in water treatment and delivery. In partnership with regional providers, this document should define how extensions of water servicing and allocations of capacity are managed, and outline how providers must consider the Plan in decision making.

• P4G Regional Commercial and Industrial Market Study. Future planning for retail commercial development, especially by the smaller urban municipalities and the RM along the Highways 11+ 12 corridors, must be informed by a detailed understanding about how much retail space the current and future market can support. This study will provide an understanding of how much new development can be supported, and how this development should be allocated across the Region.

• Regional Wastewater Servicing Studies and Plan. Providing ongoing support for the development of regional wastewater infrastructure will require additional information on the current system and the feasibility of potential regional extensions. Regional studies will need to be carried out to supplement the Regional Servicing Strategy with information on:

• The financial feasibility of options provided in the Regional Servicing Strategy; • Design options and costing for a Martensville-Saskatoon connection; • Design options and costing for an Osler-Warman-Saskatoon connection; • Siting options for a second wastewater treatment plant; and • Design options and costing for a second wastewater treatment plant and required regional pipeline connections. This work should be coordinated with existing efforts conducted by the urban municipalities regarding shared servicing. To achieve greater regional alignment between these efforts, P4G should work to develop a Regional Wastewater Servicing Plan that provides clear guidance regarding intended regional actions in developing a regional wastewater system. This Plan should be developed after studies are conducted to provide a clearer understanding of the costs and benefits of regional options, and provide a strong policy direction for future work by P4G and the municipalities.

• Regional Transportation Modelling and Plan. In 2016, the Ministry of Highways and Infrastructure (MHI) and the City of Saskatoon worked with P4G to develop the Saskatoon Regional Travel Demand Model (TDM) to support long-range transportation planning in the

Region. P4G should support the maintenance of this model and update future land-use projections with information from the Regional Plan.

Ongoing efforts by municipalities in long-term transportation investment should be coordinated through a Regional Transportation Plan developed by P4G. This Plan should be informed by the outputs from the TDM, and identify and prioritize joint projects between municipalities.

• Regional Wetlands Inventory and Policy. Although the Green Network Refinement Study is intended to provide a comprehensive assessment of the Green Network to inform the future management of these areas for conservation and drainage functions, there is a lack of compiled information about the type, location, and importance of wetlands across the Region. Providing an inventory for the Region will support efforts by municipalities and P4G to conserve and protect important wetlands in the short-term.

In the longer term, a Regional Wetlands Policy may be developed to support wetlands protection, conservation, and enhancement across the Region. This Policy would complement the policies for the Green Network Study Area, and detail provisions for managing wetlands across the Region; coordinating conservation, mitigation, and enhancement projects; and linking wetlands protection with flood management and control.

• Regional Natural and Heritage Resource Inventory. Although provincial government ministries can provide guidance as to the presence of critical natural, ecological, archaeological, cultural, and heritage resources, this information may not be as complete as necessary to guide future development decisions. A detailed compilation and survey of available information about regional natural and heritage resources across the Region can provide strong guidance regarding the impacts of these resources and necessary mitigation to future planning, development, and preservation/conservation efforts.

• Regional Natural Areas Strategy. Building upon the Inventory detailed above, a Natural Areas Strategy would work to maintain and enhance key natural features of the Region. This would involve coordination between P4G and the affiliated municipalities, and other public and private agencies regarding the identification, protection, and rehabilitation of important natural areas. Additionally, this Strategy would work to develop and maintain natural and naturalized corridors for species movement across the landscape to promote healthy wildlife populations.

GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK

The initial structure of governance for P4G centres on a planning district under the Act, with committees that provide advice on common planning and development issues to the five affiliated municipalities. This structure is intended to allow the municipalities to collaborate and coordinate action, while retaining their autonomy over municipal initiatives, and is intended to be an expansion of the existing Corman Park-Saskatoon Planning District

STRUCTURE

The overall governance of P4G will be coordinated by the following:

• Municipal Councils. The affiliated municipal Councils are the basis for the authority of the Region. As P4G is not granted approval authority or other municipal or corporate powers under the Act, the primary responsibility for implementing and enforcing the Regional Plan is vested with these Councils. An All Councils Meeting for all affiliated municipalities should be coordinated on a regular basis to present annual reports, reinforce ongoing support and oversight of the P4G, and receive draft P4G Budgets and Strategic Business Plans.

• P4G Regional Oversight Committee. A P4G Regional Oversight Committee (ROC) consisting of representatives from all Councils will serve as an ongoing steering committee for the P4G. This organization will provide advice to Councils, give direction and oversight for the implementation of the Plan, and coordinate the creation of plans, studies, and policies necessary to carry out the Plan.

• P4G Planning Commission. A 13-member P4G Planning Commission (P4GPC) will be formed as the primary review body for regional planning. Consisting of 2 representatives (one an elected representative) from each of the municipalities as well as three joint members, the P4GPC is tasked primarily with reviewing referred reports on development applications, plans, and other items to ensure conformity to the Regional Plan, and providing recommendations to Councils about their compliance with the Plan.

• P4G Planning and Administration Committee. The P4G Planning and Administration Committee (PAC) will serve as a technical committee to provide ongoing support for the implementation of the Regional Plan and other elements of the planning framework for P4G. The PAC will consist of administrative representatives from all municipalities, and will work with consultants, subcommittees, and municipal employees in preparing plans, policies, and reports. Additionally, PAC will provide administrative support in developing P4G Budgets, Strategic Business Plans, and regular reporting on the progress towards implementing the Regional Plan.

• Other advisory committees. Other committees may be formed on an as-needed basis by ROC and/or the P4GPC to conduct and support ongoing planning efforts under the Regional Plan.

• P4G Coordinator. A P4G Coordinator may be retained to coordinate the overall implementation and management of the Regional Plan, and provide ongoing support for the activities of ROC and P4GPC. The P4G Coordinator would also chair the PAC, and provide day-to-day management of ongoing P4G initiatives.

• Staff support. Additional staff resources to support ongoing activities of P4G will be seconded from municipalities or hired as necessary. This may include technical staff to support Commission reviews and planning staff to assist ROC with oversight and implementation of the Plan.

As the roles and responsibilities of P4G change to meet ongoing regional needs, this structure may change and expand to accommodate additional committees, staff, and affiliated organizations.

P4G REFERRAL PROCESS

Under the Regional Plan, specific plans and applications shall be referred to the P4GPC for a recommendation. Although the Plan recognizes the approval authority of individual municipalities in the development process, this recommendation shall be considered in the final decision by Council. Three different processes are envisioned for referral, based on the type of application and potential impacts:

Permitted uses have minimal regional and cross-boundary implications, if any, and can be approved directly by the local municipality using internal processes without the need for a referral. The provisions of the Regional Plan will still apply to the internal review of these applications.

Referrals to adjacent municipalities are required for:

• Sector Plans, Concept Plans and associated amendments for locations that are adjacent to a municipal boundary, on aspects that relate to the Regional Plan;

• applications to rezone, subdivide, or establish discretionary uses that:

• pose a significant impact on adjacent lands or growth areas, • encourage discontinuous growth, • place pressure on the adjacent municipality to expand or upgrade services and/or infrastructure, or • have significant local service and/or infrastructure demands; and

• other plans and policies as determined by the originating municipality.

Referrals to all P4G municipalities are required for applications to rezone, subdivide, or establish discretionary uses on lands if proposed uses would have significant regional implications for services and infrastructure, or other region-wide impacts that would affect all municipalities.

The flowchart on the following page provides the individual steps in each of these three referral processes.

Referral Process Flowchart Process Referral

P4G REGIONAL PLAN AMENDMENT PROCESS

Amendments to maps and text of the Regional Plan will be required for the following reasons:

• A periodic review of the Regional Plan will be necessary, which may require amendments to the Plan to ensure that it conforms to the Statements of Provincial Interest and other statutes, continues to reflect the principles and needs of the Region, and reflects growth planning by municipalities.

• Major amendments may be required from time to time to address changes in the circumstances of planning in the Region, including changes in the role of P4G in coordinating regional growth.

• Minor amendments may be put forward to adjust the map or text that is consistent with the principles of the Regional Plan.

Standard Amendment Process

The process for a Regional Plan amendment is provided in the flowchart on the following page. Note that for the purpose of this process, a recommendation by the Commission is contested if none of the representatives from a municipality are in favour of the recommendation.

Regional Plan Amendment Process Flowchart.

