Edmonton (Alta.) - 1996-1999 - DP1_Towards a new land use bylaw_a preliminary review (1996-10)

SD UBRARY

127044

HU 111 1111 111

1266

Towards a new and use by aw Edmonton. Planning — •

Directions for a

New Zoning Bylaw Planning and Dev*lo.prnenit

Li3RARY

The City of Edmonton

TOWARDS A NEW LAND USE II

BylAw

• iw ii

A PRELLMARY REVIEW BACKGROUND TO DISCUSSION PAPER #1

Contains: Minutes From the Idea Exchange Sessions Summary of Zoning Techniques

"r"cnton elino 313.1a .E3 E373 19961999

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Piannirg Services Branch

October 1996

Table of Contents I

The Preliminary Review Process

1

II

Need/Requirement to Review the Land Use Bylaw a) New MGA b) Planning Process Round Table c) Political/Economic Realities d) 15 Years of Change

2 2 2 3 3

In Fundamentals of Land Use/Zoning Control a) Planning Objectives b) Uses c) Development Regulations

4 4 4 5

IV

Summary of Zoning Methods a) Alternative Zoning Methods b) Assessment of Zoning Alternatives

5 5 9

V

Edmonton's Land Use Bylaw a) Organization of Edmonton's Land Use Bylaw (5996) b) Commentary to Guide Discussion c) Idea Exchange d) Commentary on LUB Components

Appendix 1 - Minutes from the Idea Exchange Sessions Appendix 2- Summary of Zoning Techniques

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw - A Preliminary Review

10 10 10 11 11

I

The Preliminary Review Process

The purpose of this preliminary review is to identify and investigate new and improved ways of regulating land use in Edmonton. The review will be conducted in three phases: Phase I Phase II Phase III

Information Gathering Analysis Options

Phase I has been completed. A literature search was conducted to collect broad background information on several types of zoning techniques and to document how zoning is applied in other North American cities. A summary of this research appears in Appendix 2 and is referred to in Section IV. This report represents the results of Phases I and II. It includes a description of Edmonton's existing zoning system and provides a framework for gathering further information and feedback. Phase ll reflects on the strengths and weaknesses of Edmonton's Land Use Bylaw (LUB) in light of changing political and economic realities and the requirements of the new Municipal Government Act (MGA). Idea exchange sessions with Planning and Development Department staff provided useful feedback and insights into Edmonton's current LUB. The sessions also addressed philosophical questions regarding the content and form of a new LUB and ways in which innovative zoning techniques could be applied in the Edmonton context. The idea exchange sessions began with a review of sections I through IV of this report.

Discussion was then encouraged, generally following the components of the LUB as outlined in Section V. Appendix 1 outlines the information and feedback acquired from the group sessions.

In Phase III the results of the literature review and analysis phase will be evaluated.

Several options will be prepared suggesting a philosophical approach to land use control and ways to proceed with a more detailed review of the LUB. The next stage of the LUB Review will include discussions with stakeholders, including community organizations, the development industry, institutional interests, special interest groups, administrative interests, funding agencies and political interests. The research material presented in this preliminary review, and the options which result from the analysis, will provide a framework for these future discussions.

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw - A Preliminary Review

1

II

Need/Requirement to Review the Land Use Bylaw

Presently, several new initiatives and emerging trends are occurring concurrently they all are or will have a profound impact on the practice of land use planning in the City of Edmonton. Due to this environment of wide scale change, and the fact that the Land Use Bylaw (LUB) is now 15 years old, it is clear that this is an opportune time to conduct a review of the LUB, not only to make those amendments that are statutorily required, but also to bring it in step with current and anticipated economic, social and political realities and demands. a) New MGA In May 1995, the Planning Act was repealed and replaced with the Municipal Government Act (MGA). Although the new MGA does not require a wholesale review or the development of a new Land Use Bylaw (LUB), it does at the minimum require that several amendments be made to the LUB before September 1, 1998.

The required changes to the LUB are, for the most part, minor, however, some are significant, for example: revising the Development Officer's powers to include the authority to issue development permits for minor variances for sites that contain non-conforming structures. b) Planning Process Round Table The Planning Process Round Table identified several problems with the LUB, and put forward a number of recommendations to address them. For example: -

Earlier notification of development permit applications (i.e. receive notice before the Development Officer has issued a decision, thus allowing the public greater opportunity to provide input into the development process and the ability to influence decision makers).

- Simplification of the LUB regulations (plain-speak) - Increase flexibility in zoning regulations Improve urban design regulations

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw - A Preliminary Review

2

c)

Political/Economic Realities In recent years there has been a change in what is demanded and expected of government services due to an evolution in the City's political and economic environment. Some of these changes are:

-

Demands for more open and accessible political processes due to increasing public mistrust of government and bureaucracy Stagnant local economy Shrinking financial and staff resources Demand for government services to become more efficient/flexible/faster, and to adopt an 'open for business'!' quality service' philosophy New City Council, with an apparent increase in emphasis on local economic development.

d) 15 Years of Change

The current LUB, Bylaw 5996, was adopted by City Council on July 3, 1980.

As mentioned previously, the past 15 years has been a time of rapid and widespread change in the City of Edmonton. New demands have continually been placed on the LUB to accommodate new land uses (e.g. private alcohol sales), and emerging economic trends (e.g. home based businesses), and recently to expand its scope to regulate issues of morality (e.g. adult minitheatres).

Over the past 15 years, the LUB text has been amended 162 times, suggesting that it is becoming a patchwork document of adhoc amendments. It is an opportune time to review these amendments and to be proactive in anticipating and addressing future economic, social and political land use issues.

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw - A Preliminary Review

3

III Fundamentals of Land Use/Zoning Control A Land Use Bylaw, or Zoning Bylaw, regulates the use of land and sets basic standards for development. It is a key tool for implementing a municipality's land use and development policies as expressed in a general plan or other statutory and non-statutory plans and studies.

The practice of zoning as we now know it began in North America in the 1920s, largely to deal with the havoc created by rapid urbanization. During this period, most North American cities adopted zoning bylaws in order to segregate land uses, reduce crowding and fire ha7nrds and limit the height and bulk of buildings. By identifying in advance the uses considered suitable for a particular property, the introduction of zoning eliminated the need for individual land owners to take court action under the common law of nuisance. We now refer to this form of zoning as Conventional or Traditional Zoning. a) Planning Objectives Traditionally, land use regulations have been developed to achieve a range of objectives: separation of uses; the protection of property values; promotion of health and safety standards; the prevention of crowding or congestion; the protection of the natural environment; the development of aesthetically pleasing buildings; and the safeguarding of privacy.

To achieve these aims, controls have been developed to regulate both "use" and the way that uses should be developed, through "development standards". Uses and development standards come together to defme specific Land Use Districts. b) Uses Uses most often fall into broad categories such as residential, commercial, industrial and civic or institutional. To reflect more detail, use is often expanded to consider: physical form or type of building; intensity of development; different economic activities; location; ownership; occupancy; environmental impact; and uses of the land itself (e.g. outdoor storage or excavation of land).

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw - A Preliminary Review

4

c) Development Regulations Development regulations indicate how a use can be developed, usually by specifying the size or intensity of a particular use in a particular location.

Regulations, or standards, are often expressed as minimums or maximums (e.g. a requirement for a minimum 6 m front yard in the RF1 Single Detached Residential District.) These standards are intended to be objective and easily measured.

IV Summary of Zoning Methods Generally, Conventional Zoning has remained the dominant land use control mechanism in North America. As noted previously, its introduction brought a degree of certainty into land use and development; having the desired effect of reducing nuisance and protecting people's property values. However, about thirty years after its introduction, it became clear that Conventional Zoning was not a panacea for land use control. Increasingly, Conventional Zoning came under criticism for resulting, and some would say promoting, sterile neighbourhoods, an over-segregation of land uses and social classes and discouraging innovative forms and patterns of development. In response to these criticisms, a multitude of alternative zoning methods have been devised and implemented by a number of municipalities in the United States to address the perceived shortcomings of Conventional Zoning. a) Alternative Zoning Methods This section draws on the literature review conducted in Phase I. It provides a summary review of several alternative zoning methods practised by other North American municipalities, and identifies the methods employed by Edmonton's Land Use Bylaw. It is important to note that in most cases the municipalities that have implemented these alternative zoning techniques use them as a component of a greater, diverse land use control system. (For a more detailed review of the following zoning methods, see Appendix 2 of this document).

Contextual Zoning - Zoning designations are based on an evaluation of, and protection of, neighbourhood historical and architectural characteristics.

Requires neighbourhood consensus to be effectively applied.

Contextual Zoning has been utilized by Edmonton's LUB through the DC1 District, which is intended to preserve areas of unique character or special environmental concern and areas of special historic or cultural interest. For example, the DCI District was utilized in a sub-area of Oliver to encourage the retention of single detached residences by permitting their conversion to small scale commercial uses. More recently, contextual style zoning has been Towards a New Land Use Bylaw - A Preliminary Review

5

implemented via overlay schedules: the Belgravia Overlay Schedule for Single Detached Residential Development and the Overlay Schedule for Low Density Redevelopment, both of which are intended to ensure the compatibility of infill housing with adjacent development.

Conventional Zoning - Uses are segregated into different zones with imposed site and building standards in order to minimize nuisance. Its application is often criticised for being too rigid and simplistic, resulting in 'cookie cutter' style developments.

Conventional Zoning is the foundation of Edmonton's LUB, which is comprised of about 32 zones characterized by permitted uses, discretionary uses and standard development regulations for those uses.

Direct Control Zoning - The use of a property and the form of development that may occur on it are determined through negotiation. Can result in lengthy negotiations and inconsistencies due to greater use of discretion.

Edmonton's LUB implements Direct Control Zoning through five Districts: DC1 - Direct Development Control District DC2 - Comprehensively Planned Development Control DC3 - Temporary Holding District DC4 - Special Public Service District DC5 - Site Specffic Development Control District.

Direct Control Zoning is primarily provided through the DC5 District, which establishes site specific land use regulations in instances where it has been deemed that conventional zoning is inappropriate or inadequate.

Express Purpose Zoning - Ties zoning to land use plans by developing land use districts based on the functional relationship proposed in the comprehensive plan. Implementation requires very detailed and comprehensive neighbourhood/area plans.

Floating Zones - A zone described in the text of a zoning bylaw, but not affixed to any particular property until requested. Puts onus on the developer to justify the suitability of a location for a particular project.

Impact Zoning - Zoning that regulates development on the basis of impacts on the environment and municipal infrastructure and fiscal capacities rather than on use. Implementation requires a large, comprehensive data base of infrastructure and fiscal capacities, and relatively long review/approval timelines. Impact zoning is highly quantitative.

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw - A Preliminary Review

6

Incentive Zoning - Grants specific concessions to a developer beyond that permitted as of right by the underlying zoning, in return for specific public benefits/amenities. System is most effective where economy is strong; but can lead to accusations of favouritism and 'bribery'.

Edmonton's LUB includes two residential districts, the RF5 (Row Housing) District and RF6 (Medium Density Multiple Family) District, which allow increased density in exchange for underground parking. When the RA 7 (Low Rise Apartment) District is developed for seniors, a reduction in parking requirements may be permitted, although there may be a requirement to enhance the amenity space requirements.

The 1985 Downtown Area Redevelopment Plan (ARP) provides for several incentives to increase the amount of housing in the Downtown, including: - relaxation of parking standards to reduce housing construction costs floor area of amenity space exempted from density calculations for residential development - bonus of commercial space if housing developed in mixed-use areas In certain commercial mixed-use districts, the Downtown ARP allows an increase in Floor Area Ratio (F.A.R.) where residential uses are developed on the same site The Boyle St. McCauley ARP alters the regulations of the LUB through a Statutory Plan Overlay. Incentives vary the density and reduce parking standards when the low and medium rise apartment districts are developed with bed-sitting rooms. The overlay allows an increase in F.A.R. in the commercial mixed-use district and the Chinatown South DC1 district when several objectives are met by the development.

Inclusionary Zoning - Requires developers to include certain uses or amenities, or money in lieu, in exchange for bonuses such as variances or height/density increases. Used mostly where there are affordable housing shortages and where exclusionary zoning is a problem.

Land Use Intensity Zoning - Site development standards system that relates mass, bulk and height of buildings to open space, recreational space and offstreet parking for the site. Sophisticated system that does not address urban design concerns and is difficult to apply to commercial and industrial development.

No Zoning - Properties have no predetermined use or siting regulations attached to them. Market forces are relied upon to determine land use. Results in an extensive and complex system of private agreements and restrictive covenants.

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw - A Preliminary Review

7

Overlay Zones - One or more zoning designations are overlaid on the standard zoning map to add flexibility or impose additional requirements in order to achieve a planning objective.

Edmonton's LUB makes extensive use of overlay zones to achieve various objectives: I)

Environmental protection (i.e. the North Saskatchewan River Valley and Ravine System Protection Overlay); Public safety (i.e. the Airport Protection Overlay and Flood Plain Protection Overlay); Promotion of high design standards (i.e. Entrance Routes and Special Area Overlay and the Major Commercial Corridor Overlay); and iv) Promotion of inner city neighbourhood revitalization (i.e. thirteen Statutory Plan Overlays, developed as part of Area Redevelopment Plan exercises).

Performance Zoning - Zoning system where all uses are allowed provided that all standards for the particular use are met. The standards for land uses based on the intensity of the primary use of a parcel of land, where intensity refers to relative measure of development impacts. Implementation requires extensive data base and specially trained staff. Also, difficult to apply to built up areas of cities (infill). Has only been 100% implemented in small, rural municipalities.

