Edmonton (Alta.) - 1996 - Northeast Edmonton land management study_agricultural land preservation...

NORTHEAST EDMO-TraN LAND MANAGEMENT STUDY

AGRICULTURAL LAND PRESERVATION OPTIONS REPORT

Prepared by: Planning and Development Department City of F,dnionton October, 1996 Planning and Development

• LIBRARY

The City of Edmonton

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page

Section 1.

2.

3.

STUDY CON 1 EXT 1.1

Study Framework

1

1.2

Northeast Edmonton Land Management Study Area

1

1.3

Council Mandate

3

AGRICULTURAL ISSUES, OBJECTIVE AND POLICIES 2.1

Agricultural Issue Statement

3

2.2

Agricultural Objective and Policies Overview

3

2.3

Agricultural Policy in Northeast Edmonton

4

MDP AGRICULTURAL OBJECTIVE 3.0

Overview Of Options

6

3.1

Option 1: Retain Existing Agricultural Objective

7

3.1.1 3.1.2 3.1.3 3.1.4 3.2

Option 2: Establish Special Agricultural Area(s)

7 8 10 11 12

Agricultural Objective Policy Options

12 13

3.3

Option 3: Use Development Staging

14

3.4

Option 4: Remove "Until Needed for Urban Development"

16

3.2.1 3.2.2

4.

Agricultural Objective Policy Option A: Link to Residential Supply and Demand Policy Option B: Modify Contiguous Development Policy • Policy Option C: Recognize Intensive Agriculture

IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS 4.1

Special Agricultural Zone

16

4.2

Right-To-Farm Agricultural Overlay

20

LIST OF MAPS

Page

Map 1

NEELMS Study Area

2

2

Example of Development Staging Option

15

3

CAN-AG Study Priority Agricultural Areas

18

4

Alternative Priority Agricultural Areas

19

ii

NORTHEAST EDMONTON LAND MANAGEMENT STUDY Agricultural Land Preservation Options Report 1.

STUDY CONTEXT

1.1

Study Framework

This report follows the systematic framework used in the existing City of Edmonton Municipal Development Plan (MDP) fp. 3]: a brief discussion of the matter to be resolved • Issue • Objective a statement of a particular aim to be achieved a statement of the general course of action to achieve the objective.

• Policy The current MDP was approved by Edmonton City Council in November, 1990. A new Municipal Development Plan will replace the existing MDP by September 1, 1998, as directed by the Province of Alberta's Municipal Government Act. The City of Edmonton is actively developing the new Plan. The options for Agricultural Objectives and Policies proposed in this report may be considered while the City of Edmonton's new MDP is being prepared.

1.2

Northeast Edmonton Land Management Study Area

The current MDP's Agricultural Land Management Map 6 identifies Northeast Edmonton (north and east of the 'Ring Road' corridor) as a "Primary Agricultural Land Management Area". The MDP Development Concept Map 1 designates the same area as "Agriculture". The area of this Northeast Edmonton Land Management Study (NEELMS) corresponds to the agriculture areas of Maps 1 and 6 in Northeast Edmonton.

The study area is shown in Map 1, and is divided into two agricultural areas: 1.

2.

the area north and west of Manning Drive, which is predominantly cereal and forage agriculture, and the area south and east of Manning Drive, which is distinguished by horticulture and seed potato lands.

A favourable micro-climate created by southerly sun aspects, cold air drainage and wind protection has supported the development of a unique horticulture area south and east of Manning Drive to the River Valley. Combined with better soil conditions, this results in a two week longer growing season that is an advantage for the early spring production of vegetables.

1

PLAN FRAMEWORK

MAP 1 GENERAL MUNICIPAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT This map represents a broao and conceptual illustration of the desired structure of urban development and is not intended to provide site specific direction to land use regulation.

NORTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER VALLEY TRANSPORTATION & UTILITY CORRIDOR

W7,A ENVIRONMENTAL RDA >•.'zi:.•$,>.V..Ii s AGRICULTURE

[iMii10 INNER CITY DOWNTOWN SUBURBAN BUSINESS& EMPLOYMENT AREAS •

TOWN CENTRES LRT

•

HEAVY INDUSTRIAL NODES

.

• /

/

. .

/ V/

f//ff.'/ \

/

\

/ F F /

General Municipal Plan 5

2

1.3

Council Mandate

The Northeast Edmonton Land Management Study (NEELMS) received its mandate from a motion passed by City Council on February 21, 1995: "That [this matter] be referred to the Administration to prepare a specific Land Management Policy for the Northeast which will include agricultural and other uses, and: 1.

2.

3.

4.