Expedited Regional Plan Amendment Process

For Agriculture areas in the Region that are not within intended future urban growth areas, there is the need for the RM to have greater flexibility for land use changes. In these situations, an expedited amendment process may be allowed, which can ensure the Principles and Strategic Directions of the Plan are being followed while reducing the time and steps necessary for changes in the Plan. Such an expedited process, permitted under section 102(16) of the Act, would allow one municipality to amend the Regional Plan without the need to receive approval from the Councils of all affiliated municipalities.

This process will be incorporated into the P4G District Planning Agreement, and will include the following requirements:

• The use is amended from the Agriculture category to the Country Residential or Rural Commercial/Industrial category;

• The development is not within a quarter section that is adjacent to an urban municipality or a future urban growth area, unless the adjacent urban municipality confirms the proposal is compatible with the location and timing of urban development;

• The amended use can be supported by available infrastructure and services, and shall not place pressure on urban municipalities to expand infrastructure or services to support the development;

• The amendment otherwise complies with the Principles, Strategic Directions, and policies of the Regional Plan, and any Concept Plans or other detailed planning applicable for the area; and

• The affiliated municipalities have no objections to an expedited amendment process during the referral process, based on the requirements of this section.

For expedited amendments from the Agriculture category to the Rural Commercial/Industrial category, the following additional requirements apply:

• Changes to Rural Commercial/Industrial land uses may only be expedited for areas of one quarter section (32.8 hectares, or 160 acres) or less;

• Proposed development of new rural commercial/industrial uses allowed by an expedited amendment process shall consider the regional impacts to the market;

• Lands identified for a change to Rural Commercial/Industrial should be clustered close to existing Rural Commercial/Industrial areas and intersections of major transportation routes to support nodal development; and

• Dispersed patterns of rural commercial and industrial development shall be discouraged.

The process for an expedited Regional Plan amendment process is provided in the flowchart on the following page. Note that an expedited amendment process may be shifted to a standard amendment process if a municipality presents objections to the application as part of the referral process.

Expedited Regional Plan Amendment Process Flowchart

Interim Regional Plan Changes

Between the endorsement of the Regional Plan by Regional Oversight Committee, and the final approval of the Plan by the Minister, there may be requirements to adjust the Plan to consider short-term needs. As this Plan should be flexible in responding to these issues, an interim process will be used to manage changes that comply with the established principles and strategic directions of the Plan. These changes will not affect the endorsement of the Plan by ROC.

The municipal Councils will approve the Regional Land Use Map as endorsed by ROC prior to the approval of the Regional Plan. A copy of the Regional Land Use Map will be filed with the Minister for information pending the finalization of the Regional Plan. Any change to the Regional Land Use Map prior to final approval of the Plan by the Minister will require approval by all P4G partner municipal Councils, and will be forwarded to the Minister for information.

The interim process for changes to the Regional Land Use Map will be endorsed by ROC as part of the endorsement of the Plan. Changes to the Plan as part of this interim process will be subject to the following requirements:

• Changes to the Land Use Map must be supported and submitted to P4G for consideration by an affiliated municipality;

• Changes to the Land Use Map should be supported either by new information not considered during the development of the Plan, or a change in the planning context that requires consideration in the Land Use Map;

• Changes to the Land Use Map must be supported with a rationale that is reviewed and confirmed by PAC;

• Changes to the Regional Land Use Map should be supported by a Concept Plan or other study;

• Changes to the Regional Land Use Map should not adjust the total amount of land in each land use category or provide a rationale acceptable to PAC and ROC to justify the change; and

• The proposed change otherwise complies with the principles and strategic directions of the Regional Plan.

The process for an interim Regional Plan amendment process is provided in the flowchart on the following page.

Interim Regional Plan Change Flowchart

DISPUTE RESOLUTION PROCESS

A strong dispute resolution process is necessary to fulfill requirements under the Act, and provide options for resolving differences over the administration and interpretation of the Regional Plan. A clear mechanism with a step-by-step process ensures that major and minor issues can be resolved with mutually acceptable outcomes.

This dispute resolution mechanism would allow for the voluntary management of disputes in ways that would allow for constructive dialogue. This would be a process followed by municipalities before an issue would be taken to the Saskatchewan Municipal Board.

Dispute Resolution Process Flowchart.

ADJUSTMENT OF MEMBERSHIP

The role of P4G is expected to evolve into the future, with changing roles and responsibilities expected as organizational capacity grows and regional needs are identified. One major change to the Region may come from the addition of new members to the P4G, or the withdrawal of existing members from the organization.

Addition of New Members

Through a written request submitted to ROC, a new municipality or First Nation may express their intent to join the P4G Planning District. The application for a jurisdiction to join P4G shall be accompanied by an outline of the rationale for requesting membership, including a description of areas of regional interest to the jurisdiction, current alignment with P4G plans and policies, and potential contributions to ongoing initiatives.

The steps to this process are as follows, which must be consistent with the requirements of the Act:

• Staff review. PAC shall review the application and provide a report outlining the impacts of incorporating a new member into the P4G. This report will be submitted to ROC and the Commission for review.

• Application review and recommendation. The ROC shall review the application and PAC report, and provide a recommendation to municipal Councils regarding whether the new member should be admitted.

• Approval by all Councils. The Councils of all affiliated municipalities must unanimously approve the application and submit their approvals to ROC. If any municipality does not provide approval, the application is denied. This decision may be appealed using the dispute resolution process, if necessary.

• Prepare changes to P4G plans and agreements. ROC shall review and prepare any needed changes to the P4G District Planning Agreement, Regional Plan, and any other documents to accommodate the new member.

• Approve changes to P4G plans and agreements. Needed amendments to the Regional Plan, P4G District Planning Agreement, and other documents must be approved by all municipal Councils as per the regular amendment process.

• Submit application and amendments to the Minister. The proposed changes to the Regional Plan and P4G District Planning Agreement shall be submitted to the Minister for approval and amendment of the order creating the P4G.

Termination by a Member

If a member of P4G decides to end its participation in the P4G Planning District, it may do this according to the process established in section 106 of the Act. This requires a request submitted to the Minister, which may result in an amendment to terminate the affiliation of the municipality, or a referral of the request to the Saskatchewan Municipal Board for decision.

If a municipality decides to end its affiliation with P4G, all assets and liabilities of the P4G shall be distributed in proportion with the cost-sharing formulas in use at the time by the P4G. The Regional Plan, P4G Zoning Bylaw, and other plans and policies should be amended as necessary to consider the revised membership.

FUTURE TRANSITION TO AN AUTHORITY

It is recommended that the P4G initially be established as a Planning District. However, while this would build upon the existing Corman Park-Saskatoon Planning District, future implementation may require a greater role for the P4G.

A transition may be made over time to an incorporated District Planning Authority or Regional Planning Authority under the Act, and such an Authority would have the following abilities beyond a Planning District headed by a Commission, including:

• direct approval authority for development under the Regional Plan;

• corporate status to allow the district to own or lease assets, and enter contracts; and

• the ability to provide public services to members and/or partners within the P4G District.

As the District expands and P4G becomes a key regional coordinating body, a transition to an Authority may be necessary to meet an expanded role in land use and infrastructure planning, service delivery, and financing and cost recovery.

The transition process to a P4G Authority may occur in the following cases:

• Regular review of the Regional Plan. During regular reviews of the Regional Plan, ROC shall review the need for a P4G Authority under the proposed amendments, and provide a recommendation to all Councils as to whether an Authority should be created.

• Review of the Planning and Development Act, 2007. When the Province conducts regular reviews of the Act, ROC shall evaluate relevant sections and provide a recommendation to Councils regarding whether an Authority should be created.

• Needs for service delivery. Management of regional infrastructure and services may require P4G to take ownership of regional facilities, and coordinate the provision of services and funding for those services. P4G may also be required to enter into contracts to provide for service delivery. When ROC has received a report indicating a need for regional servicing suited to management by P4G, it may provide a recommendation to Councils that P4G should own and/or manage these facilities through the creation of an Authority.

• Request from a Council. A Council or Councils may, at any time, request that P4G governance transition to an Authority model. This request and its rationale shall be reviewed by ROC, and a recommendation from ROC shall be provided to all Councils.

After receiving the recommendation of ROC, a Council may submit a proposed Regional Plan amendment to shift the governance of the P4G to an Authority model. This would follow the Plan amendment process as defined under the Governance Framework.