Performance zoning has been utilized to only a very limited degree in Edmonton. The IH (Heavy Industrial), IM (Medium Industrial) and IB (Industrial Business) districts of Edmonton's LUB apply performance style zoning regulations. These districts refer to Section 73 of the LUB which identifies standards with regard to: emission of air and water contaminants, maximum noise levels and fire and explosion hazards. Section 73 does not set out the quantitative measurements, but refers to various provincial standards (Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, Safety Codes Act, Alberta Fire Code) or City Bylaws (Noise Abatement Bylaw).

Planned Unit Development (PUD) - Flexible approach where uses and development standards can be negotiated within a specified site plan review process. Allows the achievement of maximum permitted density through flexible siting within the zone. Staff require strong design skills; and results in lengthy approvals process and higher administrative cost.

A version of PUD is utilized by Edmonton's LUB in the form of the DC2 District, which is intended to enable major, comprehensively planned and designed development.

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw - A Preliminary Review

8

Point System - Proposed developments are evaluated in relation to a standard set of criteria in a checklist format. Approval is contingent upon the development achieving some minimum score. The assignment of values to specific development attributes, such as aesthetics, is difficult and can lead to accusations of over subjectivity or arbitrariness.

Risk Management Zoning System of zoning intended to regulate industrial uses with the objective of minimizing the potential impacts that an emergency/accident could incur, in terms of casuslties and property damage.

Implementation requires data base, trained personnel and access to sophisticated and expensive measuring equipment.

Presently, the City of Edmonton is evaluating guidelines developed by the MIACC (Major Industrial Accidents Council of Canada, which has developed model regulations) for feasibility and appropriateness for resolving issues associated with heavy industrial separation distances in the City of Edmonton.

The County of Strathcona has implemented a version of this zoning method in its heavy industrial area. b) Assessment of Zoning Alternatives

Other than a few small, rural municipalities, most of the above discussed zoning methods (other than Conventional Zoning) have not been implemented on a 'stand alone' basis due to their: inability to achieve a proper balance between certainty and flexibility; unacceptably long processing time lines; and difficulty in implementation in terms of expense, staff training and requirement of a significant data bank.

Rather, they have been utilized as a component of a package of zoning techniques that together comprise a diverse system of land use control. This can be attributed to the growing complexity of the urban environment, which makes reliance on a single land use control method impractical, if not impossible. Edmonton's LUB is consistent with this melding philosophy in that although it is essentially founded on conventional zoning, it pragmatically utilizes several other zoning techniques for situations that require more flexibility in terms of land use controls.

Given the increasing complexity of land use control and the need to be equitable and maintain a proper balance between certainty and flexibility, it is advisable that all of the alternatives be considered in the evaluation of the orientation/philosophical basis of the LUB. Presently, Edmonton's LUB follows conventional zoning and is augmented by an assortment of other zoning methods when the situation dictates.

There is a need to rethink and refine components of the LUB within its existing framework and to consider the application of other zoning techniques. Most certainly, it is necessary to reflect the changing expectations and demands of the community and Council, and to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing economic structure. Also, based on the last fifteen years of experience, there is a need to

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw - A Preliminary Review

9

rethink the regulations, format and user friendliness of the LUB in order to produce a more streamlined and up to date document.

The following section breaks down the existing LUB into its component parts in order to facilitate a discussion of how the LUB should be examined and re-evaluated in light of the changing opportunities and requirements mentioned above.

V Edmonton's Land Use Bylaw This section examines the form and content of Edmonton's LUB. It provides a framework for gathering further information and feedback through idea exchange sessions with Planning and Development Department staff a) Organization of Edmonton's Land Use Bylaw (5996) A consolidation of the text contains: Part I, General Clauses (Sections 1 to 109); and Part II, District Clauses and Overlay Schedules (Sections 110 to 990).

Though not included in the consolidated version of the LUB, Bylaw 5996 also contains: Part III, the Land Use District Map, which shows how the Land Use Districts have been applied to all property in the City; Part IV, comprising all DC5 Direct Control Districts adopted by City Council; Part V, the 1982 Annexed Lands regulations; the Edmonton Municipal Airport Protection Overlay Map (Appendix I to Section 810A); and the North Saskatchewan River Valley and Ravine System Protection Overlay Schedule (Appendix Ito Section 811). b) Commentary to Guide Discussion Edmonton's LUB text, Parts I and II, contain over 550 pages. To facilitate a cursory review of such a large document, the following summary breaks down the component parts of the LUB. Following each section, questions and comments are put forward. This commentary brings together several criticisms of the LUB, ranging from a questioning of the validity and usefulness of each component, to an overall sense of how "user-friendly" the document is and its overall physical format and organization.

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw - A Preliminary Review

10

The commentary tries to stay at a general level, however when possible, requirements or opportunities presented by the new Municipal Government Act are interjected. Economic, social and political realities must also be factored into a review of the LUB and opportunities to include new or innovative zoning techniques should also be considered. c)

Idea Exchange

This overview of Edmonton's LUB is not exhaustive. The prompts, or questions, are intended to guide and encourage discussion in the idea exchange sessions, with participants encouraged to be critical of the current LUB and creative in developing and applying new ideas. These sessions will highlight areas where the LUB should be amended or stay the same, and identify new areas which could be developed.

Throughout the sessions, participants will be encouraged to consider the application of innovative zoning techniques, either as a new philosophical basis for the LUB or to augment a conventional system. It is important that staff involved in the idea exchange not be impeded by Edmonton's current method of land use control, and that the discussion seriously look at ways to do things differently, and better. Group feedback, drawing on a wide range of experiences, will provide a useful preliminary review of the LUB. The end result of this section will be recommendations for future options, including a proposed orientation/philosophical basis for Edmonton's next LUB, and methods by which the LUB can be revised to reflect changing expectations and demands. The background material from the idea exchange session will also build up a knowledge base of useful information and contribute to future sessions involving stakeholders. d) Commentary on LUB Components

Sections 1 to 8 begin with the general rules and procedures for operation of the LUB, including provisions to ensure a smooth transition from the previous LUB. Is this section mandatory and necessary? What are the requirements of the new MGA?

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw - A Preliminary Review

11

Section 9 contains general definitions of words and terms, and sign defmitions.

Section 10 contains Use Class Definitions which group individual land uses into classes with common functional or physical impact characteristics and include: residential; residential-related; commercial; industrial; agricultural and natural resource development; basic service; and community, educational, recreational and cultural service use classes.

Is "use classes" still a good approach? Are the definitions clear? Are the use classes comprehensive? How have use classes changed in the new economy? Are some outdated or missing? Could performance standards be attached to use classes? Could sign definitions be removed to a separate document?

Sections 11 to 15 contain General Administrative Clauses which designate authority, define development classes and associated procedures and describe the process and requirements to apply for a Development Permit. Section 11 defines the authority and responsibility of the Development Officer, including the processing of development permit applications and limitations on granting variances. Section 16 describes special information requirements relating to slope, soil, wind impact, sun shadow impact and floodplains, which may need to be attached to a Development Permit application.

Are the processes clear, informative and user-friendly? Are any processes excessive? Part 17 of the MGA refers to a Development Authority which Edmonton can designate to Development Officers. References to the Municipal Planning Commission, and the Development Appeal Board have changed with the new MGA. The authority of the Development Officer to grant variance has been changed by the MGA. Is there a way to reduce the need for the Development Officer to exercise discretion? Is it clear when special information is required as part of the application? Are the sections in logical order? Is anything missing?

Sections 17 to 25 contain general Administrative Clauses dealing with Development Permits, including permit conditions, decisions, fees, notification requirements and procedures, and enforcement.

Are we meeting our clients' needs? Any opportunity to make changes?

The notification process was criticized during the Planning Process Round Table as being inadequate - is there opportunity to address this?

Can we introduce notice "before the fact" not "after the fact"? Is there a way to reduce and simpli.6) development permit submission requirements?

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw - A Preliminary Review

12

Section 26 deals with LUB text amendments and redistricting applications, the process of changing the Land Use District which applies to a particular parcel of land. The text of Bylaw 5996 has been amended by over 160 bylaws. Section 27 deals with LUB compliance certificates.

There have been several LUB map amendments/redistrictings over the years? Why so many? What is at the root of these amendments and redistrictings? Are these Sections in a logical order? Should compliances be in the LUB? Section 50 to 78 contain General Development Regulations which apply to any development on any site. Sections 50 to 64 cover a range of topics including lot size, yards, restrictions in residential areas, amenity areas, separation space, fencing, accessory uses, lighting, height, and access. Sections 65 to 68 deal with loading and parking regulations and Section 69 contains landscaping regulations. Sections 70 to 77 contain a mix of development regulations pertaining to excavation, microclimate, development information signs, performance standards for industrial and non-industrial developments, pedestrian ways, passenger drop-off spaces and performance standards for a safe physical environment.

Are Sections 50 to 78 in a logical order? Are the performance standards clearly defined/measurable? Are the regulations clear/do they require interpretation? Are they all necessary as part of the LUB? Would the use of tables and graphics improve it, and make it more user-friendly?

Section 79 contains Sign Regulations.

Should there be a separate Sign Bylaw? Do the sign regulations work?

Are they clear?

Sections 80 to 102 contain Special Land Use Provisions which apply to specific uses irrespective of the Land Use District in which they are located. Examples include Religious Assembly, Minor and Major Home Occupations, Boarding and Lodging Houses, Child Care Services, Adult Mini-Theatres, Major and Minor Alcohol Sales and Secondary Suites.

These provisions are often amended to reflect current community standards or economic trends, or are initiated by City Council (e.g. adult mini-theatres, home occupations, group homes, child care services, alcohol sales). Is the LUB the appropriate tool for regulating these activities? Are some of these morality issues? Should morality issues be a part of the LUB (i.e. is there a land use impact?) When these provisions are amended, references to them in the Land Use District regulations must often be amended as well. How can amendments be streamlined?

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw - A Preliminary Review

13

Sections 110 to 630 provide detailed regulations for each of Edmonton's 31 Land Use Districts. Each district contsins: -

-

a general purpose clause which sets out the intent of the district; a list of permitted uses (uses that have minimal impacts), which the Development Officer is obligated to approve as long as all of the requirements of the district are met; a list of discretionary uses (uses with potential for creating significant impacts), which the Development Officer may refuse or approve; and specific development regulations which defme development standards for such things as site area, site width, density, height and yards. Additional development standards may be specified for discretionary uses.

How useful are the following districts: RF2, RSL, RA8, CRY, CO, MA? Are some districts obsolete relative to today's economic/political climate?

Are new districts required? Are the uses in each district appropriate? Do the development standards make sense? What is the impact of uniform regulations? Is there any opportunity for greater flexibility? What is the appropriate balance between flexibility and certainty? Should we be concerned by the number of redistrictings and appeals? Are there opportunities to reduce the repetitiveness in the regulations (i.e. references to the use provisions)? The new MGA now requires that a land use bylaw establish the number of dwelling units permitted on a lot, does this affect the LUB? Should we change the traditional culture of land use control (i.e. make discretionary uses really discretionary and not simply uses permitted subject to right of appeal?)

Sections 710 to 750 provide for five types of Direct Control Districts. Each application for Direct Control is individually tailored to address specific development aspirations for the site which cannot be accommodated under any standard district. The LUB provides a general purpose statement and framework for each type of Direct Control District. A Direct Control District approved by Council, by Bylaw, amends the LUB Map and text, by including the specific requirements for that site. There are over 390 DC5 Districts in Edmonton.

Are all the Direct Control Districts needed? The base DC5 District was amended recently to reduce the number of DC5s. Has this been effective?

Is the amendment clear and being applied consistently to all DC5s? Can more be done? Are there other ways to provide flexibility in standard districts? What is the impact of the MGA giving Council the power to decide on Direct Control District development permit applications, and making those decisions non-appealable to the SDAB?

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw - A Preliminary Review

14

Sections 810 to 820 contain Special Overlay Districts which alter the uses and regulations of underlying standard districts in order to achieve the local planning objectives of an Area Structure Plan or Area Redevelopment Plan.

Overlays are also applied to protect airport approaches, regulate development in floodplains, ensure high standards of development along major commercial corridors or to provide for sensitive low density redevelopment.

Why are the Overlays part of the LUB consolidation? What is the function of Overlays? Are they really necessary, and in such detail? When do the Overlays need to be amended? Can conventional districts contain greater flexibility to negate or reduce the need for Overlays?

Questions for the entire LUB: Does the new MGA provide additional opportunity for change? Are there places where the language can be more straight-forward (i.e. plainspeak)?

Could the LUB be made more user-friendly through the use of diagrams, tables or figures? Can the document be made physically smaller?

Questions regarding the review process: Who are the stakeholders? What kind of process will facilitate a review of the LUB? How can stakeholders be included in this process?

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw - A Preliminary Review

15

- Appendix 1 -

Minutes from the Idea Exchange Sessions

October 1996

Community Planning Section Planning Services Branch Attending:

Brian Kropf Don Read

Stefan Fekner Scott Pragnell

Gary Leobold

Philosophical Basis of the LUB drawback to replacing conventional zoning with an entirely flexible system is the lack of resources and capability in setting up large data bases and the technical expertise required to keep it accurate and current. in true conventional zoning there is no opportunity for "discretionary uses". In practice, do we treat our "discretionary uses" as "permitted uses, subject to the right of notification and appeal."