4b.

confirm the areas of soil types 1,2, and 3 which will remain in agricultural production; define any long range impacts; specify guiding principles and objectives for conservation for a specific period of time; acknowledge and protect the rights of affected landowners; and that the affected landowners and other interested parties shall have the opportunity to bring their concerns to City Council to a Public Hearing to be held after the policy has been developed."

2.

AGRICULTURAL ISSUES, OBJECTIVE AND POLICIES

2.1

Agricultural Issue Statement

The current MDP states that "Agricultural land cannot be easily reclaimed and must be preserved as long as possible", and that "The retention of good agricultural land is a critical environmental issue." The Plan notes that "The majority of lands within Edmonton are within the highest capability classes for agricultural production, with areas in the Northeast and Southwest particularly suited for market gardening." The Plan also recognizes that a "limit [on] growth on lands with high agricultural capability" would establish a "no growth situation beyond the currently approved plan areas". "An approach is needed which balances agricultural land preservation with urban requirements. Consequently, the City needs to prevent the premature loss of agricultural land and ensure that urbanization occurs only when it is essential for City growth."

2.2

Agricultural Objective and Policies Overview

The current MDP states the City of Edmonton's primary planning objective for agricultural lands: Objective 6.A "To preserve agricultural land management areas for agricultural use until required for urban development."

3

A principal MDP policy corresponding to this objective is: Policy 6.A.2

"Maintain land in the agricultural designation, especially those lands of high agricultural capability identified as primary agricultural land management areas on Map 6, until a proponent can demonstrate that such land is essential for orderly and economical urban development and/or essential public services."

An MDP policy that supports undertaking the NEELMS study is: Policy 6.A.3

"Identify, and utilize appropriate measures to encourage ongoing agriculture."

This policy could be the basis for identifying special areas for the preservation of agriculture and providing policy and implementation measures to encourage sustainable or expanded agriculture.

Another MDP policy relevant to agriculture in Northeast Edmonton is: Policy 6.A.4

"Discourage the fragmentation of agricultural land until the land is required for urban development"

The effect of this policy is to restrict the subdivision of land in the Northeast that is districted as "AG-Agriculture" in the Land Use Bylaw.

Other MDP policies in the Agriculture section are concerned with the day-to-day regulation of land use, allowing agricultural uses and limiting non-agricultural use in agricultural areas (Policy 6.A.1), and encouraging long-term agricultural leases on Provincially-owned land (Policy 6.A.5).

In summary, current City of Edmonton planning policy recognizes existing agriculture in Northeast Edmonton only as a temporary or transitional use. Urban development is intended to be the major land use at some point in the future.

2.3

Agricultural Policy in Northeast Edmonton

The main focus of this review is Objective 6.A. and Policy 6.A.2. The meaning of the phrase "urban development", in the context of the agricultural policy, may need clarification, since differences in interpretation became apparent during the course of this study.

To some agriculturists, the transitional nature of the agricultural policy undermines long-term financial investments and the sense of permanence in Northeast Edmonton agricultural areas that are necessary for sustainable or expanded agricultural activity. To other owners of agricultural land in Northeast Edmonton, the City should retain its current policy commitment to provide for urban development in the Northeast at any time when the conditions for that urban development are satisfied.

4

Policy recognition of agricultural preservation in Northeast Edmonton on a permanent or fixed long-term basis would mean a major change to or even removal of the urban development policy provisions for affected areas.

Important questions for the Northeast Edmonton Land Management Study (NEELMS) include: •

Should agricultural areas in Northeast Edmonton be preserved? Are these agricultural areas unique, special and/or at risk? What is their economic value to the City?

•

What is the effect of current City policy on Northeast agricultural lands? Is the City of Edmonton's policy adequate to preserve existing agricultural land in Northeast Edmonton while holding that land for future urban development?

•

Could there be other City policies that would help assure Northeast agriculturists that the MDP phrase "until required for urban development" should not undermine long term financial investments in the Northeast horticultural industry?

Northeast Edmonton agricultural lands produce a significant economic return for the City of Edmonton. The fifty farms in the area generate a total revenue of $11.0 million annually, and employ 115 full-time employees. The horticulture industry in the southeast part of the study area accounts for $5.1 million total revenue plus $1.8 million in additional economic spin-offs. The horticulture industry employs 84 full-time employees.

The North East Edmonton Agricultural Study (CAN-AG Ltd., November, 1994, p. 13) states that to create a sustainable horticulture would require cultivation of about 30% of the land area within the area generally south and east of Manning Drive. The study identifies potential for a fourfold increase in potato acreage to 3000 acres and a tripling of vegetable acreage to 1800 acres. This would project a tripling of total agricultural labour to approximately 300 full-time employees.