REPORTING PROCESSES

Ensuring that the implementation steps of the Plan are transparent and open to all members and the wider public is essential for long-term success of the Region. Integral to this process is maintaining a systematic approach to reporting key elements of implementation to the P4G, key rightsholders and stakeholders, and the public.

The P4G should coordinate regular engagement and public relations activities, both to provide regular updates on the implementation of the Regional Plan, and to manage outreach for individual projects and initiatives. These outreach efforts should be coordinated using methods appropriate to the nature of the engagement.

Regular reporting on the progress of implementing the Regional Plan should be provided through two main avenues: Regional Alignment Statements by municipalities, and Annual Reports to municipal Councils

REGIONAL ALIGNMENT STATEMENTS

Regional Alignment Statements, included in the Regional Plan under Policy IM-32, are intended to demonstrate how the plans and policies of individual municipalities align, link, and complement the objectives and policies in the Regional Plan. Overall, these Statements are not intended to provide an exhaustive analysis of municipal planning, but instead to demonstrate that the Regional Plan is being considered and supported on an ongoing basis by each member.

To support the Regional Plan, full Regional Alignment Statements should be included as a supplement to new and existing municipal Official Community Plans. These short, concise Statements should outline that the policies included in the municipal OCPs do not conflict with the Regional Plan. If a conflict is identified in the process of developing a Statement, the municipality shall work with P4G to determine the extent of the conflict and necessary actions to address the issue.

In addition to the full Statements, other plans and policy documents that would be impacted by the policies of the Regional Plan should provide brief Alignment Statements as part of their text. These short statements should indicate that that the plan or policies have been reviewed to confirm that they align with the policies of the Regional Plan.

ANNUAL REPORTS TO COUNCILS

To ensure there is regular reporting to the municipalities regarding the progress and achievements of P4G, an annual report should be provided to all Councils. This Report should include summary information from the Regional Alignment Statements, additional details about coordinating mid and long- term implementation of the Plan, and further information about ongoing projects and initiatives, as required. The focus of these reports should be the implications of Regional activities for the municipalities, and outcomes from Regional efforts that can be highlighted as benefits for each

community. The reports should be accompanied by the Annual P4G Budgets, with supporting information as necessary to link relevant sections of the Budget to specific Regional initiatives and programs.

FUNDING STRATEGIES

Cost sharing between the P4G municipalities will be an important consideration moving forward with implementation of the Regional Plan. As providing for equity and fairness between the communities is an important principle identified in the Plan, P4G has recognized that there is a need for municipalities and areas to “pay their own way” and manage a share of the costs of regional actions that is proportionate to the benefits they receive. Current cost-sharing formulas should be assessed and reviewed regularly to ensure that these principles are considered.

FUTURE BUDGET ITEMS

Budget items that P4G will likely need to consider in the future will include the following:

• General overhead and program costs. Overall yearly costs will be required for expected regular expenditures, including administrative functions, meeting coordination, communications, and outreach, as well as ongoing costs for staff and any continuing programs and initiatives.

• Project costs. Individual projects managed by P4G will require funding for staff resources, outside consultant fees, and associated costs. These expenses will be coordinated and managed to a fixed budget and expected timeline.

• Costs for providing services. If P4G transitions to become a service provider as a Planning Authority, the costs of providing specific services must be managed.

COST SHARING

Even in cases where services, facilities, and resources are contributed on an in-kind basis, these contributions must still be assessed to ensure that municipalities are supporting their fair share of the costs of P4G.

Although it is possible to develop a single cost-sharing formula or set of cost-sharing formulas to apportion these costs, it is likely that different situations will require different approaches to funding and support. Recognizing these complexities, P4G should maintain some level of flexibility with determining cost-sharing mechanisms for future use.

Discussions of cost-sharing strategies can be divided between two distinct types of calculations:

• Regional calculations, where overall costs and benefits are to be shared between some or all municipalities

• Sub-regional calculations, where the benefits of a project, initiative, or other action are enjoyed disproportionately throughout part of the Region

For each calculation, different components can be used to inform the final cost-sharing formula. Cost recovery would typically be managed through transfers directly from municipalities, although in certain

cases regional development levies and/or subdivision agreement fees could be coordinated between municipalities to provide consistent payments from the recipients of sub-regional benefits from infrastructure specified in sections 169 and 172 of the Act.

EXTERNAL FUNDING

In addition to contributions from the affiliated municipalities, P4G should also work to pursue additional funding from other sources to support ongoing projects. This will include:

• Provincial government funding;

• Federal government funding;

• Funding from non-profits and other organizations, such as the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM); and

• Cost-sharing opportunities from other organizations, including Crown corporations.

The biennial P4G Strategic Business Plan should include a list of budget priorities for soliciting external funding, which would include:

• The total project budget required;

• The amount and timing of expected contributions from affiliated municipalities;

• Potential sources of funding, including details on supporting agencies and funding programs;

• Application processes for pursuing funding, as applicable; and

• Responsibilities for coordinating efforts to solicit funding.

These efforts shall be coordinated by P4G, and collective efforts shall be made to pursue these funding sources. All Councils shall indicate that they are supportive of these efforts for joint applications for funding in their approval of the P4G Strategic Business Plans.

TIMELINE AND WORKPLAN

The following section provides an overview of the major tasks required to implement the Regional Plan, including the development of deliverables outlined in this document.

REGULAR TASKS

DELIVERABLE TASKS

P4G Strategic Business Plan and • Develop biennial P4G Strategic Business Plan (PAC) Budget • Develop annual P4G Budget (PAC) • Review and approve biennial P4G Strategic Business Plan (ROC, P4GPC, Councils) • Review and approve annual P4G Budget (ROC, P4GPC, Councils)

Reporting • Provide annual reports to municipal Councils, including the Budget and Strategic Business Plan (ROC)

P4G Regional Plan Review • Coordinate review of Regional Plan approximately every 5–8 years (PAC, ROC, P4GPC, Municipalities) • Develop required amendments to the Regional Plan (PAC, ROC, P4GPC, Municipalities) • Submit required amendments as per amendment process and receive approval (ROC, P4GPC, Municipalities)

IMMEDIATE TASKS (1–2 YEARS)

DELIVERABLE TASKS

P4G District Planning Agreement • Develop and review P4G District Planning Agreement (PAC) • Approve Agreement and submit to Councils for approval (ROC) • Submit approved Agreement to Minister for approval and Order (ROC) • Create P4G Planning Commission under the provisions of the Agreement (Councils)

P4G Regional Plan • Conduct a municipal review of the Regional Plan (Municipalities) • Reconcile requested changes by Councils, if necessary (ROC) • Submit the Plan and receive approval from municipal Councils (Councils) • Submit the Plan to the Minister for approval (P4G)

P4G Zoning Bylaw • Development of P4G Zoning Bylaw (P4G) • Review of P4G Zoning Bylaw (ROC) • Approval of P4G Zoning Bylaw (RM Council)

Concept Plans • Review and update draft Concept Plans (Municipalities, PAC, ROC, P4GPC) • Develop schedule for municipality-led Concept Plans (PAC, ROC) • Coordinate ongoing efforts to develop Concept Plans (Municipalities, ROC)

DELIVERABLE TASKS

Inventory of Culverts and Drainage • Coordinate inventory with regulators to compile required data on Infrastructure culverts and drainage infrastructure (PAC, ROC) • Receive final inventory and distribute as required to support drainage infrastructure planning (ROC)

Green Network Refinement Study • Coordinate data requirements for the Refinement Study: digital elevation, survey of drainage infrastructure, etc. (PAC, ROC, municipalities) • Coordinate Refinement Study to compile required data, conduct analyses, and provide recommendations for Green Network refinement (PAC, ROC) • Receive final report and distribute as required (ROC) • Develop required amendments to the Regional Plan (PAC, ROC) • Submit required amendments as per amendment process and receive approval (ROC)

SHORT-TERM TASKS (2–4 YEARS)

DELIVERABLE TASKS

Regional Alignment Statements • Develop and submit Regional Alignment Statements (municipalities)

Concept Plans • Continue efforts to develop Concept Plans (Municipalities, PAC, ROC, P4GPC)

Regional Commercial and Industrial • Coordinate development of the Regional Commercial and Industrial Market Study Market Study (PAC, ROC) • Receive final report and distribute as required (PAC, ROC) • Develop required amendments to the Regional Plan (PAC, ROC) • Submit required amendments as per amendment process and receive approval (ROC)