Society is moving from post-industrial to information based - this reality must be reflected by the new LUB hybrid zoning techniques allow us to deal with specific needs the extremes of "no zoning" and "rigid zoning" are not good options policy should be set out in the Municipal Development Plan (MDP) before, or at the same time as, a new LUB is prepared two years ago communities demanded variety; now simplicity is being demanded question as to whether the MGA permits the deployment of innovative zoning methods (must have permitted and discretionary uses) present system is a good foundation; extreme change is not realistic for variety of reasons (MGA, culture of Edmonton, economics) a new LUB must address the opinion that Edmonton is not open for business since 1980 there has been demand for more flexible zoning (350+ DC5 districts) Layout Suggestions add illustrations to clarify (or replace) text should begin with a chapter that includes the information that the public and developers need to understand and use the LUB; touches on urban design user-friendly; language written for a broader client base; understandable don't separate out sections to put into another document (i.e. keep the sip bylaw as part of the LUB) What do developers want? development industry talks of wanting more flexibility, but politically the system works fastest when there is certainty up front St. Albert example: costs more to do business in St. Albert, but developers know the costs up front and know their competitors are paying the same. Developers prefer St. Albert's approach over Edmonton's "negotiated" approach.

What will Council want? streamlined shorter, but shorter may be interpreted as "easier to understand" simple to use (user friendly) open for business regulate morality

Appendix 1 - Minutes from the Idea Exchange Sessions

1

What do communities want? our present LUB tries to maintain integrity across the City, but communities are telling us they should be treated differently (i.e. Belgravia-McKeman-Parkallen; RF1 in the inner city is different than RF1 in the suburbs) City should be able to regulate morality to receive notice of development when they still have a chance to impact decisions risk of "too many" (i.e. group homes or day cares) in residential neighbourhoods will lead to community reaction; how much is too much? quality of life issues are important; impact of use; environmental & aesthetic issues the present notification system was criticized during the Round Table - want meaningful consultation - this could mean posting signs on site in case of discretionary uses What societal changes/trends are going to impact the next LUB? see a melding of uses: commercial & industrial residential & home occupations; residential & commercial small amount of commercial/professional with residential (partially a result of new immigration; idea of living over the shop) free-standing daycares in residential group homes in residential - Downtown: presently all uses are discretionary; good intention by the Department as a way to get some control over form but not supported by developers - commercial: inner city commercial should not be the same as suburban commercial - industrial: business industrial based on business parks, but doesn't reflect the shift to service industry; manufacturing-based industry is rare and has already peaked - transportation: will the new Transportation Master Plan be an auto-oriented plan? will we continue our reliance on the car?

- parking: parking standards may be rewritten - morality: will we be drawn into more morality issues? zoning was originally used to protect health & safety - led to a separation of uses zoning then started to reflect societal values (environmental concerns & aesthetics) & now we are progressing into morality issues (peep shows/pawn shops) economy: lack of growth/will province continue to expand our roads? impacts of de-regulation communication technology: information age is changing the way we work, where we work institutions: provincial changes are moving away from institutional care, more emphasis on home care, group homes safety: zoning & design often reflect our safety concerns (CPTED/walled communities) demand exists to regulate crime & safety through LUB; there is potential to use a points system for design features neo-traditional influence: some interest in moving back to people-oriented neighbourhoods restrictive covenants: developers continue to regulate aesthetics inner city: there is more willingness in the inner city RF1 areas to accept commercial and other uses (generally the use isn't the problem, rather the appearance of the building is) Zoning Suggestions combine the certainty of permitted uses (where the regulations will not cause problems) with discretionary uses (where the regulations are performance-based or require impact assessments). Allows more range or flexibility, but only if development meets specific criteria. Risk of the need for more staff expertise.

Appendix 1 - Minutes from the Idea Exchange Sessions

2

-

-

-

-

Benefit is that a simple development can be approved quickly; when an innovative development is proposed, it may take a little longer to be approved, but it will not require a redistricting. the utilization of performance standards within zones will allow us to decrease the number of zones allow discretionary uses, as long as they meet some performance standards LUB zoning should be linked to policy in the MDP and neighbourhood plans. Example: if the River Valley is to be protected, zoning should allow no uses. If there is to be no urban development beyond the RDA, then come up with districts which limit uses to agricultural. University and Downtown could also have a strong policy-base. The MDP exercise should include trend analysis. combine point system with overlays to encourage community or city goals i.e. environmental issues, architectural details that blend into the existing neighbourhood. Could make it easier for the D.O. to make decisions. for the above suggestions, difficult to anticipate and describe every situation in advance, may always be a requirement to include discretion overlays for larger areas i.e. on a city wide basis special character areas we don't require the number of zones we now have fewer residential zones and more mixed use zones IB district is obsolete; industrial parks not developed anymore there is a need for an inner city commercial zone (no front yards) wholly discretionary districts (RMX & CMX) are disliked by the development industry because of high level of uncertainty; preferable to have permitted uses augmented by discretion for built form evaluation

General Issues General agreement that the LUB must be dovvnsized The use class and fees section must be reorganind (use a matrix for fee schedule) Parking standards need to be updated The annexed areas need to be brought under the City's LUB properly Class D development permits - report requirement is something we've ignored over the years (section 16) May want an introduction in the LUB that clarifies the role of the LUB for users.

Uses Many outdated use definitions, notably Eating & Drinking Establishments Accessory uses (Section 61.4) is a big problem. DOs are piggy backing uses that were never intended for a site (e.g. neighbourhood pubs - add on pinball games, pool tables, etc.) debate over whether definitions should be clearer & provide more examples (some DOs are applying the defmitions when deciding on how much discretion to use) CMX & RMX Some uses should become permitted in order to comply with the new MGA (will need to interpret the MGA) Have not worked in Edmonton - built form of developments have not reflected the intention of these zones; yet we persist on applying them (e.g. along Jasper Ave in Oliver) Overlays

ARP overlays in LUB have become an administrative nightmare - in case of rezonings must also amend LUB overlay and ARP document Agreement that there is a need to rethink how we apply overlays and how often we make use of them Overlays are best used to achieve some City-wide objective rather than on a neighbourhood basis

Appendix 1 - Minutes from the Idea Exchange Sessions

3

Many ARPs are reaching obsolescence; possibly could amalgamate their individual SPOs into fewer overlays when updating them General agreement that overlays should be used on an issue basis rather than neighbourhood basis (i.e. monster home regulation for entire inner city/overlay for entrance corridors/overlay for flood plains) We must review whether overlays are the correct approach for some situations - maybe New Standard Districts are required in some instances More effectively written policy documents (ARPs) can replace SPO regulations i.e. in case of front yard requirement a policy would state "in RF1 the front yard can be reduced to 3 metres" We need to review the relationship between the Policy documents and the SPOs Overlays are not going to be effective if compliance is optional (McKernan/Parkallen) Districts There are too many zones in the present LUB (RF2 vs RF4; RPL vs RSL) Question - if we eradicate some zones, what happens with the areas amended? A situation of thousands of lots falling into the non-conforming category But if reducing the number of zones, there is less likelihood of creating non-conforming instances AP/US zones should be applied to Parks & Recreation properties, many of which are zoned AGU 113, IM, IH doesn't reflect reality Question as to whether uses in the DC districts should be permitted rather than discretionary; since Council is approving those uses when the DC redistricting appears before it DC5 should only be applied if a development is unique rather than for allowing less latitude or to avoid the regulations of a standard zone Loosen up the conventional districts so as to decrease the requirement for DC5 districts A report was produced several years ago by Planning that identified the problems with the LUB's districts RA8 district shouldn't necessarily be eradicated, since there is a growing trend of developing 6 story stick structures - what may be needed is a change in the district's objective RA7 Walkups are changing their form from flattop 2.5-3 storey buildings to 3-4 storeys with articulated roof tops and larger suites Increased FAR maximum is needed for the RA7 district (units are bigger and fewer in number) (review DC5s to identify FAR trends) RA9 also a problem with density/ FAR relationship; the FAR is the key variable as units are larger, a larger building envelop is required - Also height limit can't be justified on any planning rational All districts need to be rethought We can increase the compatibility of uses if we improve the edge treatment regulations within the standard zones (i.e. new tools to address impact, other than density restrictions) (will also decrease need for DC5 use) Where do we negotiate? At Council with DC5s? Or in the Department, with either the DO or at SDAB? We need to undertake a policy review of all the districts e.g. old CNC sites are adding up - they may need more uses to make them economically viable for redevelopment Does DC1 serve a useful role? For example, along Whyte Avenue DC1 functioned well at the start. It was applied to promote architectural heritage and was policy driven.

Matrix might be a useful tool to establish compatibility between uses MGA - Required Changes Section 5.9 (variances) must be amended Transitional provisions will become obsolete (i.e. conforming/ non-conforming) Must remove references to MPC

Appendix 1 - Minutes from the Idea Exchange Sessions

4

Sign Regulations Disagreement exists over whether sign regulations belong in the LUB Final consensus was that sip regulations DO belong in the LUB, but MUST be made simpler and more user friendly Could be converted into a picture book format Special Provisions Section

Have worked in controlling some uses that can have significant impacts. This section provides the detail, rather than in each individual District.

Seniors housing is a difficult situation, needs review. Is development better because of (or in spite of) the extra density allowed? Does it fulfil a social good?

Appendix 1 - Minutes from the Idea Exchange Sessions

5

Suburban Planning Section Planning Implementation Section Forecasting and Policy Development Section Planning Services Branch Attending:

Jim Low Wayne Cameron Glen Radway

Kulbir Singh Shafee Mohamed Garth Clybum George Matteotti

Angela Hingston

Introduction Previous LUB was produced in a growth economy. Result is that it is a large, complicated document.

Recognize that the Alberta Building Code is very restrictive and as such limits innovation.

There are four aspects of a LUB: - land use districts must reflect area plan objectives - must provide protection from obnoxious uses - must be simple to understand and apply and we must follow our regulations - must be flexible to accommodate and reflect change A More Flexible LUB New LUB should be simple and flexible, with less regulation. It should look to the future and anticipate new needs. If it can be easily understood, it will help people make good decisions. Council will likely support simplicity, flexibility and reinforcing character areas.

We have become overly restrictive with our zoning. We should be looking at moving to character districts approach (i.e. built form regulations being the key, with less concern as to what activities are carried out inside of buildings).

LUB requires a new philosophy - it should permit a greater integration of uses (i.e. less exclusionary).

LUB should facilitate development rather than control or manage it. Districts are not reflective of current needs and trends; they need to be more contemporary permitting mixing of uses. (e.g. no longer heavyindustrial based society) We are seeing a blending of uses: free-standing daycares in residential; commercial and residential.

Looking for a LUB that provides some certainty while being flexible enough to respond to changes, especially changes in new uses and technology. Mixed use in the Downtown allows for a change in use but we haven't been able to enforce policy. Policy and regulations don't necessarily match. A mixture of uses will be more readily accepted in commercial and industrial areas than in residential areas.

We often consider ourselves as being flexible, but often it is only in the range of uses; not the built form.

We need more "open" commercial zones, which don't pick and choose which uses are permitted.

We should recognize why we over-regulate. Is it for safety or aesthetic reasons? Our regulations have never led to "better" development Example of having four commercial districts along a roadway, but the development looks similar in appearance no matter what the underlying district. We need a LUB that's geared to our economic times, it should encourage development Terwillegar Towne is the first suburban neighbourhood following the neo-traditional example. While our present framework combines "use" and regulations, in Terwillegar Towne we are trying to regulate built form first and foremost, rather than uses. Movement towards addressing the "character" of use. The neighbourhood square will include rowhouses which have home businesses on the main floor. This is a new built form for us which combines office/commercial with residential.

LUB should allow for buildings to be renovated overtime. (e.g. residential renovations.)

Appendix 1 - Minutes from the Idea Exchange Sessions

6

Character Area Based Zoning

-

Suggestion that we have consistent districts (e.g. commercial) and apply overlays for special situations like the major commercial corridors, the inner city and neo-traditional neighbourhoods. Take some of the detail out of the districts and let the overlays deal with character. Way to recognize that the suburbs, the inner city and corridor areas are not the same.

If a "character area" zone is written properly (defined), it will keep incompatible uses out.

Sample of the proposed Downtown Enterprise Zone: all uses are allowed except certain specified noxious uses. Add performance guidelines to help frame out the best potential uses. This doesn't rely on a long list of uses. Are uses the concern or built form? Difficulty reconciling what uses are not wanted. Easier if "character" on the ground is "obvious". It's harder to develop something new without a visible sample. In Terwillegar Towne the developer will build much more on spec just to establish a visible style. The public also has to buy into the "character" idea, see it as valuable and support it.

Necessary to recognize that different parts of the city are not the same.

Suggest we define character areas across the city.

Could we have four commercial districts that reflect four character areas?

Need checks and balances if we are going to introduce character areas. Require mission statements.

Extending notification of permits before a decision is made could be a nightmare.

A specific inner city commercial district, with built form regulations is required.

Performance Standards

Performance standards need to provide guidelines to the DOs as to when they should intervene. Our current industrial performance standards for industrial issues on the environmental side (i.e. air and water), leave it completely up to the D.O. To implement performance standards in industrial zones we need to do it right by developing appropriate guidelines. We need to quantify our standards, develop the expertise to understand and apply them and continue to monitor impacts. This will significantly extend processing time. Agree that there are clearly some uses that need regulating. Need to determine a cost-benefit analysis of performance standards.