Additionally, "If agricultural land tenure is secure, a proportional increase in related production and marketing investments can also be expected. Much of [this investment] requires a 20 year repayment period".

The City's current objective for agricultural land can be briefly stated as "to preserve agricultural areas until needed for urban development". To some, the coupling of a policy to preserve agriculture with a policy to protect land for future urban development actually undermines agricultural land use and operations in the long term. The CAN-AG study (p. 54) states "the current policy is not adequate if preservation of such land is intended": 1.

"The current policy ... does little to promote increased agricultural productivity on prime agricultural lands".

5

2.

It does not "guarantee that no development will occur for the 20 years needed for repayment on major capital investment made by producers to improve agricultural productivity." and,

3.

"It does not provide the certainty needed by producers to consider making future investments to increase productivity."

However, there are also others who view the existing policy as adequate. The CAN-AG study (p. 37) found that a number of land owners feel that the current MDP policies do protect agricultural lands since "the City will ensure that urban expansion is contiguous". This view is partially supported by a forecast 38 year supply of approved land for residential urban development outside the NEELMS area. However, the policy to "Encourage new development to be contiguous with existing development" does not guarantee that agricultural land would be preserved if a development proposal satisfies the MDP's requirements for "orderly and economic urban expansion".

3.

MDP AGRICULTURAL OBJECTIVE

3.0

Overview Of Options

The fundamental task is to establish the most appropriate objective for agricultural lands in the Northeast. The policies necessary to achieve the objective follow from that choice. The current agricultural land objective is "to preserve agricultural land management areas for agricultural use until required for urban development". In all of the alternative objectives, the first part of the objective is retained, since the removal of policy recognition of agriculture has not been an issue raised in the NEELMS study. Therefore, all of the following options have the preservation of agricultural land as a common element. The options differ with respect to how, for how long and where agricultural land preservation could occur in regard to urban development. [Note that, throughout the report, possible text additions to the MDP are underscored.]

Agricultural Objectives Option 1

Status Quo

To preserve agricultural land management areas for agricultural use until required for urban development.

Option 2

Preserve Special Areas

To preserve agricultural land management areas for agricultural use until needed for urban development, and to preserve special agricultural areas as identified on Map X.

6

Option 3

Use Development Staging

To preserve agricultural land management areas for agricultural use until needed for urban development according to the staging schedule shown on Map X. Option 4

Preserve All Areas

To preserve agricultural land management areas for agricultural use. [the phrase "until required for urban development" is deleted].

Option 1 retains the existing MDP agriculture objective, but policies could be added to strengthen the agricultural component. Options 2 and 3 both incorporate all of Option 1, but add recognition for special agricultural areas (i.e., Northeast Edmonton horticultural areas and possibly any other special agricultural areas in the City). Option 2 adds recognition by creating geographic areas(s) for special agriculture and Option 3 adds recognition by creating different areas for the staging of urban development projected to different periods of time in the future.

This protects agriculture by specifying the amount of time before urban development would be allowed in a particular agricultural area. Option 4 removes the phrase "until needed for urban development", adds no other phrases and leaves the preservation of agriculture as the objective for all of the Northeast and Southwest agricultural land management areas.

The details of these Objectives and corresponding policy options are discussed in the following sections.

3.1

Option 1: Retain Existing Agricultural Objective

3.1.1 Agricultural Objective Objective 6.A

"To preserve agricultural land management areas for agricultural use until needed for urban development."

Maintaining the status quo for the agricultural policy objective could be justified in two ways.

Firstly, the existing MDP agriculture / future urban development policy appears to be working.

Secondly, while the existing agricultural policy can be retained into the future, other policies could also be added to reinforce the agricultural preservation component.

The following observations could support retaining the existing agriculture policy: • Northeast Edmonton has been the subject of much planning and speculation over the past 20 years regarding future major urban development. However, there has been very little change in agricultural land use over that same period of time.

7

•

Agricultural land use is currently being maintained in Northeast Edmonton in accordance with the MDP policy.

•

A strong horticultural industry has developed and expanded during the period of the present agricultural policy.

•

Subdivision review practices, in accordance with the Agricultural Objective and Policy 6.A.4, have minimized the fragmentation of agricultural land. Most approvals to subdivide land in Northeast Edmonton have been as a result of appeals to the Alberta Planning Board.

•

There is no evidence that the phrase "until required for urban development" has had a negative impact on existing land use - which is overwhelmingly agricultural - in Northeast Edmonton.

