Edmonton (Alta.) - 2000 - City shaping_Edmonton zoning initiative project summaries (2000-09)

rut Edmonton Zoning Initiative Project Summaries

September 2000

Table of Contents

PROJECT OVERVIEW

3

1A)

ANNEXED LANDS

9

2A)

OPERATIVE AND ADMINISTRATIVE CLAUSES

13

3A)

GENERAL DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND SPECIAL LAND USE PROVISIONS

16

PARKING AND LOADING

18

4A)

5A) SIGNS

20

6A)

CONVENTIONAL LAND USE DISTRICTS

25

7A)

DIRECT CONTROL DISTRICTS

30

8A)

OVERLAYS AND SPECIAL AREAS

33

1C)

INDUSTRIAL ZONE

37

2C)

INDUSTRIAL PLAN

40

3C)

MATURE NEIGHBOURHOODS OVERLAY

42

PROJECT OVERVIEW INTRODUCTION The following is a brief account of the fourth phase, the detailed work, of the Edmonton Zoning Initiative (EZI). This phase of EZI commenced on January 2, 2000 and was substantively completed by July 4, 2000. This report describes some of the background context, how the project's detailed work was accomplished, what comprised the major components, and finally, it provides a summary of significant outcomes, including an assessment of the 'changes' within the new Zoning Bylaw. Accompanying this overview are 14 Project Summaries which, taken together, comprise the new Edmonton Zoning Bylaw and associated administrative and process improvements. This report is an important historical record and administrative guide to future planning and development staff to better understand the development of the new Zoning Bylaw.

Edmonton's current Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw was approved by City Council in July 1980 — over two decades ago. Over this period of time, there have been major and rapid changes in our society, in technology and in how our city has grown and developed. By the 1990s the Planning and Development Department therefore began examining: •

How to better provide services to customers

•

How to streamline and modernize the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw

•

How to respond appropriately to society's changes

•

Options for change and improvement

By 1998, City Council considered the updating of the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw a top priority by approving additional funding to undertake a three-year exercise. The groundwork had been laid over previous years by a number of other related initiatives — the 1993 Planning Process Round Table, the 1995 City Council Economic Vision for Edmonton, the City '97 Program, the 1998 Plan Edmonton and the Province's own consolidation and revisions to the Municipal Government Act. The time was right to revisit the City's policies, procedures and systems for planning and development.

Three goals for the Edmonton Zoning Initiative emerged: 1.

Review the existing Land Use Bylaw from a minimalist perspective while updating the document and repairing any problems within it.

2.

Create a seamless, Customer focused regulatory process which encompasses all of the municipal decisions around land use and the occupancy of land.

3.

Provide innovative solutions for the implementation of specific City Council land use policies in a more effective and aggressive way than existing systems.

Page 3 of 43

The Edmonton Zoning Initiative was the first major project to be undertaken by the Planning and Development Department following corporate (City '97) and departmental reorganization. The Initiative was organized around a small group of dedicated project managers and staffing focussed on a "matrix management approach." This meant that staff was taken from all the sections and the two branches within the department. Allocated staff worked part time on one or more of the 14 Projects, broken down into three streams — Bylaw Update (Projects la to 8a; Managing Land Use and Development Services (Projects lb to 3b); and Zoning Innovations (Projects lc to 3c). The detailed work (Phase 4) encompassed a period approximately from Jan. 2, 2000 to July 4, 2000. Table 1 contains the list of projects as well as the names of project team leaders and team members. The final phase (Phase 5) of the Edmonton Zoning Initiative will involve the review and approval process by the administration, the industry and the public, and

by City Council. Public Hearing at City Council is scheduled for January 2001.

SCOPE OF THE (ZONING) BYLAW CHANGES The work on the new Zoning Bylaw has fallen into three distinct streams (14 projects): •

Updating the Bylaw (8 projects)

•

Managing land use and development services (3 projects)

•

Zoning innovations (3 projects)

The intent of the first stream, updating the Bylaw, was not to do a complete rewrite but to build on the current foundation and only change that which was necessary. In short, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Much could be done for example, to streamline a Bylaw that had grown more than threefold since its inception in 1980. Other major thrusts included developing a Bylaw for our time, removing duplication and redundancy, using plain language and dealing comprehensively with a number of contemporary issues.