SPOs - Statutory Plan Overlays could be used to implement neo-traditional objectives in the suburbs. In certain situations, rowhousing and single detached could be side-by-side.

Implementation

-

LUB is the most obvious tool that leads to actual change on the ground. More so than Municipal Development Plan and other plans. The challenge is to make it a more effective tool for implementing the policies that we have. We often fail in implementing our policies because we make it too difficult and complex. To implement change, we often require plan amendments, redistrictings and public hearings.

These impediments are often the reason why we continue to accept the status quo.

Complaint that we have no control over the development permit process.

We have regulations we can't enforce.

Overriding Principles

user friendly have to ask ourselves who the LUB serves?

SDAB could essentially become the DO, since new MGA permits Council to delegate development approval authority to any body it sees fit

Appendix 1 - Minutes from the Idea Exchange Sessions

7

Sections 1 -8 Operating & Interpretive Clauses first perception is important, make introduction user-friendly move parts of these sections to an appendix, not needed in first section state context of enabling legislation but don't embellish Sec 5 Non-Conforming Buildings, Uses: keep in, Section 9 Definitions & Section 10 Use Class Definitions both sections require review & cleanup still valid, need a flexible defmitions of use, consider impacts, functions. use of examples necessary, but can cause problems because they tend to set out parameters that are strictly followed by DOs can use classes be combined? problem areas: Minor and Major Eating and Drinking Establishments, Bingo Halls, Warehouse Sales, Households, Group Homes, General Industrial (needs to be broken down into several use classes, based on impacts) identify those uses with land use impacts, those we want to have regulations for Industrial Uses: not many controls in the permit process, can be changed without the City knowing. Question of who is protecting human health and environmental issues.

Are there areas that fall between the cracks where the City should get involved (i.e. home based businesses using chemicals).

- Commercial Uses: we have 5-6 functional districts, some catch-all, others based on legitimate land use policy; opportunity to collapse them into fewer districts via use of performance standards - Agricultural Uses: question the need for transitional districts. Do we need holding districts in today's economy?

- Parks: Parks & Rec never apply for permits for parks so not regulated. Should allow for permit exemptions.

Sec 11 -26 General Administrative Clauses does the LUB rationalize the powers of the DO and SDAB? Sec 11 Variance: necessary to review how defmed and applied, criticized for using too liberally without considering the repercussions.

- DO cannot vary height, FAR and density: why/what is the justification? Response is to go to SDAB or redistrict. Can these issues be handled differently?

Sec 11.7 Public Inspection of Applications: raises Access to Information issues need a clear defmition of development in order to apply Class 0 Permits (i.e. when do you need a permit for excavating or environmental cleanups?)

Sec 15 Development Applications: Sec 15.1 3): allows the DO to ask an applicant to submit additional information - is this handled consistently; should this section be so detailed (leave more general as per what can be required?) (i.e. sun/shadow study) Sec 15.1 7): How often are Development Permits, issued on the basis of incorrect information, deemed invalid? Raises question of who is monitoring, consistency and enforcement.

Sec 16 Special Information Requirements: not being implemented consistently, not an exclusive list is this the right approach, do we expand list? gives a lot of power to DOs Sec 19.1 la): are conditions of approval on a development permit enforced? If not, leave out of LUB Sec 20 Resubmission Intervals: why limit resubmission, check validity.

Appendix 1 - Minutes from the Idea Exchange Sessions

8

-

Sec 21 Fees & Sec 25 Enforcement: - administrative, does it belong in the Bylaw? who approves fees?

- make reference to fees in LUB, but separate out as a hand out available at the front desk(would be easier to amend) Sec 22 Notification: Round Table had issues re notice (want notice in time to affect the decision) Sec 24 Expiry of Permits: when can a development permit be extended? make clearer Sec 27 Compliance Certificates: keep? For revenue yes, but is it a necessary planning function?

Sec 50 - 79 General Development Regulations

-

Amend references to MPC universal application to all Districts, is this still valid? can these and Special Provisions be combined?

Sec 65 & 66 Parking: need to be re-evaluated - apply parking regulations based on use class. Should it be applied case by case?

Sec 76 Passenger Drop-off: what is the role of the LUB? It is sometimes used to monitor someone else's requirements (i.e. school drop-offs): regulation within right of way?

Sec 77 CPTED: will these principles be important to the new Council?

Sec 79 Sign Regulations: keep in but address enforcement - MUST be rewritten & simplified, using pictures, etc.

Sec 80- 102 Special Land Use Provisions

combine with General Development Regulations issue areas: Sec 81 Religious Assembly: no longer typical neighbourhood church, now more broader functions, remove from sensitive areas entirely (i.e. RF1)?

Sec 82 Vehicular-Oriented Uses: relies on variances; cueing details not current Sec 84 & 85 Minor & Major Home Occupations: are environmental risks being controlled? Can they be collapsed into one use class?

Sec 86 Boarding & Lodging Houses: define Household Sec 87 Seniors Housing: only deals with density and waives parking requirements; Charter of Rights?

- Sec 91 Group Homes: why do we regulate? compare with Province's locational requirements Sec 93 Child Care Services: standards are higher than the Province. Are making assumptions that we want our children in quality day cares, away from commercial strips.

Sec 94 Fraternities and Sororities: don't need?

Sec 95 Residential Sales Centres: don't need?

- Sec 96 Adult Mini Theatres: why are we regulating? Morality?

Sec 97 Recycled Materials Drop-off Centres: don't need?

Sec 98 Major and Minor Alcohol Sales: why regulate? Is general retail sales morality?

Sec 100 Uses with Special Siting, Access & Traffic Impact Requirements: maybe don't require, could be a general requirement of DO, was originally intended to avoid DC5s Sec 102 Flea Markets: implemented to address higher parking needs; check currency?

Residential Zones

there are presently 6 low density residential districts - this is clearly too many we've tried to deal with the inner city situation via infill districts (RF2, RF3) two special zones (RSL, RPL) were developed to deal with suburban issues it makes sense to continue to deal differently with the inner city and the suburbs

Appendix 1 - Minutes from the Idea Exchange Sessions

9

there's an increase in interest in developing project style low density residential developments in the suburbs (i.e. non-street oriented housing) linked housing and semi detached opportunities should be included in a future low density zone (unlike our current RF1 district) suggested that there could be two suburban districts: Project Zone and Street Fronting Zone the development industry is pushing for a project zone (being partly driven by concern over excessive servicing standards and desire on part of consumers for a condo relationship/ common property style development) a new Suburban Low Density Residential Zone would collapse the existing RSL, RPL, RF4, RF1 into it (using a sliding scale for yard requirements) a new Inner City Low Density Residential Zone would collapse RF1, RF2, and RF'3 into it (could include a requirement for garages to be oriented to rear lane where they exist) Medium Density Residential Zone in the suburbs could collapse RF5, RF6 and RA7 into it could include a street front and project orientation as a differentiation within the zone, or 2 zones could be developed based on orientation ground orientation/family orientation should no longer be a consideration in our medium density zones another possibility is the development of a city wide medium density residential zone with special regulations for the inner city context High Density Residential Zone would collapse RA8 and RA9 into it can't justify separate zones for RA8 and RA9 development; there is little or no impact difference between them impacts of built form should be dealt with via regulation rather than the district's regulations the impacts germane to high density residential development are: parking, traffic, wind, sun shadow, (view lines) should not be restricting opportunity for ground level commercial development based on number of units in a project (e.g. RA8) no need to differentiate between the inner city and suburbs in the case of high density residential RMX has not been useful or functional; many sites zoned RMX have been redistricted development industry has indicated that the RMX district is not practical in Edmonton - should be eliminated from the new LUB RR district should be retained (currently under review by Suburban Section) RMH needs to be revamped and we should permit greater opportunity for the development of mobile home parks Commercial & Industrial Zones

there are too many commercial zones/ few differences between them CB2 is too broad; has little regard for impacts of uses "business districts" are a potential replacement for our present commercial and industrial zones retain a heavy industrial zone (for dirty smoke stack type development) CO district has little application - not needed commercial districts have been inconsistently applied due to attempt to translate the old Zoning Bylaw districts potential replacement zones: 1) Corridor Business Zone 2) Regional Business Zone 3) Neighbourhood Business Zone our present LUB approach has artificial activity distinctions (e.g. Major & Minor Alcohol Sales) which are not based on impacts greater consideration must be given to performance and impacts rather than use class

Appendix 1 - Minutes from the Idea Exchange Sessions

10

realistically we should shoot for a mixing of considerations (i.e. Use Class & Impacts) CNC: problem is that gas bars are not a suitable use in residential neighbourhoods and maybe even adjacent to restaurants (i.e. traffic impact and environmental/health hazard from leaking tanks, etc.) the CITY district should be collapsed into a new Corridor Business Zone IB is developing as a business/commercial area now TB, IM, CB2 could be collapsed into a single zone IH: risk management approach - develop a High Risk Industrial Zone which should address encroachment issues and monitoring have to be careful about becoming too general in definitions of uses; it could come back to haunt us (i.e. classing adult mini theatres as spectator entertainment use) US & PU Districts could be collapsed into one zone augmented by performance requirements to ensure compatibility consideration should be given to removing some of the "dirty" PU uses and putting them into IH Park Zones - potential for a single "Open Space Zone" combining A & AP, but can't lose the preservation aspect - Parks and Recreation would probably not agree to any changes or amalgamation of the A & AP districts Agricultural Zones - AG is still relevant - AGU & AGI: is a holding district still required in a non-booming economy?

- no longer needed for application in ASP areas application has been abused by property owners -interim/transitional uses have tended to become permanent Direct Control Districts DC1 are part of ARPs rather than LUB are they still needed? Can its objectives be attained through another district? (i.e. development agreement or DC5) DC2 could be deleted if we ensure that in another part of the LUB that an information requirement section is included (i.e. development agreements, models, etc.)

DC3: its application as a temporary holding district has legal difficulties; should be deleted; no longer needed for replots DC4:retain but clean up; superior legislation component has merit DC5 should be used as a solution of last resort (has been over applied) Overlays Special Area Overlays should continue to be part of the LUB (i.e. River Valley, Flood Plains, etc.)

MCC could be made redundant if we improved our commercial districts ARP overlays - Do they belong in the LUB? ARPs and SPOs don't always match. ideally ARPs should have their own implementation mechanism for land use regulation implementation issue is the problem (i.e. separate arms of the Department developing policies and implementing them) Part V - Land Use in Annexed Areas annexed bylaw regulations need to be reviewed and brought into conformity with the LUB's standards and requirements, as well with our policies Appendix 1 - Minutes from the Idea Exchange Sessions

11

Concluding Remarks Warning that people want certainty. They want to buy into character areas. But what is the longevity of the trendy built form we see today? Also, consider the lengthy build out time frames for some residential areas. We could potentially see 2-3 trends in an area over a 10 year build out. What about protecting the property rights of the people who first bought into the area?

When moving on to hear from stakeholders, important to go beyond the "fringe" groups. The results of the Round Table may have limited credibility with the new Council.

Caution as we consider reducing the size of the LUB. We have a tendency to want to remove sections.

But eventually they return. If we think we can take out issues dealing with morality, we will soon be asked by communities (Council) to put "peep show regulations" back in. Have to tackle two contrasting positions: LUB can be simple (i.e. straightforward), but rigid, or it can be flexible, with lots of direct control districts and mixed use zones. Even when we try to inject flexibility we continue to be criticized for not being flexible enough. we must expand the function of the zones and their flexibility

Appendix 1 - Minutes from the Idea Exchange Sessions

12

Development Permits Development & Inspection Services Attending:

Peter Odinga

Muhammad Saeed

Bob Scheele

Kevin Wawryko

General Fundamental question that needs to be answered is who does the LUB serve? Are timelines the main issue?

Also what type of city do we want to see? (goals & objectives?) Have we created good environments?

A new LUB must have elements of both flexibility and certainty to deal with the different situations and different areas of the city (i.e. inner city situation vs. suburban situation) Flexibility is important if we are to avoid obsolescence.

As an example, business people want certainty with specific rules and regulations (avoid "in the opinion of the DO") - Keep the sign bylaw in the LUB. A patchwork of zoning techniques is required to deal with different situations ARPs & SPOs In order to achieve the objectives of ARPs, DOs would like to be involved in the ARP preparation process, rather than just at the implementation stage - SPOs are a big problem in terms of implementation - out of date For example, the objective to achieve pedestrian oriented commercial development has not been adequately dealt with by SPOs (they have failed to provide the tools necessary to attain the goal) ARPs should utilize greater discretion, rather than identifying all uses that are permitted let the DO implement general objectives of the Plan, rather than constraining decisions with SPO regulations Use Class Definitions and Districts Use class definitions are one of the key problems of the current LUB; they are to a large extent obsolete and carry too much weight DC5s are used too often to get around use class definition problems and tend to restrict the DO's flexibility Uses class definitions have become too rigid - A possible direction is to offer certainty of use with flexibility of built form - Can reduce the number of districts.

Built Form Built form oriented zoning will be difficult to apply to the suburban context, but can work in the Downtown, and inner city commercial strips where the character is already established There should be more flexibility for commercial areas, with fewer automatic development rights Religious Assembly Use Problem with Religious Assembly use in residential areas (especially RF1 areas): parking spill over; required site area is too small; churches now accommodating many activities; should be confmed to corner lots

Appendix 1 - Minutes from the Idea Exchange Sessions

13

Inner City/Suburbs

Infill development in the inner city is a problem - over building of sites In inner city residential areas, new development should respect existing development in terms of design and scale. DO should have greater discretion to ensure that the context of the existing environment is taken into account Need to involve the community, particularly in the inner city. The suburbs already have a substantial public participation process.