Regional Potable Water Servicing • Coordinate study to provide detailed options (if required) for regional Study delivery of potable water (PAC, ROC, Municipalities)

Regional Potable Water Servicing • Develop Regional Potable Water Servicing Plan (if required) and Plan submit to Councils for approval (PAC, ROC, P4GPC, Municipalities)

Regional Wastewater Servicing • Coordinate study to provide detailed options for regional wastewater Study facilities and infrastructure as a foundation for the Regional Wastewater Servicing Plan. (PAC, ROC, Municipalities)

MID-TERM TASKS (4–8 YEARS)

DELIVERABLE TASKS

Concept Plans • Continue efforts to develop Concept Plans (Municipalities, PAC, ROC, P4GPC)

Planning Committee Presentation Item 7 August 14, 2017 Reeve and Councillors Re: 2013 Call for Proposals – Multi-parcel Country Residential Development Update Background: At the 2016 Strategic Planning session R.M. Council discussed the previous 2013 Call for Proposals and a desire to re-prioritize proposals in 2017. At the March 20, 2017 Planning Committee meeting an update on the proposals was provided with Council asking for: • correspondence to be sent asking for an update within 90 days from a number of applicants; • some proposals to be reviewed after the P4G Regional Plan is approved; • removal of two proposal from the list; and • others be reconsidered after Council reviews its lot densities. Analysis: Updates were provided by almost all of the requested landowners. In some cases R.M. Administration has a recommendation for Council to consider next steps; in others Council should determine if they want to re-consider imposing any timelines or other next steps. A detailed summary has been appended to this report for additional information. Recommendation: “That Council receive the Multi-parcel Call for Proposals Update as information and determine if they want to: a) provide any time extensions; b) re-prioritize any proposals; c) remove any proposals from the list; d) provide any timelines on acceptance of any proposal, or e) provide other direction as necessary on any proposal.”

Enclosures: 2013 Call for Proposals Update 2013 Call for Proposals – Multi-parcel Country Residential Development Proposals Update

Request shown in GREEN Update shown in YELLOW

March 2017 Status – No Action Required

1. Subdivision and rezoning complete • Dennis Geransky – E ½ SW 16-39-5-W3 • Tuscan Ridge Estates – Greg Murdoch – SE 24-36-4-W3 • Roxanne & Leighton Enns – LSD 5; 30-38-5-W3

2. Subdivision and rezoning incomplete • Ken & Wendy Bernhard – LSD 9 & 10; SE 4-36-5-W3 o Recently updated their Plan of Proposed Subdivision at June 19, 2017 Council meeting; revised Servicing Agreement being prepared to finalize application • Whisper River Estates – North Prairie – NW 16-38-4-W3

3. Subdivision and rezoning under review (CDR submitted) • Ridgewood Estates – Dan Beaulac & Dewayne Pitka – SE 14-36-4-W3

March 2017 Status – Council Direction: Administration to send correspondence to applicant requesting an update within 90 days

• Simon & George Thiessen – Ptn. SE 35-38-4-W3, Ptn. SW 36-38-4-W3 & Ptn. NW 36-38-4-W3 o The draft P4G Regional Plan Land Use Map identifies this parcel as proposed Country Residential and Conservation & Drainage. o Developer was required to undertake additional heritage resource testing by the Heritage Branch with the Ministry of Parks, Culture & Sport; currently on hold by developers. o Correspondence sent; no response received by August 1, 2017.

• Maple Hedge Estates – James Randall – NE 4-38-6-W3 & SW 9-38-6-W3 o Council provided support to move onto CDR stage at the July 21, 2014 Council meeting subject to proceeding with only one quarter at a time and without the internal road way that was included on the original proposal. o The draft P4G Regional Plan Land Use Map identifies this parcel as proposed Country Residential. o Correspondence sent; meeting was held between the landowner’s consultant and R.M. Administration on August 1, 2017; response was received indicating that the landowner intends to work on preliminary design and portions of the CDR over the next 6 months.

• Warman Country River Estates – Ursula Pfeiffer-Strautman – NW & SW 23-38-4-W3

o Council provided support to move onto CDR stage at the July 14, 2014 Planning Committee meeting. 2013 Call for Proposals – Multi-parcel Country Residential Development Proposals Update

o The draft P4G Regional Plan Land Use Map identifies this parcel as proposed Country Residential. o Landowner has retained consultant o Correspondence sent; communications with landowner however no formal response received by August 1, 2017. R.M. Administration would recommend an extension for an update as the landowner has been responsive and interested in the past.

• Silver Sky – Gary & Linda Budd - 5,6,7,8 36-5-W3 o Council provided support to move onto the public consultation stage at the October 14, 2014 Planning Committee meeting. o Public consultation completed; Council provided support to move onto CDR stage at the March 9, 2015 Planning Committee meeting. o The draft P4G Regional Plan Land Use Map identifies this parcel as proposed Country Residential and Conservation & Drainage. o Landowner has retained consultant; a draft servicing investigation report has been completed as well as a Traffic Impact Assessment. o Correspondence sent; applicant provided updated servicing information on the project (attached). Short and long term servicing considerations were provided; R.M. Administration would recommend that Council consider engaging in discussions with the City of Saskatoon on longer term service provision to Silver Sky.

• Grasswood Landing – Dave Gillespie – NE & SE 23-35-5-W3 o Public consultation completed; Council provided support to move onto CDR stage at the October 14, 2014 Planning Committee meeting. o Land currently for sale o Correspondence sent; meeting was held between landowner and R.M. Administration on July 11, 2017. Landowner provided update (attached) that they want to proceed with ‘3 per 80 acre’ development in short term as market conditions do not warrant proceeding at this time on the project.

• Larry Grozell – NE 28-35-5-W3 • Council provided support to move onto CDR stage at the June 16, 2014 Council meeting including the provision of a community care facility. • Landowner has retained consultant • Correspondence sent; response received on July 31, 2017 that the proposed development name is Ravenswood and consists of acreage style development as well as new community care facilities (see attached). Components of the CDR are being worked on by the landowner and his consultant.

2013 Call for Proposals – Multi-parcel Country Residential Development Proposals Update

• Vista Ridge Estates – Elvin Nelson – SE 24-37-4-W3 o The Regional Plan consultant has recommended that this proposal be managed through the Regional Interim Development Strategy (IDS). o The draft P4G Regional Plan Land Use Map identifies this parcel as proposed Country Residential. o Council provided support to move onto CDR stage at the July 20, 2015 Council meeting o Landowner was advised of IDS; no application has been received however recent contact has been made with Planning Department. o Correspondence sent; a response was received indicating new contact information; o A subdivision and rezoning application has been submitted and is under review by R.M. Administration.

• Sunrise Park Estates – Herman Krebs – SE 21-35-5-W3 o RM Council put the application on hold to approach the Ministry of Highways & Infrastructure about potential future Perimeter Highway connections in the vicinity. After that time Council would indicate decision on support of the project. o The South Saskatoon Freeway General Location Study determined that a connection from Highway No. 11 to Highway No. 219, across the South Saskatchewan River is not required and there are no impacts to this property. o Council directed the landowners to be contacted in 2016 to determine their interest in proceeding with an application; no response was received. o Correspondence sent; a response was received confirming interest in proceeding and asking for details on next steps. o R.M. Administration would recommend that Council invite the applicant to give an updated presentation on their concept and/or invite them to perform public consultation as part of the second phase of the Call for Proposals as this step was not completed.

• Casa Rio South – Hooshmand Family – N ½ NW 15-35-5-W3 o Applicant performed public consultation as part of the second phase of the Call for Proposals. o RM Council put the application on hold to approach the Ministry of Highways & Infrastructure about potential future Perimeter Highway connections in the vicinity. After that time Council would indicate decision on support of the project. o The South Saskatoon Freeway General Location Study determined that a connection from Highway No. 11 to Highway No. 219, across the South Saskatchewan River is not required and there are no impacts to this property. o Council directed the landowners to be contacted to determine their interest in proceeding with an application; an initial response was received but nothing further o Correspondence sent; no response received by August 1, 2017. R.M. Administration would recommend an extension for an update as the landowner has been responsive and interested in the past. 2013 Call for Proposals – Multi-parcel Country Residential Development Proposals Update

March 2017 Status – Council Direction: Administration to send correspondence to applicant requesting a complete application within 90 days otherwise they face removal from the list

• Glen & Trent Reimer – NW 3-36-6-W3 o Application received incomplete. o PotashCorp lease area details must be confirmed. o The draft P4G Regional Plan Land Use Map identifies this parcel as proposed Agriculture. o A process to consider amendments to the Land Use Map will be determined in the final P4G Regional Plan. o Correspondence sent; initial correspondence with submission details provided to the applicant in May 2017 however complete application not received by August 1, 2017.