•

The "urban development" designation has not been enough to keep the price of land in Northeast Edmonton from falling to a 1996 value of approximately 20% to 25% of its 1981 value.

•

Over the past 15 years, private market forces have worked to reduce the price of agricultural land in the Northeast, despite the continuing "urban development" policy designation. The prices of the early 1980s, which were driven by expectations of future urban development, have returned to agricultural levels in the mid 1990s.

However, a case could also be made that retaining the existing policy inhibits the future growth of the horticulture industry in Northeast Edmonton. The CAN-AG study found that the horticultural industry in Northeast Edmonton has the potential to expand by a factor of three to four times in terms of its area under cultivation (from 8% of Northeast land use to 30%) and to triple its total agricultural labour force to almost 300 employees. The horticulture industry also generates a total of $6.9 million in annual revenue, including spin-offs. A tripling of the horticulture industry could generate $20 million in annual revenues. The CAN-AG study found that the realization of this future potential growth was dependent upon investment in production and marketing, much of which requires a 20 year repayment period. A concern about the negative impacts of "future urban development" on agricultural production could undermine growth of the horticultural industry in Northeast Edmonton. The policy objective of "agriculture until required for urban development" may promote investment uncertainty that could forestall investment and future growth in the Northeast Edmonton horticulture industry.

3.1.2 Policy Option A: Link to Residential Supply and Demand If the existing policy objective is retained, there are other policies that could be added that could reinforce agricultural operations and help assure investment in the growth of the horticulture industry.

8

The MDP's Section Two on Suburban Areas contains policies relevant to the protection of agricultural land: Policy 2.A.5

Ensure that the preparation of Area Structure Plans or development concept plans is not undertaken in areas designated for agricultural use until the proponent can demonstrate such lands are needed for orderly and economic urban expansion.

To this could be added: Policy 2.A.5 (ii) Authorization for the preparation of new Areas Structure Plans or development concept plans shall only be given after an analysis of residential land supply and demand. The analysis should include a complete inventory of all approved but not yet built residential land in the City. forecasts based on easonable rates of growth and a cost benefit assessment of the need for a new ASP. and/or Policy 2.A.5 (iii) Information reports on the City' s supply of residential land and forecasts on build-out times shall be made available on an annual basis. This information shall be provided on an overall city basis and/or a sectoral basis (e.g.. for Northeast Edmonton).

Implementing these new policies would provide detailed information on the City's future land needs for residential development. The analysis could be triggered either by consideration for a new Area Structure Plan (ASP) or by annual reporting requirements. Much of the basic information on the supply of residential land in Edmonton is presently available. The residential inventory could be combined with growth forecasts to produce regular supply forecasts for the overall City and projected build-out rates by sector. Forecast data is also available, but separate from the residential inventory data.

Residential and growth forecast reports show that: •

the City of Edmonton has a large inventory of approved but not yet built residential plans which have the capacity to accommodate 315,000 additional people;

•

population growth is forecast at 8.250 per annum (close to Edmonton's 1971-1991 growth rate of approximately 8,700 p.a.).

Therefore, at current growth rates, there is a 38 year supply of approved residential land in the City.

This could mean that there is no need to convert Northeast agricultural lands to meet suburban residential development needs for at least 35 years. This information alone could provide

9

assurance to horticultural investors in Northeast Edmonton that the prospects of urban encroachment over the next 20 to 25 years are remote. However, this is not to say that urban development will not occur in Northeast Edmonton at any time within the next 20 to 25 years only that the statistical projections mean that it is unlikely. Objective 6.A and Policies 6.A.2 and 2.A.5 only require the developer to "demonstrate" that the agricultural lands "are needed / essential for orderly and economic urban expansion".

3.1.3 Policy Option B: Modify Contiguous Development Policy Another policy in the MDP's Section Two on Suburban Areas relevant to the preservation of agriculture in the Northeast is: Policy 2.A.1

"Encourage new development to be contiguous with existing development."

Application of Policy 2.A.1 to Northeast Edmonton would threaten the best agricultural lands first i.e., the intensive horticulture areas just north of the existing suburban neighbourhoods in Clareview. To avoid urban development occurring in the contiguous horticultural area first, a staging schedule for urban development has been suggested. The crop lands north and west of Manning Drive would be Stage 1 and the horticultural lands would be Stage 2. This staging schedule would appear to be contrary to the intent of Policy 2.A.1. A modification of the policy to allow for some guided discretion could be as follows: Policy 2.A.1

Encourage new development to be contiguous with existing developments. Studies should be prepared to assess the costs and benefits of including or excluding existing development in fringe areas within the new urban development areas (e.g., horticultural lands, settlement areas institutional centres and other significant developments).