Historical areas require Contextual Zoning Need flexibility in the inner city and certainty in the suburbs Some current trends to keep in mind: activities in garages that are hobbies, not home businesses, and cannot be regulated; front yards being blocked off with landscaping to create private spaces; back yard privacy issues linked with monster homes; with side yard and front yard requirements, no place to build but into back yards.

Notification Process

Our present development permit notification system is inadequate - it lacks public participation Notification after the decision has been made is no longer acceptable, it creates a negative public perception of planning and the Department This is especially a problem in the inner city, where the zoning is already in place, resulting in absolutely no public input (unlike suburbs where a rezoning is often required for a development to go ahead) Community Involvement

Our public image is suffering; may be due to lack of public participation Balance needed between community involvement (which requires greater manpower) and an "open for business" time frame DOs should get involved earlier in the process, at the redistricting stage, not just development permit stage.

Involve DOs in public participation, have them come out to meetings. This will help them become familiar with the site and issues.

Political/Economic/Market Forces - If there is a political will to be "open for business", how much control do we have over design?

- The car rules. How can we go against such strong market forces?

General - The Land Use Bylaw was written to intervene in boom times. Is a design manual needed today? Can we get away from some of this intervention? Would prefer bonuses for amenities instead of regulation.

Non-Conforming Buildings, Structures & Uses

Section 5.9 states that buildings being enlarged or added to must meet all of the requirements of the LUB. Recommend that this restriction be removed. The addition may not conform, but if there are no issues, it should be allowed at the discretion of the DO. Use Class Definitions

Can continue to expect that issues such as Casinos & Peep Shows will continue to come up; they tend to fall between the cracks. Often we are not pro-active, especially when legislative changes are required & we don't react fast enough.

Don't see LUB definitions as the problem, often it's a component of the use class, such as the parking requirements being inadequate.

Appendix 1 - Minutes from the Idea Exchange Sessions

14

Use classes work well now; we shouldn't have definitions that are too detailed. Propose that definitions remain general, and rely on the discretion of the DO to look at impacts.

Examples of problems to be looked at in a more detailed review: Minor Eating & Drinking Establishments - can there be a non-alcohol category?

Alcohol Sales - 100 m separation distance should be reviewed. Possibility for alcohol sales eventually going back to the general retail use class.

Warehouse Sales - no longer effective, has become irrelevant. Should be considered general retail.

The issue is the size of the store, not the type of goods being sold.

Pawn Shops, Major Second Hand Stores, Antique Shops are not the same; should be thought given to separating them into different use classes.

Group Homes always an issue with the public.

New businesses are going into IM for cheap space; risk that this will push the true industrial uses out if rents rise.

Office space surrounding industrial activity need a warehouse component. True general industrial uses don't need this warehouse component, and if they do, maybe they should be moving to a TB district or a commercial district.

IB District: has problem with uses/inconsistencies - permits Convenience Retail, but not General Retail Business. Review needed.

IM District: does not grant DO sufficient discretion to consider less intrusive/lower impact uses.

Religious Assembly: - Definition works & land use works but Department reluctant to take a stand when halls, offices & recreation centres are included in the building.

- Can be a problem in the RF1 District.

- Churches are no longer serving the immediate neighbourhood (regional).

- Parking requirements should apply to the "higher use" when the use intensifies.

- Might consider an "ideal site coverage" to minimize the add-ons.

Private Schools: - May be some changes with the movement to charter schools.

Should not be considered an accessory use to a church, have to redistrict to US. Some classes have more opportunities than others, i.e. dog obedience schools can be located as private schools or kennels.

Drive-in uses should be treated the same whether it is for bank services or food services, lack of definitions.

- Truck and Mobile Home Sales/Rentals are separated out from Automotive and Minor Recreation Vehicle Sales/Rentals, no land use impact justification for this situation.

- Professional Offices - real estate profession is not listed in the "Professional Office" category although the impact is similar or less intrusive than lawyers, accountants, doctors or dentists. RA7 allows for conversion of dwellings only to Professional Offices and therefore excludes real estate and other professions.

Permits Generally, the classification systems for permits work well. Some exceptions: In DC5 all uses are treated as discretionary (including sips). Any minor change becomes a class C. Would propose that for DC5s, a development permit be treated as an occupancy permit.

Class A - loading & unloading & small additions leave opportunity for discretion in applying a Class A. Class D - exterior alterations in DC1 require a report (seems excessive.)

Notification - community wants notice before the decision and of the actual decision. Mark noted that the Belgravia-McKeman-Parkallen Overlay review will be a test for other neighbourhoods looking for community input.

Appendix 1 - Minutes from the Idea Exchange Sessions

15

-

Waiver Clause is not in the LUB, should it? Grey area.

Sign Regulations Sign industry appears to understand the regulations, but Section 79 could be fine-tuned and made easier to understand. Potential to eliminate some areas.

Definitions are good except that billboards could be tightened up and canopy signs should be brought upto-date.

City of Richmond created separate "sign zones" to deal with local issues.

Developers want sips approved as part of the bigger permit package.

Some issues related to "interpretation" have occurred. Clearer wording would help and a clearer understanding of what the "concerns" are.

Right now we consider signs as "blight", to be regulated. i.e. blight on corridors, backing onto residential uses.

Problem is that districts don't say where on the site a sign should be (e.g. situation where a CNC site backs onto RF1 development; we should be able to control the location of the sign so it has a minimal impact on adjacent properties.) LUB lacks ammunition to give DO something to rationalize their decisions.

Key question is how tight should enforcement be?

Signs are getting approved fast.

Some debate about freeing up restrictions on roof signs.

Electronic signs are becoming more popular; regulations are not clear enough regarding intensity of changeable copy signs.

Section 72, Development Information Signs, should be moved into the Sign Regulations.

Section 19.2, Development Permit Certification for Signs should go into the Sign Regulations (if it is still considered necessary).

General Development Regulations The location of General Development Regulations (Sections 50-78) catch many people off guard. Some reference is made in the districts, but often others are missed. May want to consider moving some regulations into the districts they apply to, even if it is repetitive.

Separation Space (Sec. 58) reflects the building code. Its role is necessary but agree that it is hard to understand and apply.

Private amenity area - philosophy is right but the application is faulty. (i.e. trying to get quality private amenity areas around low rise walk-up apartments) Definition of family oriented - does it have to be ground-oriented? Should we be dictating the number of bedrooms in a suite?

Front yards are seen differently today, no longer considered public space: Homeowners are using landscaping to create private spaces, may continue with eco-landscaping trends.

Front yards are not defmed differently for residential and industrial areas.

Apartments are allowed landscaping in the front yard, but the front yard can't be counted as part of amenity space.

Accessory buildings: Underground connections between a principle building and a garage should not be restricted if it is not visible from above; impact should be based on what you see above the ground.

Home-based businesses are changing how people use their garages. There should be a reasonable opportunity to use garages in home-based work. Why is there a restriction to having detached garages one story high. This limits the opportunity to have a studio or suite above the garage, which would be compatible as long as the principle building is two storeys.

Reference to CPTED principles should be added to Section 62 regarding the lighting of sites. Reference should be made to "a safe, lit environment."

Appendix 1 - Minutes from the Idea Exchange Sessions

16

Loading & Parking Regulations

Section 64, Access to Sites, should be grouped in with the Loading & Parking regulations.

Section 76, Passenger Drop-off Spaces for Schools, should be under Loading & Parking regulations.

Overall numbers in Loading & Parking regulations should be reviewed to address several inconsistencies & logic issues: Why are 2 loading spaces needed for a 465m2 building? Seems harsh.

Apartments of a certain number of units should require loading/unloading spaces, ongoing concern when residents move in and out.

Section 65.1 includes Residential-Related which is a very long list. Regulations should recognize particular uses.

Section 66.6, bicycle parking, should be reviewed: Parking requirements for bicycles don't look at individual uses. i.e. required in industrial areas, curling rinks, rowhousing developments. Valid in some areas, but not others. Could be at the discretion of the DO. Size of parking space depends on the type of bike rack, another place to apply discretion.

Maximum proportion of smaller parking stalls (15%) should be increased to a more reasonable number.

Schedule 66A, regarding vehicle parking spaces is hard to interpret and administer, linked to concerns with front yards. i.e. why can you have a car in tandem in a front yard but not flag poles and decks?

Wording for minimum number of parking spaces in residential areas for guest parking is confusing: "of the total number required" not "in addition to" Tandem parking is allowed in certain residential areas and not referred to again. Tandem parking has its role in other land use districts. LUB should further address tandem parking or leave it to the discretion of the DO. Parking requirements for Boarding & Lodging Houses, Seniors & Community Housing are not reasonable, may be a problem related to the definitions.

Parking requirements for non-residential uses outside the downtown - Professional, Financial & Office Support Services shouldn't require more parking other than commercial uses.

Don't understand the logic behind why the ratio of parking rises as a store gets larger. Studies have shown that when stores share a site (i.e. shopping malls), parking requirements drop by 15% due to multidestination trips. Validity of the models used to determine parking requirements should be reviewed.

Enhanced parking for alcohol sales is not necessary.

Religious Assembly requires 1 parking space per 10 seating spaces (too low, particularly when adding the ancillary use concerns), whereas Funeral Services requires 1 space per 5 seats. Same standards should apply to both uses.

Section 68, Parking Garages, is over-regulated (i.e. need for commercial frontage, 30 m queuing line).

Reference to dangerous goods should be removed from the LUB; should be concern for Fire Dept.

Landscaping

The existing regulations in Section 69 are generally good, however our primary problem is the enforcement of these regulations.

The Planning Department lacks the will to enforce landscaping and design requirements. e.g. Calgary Trail: we haven't been able to get property owners to do what was required with regard to landscaping.

- Letter of Credit requirement has been ineffective in coercing developers into undertaking required landscaping; we have been reluctant to recall Letters of Credit due to the poor economic conditions prevailing in the City and push to have an "open for business" image.

- Landscaping requirements are rarely asked for in the instance of low density residential development, although for infill situations landscaping would assist in ensuring that new development is compatible with the neighbourhood's character.

Appendix 1 - Minutes from the Idea Exchange Sessions

17

Completion Certificates Public complaints arise from the situation where developments are not being built in accordance with the approved plan.

The DOs do not have time to visit all properties applying for a permit, thus the submission of a Context Plan with an application has the potential for preventing future problems with adjacent property owners/residents (minimize impacts, etc.).

DOs are reluctant to ask for a Context Plan (which by right they can) due to pressure to fast track developments and maintain an open for business atmosphere (accommodating applicants by having low standards in terms of submission requirements).

Also, the DOs do not have time to visit sites upon completion in order to ensure the development is consistent with the approved design/concept and compatible with the surrounding development in the neighbourhood.

The promotion of higher quality design is saleable to Council if presented with a pro-development spin.

The issue of the use of Letters of Credit as a tool to ensure compliance with regulations has to be presented in a pro-development light rather than as a punitive measure.

Landscaped parking island requirements should be part of Section 69.

Excavation When does an excavation project become a development, i.e. in terms of requiring a permit?

In the case of defunct gas stations, the soil is decontaminated by turning it over in order to allow the leaked hydrocarbons to evaporate; this process often takes months.

Also the dust created while removing soil has an impact on adjacent properties.

We should consider a screening requirement while this process is occurring, for both safety and aesthetic reasons (minimize impacts on adjacent properties).

Grading work often disturbs local drainage patterns; should a permit be required in order to minimize disturbances?

Development Information Signs - Section 72; should it be part of Section 79, Sign Regulations?

Performance Standards for Industrial Developments - Section 73: the specific regulations should be moved to the particular zoning district they refer to (i.e. IM, IH, etc.).

- Jurisdiction over air, water and fire standards/emissions is a controversial issue that needs to be resolved.

General Performance Standards for Non-industrial Development - Section 74: this section provides the DO opportunity to ensure high quality development.

- Potentially a powerful tool for promoting quality, i.e. quality developments may have the effect of attracting businesses and development interest to Edmonton.

In general, the LUB lacks direction when it comes to aesthetics. Its general philosophy is oriented more to edge treatment (i.e. peripheral landscaping) than to the actual appearance of the structure being built (i.e. architectural; design).

Pedestrian Ways - Section 75: too prescriptive and overly oriented towards Pedways.

Appendix 1 - Minutes from the Idea Exchange Sessions

18

Passenger Drop-offs for ... Schools

- Section 76: should be part of the loading and unloading section. We should be requiring buildings to be moved back from the street to permit the development of drop off areas on private property (presently they tend to be developed on the public road right of way).

CPTED Guidelines - Section 77: Existence as guidelines, rather than regulations is good (permits greater design flexibility).

Special Land Use Provisions - Section 81 Religious Assembly: regulations are sufficient except for parking requirements, which are too low.

Transportation Dept. would like to see 1 space/5 seats.

Section 82 Vehicular Oriented Uses: queuing requirements need review; some uses such as banks do not need outbound spaces.

Section 87 Boarding & Lodging for Seniors: defmition of 'Senior' needs review. Reference to AHC needs to be removed as it does not exist anymore.

Section 88 Professional Offices: conversions are not allowed in enough districts. May be applied via ARP process on an area wide basis, since it is a low impact activity.