March 2017 Status – Council Direction: Administration to send correspondence to applicant indicating they are removed from list on the basis of land use conflicts unless they can show the conflicts have been mitigated

• River Crossing – KH Developments – 35-38-4-W3 o Parcel is within the setback distances from multiple Intensive Livestock Operations (ILO). o At the July 14, 2014 Planning Committee meeting a motion was made to reconsider the proposal ranking pending a meeting between RM Administration, the adjacent ILO operators and the developers. o RM Administration met with the developer and the concerned ILO operator on March 19, 2015 to discuss the project and issues. Details on co-existence agreements were provided to the parties to consider. o The ILO operator has not made any decisions on whether or not to sign a co-existence agreement. o The draft P4G Regional Plan Land Use Map identifies this parcel as proposed Agriculture. o A process to consider amendments to the Land Use Map will be determined in the final P4G Regional Plan. o Correspondence sent; a response was received (attached) confirming interest in proceeding and asking for Council to not remove them from the list until the review of the ILO/coexistence agreements policy discussions with Council have concluded as the ILO Operator wants to wait until that review is done as well.

March 2017 Status – Council Direction: Administration to send correspondence to applicant indicating they are removed from list on the basis of land use conflicts

• Brian & Debbie Gallagher – Parcel A; SE 20-35-5-W3 o Parcel is within the 457 m setback distance from a solid waste disposal facility. o Applicant recently submitted an application for single parcel subdivision. o Correspondence sent; removed from Call for Proposals 2013 Call for Proposals – Multi-parcel Country Residential Development Proposals Update

• Kent Rathwell – LSD 13 & 14; 36-38-7-W3 o RM Council indicated that significant drainage concerns exist on the property. o Correspondence sent; removed from Call for Proposals

March 2017 Status – Council Direction: Review after potential lot size/density changes

• Shamrock Estates – Sean Ryan (101041285 Saskatchewan Ltd.) – NW 12-36-6-W3 o Applicant was invited to perform public consultation and Council presentation (Phase 2 of Call for Proposals steps). o The draft P4G Regional Plan Land Use Map identifies this parcel as proposed Country Residential and Conservation & Drainage. o To date developer has not submitted consultation information or request for mail out.

March 2017 Status – Council Direction: Re-evaluate after decision on the nearby mineral resource extraction application is complete

• Colin & Brad Luciuk – SW 3-35-4-W3 o To help support the Statements of Provincial Interest RM Council wanted to explore the potential for mineral resource extraction in the vicinity first. o Application for a gravel extraction in the NE 3-35-4-W3 was considered in 2015 and is expected to be re-submitted in shortly. o Council should re-consider this proposal in the long term after a decision is made on the mineral resource application

March 2017 Status – Council Direction: Re-evaluate/review after P4G Regional Plan complete

• Kent Wiebe – NE 14-37-4-3 & SE 23-37-4-3 o The draft P4G Regional Plan Land Use Map identifies this parcel as proposed Country Residential and Conservation & Drainage. o Once the P4G Regional Plan is adopted Council should re-evaluate this proposal

• Eagle Heights Country Estates – Chris Cebryk – W ½ 11-37-4-W3 o Previously, the draft P4G Regional Plan Land Use Map identified this parcel as proposed Urban Residential Neighbourhood o The new draft P4G Regional Plan Land Use Map identifies this parcel as proposed Country Residential and Conservation & Drainage. o Once the P4G Regional Plan is adopted Council should re-evaluate this proposal • East View Estates – SW 5-39-4-W3 o The draft P4G Regional Plan Land Use Map identifies this parcel as proposed Agriculture due to the location of the Highway No. 11 interchange moving north to Highway No. 305 instead of Warman Ferry Road/Central Street. 2013 Call for Proposals – Multi-parcel Country Residential Development Proposals Update

o A process to consider amendments to the Land Use Map will be determined in the final P4G Regional Plan.

• Walmsley Lands – Jayson Walmsley – NE 3-37-4-W3 o The draft P4G Regional Plan Land Use Map identifies this parcel as proposed Urban Residential Neighbourhood; however the land uses in this area are currently being discussed at P4G. o If the P4G Regional Plan is approved this application would not be able to proceed

• Heney Klypak - Parcel P, N ½ SW 1-38-5-W3 o The draft P4G Regional Plan Land Use Map identifies this parcel as proposed Conservation & Drainage. The details on development in this category are currently being discussed, including potential provisions for residential development that are sensitive to drainage considerations. o If the P4G Regional Plan is approved this application would not be able to proceed

• Malcolm & Mary Jane Zimmer – LSD 11 & 12; NW 26-36-4-W3 o The draft P4G Regional Plan Land Use Map identifies this parcel as proposed Urban Residential Neighbourhood. o If the P4G Regional Plan is approved this application would not be able to proceed

• John & Rita Mathison – NE 17-38-5-W3 o The draft P4G Regional Plan Land Use Map identifies this parcel as proposed Urban Commercial/Industrial due to the proximity to Highway No. 12. o Interim rural commercial/industrial is being considered as part of the allowable uses however country residential would not be able to proceed.

• Clarence & Elsie Reimer – E ½ NW 12-38-5-W3 & W ½ NE 12-38-5-W3 o Within close proximity (< 1 mile) to a sewage lagoon. o The draft P4G Regional Plan Land Use Map identifies this parcel as proposed Urban Residential Neighbourhood. o If the P4G Regional Plan is approved this application would not be able to proceed

July 13, 2017

TO: Rebecca Row, MCIP, RPP

FROM: Jim Walters, MCIP, RPP

CC: Gary Budd, Chris Murphy, Tim Magus

RE: Silver Sky Servicing Strategy

Dear Rebecca,

Please accept the attached pages as an updated information package as it concerns the proposed Silver Sky development in the RM of Corman Park.

Since the original multiparcel country residential development application package was submitted to the RM of Corman Park Council in 2014, much work has been completed as it relates to Phase 1 of the development, specifically as it pertains to wastewater treatment, potable water, drainage and traffic.

The attached executive summary is meant as an information update for the RM of Corman Park Council and Administration. It is anticipated some further discussion will be needed between the Developers of Silver Sky following the submission of this report. It is further anticipated that once feedback has been received by RM Council and Administration, that it is the intent of the Developer to proceed with further public consultation and submission of a complete Comprehensive Development Review.

Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Jim Walters, RPP, MCIP ms:JW

G:\Files\13028\CDR\Servicing_Memo_SilverSky.doc

SILVER SKY SERVICING SUMMARY

The Developers of Silver Sky have been pursuing all necessary engineering studies that will ultimately be included in the Comprehensive Development Review document required by the RM of Corman Park to obtain a zoning designation change. The CDR, to date, has been focussed on Phase 1 of development, with consideration of the impacts of Phases 2 through to 6.

The following document provides a brief summary of the engineering studies that have been completed to date and the recommendations that accompany these studies.

1.1 DRAINAGE

Storm water management and drainage considerations were undertaken by Bullée Consulting in 2017. The existing site drains predominantly by overland flow, and a series of shallow ditches in the Furdale development. The management concept is to limit the release of storm water after development to the same flow rate that exists pre-development. The Development will utilize its extensive greenspaces to convey runoff in shallow ditches to smaller retention features in each Phase of the development to help attenuate peak runoff. These features will be connected to fill and then spill towards a larger retention feature that currently exists in the Northwest portion of the site.

Total pre-development runoff generated for the site is equal to 225,800 m3 for the 1:100 year return period, 24 hour duration storm event. This equates to an equivalent pre-development runoff depth of approximately 27.5 mm.

Runoff generated post-development for the 1:100 year return period, 24 hour duration storm event was calculated as 423,800 m3 and an excess runoff of 198,000 m3 was calculated. Therefore storage required by the RM’s stormwater guidelines (125% of the excess) calculates to 247,500 m3 to meet the current requirements at full build-out. Of the total volume noted, 42,400 m3 of storage is required to mitigate the storm water impacts in Phase 1. It was recommended by Bullée Consulting that this volume be reviewed once the final land use and impervious area has been confirmed during the detailed design phases of this project.