The addition of a policy provision for the study and possible exclusion of a significant existing development in the fringe could give a justification for leap frogging. On one hand, it is desirable to have suburban neighbourhoods expand contiguously, particularly from the point of view of roadway and utility extensions. However, there could be a policy mechanism to allow exceptions where warranted. Agriculturally designated areas in the urban fringe are not undeveloped homogeneous areas merely waiting to be urbanized. As well as the significant horticultural areas of the Northeast, there are other examples of existing development in the fringe that could be assessed for inclusion or exclusion in future urban development e.g., Horse Hill, Evergreen and concentrations of country residential acreages.

10

3.1.4 Policy Option C: Recognize Intensive Agriculture Agricultural land use in its own right is recognized in only one policy in the City of Edmonton MDP: Policy 6.A.3

"Identify and utilize appropriate measures to encourage ongoing agriculture."

This policy, of course, is subsumed under Policy Objective 6.A "To preserve agricultural land ... until required for urban development". There may be some degree of conflict between the phrases "encourage ongoing agriculture" and "until required for urban development".

Consideration could be given to creating a policy provision that recognizes agricultural land use in its own right on a permanent basis. Otherwise, the only type of agriculture uses that could be sustained in the face of the overriding "until required for urban development" phrase could be those that do not risk the loss of long-term investment in improving land, adding to equipment and expanding operations. With the existing limited policy, the result could be limited agriculture. This could seem to be a waste of the potential of Northeast agricultural lands which are among some of the best soils in Alberta.

The following policy provision could be considered in order to provide for permanent agriculture: Policy 6.A.3

Identify, and utilize appropriate measures to encourage ongoing agriculture. Such measures could include policy recognition of intensive agricultural operations on a permanent basis, with appropriate implementation mechanisms.

This addition to the existing policy could maintain the existing dual purpose Objective while allowing for an exception to exclude urban development where warranted. The policy recognition of intensive or permanent agricultural areas could be justified on the following basis: •

Intensive agriculture is similar to other industries found within areas of more traditional urban development. Compared to cropland agriculture, intensive agriculture is more labour intensive, requires considerable financial investment and processing / storage buildings, and provides an income to the City from outside markets.

•

The City is projected to not need this land for at least 20-25 years, and holding it for urban development beyond this period in unrealistic, doing more harm than good. A more realistic typical planning horizon would be 5-10 years.

•

The City has a responsibility to manage the Northeast agricultural area in a manner that reflects the excellent quality of soil and unique micro-climate. Nothing prevents an urban municipality from managing land within its boundaries in agricultural production. Thic-

11

would be in line with what the City expects from its regional neighbours and could anticipate the development of an intermunicipal urban-rural fringe area policy.

3.2

Option 2: Establish Special Agricultural Area(s)

3.2.1 Agricultural Objective Option 2 would add a phrase to the existing Agriculture Objective to specify the geographic extent of agricultural areas to be preserved: Objective 6.A "To preserve agricultural land management areas for agricultural use until needed for urban development, and to preserve special agricultural areas as identified on Map X." This would provide direction for the implementation of a special land use district and effectively remove "urban development" potential for special agricultural areas. There would now be two types of agricultural land management areas: one for agricultural use until needed for urban development and one for special purpose agriculture areas.

Removal of the "urban development" purpose for special agriculture areas would also mean that agriculture is recognized as a permanent use (e.g., horticultural areas). Policy recognition of special agricultural area(s) could be made on the basis of the special characteristics of the area that distinguish it from cropland agriculture. Those characteristics could include: intensive use of land, sensitivity to urban encroachment, dependence upon financial investments which need long stable periods for repayment, labour intensity, dependence upon fixed-in-place machine processes, storage facilities, and a requirement for low stable land prices in order to keep produce prices low to compete in increasingly global and competitive markets.

This policy approach would also have the advantage of not changing the dual nature of the existing policy unless an area satisfied the criteria to be classified as a special area.

Alternatively, a second part could be added to the existing agricultural policy objective: Objective 6.A(ii) "To preserve special agricultural areas as identified on Map X." This approach may be less confusing, but it would be the only two part objective statement in the MDP.

12

3.2.2 Policy Options An appropriate statement would need to be added to the agricultural policies section to achieve the extended agricultural objective. For example: Policy 6.A.3(ii) Prepare appropriate policy guidelines. land use districting and other similar measures for the special agricultural areas identified on Map X. This policy statement would give direction to the Administration to prepare implementation measures to create and maintain the special agricultural zone.