Section 89 Mobile Homes: amend to manufactured housing.

Section 93 Child Care Services: new regulations require DO to review applications for qualifications of applicant, as well as land use impacts. DOs do not have training to assess qualifications and suitability of site for children.

Impacts of daycares in residential areas should be reviewed.

Section 97 Recycling Drop-off Centres: on shopping centre sites, they are displacing required parking. Also, landscaping and screening need to be improved and better enforced.

Districts

-

Residential Districts: there are too many low density districts.

The RF3 District has been a problem in the case of 4 unit dwelling developments. We should develop some development criteria for the discretionary uses (especially 4 unit dwellings).

In the case of infill residential development we require some regulations that ensure compatibility with existing development in terms of scale, setback, style etc. Could be addressed via ARP overlay schedules.

RF4: is a specific district for semi-detached housing necessary?

RMH we should not be prescribing how mobile parks should be laid out.

CNC district is being replaced by DC5 to permit uses not suitable for CNC sites.

CHY: a review of this district is required. It was intended to create a district for tourist oriented uses; General Retail is omitted. The objective of this district could be better accomplished via MCC Overlay in combination with a CB1 or CB2 district.

CO District: is obsolete.

TB District: has become nearly the same as CB1 and CB2, however, there is still demand to put 'ugly' industrial developments in it. We need to decide whether it is going to be an industrial or commercial district.

IM District: there is demand to put offices in this district. Question as to whether we should open it up to less obtrusive uses.

Consideration should be given to having a single industrial district that utilizes performance standards.

US District: some closed schools have large kitchen facilities; catering companies have expressed interest in using kitchens, however, use is not permitted or discretionary in US. AG/AGU/AGI Districts: why are there 3 districts? All 3 should permit Outdoor Amusement Establishments.

DC5 District: is still over used. Used to squeeze in uses not permitted by existing district.

Appendix 1 - Minutes from the Idea Exchange Sessions

19

Overlays Could Overlays be put into the computer as a flag to DOs? Section 811: Top of Bank Line: is too often being determined at the development permit stage, which is too late.

Should be determined at subdivision stage.

Sections 813 (Entrance Routes) & 814 (MCC) are repetitious. Why does 813 include the downtown?

SPOs: consideration should be given to involving a DO when developing SPO regulations, in order to ensure proper implementation.

Appendix 1 - Minutes from the Idea Exchange Sessions

20

Land Development and Inventory Section Land and Housing Branch Attending:

Bob Graden

Blair Sibbald

Basic Philosophy blending of zoning techniques in current LUB works well but could use some modifications must be flexible to suit the economy as it changes need a balance between certainty and flexibility with flexibility comes a requirement for expertise and safeguards in the process to prevent abuse. One example of a safeguard is the notification process. with greater discretion there are no guarantees that applications will be treated consistently (could vary among the DOs) consistency is important, but need a degree of flexibility because you can't prescribe every situation in advance (no such thing as a "certain" environment) LUB must be fair (not prejudicial) and makes the rules clear for everyone (level playing field) need more manpower to enforce Format current LUB is imposing in size & cross-referencing is confusing if LUB is considered a public document, it is very complex

Sign Bylaw signs are an integral part of development & should remain a part of the LUB current sign bylaw very hard to understand, could be simplified graphics/diagrams would clarify and reduce wording Special Use Regulations - easy to miss them - cross references are not very clear Industrial Districts politically, are caught between standards and "open for business" attitude. i.e. businesses locating in a business park want quick approvals and don't want to be held up by standards some criticism that the IB district is too restrictive, a constraint to development. i.e. businesses want outdoor storage, particularly for interior sites and for sales of farm equipment & heavy equipment which require outdoor storage. In contrast, automotive & minor RV sales/rentals which require outdoor storage are a discretionary use in IB (map provided of sample problem areas with internal TB sites). for interior IB sites, could flexibility be provided so that, in special circumstances, outdoor storage is possible i.e. "in the opinion of the DO, area is an interior site, would not be visible from an arterial..." DO could also require landscaping to offset impact of outdoor storage.

PUDs don't know of any PUDs in Edmonton. Would they be cheaper/more attractive/more efficient than our current process of subdivision? Likely not plausible because it requires that so many decisions be made in advance. Developers like flexibility, to change when the market changes.

Appendix 1 - Minutes from the Idea Exchange Sessions

21

Residential Districts recommend we compress the number of residential zones RA7 district now seeing four storey wood frame construction; need to evaluate pennitted density against this new style of construction no market for RA8 (construction costs don't work unless subsidized, i.e. for seniors) RA9 is okay from a density standpoint but no market. But can't base LUB on current market situation in case it changes. see more changes ahead for residential areas (i.e. home businesses) permitted building heights & densities for RF6, RA7, RA8, RA9, RMX & CMX should be reviewed to see if the districtings reflect what can actually be built, taking into account construction design & technology & economic viability.

Commercial Districts

leasing concerns arise when there is a change of use that is logical but inconsistent with the district. An example is a lease for an autoshop, originally approved as a minor service station. When the gas pumps are removed, the use is considered equipment repair and the LUB does not allow this in CNC. Nonconformity arises just because the gas pumps are removed. Although in this case, the SDAB approved the use, officially the SDAB cannot change use.

CRY does not allow vehicle and RV sales (which could be considered a typical highway commercial use), but does allow general industrial. District should allow more flexibility in use, but require more landscaping along frontage.

Zoning when Property Lines Move

would it be possible to allow minor redistrictings to accommodate: - road closures - minor property line changes (including registration of a road plan), or - when a top-of-bank boundary is re-aligned? (i.e. a simple land exchange could require both a plan amendment and redistricting).

Reference: Section 6.2 of LUB another issue is what district a piece of land takes on when the property line moves, particularly when there are two districts involved. This happens most often with closures. Most complicated when adjacent district is DC5.

Annexed Areas

problem when selling annexed land which still holds the "County" district. Hard to determine/agree on the equivalent district under the LUB. Winterburn Industrial is particularly confusing confuses the public when advertisements use "County" districts that are not familiar

Appendix 1 - Minutes from the Idea Exchange Sessions

22

- Appendix 2 -

Summary of Zoning Techniques

October 1995

Table of Contents 1.

Contextual Zoning Conservation Districts Historic Preservation Districts

1

2.

Conventional Zoning Euclidean Zoning Self-executing Zoning As-of-right Zoning Standard or Traditional Zoning

3

3.

Direct Control Zoning Contract Zoning

4

4.

Express Purpose Zoning

6

5.

Floating Zones

7

6.

Impact Zoning

8

7.

Incentive Zoning Bonus Zoning

9

8.

Inclusionary Zoning

11

9.

Land Use Intensity System (LUI) Intensity Zoning

13

10. No Zoning

15

11. Overlay Zoning

16

12. Performance Based Zoning

17

13. Planned Unit Development (PUD) Cluster Zoning

19

14. Point System Guidance System

21

15. Risk Management Zoning

22

Bibliography

23

Appendix 2- Summary of Zoning Techniques

Contextual Zoning Also referred to as:

Definition:

Conservation Districts Historic Preservation Districts

Zoning designations are based on an evaluation of, and protection of, neighbourhood architectural, historical and cultural characteristics. Injects considerable design flexibility within the building envelope while encouraging neighbourhood compatibility.

How Implemented: Using the New York City example: - Zones encourage new construction that fits in with the old, discourages out-of-scale development and recognizes the differences among neighbourhoods.

Requires a comprehensive evaluation of neighbourhoods.

- A matrix, based on use configuration (semi-detached, mixed or rowhousing) and floor area, characterizes the distinct types of housing available and guides new zoning designations.

- Zoning permits architectural creativity while providing for as-of-right approvals.

- Results/solutions: requires new or revised zoning designations, encourages more variety of small-lot houses, allows zero lot lines, allows detached houses on 25' lots, permits small accessory apartments, limits curb cuts to encourage curb-side parking, limits off-street parking in front yards and re-directs it to rear yards, encourages preservation of planting in front yards.

Where Implemented/Examples: - About 30 North American cities have conservation districts, most introduced in the late 1980s.

Atlanta, Boston, Nashville, Tacoma, Portland, Cambridge, Dallas, Phoenix, Raleigh (N.C.), Memphis.

- City of New York (1989): comprehensive amendment to zoning bylaw in response to a housing market boom. Issues: - Concerns traced back to 1961 when the city revised its zoning map to reflect a neighbourhood's proximity to mass transit. This was compounded by the abuse of loopholes available in FAR definitions.

Developers were replacing one- and two-family houses with boxy, 3-storey rowhouses.

These increased the density and were out of context in the traditional neighbourhoods. Also increased the number of cars; many yards were paved over and curb cuts reduced opportunities for on-street parking.

- In 1988 the planning dept. conducted a contextual study of lower density areas in 9 months using upwards of 50 planners. Study began with a neighbourhood survey of building characteristics, including number of stories, number of dwelling units, type of roof, width of side yards, planting and parking.

Study resulted in 18 categories of streetscapes and 1400 housing types. (Almost half were detached houses on 25-30' lots, 1/4 were semi-detached.)

- Solution to the problems could not jeopardise the housing supply but encouraged varied development.

Appendix 2- Summary of Zoning Techniques

1

Contextual Zoning Additional Comments:

Developed in response to an urgent need for new housing while preserving the character of older neighbourhoods.

Trade-offs: some communities wanted more restrictions; concern than zoning would worsen housing shortages.

Outstanding issues to address: will homeowners be able to build large houses to accommodate their families? will homeowners be able to add on to their small houses?

Working with communities, the planning dept. has identified locations for both development and preservation.

Preservation of neighbourhood character and historic structures has been considered a legitimate public purpose (maintaining the character of single-family areas by refusing variances for nonresidential uses is standard practice.) However, although no legal challenges have been raised, there could be freedom of expression issues.

Appendix 2- Summary of Zoning Techniques

2

Conventional Zoning Also referred to as:

Definition:

Euclidean Zoning Self-executing Zoning As-of-right Zoning Standard or Traditional Zoning

Uses are segregated into different zones with imposed site and building (development) standards in order to minimize nuisance.

How Implemented: - Relies on a list of specific uses to define what activities may be permitted in each zone, subject to specific controls such as lot size, setback, height, etc.

Generally, commercial, industrial and residential uses are clearly separated, with further breakdowns within these categories for differing density and quality of development.

Uniform development standards applied in each zone to protect pubic health, safety and welfare; fixed approach to land use design.

Where Implemented/Examples: - Predominate approach in most North American Municipalities (for past 70 years).

Additional Comments: - Euclidean Zoning refers to a court case of Euclid, Ohio vs. Amber Realty Co. (1926) in which the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the general principal of zoning as a valid exercise of a municipality's police powers.

- Provides certainty (regulations explicit and straightforward).

- Easy to administer (short approval process).

- Rigid, inflexible, simplistic, criticized for forcing cookie-cutter design, pursues status quo and uniformity.

- Focus is on land use and not urban design (aesthetics, appearance, ie. homes tend to share the same architecture, be the same size and share the same orientation on the lot).

Does not ensure protection of the natural environment or landscape features - Land use and zones slow to reflect changes in society (natural, physical, man-made or fiscal) and when new issues arise (changing household composition, altered lifestyles, need for affordable housing, immigrant populations, tenants, special needs groups); potential barrier to innovation.

- Jurisdictions that use conventional zoning have built flexibility into it by combining with more innovative approaches to zoning (design guidelines, environmental impact assessments, development control).

Often includes a procedure for relaxing standard regulations to provide some flexibility (variances).

Appendix 2- Summary of Zoning Techniques

3

Development Control Zoning Also referred to as: Definition:

Contract Zoning

A system of zoning where permission to develop is at the discretion of the planning authority, that is, there are no identified permitted land uses attached to a property.

The use of a property and the form of development that can occur on it are determined through negotiation between the developer and the community/planning authority.

How Implemented: -

Zone is used in response to development applications for sites that possess unique physical or locational characteristics; or to developments of an innovative nature (in terms of design or mix of uses, etc.).

- The specific regulations of the zone are negotiated by the developer and approval authority; and are unique to that particular site.

Special conditions, such as extra landscaping requirements, buffer yards and design features are negotiated in order to assure compatibility with surrounding development.

Where Implemented/Examples: Approach often used as a supplement to traditional zoning.

Direct control originated in Great Britain.

Alberta.

Regina (1986) adopted contract zoning in the form of overlay zones. The existing zoning remains on the property and the zoning contract is placed on top. Subsequently, the appropriateness of the overlay approach was questioned and the contract zone was amended to ensure that only the uses and regulations described in the agreement would apply to the sites and the previous zoning would no longer apply. Each contract zone is treated as a new zoning classification; all the uses and regulations must be included in the zoning agreement. Contract zones in Regina are applied to parcels with unusual size or shape which may not be usable under traditional zones.

Regina's Direct Control District is applied to establish, control or enhance a unique character, a special environmental concern, or a special historic, cultural, or architectural site.

- Some jurisdictions in the U.S. (where the legality of contract zoning has been successfully challenged).

Abolished in B.C. in 1978 because of complaints about the abusive exercise of discretion.

In North America development control has traditionally been reserved for the regulation of large scale downtown developments or multiple unit residential development.

-

Appendix 2- Summary of Zoning Techniques

4

Development Control Zoning Additional Comments:

-

Offers maximum flexibility of land use, as well as power to ensure any externalities are addressed to the satisfaction of neighbouring property owners.