1.2 TRAFFIC

A full Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) was undertaken by MMM Group in the summer of 2016. In order to improve overall conditions, an analysis was conducted to determine what might be necessary for the study intersections in order to improve overall operations. It is noted that while the proposed development will impact the study area intersections to some extent, background growth associated with area-wide development will also have an impact on the study area. With a 15-year growth factor of 1.85 along Highway 219, the existing two-lane undivided roadway would need to be upgraded in order to accommodate this rapid background growth.

Both traffic control signals and geometric improvements at the following intersections were considered: Highway 219 and Cartwright Street; Highway 219 and Grasswood Road; and Highway 219 and Access 3 Road. It was concluded that traffic signals are required at all three of these intersections to improve sidestreet operations. A speed reduction along Highway 219 south of Cartwright Street was also recommended as traffic would come to a stop at the signalized intersections. To avoid motorist confusion, the 80 km/h posted speed should be maintained on Highway 219 and Grasswood Road, and the south leg of Highway 219 and Grasswood Road intersection is also recommended to be posted at 80 km/h, providing a transition zone for northbound traffic.

The following improvements were also recommended for Phase 1 of the Development: • At Highway 219 and Cartwright Street: o Left turn bays on east/west leg may be incorporated as storage length to avoid blocking the through and right-turn movements; o A northbound lane should be considered to address the potential for rear-end conflicts between through and turning movements, but no modification is required on the north leg. • At Highway 219 and Grasswood Road: o Preliminary reviews indicate that the existing number of lanes is sufficient to provide for the Phase 1 total forecast volumes. However, left-turn bays may be incorporated on the east-west leg to improve sidestreet movements. o The existing shared through/left-turn lane on the inside of the north-south leg may be converted to dedicated left turn lanes. The outside lane on the northbound departure would serve as an acceleration lane for the westbound right-turn movements. • At Cartwright and Access 1: o Dedicated westbound left-turn and eastbound right-turn bays are recommended to address the potential rear-end conflicts while allowing free-flow traffic for the through movements. • At Cartwright and Access 2: o A westbound left-turn bay may be incorporated to avoid blocking the westbound through movements. • At Highway 219 and Access 3: o It may be desirable to incorporate intersection treatments at this location in the form of northbound left-turn, southbound right-turn and eastbound right-turn bays to address the potential for rear-end conflict between the through and turning movements.

1.3 WASTEWATER

Wastewater generated within the Silver Sky development would require treatment to a level that meets or exceeds provincial regulations, prior to release to the environment. Two Options for wastewater disposal were evaluated by BCL: 1. Construction of a private Wastewater Treatment Facility; or, 2. Discharge to the City of Saskatoon collection system.

1.3.1 PRIVATE WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY

Several wastewater treatment processes were evaluated with an Optaer SAGR process being selected as the best suited to treat the waste to a level exceeding all provincial regulations. The system consists of a series of earthen cells which each provide different treatment conditions to treat the water. Water flows by gravity from one cell to the next, through the various process steps. The three main steps in the process are: • Partial mix aeration in two cells; • SAGR (submerged attached growth reactor for ammonia removal); • Clean water storage

The Wastewater Treatment system will be constructed in the North-west area of the proposed development, south of Cartwright Street, and immediately west of the power transmission right- of-way. This area provides a buffer of several hundred metres from residences, and is located on a lower portion of the site, facilitating drainage to the treatment site.

Once treated the clean water is held in storage pond(s) until it can be re-used for irrigation purposes. The development has significant lands available for irrigation sites, approximately 300 hectares in total. Two sites are considered for the first phases of development, which would service a population of approximately 3,500 people. Future phases of development will require additional lands be dedicated to irrigation, or agreements with other irrigation users in the vicinity be made.

1.3.2 DISCHARGE TO THE CITY OF SASKATOON

Bullée Consulting recommended, that as Silver Sky was one of six key projects identified within the P4G Interim Development Strategy, as well as long term regional planning, that Phase 1 be considered for connection to the City’s existing sanitary sewage collection system. The City has existing gravity sewer mains in close proximity to Phase 1 of the development.

While it is understood that the City may have limited capacity to convey sewage from this area to the WTP, several mitigating points were made that could make connection to the City infrastructure feasible: 1. Phase 1 of the development is limited to a contributing population that is of minor impact compared to the existing loading from the south portion of the City; 2. Attenuation of peak flows from Silver Sky will be a key design element of the sanitary sewer system, allowing flow from Silver Sky to occur during the City’s off-peak periods; 3. Phase 1 of Silver Sky proceeding is clearly advantageous to the City of Saskatoon as continuous development in this zone could reduce the need for the development of country residential in other greenfield locations and Phase 1 of Silver Sky includes provision for a desperately needed recreational facility that would be of direct benefit to the City of Saskatoon.

1.4 POTABLE WATER

The potable water system for Silver Sky will be supplied drinking water from the Dundurn Rural Water Utility (DRWU). DRWU purchases water from SaskWater (supplied by the City of Saskatoon) and operates a regional pipeline network with existing infrastructure adjacent to the Silver Sky site. A dedicated water supply main will be installed from the DRWU water main to Silver Sky’s Potable Water Reservoir and Pumphouse. This facility will store the treated water and provide the distribution pressure to the development. DRWU operates a low pressure system, which is designed to provide water at a lower, steady rate, and at a relatively low pressure. The reservoir and pumphouse will provide the storage to meet Silver Sky’s periods of peak demand, provide firefighting storage, and provide the pumping capacity to the distribution system. The distribution system will be a buried network of watermains supplying pressure to each dwelling. Fire hydrants will be installed at regular intervals to provide firefighting capability to the development.

330.00

PROPOSED SAGR SYSTEM SITE

IRRIGATION SITE No. 1 AREA = 261,620 2M

IRRIGATION SITE No. 2 AREA = 584,170 2M

FIGURE 5.4 - PROPOSED WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM

CLIENT: SILVER SKY PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW LOCATION R.M. of CORMAN PARK JOB No. | 200 - 302 WELLMAN LANE | SASKATOON, SK | S7T 0J1 | 310.01 | 1-306-477-2822 | www.bulleeconsulting.com |

DELIVERABLE TASKS

Regional Wastewater Servicing • Develop Regional Wastewater Servicing Plan and submit to Councils Plan for approval (PAC, ROC, P4GPC, Municipalities) • Coordinate required regional wastewater infrastructure investment (PAC, ROC)

Regional Transportation Demand • Provide updates to the Saskatoon Regional Transportation Demand Model + Plan Model to permit use by P4G (PAC, ROC, Municipalities)

LONG-TERM TASKS (9+ YEARS)

DELIVERABLE TASKS

Regional Wetlands Inventory • Coordinate study to develop Regional Wetlands Inventory (PAC, ROC) • Receive final report and distribute as required (PAC, ROC, Municipalities)

Regional Natural and Heritage • Coordinate study to develop Regional Natural and Heritage Resources Resources Inventory Inventory (PAC, ROC, Municipalities) • Receive final report and distribute as required (ROC)

Regional Wastewater Servicing • Coordinate feasibility study of options for second regional wastewater Study treatment plant (PAC, ROC, Municipalities)

Regional Transportation Demand • Develop Regional Transportation Plan and submit to Councils for Model + Plan approval (PAC, ROC, P4GPC, Councils) • Maintain Saskatoon Regional Transportation Demand Model (PAC, Municipalities)

July 16 2017

Rebecca Row Director of Planning and Development Rural Municipality of Corman Park

Re: Update on Grasswood Landing Residential Development

Dear Rebecca,

This is the update on our proposed development that you requested in your letter from May 1,2017.

After receiving approval in October 2014 to proceed to a CDR subdivision and rezoning stage, we spent the winter 2014-15 in the process of getting cost estimates for engineering, survey, water, power, gas and roads.

In mid July 2015 we also corresponded with you on the option to stage our development by subdividing out parcels under the 3 per 80 rule. This would allow us to finance some of the Multi parcel development costs. Your reply in August 2015 had a couple possible options but was based on some misinformation as to the actual current land titles. You mentioned in that letter “In short we would likely support two subdivisions of approx. 5 acres each however the application of building permits for the remnant parcels is complicated. We would also prefer to see consolidation of parcel X and Y to deal with the parcel layout issues. We would also prefer to consider the subdivisions and not additional development on the balance of the properties at this time.” You and I had a brief follow up meeting about this and discussed our concern about the large amount of development in the RM at that time. The economy was changing and there was an abundance of properties on the market.