Recognition of a special agricultural zone around the horticultural farming areas would: •

Accept the combination of a favourable micro-climate and excellent soils in Northeast Edmonton as a unique environmental resource to be used in an appropriate agriculturally intensive manner;

•

Identify the area of established horticultural operations in Northeast Edmonton;

•

Remove the "urban development" designation which has not resulted in any urban development but may have produced inflated agricultural land values;

•

Offer protection and support for investment in existing agricultural or horticultural operations by removing the extra "speculative" value of land designated for future urban development and by keeping agricultural land valued as agricultural land;

•

Help create a positive environment for the future growth of the horticultural industry which is estimated to have the potential to grow by a factor of three to four times its present size in terms of agricultural production, employment, total revenue and spin off revenue generated; and,

•

Direct the Administration to take appropriate programs for land use districting and other measures to realize the policy objective.

Reasons for not creating a special agricultural policy area in Northeast Edmonton could include: •

Other areas in the Northeast - not just the horticultural area - include "better agricultural lands" and all areas should be treated equally;

•

Creating a "special" agricultural area may cause divisions within the agricultural community (e.g., if, for example, subdivision policy were more restrictive within the special agricultural zone, or if special civic programs were applicable only to the special agricultural zone);

13

•

The "urban development" component of the existing policy may have inflated agricultural land prices in the Northeast and throughout the fringe area in Edmonton in the early 1980s.

However, it still remained policy when prices fell to agricultural levels (given the Provincial government land bank sale and Carma's land holdings sale);

•

There is no evidence - hard financial documentation - that the present policy of agriculture and urban development is inhibiting investment in horticultural operations. In fact, during the lifetime of the present policy, there has been substantial investment in Northeast Edmonton horticultural operations.

3.3

Option 3: Use Development Staging

Option 3 would add a qualifying phrase to the existing Agriculture Objective to specify the geographic staging for urban development.

Objective 6.A "To preserve agricultural land management areas for agricultural use until needed for urban development, according to the staging schedule on Map X." A staging schedule could be used to direct new urban development to certain areas of the City and delay it in others. Staging could be applied to the entire City or only a particular geographic sector (i.e., the Northeast in this instance). In either case, the Northeast sector would be divided into two areas. The first development stage would be the north and west area and the second stage would be the horticultural area to the south and east A staging schedule for the Northeast could permit new development in the sector but channel its location. The horticultural area would be identified as the last area of undeveloped fringe in the sector. This would protect the MDP Objective 2.A "To accommodate growth, serviced in an orderly and economic fashion, in all suburban areas of the city", while delaying urban development in the horticultural lands as long as possible.

An example of a possible development staging option is shown in Map 2. The development year ranges noted on the map are illustrative only. A more detailed analysis within a developed staging policy would be necessary to offer precise figures.

Urban development is shown in the first Northeast development stage in 25 to 40 years and in the second stage in 40 to 50 years. This could be realistic, since there isa projected 38 year supply of residential land without including any of the fringe areas. If the policy included wording like "40 to 50 years until urban development", it could provide the assurance to horticultural investors that, for investments made in the next 5 to 10 years, there should be no threat from urban development pressure. Alternatively, population thresholds could be used to identify when the Northeast could come under urbanization picssure.

14

Qxampie vSafiraing cif Deve,titootirvt"

MA

PLAN FRAMEWORK

MAP 1 -CENCripAt MUNICIPAL PLAN -1;;LEALE-L-942-ME-N-T-G4N-CrE-12-T-This map represents a broad and conceptual illustration provide site specific direction to land use regulation

f the d

d structure of urban

NORTH SASKATCHEWAN RIVER VALLEY

efist7 :1 6114(r

"Pf;19.110

•>;;.*k&fi:A.'"AK:fi TRANSPORTATION & UTILITY CORRI

ENVIRONMENTAL RDA

Lad mosits Arm"

AGRICULTURE INNER CITY DOWNTOWN SUBURBAN BUSINESS & EMPLOYMENT AREAS •

•

TOWN CENTRES

mm•VT.:tsVntfi'MPA.fziWin,.

LRT

rotio%

HEAVY INDUSTRIAL NODES

N• • . S. t s

s.

-STAAE , 10 to ZS 15

s.

• N.

/ s. N. •

yealS

boviAtulluit &Ma

General Municipal Plan -

However, there could also be some problems with this approach: •

The idea of staging future development may be controversial. It has not been done before in a city wide plan in Edmonton.

•

Assigning the years until urban development occurs in terms of 10, 25 to 50 years strains credibility the further into the future the projection is made. The projections may not be acceptable.

•

While a staging of 40 to 50 years into the future may be of assurance to investors today, in 15 to 20 years the future urban development would be 20 years away. Unless thresholds were used, a need would arise for another longer term projection.