Allows factors such as design and environmental protection to be considered during the development review process.

Is demanding in terms of staff time and skills (negotiating skills) and community involvement.

Complex negotiation process often results in relatively lengthy application processing time lines and associated costs and uncertainty.

Criticized for opportunities to use "discretion" resulting in inequitable or inconsistent application.

Appendix 2- Summary of Zoning Techniques

5

Express Purpose Zoning Defmition:

A system that essentially ties zoning to land use plans by developing land use districts based on the functional relationship proposed in the comprehensive plan.

Theoretically, the influence of planning on zoning administration is improved by this system because land use plans become the foundation of zoning.

How Implemented: - General land use districts are assigned an express purpose in harmony with the policies and objectives of the land use element of the comprehensive plan.

The purpose statement of the zone clearly identifies the preferred location and performance standards for use categories, thus providing guidance to the zoning of new areas and the review of rezoning applications in developed areas.

- The resulting districts give definition and precision to the broad land use categories in the comprehensive plan.

Where Implemented/Examples: - Beaumont, TX: - The zoning for the NC Neighbourhood Commercial district would read as follows: "This district is primarily intended for retail sales of convenience goods or personal services for persons residing in adjacent residential areas. It also includes selected retail and service uses that are similar in land use intensity and physical impact to the neighbourhood. The NC district is located on the periphery of the residential neighbourhood on a major street in close proximity to the intersection of two major streets."

Additional Comments: The adoption of Express Purpose Zoning requires the development of detailed comprehensive plan(s) in order to be effectively implemented.

Appendix 2 - Summary of Zoning Techniques

6

Floating Zones Definition:

Is a zone described in the text of a zoning bylaw or ordinance but is not affixed to any particular location until requested. It is similar to a conventional zone in that it is prescriptive in terms of uses, siting and parking requirements.

How Implemented:

- A floating zone 'floats' over a community until it is applied to a specific property in response to a development application.

It is similar in effect to a special permit, but affords greater flexibility because it is not limited to specific areas.

- Once the floating zone is applied, it becomes the same as any other zone.

Where Implemented/Examples:

Knoxville, Tenn.

Most common application is for Planned Unit Developments (PUD) and for suburban shopping centre developments.

Floating zones often include special requirements, such as economic studies, parking/traffic studies or evidence of need/demand for the proposed development.

Additional Comments:

-

Allows a municipality to limit the number of high impact developments without dictating where they must locate - putting the onus on the development industry to justify the suitability of a location.

Appendix 2- Summary of Zoning Techniques

7

Impact Zoning Similar to: Performance Based Zoning Definition:

A system of zoning that regulates development on the basis of impacts on the environment and municipal infrastructure and fiscal capacities, rather than on use.

Impact zoning evolved from the approach of analysis taken by environmental impact assessments. Establishes a process for evaluating the relationship between a community's available capacities and the demands upon community systems created by a proposed development.

How Implemented: By comparing the available capacities with the estimated demands, impacts of development are identified.

Development proposals are evaluated on the basis of their impacts on the environment, infrastructure, municipality's budget and economy.

Approval depends on proof that a project/development will generate positive or, at the worst, neutral impacts on the community.

- If it is found that a proposed development overburdens a community's infrastructure or adversely affects the natural environment, the developer may be able to negotiate modifications to the project that address the higher than permitted impacts. For example, if a proposed development will create traffic levels above the existing roadways capacity, the proposal may be modified to require street improvements that increase traffic capacity.

Where Implemented/Examples: -

Cocoa Beach, Fla. (has not become widely used)

Additional Comments: - Offers greater flexibility in land use and site design.

- Introduces a broader range of concerns (i.e. impact on sewers, municipal expenditures, roadways, etc.).

Impact zoning has an inherent demand for a large, comprehensive data base on the existing capacities of the natural, physical and economic systems of a municipality.

- Complex approval process results in longer review timelines, and requires extensive documentation from the applicant (which may pose difficulties for all but the larger more sophisticated developers).

Appendix 2- Summary of Zoning Techniques

8

Incentive Zoning Also referred to as: Definition:

Bonus Zoning

Grants specific concessions to a developer beyond that permitted as-of-right by the underlying zoning, in return for specific public benefits/amenities. Incentive zoning must promote the public interest.

How Implemented: - The public benefits and developer incentives are tied together in the zoning ordinance according to exact formulas which provide clear but inflexible trade-offs. (ie. a 5% density increase for creating an open space plaza).

To be effective, the desired objectives must be clearly stated and based on careful study. They must follow a plan, costs and benefits to both parties must be balanced, and distinctions between mandatory and elective improvements spelled out. Must develop explicit, easy to follow bonus criteria and guidelines.

- Examples of public benefits: additional parkland or open space preservation of natural features historic preservation redevelopment affordable housing public space - ie. library, theatre, daycare - pedestrian connections/transit connections - limiting shadows on public parks and plazas - building design improvements - underground parking - Examples of incentives to developers: - tax concessions - density increases increased building height - street improvements - additional use types Where Implemented/Examples: - Surrey's land use bylaw includes bonus provisions in certain residential and commercial zones for underground parking, additional open space and the preservation of natural features.

San Francisco has granted a density increase of 20% over the usual limits if a building in a high density commercial district has direct access to a transit station. Drawback: San Francisco did not anticipate intense development at the edge of the district rather than at the centre. In 1985, city removed bonus provisions and replaced them with provisions to transfer development rights.

Appendix 2- Summary of Zoning Techniques

9

Incentive Zoning Examples, continued New York grants bonuses to developers who incorporate a legitimate theatre or public plaza in new office development. Drawback: New York has some "dead" plazas (windswept, sunless and little used) created when the incentive was over-applied.

Arlington County, Virginia and Bellingham, Mass. have encouraged development of lower income housing through their incentive zoning.

Seattle, Washington (1985): 27 storey high rise climbed to 55 storeys by providing several trade-offs (ie. 13 storeys in return for 196 residential units, 1 storey for a daycare, 1 1/2 storeys for a public atrium, 2 storeys for a sculptured rooftop, etc.). Seattle applies a bonus ratio for each amenity (ie. for one square foot of park, five more square feet of commercial space is granted).

Bellevue, Washington: in attempting to make its downtown a viable neighbourhood, offered increased density for including grocery stores, hardware stores, public meeting rooms and public restrooms.

Portland, Oregon adopted an extensive bonus system.

Tempe, Arizona: trade density increases for amenities Additional Comments:

-

Cities should priorize public goals and adopt public policies in the general plan to reflect those goals, particularly to provide a tangible and legal basis for the zoning.

The private developer must feel he is gaining an advantage to participate.

A response to shrinking municipal funding sources; developers provide public facilities which would otherwise have to be paid for by the government.

The community has a say in the type of amenity to be added to an area.

No guarantees: what you do not specify, you do not get (ie. urban plazas must be equipped with comfortable seating, adequate lighting, eating facilities, landscaping features, etc.).

Developer incentives could be equated to a sanctioned bribe; potential to be highly political.

Some fear that the developer is receiving incentives for features he would be providing anyway (ie. daycares needed incentives a few years ago, but may be good business sense for the developer today and included anyway).

Bonuses differ in the amount of ongoing maintenance and enforcement required (ie. public art vs. short-term parking have quite different long-term impact for the developer).

Incentive zoning more applicable when market is strong; an incentive system can be put in place in anticipation of a stronger marker.

Appendix 2 - Summary of Zoning Techniques

10

Inclusionary Zoning Also referred to as:

Inclusive Community Planning

Similar to: Incentive Zoning Dermition:

Requires, rather than encourages, developers to include certain uses or amenities, or money or land in lieu, in exchange for bonuses such as variances or density or height increases.

How Implemented: - Most often applied to promote affordable housing, opening neighbourhoods to a variety of housing types and income groups.

Steps beyond physical land use regulation to address economic, cultural, physical and social well-being.

3 tasks: - prohibit exclusionary practices (ie. zone land for all types of housing) introduce a more inclusive mandate for planning which extends beyond the regulation of physical land use and leads into social planning - initiate a more inclusive process (process must be dynamic, on-going and community oriented, goals must be open-ended and broadly defined).

Where Implemented/Examples: 200 U.S. jurisdictions use inclusionary planning in some form Boston (1986): private housing developers are expected to set aside at least 10% of their units for lower income housing for projects of 10 or more units.

- Seattle uses inclusionary zoning to promote affordable housing in the downtown core by requiring 10% of their units for lower income housing for structures containing 20 or more dwelling units.

- Newton (Boston area)(1972): required all residential developments needing a rezoning permit to provide lower-income rental units equivalent to 10% of the total units.

- Not applied widely, or over the long term in Canada, because municipalities rely on government funding to produce affordable housing, usually through non-profit groups.

Vancouver (1988) introduced "income-mixed zoning": requiring private downtown redevelopments of more than 240 units to set aside building sites to accommodate at least 20% of the total units as non-market housing. City purchases these sites through government funding and leases them to non-profit developers. Drawback: more sites secured than developed because funding has decreased.

Appendix 2- Summary of Zoning Techniques

11

Inclusionary Zoning Examples continued Ontario government adopted the 1989 Land Use Planning for Housing policy statement which requires municipalities to ensure that 25% of new residential units in a given urban area are affordable (affordable is defmed).

Kitchener and Waterloo official plans require that lower priced homes be located in new subdivisions, ask for an adequate mix of rental/ownership units.

Additional Comments: -

Response to exclusionary zoning, which is seen to exclude certain types of "people" from neighbourhoods (ie. ethnic minorities, lower-income households, renters). For example, imposing restrictions on social housing, accessory housing and special needs housing (group homes) "constructively" discriminates against those dependent on it. Inclusionary zoning, in effect, redistributes wealth and public/private costs.

- Response to NIMBY opposition, which has been used to keep housing homogeneous.

Urban reform movement introduced some inclusionary planning practices such as the requirement for socially-mixed neighbourhoods.

Goals can be jeopardind by the use of restrictive covenants (contractual agreements between the developer and purchasers which limit future uses as a means to protect the character of new developments; covenants may set house size, external materials, and restrict non-single family uses).

Appendix 2 - Summary of Zoning Techniques

12

Land Use Intensity System (LUI) Also referred to as: Definition:

Intensity Zoning

Complete regulatory system of site development standards. For any development density, the LUI system relates the mass, bulk and height of buildings to open space, recreational space and off-street parking for the site.

How Implemented:

-

-

-

-

-

LUI numbers are applied to specific properties or zones through the zoning map or community plan.

3 components: i) a land use intensity scale assigns a LUI number to represent density ranges. ii) site development standards for each LUI number are established using an assigned set of 6 ratios (floor area, open space, livability space, total car, occupancy car and recreation space ratios). These ratios represent a best mix of physical site development for each LUI number. iii) building spacing is determined on the basis of window orientation and function, building height and wall lengths. (Most complicated component of the system; often considered to be too small, and so communities often substitute simpler rules.).

Example: at the lowest density, the LUI number "30" is about 4 dw/ac. The set of ratios corresponding to a LUI of 30 emphasizes large amounts of open space and severely limits floor area and units on site.

Example: at the highest density, the LUI number "80" is about 128 dw/ac. The ratios allow high amounts of floor area and units, and provides desirable amounts of open space and off-street parking.

Example: A parcel assigned a low LUI number of 30 to 40 will result in single detached and attached housing, duplexes, townhouses and single-site commercial uses (ie. a stand-alone KMart).

Mostly applied to comprehensive multi-unit residential projects.

LUI numbers and their corresponding set of 6 ratios are set out in tables, one for residential uses, another for non-residential uses.

Staff must measure each part of the site plan for conformance to LUI ratios and definitions (potential to disagree with developer's measurements).

Applications must meet both zoning requirements and LUI site development standards.

Appendix 2- Summary of Zoning Techniques

13

Land Use Intensity System (LUI) Where Implemented/Examples:

Conceived in early 1960s by the U.S. Federal Housing Administration (FHA).

Not widely embraced, in 1976 maybe 100 jurisdictions applied it, by 1986, only five use the complete system.

Miami, Florida has incorporated the complete system, and applied it to both residential and nonresidential development.

Winnipeg adapted the system to regulate the bulk and spacing of buildings in its planned residential and multiple-family residential zones.

Norfolk, Virginia and Iowa City apply the LUI system to Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay zones.

Additional Comments:

"Sophisticated" system that provides more site design flexibility than conventional zoning, but formulas and calculations can be complicated; hard to visualize the project.

Does not address environmental or urban design concerns.

Not a complete land use control system, usually applied to control massing and spacing of buildings, particularly for large multi-unit residential uses.

Difficult to apply in commercial and industrial development.

Ratios and building spacing formulas represent the "ideal situation" and are based on the site planning experience of HUD (Housing and Urban Development) and FHA. LUI works best in larger jurisdictions with a rapidly-growing urban fringe.

Appendix 2- Summary of Zoning Techniques

14

No Zoning Definition:

Properties have no predetermined use or siting regulations attached to them. Market forces are relied upon to determine the use of land.

How Implemented:

Relies on economic forces to dictate the location and separation of land uses, since different types of land uses tend to have different locational requirements.

- The existence of certain uses in an area tend to impact property values, thus preventing incompatible uses from locating in proximity to them.

- When economic forces fail, restrictive covenants are utilized; placing restrictions on land use and design.