We contacted ICR in the fall of 2015 and proposed they market the project to developers to come in and partner with us. We would provide the land and they would bring their multi parcel building knowledge. This would create a great opportunity for a builder. But after some miscommunication on ICR’s part, and their 2016-17 marketing efforts, there were no builders willing to take on this new development, even with the land provided. This indicates to us an oversupply of property in the area as well as a poor economy to invest in at this time.

This brings us up to date. We have just met with you to revisit the idea to subdivide from my 80 acre parcel Y+ Z using the 3 per 80 rules without affecting the future multi parcel development. We hope to use some equity we have in the land to allow funds to become available that will help bridge the cost on the larger development. We look forward to discussing this further.

We have invested a very large amount of time and money to reach this point. We have all agreed that this land is located in an area of the RM that will be totally developed sooner than later, and we appreciate the support of your office and the RM in a successful completion of this subdivision application.

Sincerely yours, Dave Gillespie Gillespie Developments Ltd. 35326 Range Road 3051 Corman Park Sk. S7T1C1

Mobile 386-235-9822

July 31, 2017

Rebecca Row RM of Corman Park 111 Pinehouse Drive Saskatoon, SK S7K 5W1

RE: RAVENSWOOD CDR (GROZELL DEVLOPMENT)

Dear: Rebecca,

This letter is intended to provide the RM of Corman Park Council with an update on the status of the Comprehensive Development Review (CDR) related to the application for subdivision and rezoning in the NE-28-35-5 W3M to Country Residential 1 (CR-1) District. It is the intent of this development to provide for new acreage development, continued operation of the existing care facility (on its own separate site), provision for four (4) additional sites for new community care facilities and a small agricultural holding (proposed Parcels F and G) intended to accommodate the existing farm. Note that the existing farm (on proposed Parcels F and G) serves the region and the existing group home as a place for children, from other group homes and from inner-city schools, to come and experience the outdoors and interact with animals.

Mr. Grozell has retained Crosby Hanna & Associates to work with him in the development of the CDR. To date, some of the studies and inquiries required for the development have been completed, or are underway. The Concept Plan for this development is attached for your information and is subject to refinement once we have had a chance to review it with yourself and Council.

The studies and referral that have been completed and received include: • Geotechnical Investigation by P. Machibroda Engineering Ltd.; • Heritage Conservation Branch Query – quarter section deemed not heritage sensitive; • Letter from the Prairie Spirit School Division indicating capacity at the South Corman Park School and Clavet School; • Letter from SaskTel indicating they have no objection to the proposed rezoning and subdivision application; and, • Water Supply Agreement between Mr. Grozell and the RM of Corman Park indicating that no connection fee will be applied in the event of additional development in the NE-28-35-5 W3M.

Mr. Grozell is in the process of choosing an engineer to complete the Traffic Impact Assessment and required municipal engineering analysis (e.g. drainage). Following the completion of this study, the CDR will be near completion and a Public Open House will be arranged.

Ravenswood CDR July 31, 2017 Page 2

It is anticipated that the final CDR will be submitted to the RM of Corman Park for review and consideration sometime in the fall of 2017.

Should you have any questions concerning this development, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Jim Walters, RPP MCIP ms:JW

TOTAL AREA Total Development Area: 146.36ac Existing Care Home: 2.72ac Care Home A,B,C,D: 9.67ac Agriculture F,G: 15.52ac Residential Lot Area: 114.44ac Residential Lots: 62 Road Length: 2174.45m Municipal Reserve: 0ac

53 5554 56 57 58 59 52 PHASE 1 AREA 60 Phase 1 Development Area: 75.98ac G Existing Care Home: 2.72ac Care Home A,B,C,D: 9.67ac 62 Residential Lot Area: 66.15ac 51 Residential Lots: 38 61 Road Length: 1297.79m 48 47 Municipal Reserve: 0ac

46 42 PHASE 2 AREA Phase 2 Development Area: 70.38ac 50 Agriculture F,G:15.52ac 49 45 41 Residential Lot Area: 48.29ac 39 Residential Lots: 24 F E Road Length: 876.66m 40 Municipal Reserve: 0ac 44 37

EXISTING 43 CARE A 38 HOME PHASE 1 2.72ac TOTAL DEVELOPMENT 28 29 33 AREA B 27 30 34 C 35 32 D 36 31 26

25 24 8 7 23 6 5 4 23 1

RAVENSWOOD GROZELL DEVELOPMENT 19 20 21 22 9 10 11

18 12 EXISTING FARM CONCEPT 17 16 15 14 13

0 100 200 Meters BG WH

1:2000 2017/07/31

16045 PL-1

Planning Committee Presentation Item 8 August 14, 2017 Reeve and Councillors Re: Drainage Study Terms of Reference Background: Council will recall providing direction at its February 27, 2017 meeting that the three drainage studies, consisting of the Highway No. 11/12 corridor/North Corman Industrial area; BizHub/Yellowhead/Korpan Industrial area and East Floral Industrial area be prioritized to be completed in 2017 under one Request for Proposal (RFP). Since the budget was passed in the spring, R.M. Administration has been working with the Water Security Agency (WSA), City of Saskatoon and Saskatoon North Partnership for Growth (P4G) representatives on the terms of reference for the RFP to ensure it will be beneficial for the R.M. and our stakeholders in the future. Funding with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) through the “Climate Change Plans & Studies Grants” program has also been explored; FCM has confirmed that the project may be eligible to receive funding through the feasibility study tract. Through this program, funding for up to 80% of eligible costs is available. R.M. Administration is in the process of applying for this funding and have acknowledged this in the RFP. Administration has drafted portions of the RFP so Council can understand the intent of the study. Some portions have been shaded in grey as they are still being reviewed by the WSA. The RFP is intended to be released by the end of August with a recommendation to be brought back in the coming months for Council to award the contract and enter into a consulting services agreement. Analysis: The intent of the drainage study is to identify existing drainage issues and catchment areas, assess the impact of future development on existing water bodies, recommend drainage upgrades and provide policies for future development. The study will be used to inform future studies or drainage works by the R.M. or private developers. For example the study might confirm the location of needed culverts and the sizes needed to withstand flooding. Another outcome of the study would be to identify appropriate development regulations or considerations for drainage such as the appropriate storm event to use in the site design. Recommendation: “That Council provide direction to R.M. Administration to finalize the Request for Proposals on the R.M. Drainage Study and bring back a recommendation on a preferred consultant once an evaluation of the received submissions has been completed.” R.M. of Corman Park Drainage Study Background The Rural Municipality (R.M.) of Corman Park is the most densely populated R.M. in Saskatchewan; its location surrounding the fast growing cities of Saskatoon, Warman and Martensville makes it the ideal location for the varied land uses that are established in Corman Park. However, drainage and overland flooding has been a significant issue in the R.M. due to changes in precipitation and significant growth pressures in the region. Given that the intensity and frequency of flooding is expected to change due to climate change, natural and sustainable solutions are one option for adaptation to these shifts. To address these challenges, the R.M. has identified three areas in Corman Park, designated for current and future industrial development, to provide a comprehensive evaluation of drainage and stormwater. The three industrial areas that will be studied, and included in Attachment ‘A’, are: • Highway No. 11 and No. 12 corridor/North Corman Industrial area; • BizHub/Yellowhead Industrial area along Highway No. 16 West; and • East Floral Industrial area along Highway No. 16 East and Floral Road (Twp. Rd. 360). Portions of the study areas have low lying areas that naturally retain water; with outlets provided to move runoff to other large swales, creeks or rivers in the region. During wet years, localized flooding was experienced through the study areas; municipal, provincial and federal funding have all been utilized to restore damaged infrastructure or yardsites in these areas. As part of the subdivision, rezoning and development permit application process in Corman Park, applicants are required to submit drainage and stormwater management information and plans for review and approval. Oftentimes the regulatory process is delayed to lack of drainage and stormwater management information coupled with on the ground issues related to excess water in the region. The current drainage and stormwater management data and mapping available to the R.M. were developed by the provincial Water Security Agency (WSA) on a XXX model completed in . However, this information does not provide adequate information on the overall drainage patterns, catchment areas or the impact of development on downstream properties. This has an effect on the approval processes and timelines for industrial subdivision, rezoning and development applications in Corman Park.