•

An unintended problem could arise if the projected stages for urban development are perceived by land owners as guarantees that there il1 be urban development according to the schedule (despite the necessary accompanying qualifying statements about rates of growth, market demand, etc.).

•

This approach may be too fine in detail for long-range planning and may cause more problems than it solves. What would the consequences be, for example, if it became necessary to change the order of the stages?

3.4

Option 4: Remove "Until Needed for Urban Development"

Option 4 would delete the phrase "until needed for urban development" from the current Agriculture Objective: Objective 6.A

"To preserve agricultural land management areas for agricultural use."

This Option would be both the simplest and the one with the most widespread impact. Deleting the words is technically simple; future projections for staging are not required and controversial lines for a special agricultural area need not be drawn. It would apply to the existing agricultural land management areas in the Northwest as well as in the Southwest.

The City would, in effect, be making a major reversal of a long standing intention to proceed with urban development beyond the Ring Road. The approach might be seen as "fair and equal" to all landowners in the existing agricultural land management areas, and not select just the Northeast for preferential treatment. However, beyond the forecast 38 year supply of approved residential land, this Option would funnel urban expansion in an east-west direction. 'Preserved' agricultural lands could also need to somehow be redesignated for urban development at some undefined point in the future.

16

4.

IMPLEMENTATION OPTIONS

4.1

Special Agricultural Zone

A Special Agricultural Area(s) would be created by a Land Use District overlay with boundaries identified on Map X of the MDP. The overlay would include the purpose of the zone (to protect the horticultural / agricultural industry in Northeast Edmonton) as well as the usual list or description of permitted and discretionary uses and regulations (regarding setbacks, subdivisions, etc.). There would also be a brief, plain language explanation of the goals and policies of the Special Agricultural Zone.

Two versions of the Special Agricultural Zone are outlined for consideration: Version A

as identified in the "CAN-AG study Priority Agricultural Areas";

Version B

prepared following a review of the CAN-AG study's version and identified as "Alternative Priority Agricultural Areas".

Version A (see Map 3) includes the top three classes of soils identified by the CAN-AG study in a soil productivity ranking for the Northeast Edmonton. The top two soil productivity areas (areas 1 and 2) coincide with the horticultural area generally south and east of Manning Drive (although there are some areas of soil area 1 west of Manning). Soil class area 3 lies north of the horticultural area and is an area of extensive crop land farming.

The Agricultural Priority Area includes the Horse Hill school site and five quarter-sections that have been subdivided into large lot country residential / small agricultural holdings (with generally more than 6 parcels per quarter-section). This includes the recently approved Quarry Garden Suburban Estates quarter section. A number of areas are excluded as "unsuitable for agricultural use". They include nine contiguous quarter-sections comprised of the Alberta Provincial Tree Nursery, Alberta Hospital Edmonton, AADAC's Henwood House treatment centre, the Edmonton Maximum Security Federal Prison, Evergreen mobile home park and three quarter-sections with multiple-lot subdivisions (two are next to Horse Hill and one is adjacent to Evergreen).

Version B (see Map 4) was prepared by reviewing the CAN-AG study's Priority Agricultural Areas in terms of boundaries, inclusions and exclusions. It is different from Version A in the following respects: •

The area north of the federal prison, ranked as soil productivity area 3, is excluded, because it does not have the same unique soil, micro-climatic and horticultural characteristics as the main area to the south and east of Manning Drive. The area is also used for extensive cropland farming, and in this sense has more in common with the adjacent areas ranked 4 and 5 in soil productivity.

17

Northeast Edmonton Land Management Study

MA P 3 . — ee4..A S4tidy Priat;47

CAN-AG STUDY PRIORITY AGRICULTURAL AREAS Soil Productivity Ranking Boundary of Special Agricultural Zone. Includes Soil Areas:

1 2 3 EJ •

NIS, 13 MMO, B

Boundary of Other Soil Areas:

4 CD 5 EJ 6 E= 1

POK, A

I

WKN, C DUG,

Gravel Operations Areas Ranked Unsuitable for Agricultural Use AADAC — Alberta Alcohol and Drug Abuse Commission (Henwood House) TREE NURSERY — Province of Alberta Tree Farm A.H.E — Alberta Hospital Edmonton EVERGREEN — Evergreen Mobile Home Park Community C.R. — Country Residential Subdivision G.C. — Raven Crest Golf Coarse QUARRIES — River Valley Gravel Operations HORSE HILL — Horse Hill Elementary School Community Hall FEDERAL PRISON — Government of Canada, Edmonton Maximum Security Prison ALBERTA PIONEER RAILWAY — Alberta Pioneer Railway Association Museum

ThPs map waa produced for discusalon purposes only.