Where Implemented/Examples:

- Houston, TX; Witchita Falls, TX: Although Houston has no Zoning Bylaw, it does have several 'zoning like' ordinances in place that restrict the location of some activities, as well as the siting and appearance of residences and other relatively low impact land uses. For example, ordinances are in place that: require building setbacks for residences 25 feet from the front property line and 35 feet when facing onto a major thoroughfare; prohibit slaughter houses within 3,000 feet of parks or residential dwellings; require minimum off street parking stalls; and preclude mobile homes from being located outside of approved mobile home parks.

Also of note, nuisance ordinances based on the common law of nuisance are used to preclude the development of incompatible uses.

In Houston and Witchita Falls, development is controlled by an extensive system of private restrictive covenants. The covenants are often more restrictive than traditional zoning regulations in that they regulate features such as building materials, view protection, architectural design and land use.

Additional Comments:

-

Experience has shown that in terms of fmancial and time resources, planning departments in cities without zoning direct most of their efforts towards enforcing restrictive covenants.

Appendix 2- Summary of Zoning Techniques

15

Overlay Zoning Defmition:

One or more zoning designations are overlaid on the current zoning map to add flexibility or impose additional requirements in order to achieve an objective.

Property is placed simultaneously in the two zones, and must be developed under the conditions and requirements of the more stringent zone.

How Implemented: Site specific, maintain most elements of traditional zoning but provide an opportunity to implement site specific public policies.

Typically applied to address a special public interest. For example: - floodplain areas environmentally sensitive lands historic areas to preserve views limit building heights restrict areas to public uses Where Implemented/Examples: Can be applied to encourage the construction of affordable housing (ie. to permit low-income housing at a higher than usual density or by relaxing various restrictions.).

Cleveland (1991).

Additional Comments: -

Useful in central cities and older suburbs, which do not readily conform to traditional zoning application.

Can be used to accommodate alternative future scenarios; market uncertainty may require more than one overlay.

Appendix 2- Summary of Zoning Techniques

16

Performance Based Zoning Definition:

Pure performance zoning does not involve the allocation of uses in zones, rather it allows development to occur in an almost laissez faire fashion by permitting any uses to be adjoining if they are compatible based on performance standard criteria.

Zones are defined by a list of performance standards rather than a list of permitted uses. The zone specifies the minimum or maximum allowable effect of a land use or activity based on quantifiable measures. Typical performance standards include: traffic generation, noise, odour, glare - all of which can be readily qiiantified/measured.

How Implemented: -

-

-

The planning authority reviews development proposals for the performance of uses rather than the uses themselves.

As long as the use can meet certain standards in regard to its operations, environmental impacts and appearance, it will be approved.

The siting of a development (i.e. buffer yards, set backs and landscaping) is not prescribed in the zone, rather it is arrived at by identifying what the impacts of the proposed development will have; and then analysing them with the purpose of identifying what measures must be implemented to reduce them to an acceptable/minimal level.

Severely incompatible land uses are effectively discouraged through mitigation requirements (e.g. an industrial use wanting to locate in a residential area would have to provide such a high proportion of site area as yard/buffer area that it could not economically locate in such a location).

In the U.S. performance standards zoning has been applied via several methods, including: special districts, special use permits, floating zones, and PUD.

Where Implemented/Examples: -

Fort Collins, CO; Breckenridge, CO; Bucks County, PA: Hardin County, KY; Duxbury, MT; Bath Township, Michigan et. al.

Note: no community has 100% adopted performance standard zoning, primarily due to the fact that measurement methods are not sophisticated enough to deal with all situations.

Fort Collins, CO (pop. 82,000) has the purest form of performance zoning; it uses a point system to evaluate neighbourhood compatibility - points obtained for amenities, proximity to transit, traffic generation, etc.

Appendix 2- Summary of Zoning Techniques

17

Performance Based Zoning Additional Comments:

System requires clear planning objectives, a good data base, and highly trained staff in order to develop objective standards of measurement, the maximum or minimum permitted levels of impact and to ensure standards have been complied with.

Has more flexible treatment of development, with much less discretionary action on the part of public officials.

By offering more flexible treatment of building locations, sizes and relationships, performance standards encourage developments that are more sensitive to specific site conditions.

Problem have been encountered with the application of this form of zoning to infill projects in largely built up areas (decisions have led to resident uprisings).

Appendix 2- Summary of Zoning Techniques

18

Planned Unit Development (PUD) Similar to: Cluster Zoning (includes PUD features) Definition:

A flexible approach to land use control where uses and development standards, as well as the timing and sequencing of the development, can be negotiated within a specified site plan review process.

How Implemented:

- Allows developer to achieve the maximum density permitted through the flexible siting of uses within the zone.

Usually a maximum number of units or floor area is credited to a parcel of land. The development can be clustered on the parcel in order to preserve a lake, trees, hills or other natural features.

Development flexibility, negotiation, and discretionary application of standards occur during the site plan review process.

Each PUD ordinance is different; no standard operating procedure.

- PUD plans are officially filed; the developer commits to a specific plan of action and is guaranteed approvals on a long term project, as long as he abides by the plan and schedule.

- PUDs can be overlays over free-standing conventional zones or independent free-standing zones: A PUD overlay allows the applicant to vary any regulation in the underlying zone except density and uses allowed in the zone.

A free-standing PUD zone requires the applicant to identify the uses allowed in various locations on the land and specify all regulatory development standards - yards, height, density, housing type, lot coverage, open space.

PUDs must be numbered on the zoning map because each PUD has its own unique set of development standards.

Where Implemented/Examples:

- Columbia, MY - Minneapolis, MN In North America, these approaches used as a supplement to conventional zoning, 2 tier system Most popular in the U.S. - Regina: Since 1984, the creation of new PUD zones has been prohibited by the Saskatchewan Act. The PUD zone remains in Regina's 1992 Land Use Bylaw to recognize established PUDs and allow for the alteration of site plans for existing PUDs.

Appendix 2- Summary of Zoning Techniques

19

Planned Unit Development (PUD) Additional Comments:

Typically applied to multi-unit residential development in agricultural, suburban or environmentally sensitive areas, but also shopping centres, industrial and office parks and mixed use projects.

Typical characteristics of PUD ordinances: clustering or groupings of buildings mixing housing types combining housing with other uses such as shopping centres designing better open space, common open space retaining natural features (floodplains, steep slopes) - road design standards and servicing requirements often reduced densities calculated over the entire site variations in lot sizes, side yards and setbacks permitted.

- Provide for maximum flexibility, encourages innovation, comprehensive.

May result in uncertainty regarding approval and lengthens the approval process.

Higher administration costs.

Staff require negotiation and design skills.

Criticized for opportunities to use "discretion" resulting in inconsistent or inequitable application.

- PUD requirements originally criticized for being excessive, cumbersome and lengthy to process; reaction is to streamline using "short PUDs" or simplified PUDs. Flexible, can respond to environmental issues, preserve natural features.

Market reverses can cause even large scale developers to abandon a project.

Appendix 2- Summary of Zoning Techniques

20

Point System Also referred to as:

Guidance System

Similar to: Performance Based Zoning Definition:

Under this framework traditional zones do not exist - few uses are as-of-right and even fewer are prohibited. Proposed developments are evaluated in relation to a standard set of criteria in a check list format; thus they are reviewed on their individual merits. The decision of approval is contingent upon the development achieving some minimum score.

How Implemented:

- A point scale is used to evaluate a development proposal. The scale is comprised of a number of attributes deemed desirable by the approval authority - e.g. compliance with community plans, soil type (value for agricultural use), site amenities, quality of access roads, amount of open space provided, availability of sewers, water and fire protection, design features, etc. A weighting scale ensures that highest priority attributes are given the greatest consideration.

- The amount of points awarded is based on a subjective evaluation as to the extent to which the proposal achieves/complies with the criteria on the check list.

- Approval is contingent upon attaining a minimum total score.

Where Implemented/Examples:

- Hardin County, KY; Tempe AZ; Boulder CO: In Hardin County, a second stage "Public Assessment" supplements the point system evaluation. It is used because the point system does not segregate land uses. This second stage involves 'compatibility meetings' between the developer and the community, with the planning authority acting in a mediation/facilitator role. Ideally, at this stage specific conditions that address the compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding development is agreed upon. The developer can obtain density bonuses in return for providing a mix of amenities that have points ascribed to them (e.g. laundry facilities, private balcony, tile roof, visual privacy, recreational facilities, etc.).

In Tempe, the point system is used exclusively for evaluating multifamily development. A minimum amount of points must be achieved in order to obtain approval for the project.

Additional Comments:

-

The rationale of the Point System is that it introduces some certainty to the development process. All parties are aware from the beginning what the minimum requirements are to obtain approval of a project

Appendix 2- Summary of Zoning Techniques

21

Risk Management Zoning Similar to:

Impact Zoning and Performance Zoning

Defmition:

A system of zoning intended to regulate the location of industrial uses (specifically those that use or produce hazardous substances) with the objective of minimizing, to some acceptable level, the potential impacts that an emergency/accident could incur, in terms of casualties and property damage.

How Implemented: -

Policies are implemented through a land use bylaw which identify and classify hazardous activities and provide for the restriction of uses in proximity to the hazardous activities.

Identification of separation distances from a specific hazard. Risk contours are used to identify areas where different categories of uses are acceptable (e.g. uses are to be transitional, with the most susceptible located the furthest from the source of the hazard).

- A risk assessment is required as part of the evaluation of a development proposal that involves a hazardous use or is in proximity to a hazardous use.

Where Implemented/Examples: Europe (U.K. France, Netherlands and Germany) For new major hazard installations in the Netherlands, the maximum acceptable level of individual risk has been taken as the risk level which increases the risk of death by all other causes with a maximum of one percent. The individual "natural death" risk run by the population group 10 to 14 years old, which is 104, has been taken as the basic risk. Thus the risk of a fatal accident to an individual who is exposed because of his continuous presence (365 days/year) in the neighbourhood of a hazardous activity shall be less than one in one million years.

An example of the application of guidelines for acceptable levels of risk for various land uses, as formulated by the MIACC (Major Industrial Accidents Council of Canada), is provided in the attached illustration. Risk contours are utilized, and are based on the risk measurement system devised by the Dutch (as explained previously). In this example residential uses are permitted to locate at the 1 in 100,000 zone boundary. That is, the maximum acceptable risk level to which an individual is permitted to be exposed to because of his continuous presence in the neighbourhood of a hazard activity shall not be less than 1 in 100,000 years.

Appendix 2- Summary of Zoning Techniques

22

Bibliography Bair, Frederick H. Intensity Zoning: Regulating townhouses, apartments and planned developments.

American Society of Planning Officials, Chicago. Report No. 314, February 1976.

Barker, Greg. Surrey Zoning By-law Review, Report No. 2, Towards a Better By-law, Objectives, Alternatives and Recommendations. Citiplan: Surrey: November 1983.

City of Regina Zoning Bylaw No. 9250, 1992.

Dennison, Mark S. "Conservation districts: latest zoning tool to preserve neighbourhood character."

Zoning News. November 1992.

Filion, Pierre and Michelle Alexander. "A conflict in the making: restrictive covenants as legal obstacles to affordable housing, inclusionary zoning and intensification." The Intensification Report. SeptOct, 1994.

Fregonese, John. Performance Standard Guidelines. Ashland, Oregon.

Gordon, Dennis A.. "The power of the point system." Planning. December 1984.

Homick, Sandy. "Context is everything." Planning. December 1990.

Howland, Libby. "Zoning for an uncertain future." Urban Land. June 1992.

Hulchanski, J. David and Richard Drdla. "And housing for all: opening the doors to inclusive community planning." Plan Canada. May 1993.

Kendig, Lane. "Performance zoning: an update on Euclid." Planning. November 1980.

Land Information Institute. Impact Zoning.

Lassar, Terry Jill. "Great expectations: the limits of incentive zoning." Urban Land. May 1990.

McElroy, Joseph, J. "You Don't Have to be Big to Like Performance Zoning." Planning May 1985.

Meshenberg, Michael J. The administration of flexible zoning techniques. American Society of Planning Officials. Chicago: June 1976.

Phalen, Tam. "How has Performance Zoning Performed?," Urban Land, October 1983.

Porter, Douglas R. et al. Flexible Zoning - How It Works. Urban Land Institute, 1988.

Porter, Douglas. "Houston's new-wave zoning: a fresh look at an old regulatory device." Urban Land.

March 1993.

Rahenkamp, John et. al. "Impact zoning: a technique for responsible land use management." Plan Canada.

March 1977.

Appendix 2- Summary of Zoning Techniques

23

Rahenkamp Sachs Wells and Associates, The American Society of Planning Officials and David Stoloff.

Innovative zoning: a digest of the literature. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. December 1977.

Rahenlcamp Sachs Wells and Associates, The American Society of Planning Officials and David Stoloff.

Innovative zoning: a local official's guidebook. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development: November 1977.

Reed, Charles, ed. "How you can use land-use intensity zoning." The Zoning Report. Kansas: August 29, 1986.

Regina Planning Department Memo from City Manager to Mayor and City Council and Attachments. June 10, 1985.

Reed, Charles, ed. "Recent trends and new techniques for PUB zoning regulation." The Zoning Report.

May 20, 1988.

Roeseler, Wolfgang, G. and McClendon, Bruce W. "Making Zoning Districts More Effective." JAPA Winter 1986.

Salvesen, David. "Growth Management Tempe Style." Urban Land. August 1990.

Stockman, John. Performance Standards ... a technique for controlling land use," Oregon State University, 1974.

Appendix 2 - Summary of Zoning Techniques

24