Purpose The R.M. wishes to engage a consultant to: • understand the overall drainage patterns and catchment areas; • identify existing drainage issues and complete a summary list of the areas that are identified as having specific stormwater flood risks; • assess the impact of future development on downstream properties and/or water bodies; • obtain recommendations on drainage upgrades or improvements; and • provide draft policy considerations and engineering standards to provide clear guidance to land developers regarding stormwater management for future development. The intent of the drainage study will be to inform future development proposals and engineered drainage plans within the study areas. The study areas, as provided in Attachment ‘A’, will provide the basis for the drainage study moving forward, with the understanding that the R.M. remains flexible in adjusting the study area, where and when it may be appropriate. It is acknowledged that as the drainage study is developed additional strategic objectives or priorities may be identified to be addressed, which may lead to scope and/or budget changes, subject to the approval of the R.M.

Specific Challenges and Motivating Factors R.M. of Corman Park Zoning Bylaw The R.M. Zoning Bylaw section 3.13.15 states: “Where a proposed development alters site drainage potentially affecting adjacent or downstream properties, the applicant shall be required to submit an engineered design for the proposed drainage works incorporating sufficient capacity to accommodate surface water runoff for a 1:100 year storm event with no incremental increase in offsite flows in excess of what would have been generated from the property prior to the new development.” The development standard for stormwater management in Corman Park is a 1:100 year storm event and no incremental increase in offsite flows is allowed in excess of what would have been generated from the property prior to the new development. The R.M. would like to confirm that this design standard is sufficient to guide development in the study areas or if additional policy guidance should be provided. Another issue is related to the lack of current data available for consultants to assess the impact of drainage and stormwater management on the parcel and surrounding lands. As previously noted, drainage and overland flooding has been a significant concern due to increased precipitation, reoccurring wet years and significant growth in the region. Having an assessment of drainage patterns that utilizes updated data will be beneficial to guide development standards and regulations in the region. For example, in some situations there is no outlet for the water on or near the site and past practice has been to have applicant’s oversize the stormwater management facilities by 25% (over the above policy) to provide for an additional level of safety. There is no formal policy in place to guide this request nor is there known support to show that it provides an adequate safety factor for development. The obvious challenge is that new development must manage the stormwater they generate in a manner that does not adversely impact other landowners. This is a particular challenge with extreme rain events but also for longer periods of extended significant precipitation (rain and snow). Developers require direction in the form of large scale drainage information as well as clear engineering standards to meet the requirements of the R.M. and provincial agencies. Further assistance may be encouraged in the form of policy guidance for Low Impact Development (LID) for on-source water quality and quantity control. Water Security Agency (WSA) The Water Security Agency (WSA) is the provincial agency for managing water resources in the province. The R.M. refers applications to the WSA for comments during the development process while the provincial Ministry of Government Relations refers applications to the WSA for comment during the subdivision process with the R.M. copied on the referral responses. With increases in development pressures coupled with lack of drainage information/changes in provincial regulations in recent years, the R.M. and WSA has had difficulty managing the development and placement of suitable stormwater management facilities and understanding the impact of development on downstream properties. Saskatoon North Partnership for Growth (P4G) Regional Plan The P4G is a collaborative between the R.M., the regional municipalities of Saskatoon, Warman, Martensville and Osler. The five municipalities have worked together since 2014 to develop a draft Regional Plan to guide land use, development and servicing in the region to a population of 1 million people. As noted, drainage and overland flooding has been a significant issue in our region for some time and to reflect this, the P4G have included a “Green Network Study Area” (Green Network) as part of the draft Regional Plan policies and land use map. Areas identified as part of the Green Network include interconnected wetlands, swales, natural areas, the South Saskatchewan River and other areas providing stormwater storage and conveyance and recharge of groundwater supplies. The intent of the Green Network, in part, is to address regional stormwater issues. Portions of the study areas are included in the Green Network established by P4G Regional Plan land use map. Draft policies on development in the Green Network as well as general drainage and stormwater policies are provided in the Regional Plan. The policies generally encourage the use of stormwater as a resource to improve environmental performance, support municipal improvements in stormwater management to minimize local flooding issues and promote innovative solutions to stormwater management that integrate cost-effective natural and engineering solutions to achieve multiple objectives As the development of the Green Network in the Regional Plan was conducted with only available data, further refinement of this area is needed by P4G in the future. This refinement would include consideration of more detailed boundaries for the Green Network as well as appropriate uses for the Green Network that would retain the use of some of the lands in managing stormwater and drainage in natural ways. The drainage study completed by Corman Park could provide for refinement of the Green Network in the study areas or be used in the future by P4G during future studies. Opimihaw Creek Watershed Association (OCWA) The Opimihaw Creek Watershed Association (OCWA) was formed in 2012 with representatives from the R.M. and surrounding communities of Warman, Dalmeny, Osler and Martensville and provided with provincial funding to develop drainage plans in the broader region to the north. The OCWA had conducted a series of studies to examine options for reducing flood damage that present an engineering solution to drainage issues through three reports, with the first and second detailing the general design and cost for regional drainage, and the third providing more detailed engineering designs for a project known as the Osler drain. Due to the costs involved with the specific infrastructure projects the OCWA did not proceed with the completing the works however the data and recommendations provided in the studies will be made available to the successful consultant through a data sharing agreement.

Supporting Documentation & Available Data A variety of studies or supporting documentation have recently been completed or are currently underway which will need to be coordinated with the development of the study, including, but not limited to: • R.M. of Corman Park Official Community Plan, Zoning Bylaw and future growth plans; • Corman Park-Saskatoon Planning District Official Community Plan, Zoning Bylaw and future growth plans; • Draft Saskatoon North Partnership for Growth (P4G) Regional Plan, Servicing Strategy, land use map and policies; • Opimihaw Creek Watershed Association (OCWA) studies; • Infrastructure data (e.g. bridges/culverts, outfalls, stormwater system connectivity); • LiDAR data flown in XXX is available for the portions of the project area, see Attachment ‘B’ for the footprint; • WSA can make available two existing models for this area: • Calibration data is available from WSA: • SPOT 150 cm satellite imagery from XXX during flood conditions; and • Numerous other reports and studies that will be provided to the successful consultant. The consultant must also liaise with other levels of government, regional agencies and service providers as a means of acquiring the necessary baseline information and supporting studies and documentation for the creation of data set and recommendations.

Scope of Work/Deliverables The consultant is required to provide the following deliverables: • Confirmation of the study areas and review of previous hydraulic and drainage mapping reports to identify data gaps (if any) to complete the modelling; • Delineate the large scale catchment areas and create hydraulic models to establish pre- development flow characteristics for 1:100 year storms and for long term precipitation cycles; • Identify and delineate any 1:500 flood way and flood fringe areas identified by the Water Security Agency and develop GIS based flood maps as required; • A complete summary list of the areas that are identified as having specific stormwater flood risks; • Assess the impact of future development on downstream properties and/or water bodies; • If applicable, identify any recommendations for mitigation measures on drainage upgrades or improvements to minimize stormwater impacts; and • GIS layers of the complete catchment areas, cross sections, flood boundary, and flood fringe boundary; • The final version of any models and any files required to run the model; • A complete set of draft engineering design standards and/or policies that can be adopted by the R.M. to provide clear guidance to land developers regarding stormwater management; • Milestone progress reports to the R.M. project manager included with the project invoices; • Four (4) hard copies of the draft report including key information of the study, the mapping methodology, GIS maps, and mitigation measures on or before the benchmark date; • Following approval of the draft report by the Steering Committee, twelve (12) hard copies of the final report in full colour are required to be submitted; and • In addition, all documents pertaining to the study must be reviewed by a professional editor before submission, and all documents must be provided in electronic format. One entire version of the document must be submitted in PDF format, the textual portion of the document needs to be submitted separately in Microsoft Word and all drawings are to be submitted in AutoCAD format on a CD or other portable device.

Budget Allocation The total project budget for the study is $120,000 excluding GST. Please include a project budget breakdown for the various project phases including all costs and expenses (travel, lodging, etc.) associated with completing the project. Cost will be evaluated out of a total of 10 points, based on the following formula: 10 – [10 x (This proposal’s guaranteed maximum cost – Lowest guaranteed maximum cost)/$120,000] The R.M. is exploring FCM Climate Innovation Program funding options. Consideration will be given to proposals which consider the requirements of the FCM Climate Innovation Program requirements.

Attachment ‘A’ – Study Areas