Locition of various soil SODS 1101111diribil are approximate mid should not be need to determine if a specific land parcel file in one soil zone or another.

1.1 OTT OP

Edmonton Flatten MO MILIVIIMNT MM•00 NOCO MM101

N. kopesedlon at We mop.

b orbit or b port pabittrd .11bool IgprNa .1311.11 Mae. or bo COO or Mob., Piste*, awl Dooloport Dbonmori

itoicediavoil A-rea s

Northeast Edmonton Land Management Study ALTERNATIVE PRIORITY AGRICULTURAL AREAS Soil Productivity Ranking Boundary of Special Agricultural Zone. Includes Soil Areas:

1 2 L-M. 3 0 —•

PHS, B MMO, B Boundary of Other Soil Areas:

4 EJ 5 0 6 EJ I

POK, A

I

WKN, C DUG, D Gravel Operations Areas Ranked Unsuitable for Agricultural Use: EVERGREEN — Evergreen Mobile Home Park Community HORSE HILL — Horse Hill Community C.R, — Country Residential Subdivisions G.C. — Raven Crest Golf Coarse A.H.E. — Alberta Hospital Edmonton FEDERAL PRISON — Government of Canada, Edmonton Maximum Security Prison QUARRIES — River Valley Gravel Operations

This map was produced for discussion purposes only.

Location of various soil zone boundaries are approrizaat e and should not be used to determine if a specific land parcel falls in one Doll zone or another.

0

Oh OF

Edmonton Fl44.440 MO WU:men MN.., Iamb IMM

He •rapndoetice thit map, whilk • a 1.1.1., P•=114.1 exprm nitlars semi 41 11.01q of gamma., I'Lrelme mod Demicprt dpirrant

M4.

Met tiedIte Pticrvi A1viccilkde4 /trews

•

The Horse Hill Elementary School area and adjacent residential parcels are excluded because they are part of the Horse Hill Community and not likely to form a part of a special agricultural reserve. The multi-lot subdivision immediately to the north and east is also excluded for the same reason (as per the CAN-AG study).

•

The other 5 country residential quarter-sections (subdivided into at least 6 parcels) are excluded because it would be difficult, if not impossible, to foresee their return to agricultural use. Inclusion of these established large lot country residential subdivisions would include landowners who would be opposed to being part of an agricultural reserve. Their exclusion from the special agricultural area is not an encouragement for continued uses that might interfere with the special agricultural zone. These areas would need to be replanned (if there is to be any further subdivision) in a manner that is compatible with the surrounding special agricultural zone.

Version B's Priority Agricultural Areas also differ from the CAN-AG study by including areas omitted from Version A: •

Most of the nine contiguous quarter-sections owned by the Provincial government and used for institutional purposes are included. They include (most of) the grounds of AADAC's Henwood House centre (which are presently in agricultural use), the agricultural areas around Alberta Hospitals Edmonton and the Provincial Tree Nursery areas).

• An 80 acre agricultural parcel north of Horse Hill and two agricultural parcels above the river valley gravel quarries are included.

• Three agricultural quarter-sections operated by TOPS members have been included in the area west of Manning Drive. (their inclusion needs to be confirmed with the owners.)

In summary; •

Version A includes the northerly cropland area and encompasses approximately 60 quarter sections. Twelve quarter-sections (including the 9 Provincial institutional quarter-sections) are exempted out, leaving a net total of 48 quarter-sections.

•

The Version B is more compact and focused on the horticultural area, and includes most of the Provincial institutional areas' agricultural lands. Of the 52 quarter sections within its boundaries, approximately 14 are exempted out, leaving a net total of 38 quarter sections.

4.2

Right-To-Farm Agricultural Overlay

For the area within the special agricultural zone (or for all areas designated "Agricultural" in the MDP), an overlay in the Land Use Bylaw could be created which would make agricultural uses the primary use. Fanning operations and practices would be protected from interference from rural non-farm residential uses.

20

Objections to certain farm operations and practices and their possible effects on nearby residences would be constrained. For example: • • • •

no restrictions on agricultural field work (field lighting, noise and 24 hour field work would be allowed); odour problems would have to be tolerated; farm machinery on roads would not be restricted; and noise and odour problems with intensive machinery operations would be allowed.

The purpose of the district would be to assure the horticultural operators that there would be no interference from Horse Hill or Evergreen communities or from country residence owners.

Conversely, the right-to-farm bylaw overlay would alert rural residential owners that agricultural practices would be primary in the subject agricultural area.

21