The intent of the second stream, managing land use and development services, was to enhance customer service, improve the quality, clarity, readability and accessibility of information, streamline administrative steps, and take advantage of parallel processes. A process review was undertaken to ensure that present business practices and structures reflect best practices. A review was undertaken of inter-municipal requirements with surrounding municipalities to satisfy Municipal Government Act requirements. Finally, the information delivery project looked for opportunities through technological enhancements to improve service and information sharing, and preparations for e-commerce.

The intent of the third stream, zoning (bylaw) innovations, was to introduce innovative solutions to planning and zoning challenges, their direction coming from Plan Edmonton (the Municipal Development Plan) and Council priorities. Selected projects included a single industrial zone to be implemented in conjunction with a new generation of industrial plans, and the implementation of mature neighbourhood regulations for low density residential development.

This detailed work (phase four) culminated in the development of a draft Zoning Bylaw by July 4, 2000 which was ready for the next phase, the review and approval of the new Bylaw.

Page 4 of 43

Edmonton Zoning Initiative Project Staffing

Table 1

Supervisor

Purpose

Project

TeamTeam Members Leader

Stream I — Updating the Bylaw Convert Bylaw

Project la

to

Rod Heinricks

Don Read, Tim Ford, Ken Zahara, Trent Soholt, Grant Pearsell

Willard Hughes

Mark Garrett

Cathy Raftis, Grace de Jong, Mark Lawrence, Harry Luke

Willard Hughes

Scott Praane t, ll

Garth Clyburn, Brian Van Sickle, Greg Barker, Harry Luke

Willard Hughes

Joannes Wong

Transportation Dept, Consultant, Harry Luke

Willard Hughes

Tim Paul Kozak, Beauchamp Matteotti

Edmonton Willard Hughes

Annexed Lands Update Sections related to administration, process use definitions, Operative Administrative and classes Clauses solve and Update Project 3a identified problems Development General Regulations / Special Land Use Provisions with Co-ordinate Project 4a Transportation Dept the hiring of a consultant to Parking and Loading and parking update loading.

Review current sign Project 5a t, bylaw; revise or rewrite as necessary Signs

Project 2a

Retain basic structure but Willard Hughes fix identified problems

Mark Lawrence

George Matteotti, Erik Backstrom, Bob Scheele, Peter Odinga, Muhammad Saeed

Reduce both the number Willard of DC structures and the Hughes DC number of applications

Mark Hall

Gord Jackson, Susan Chychota, Murray Miller, Tami Hinse, Peter Odinga, Laurie Moulton

Review need for overlay Willard and special area Hughes Special instruments; set criteria and reduce and simplify

Peter Ohm

Cathy Raftis, Paula Ainsley, Om Sharma, Roberta Rijavec, Peter Odinga

Project 6a Conventional Land Use Districts Project 7a Direct Control Districts

Project 8a Overlays Areas

and

George

Stream 2— Managing Land Use and Development Services Project lb Processes review

Ensure that present Mark business practices and Garrett our structures reflect best

Page 5 of 43

Greg Barker

Tim Cleveley, Laurie Starman, Heather Jordan, Mary Ann

i

Supervisor

Purpose

Project i

Team Leader

Team Members McConnell-Boehm, Wayne Cameron, Katherina Hui, Bob Scheele, Etelka Mazzotta, Debby Kronewitt-Martin, Ken Mamczasz

practices

Mark Garrett

Marlene Exner

Hal Morris

Mark Garrett

Jim Guthrie

Bob Scheele, Debby Kronewitt Martin, Grant Pearsell, Duncan Fraser, Web Masters of Both Branches

Create a single industrial Brian on Kropf based zone performance, flexibility and adaptability and risk integrating management

Stefan Fekner

Adam Farr, Jim Seltz, Angela Hingston, Grant Pearsell, Ed Egyedy, Wayne Cameron, Tom Lumsden

Prepare a template for Brian Industrial Plans and Kropf initiate one plan

Adam Farr

Grant Pearsell, Greg Barker, Phil Arendt, Stefan Fekner, Wayne Cameron

Scott Improve the integration Brian Pragnell of new modern low Kropf forms housing density Mature Neighbourhoods within existing older Overlay communities _ Mark Garrett Project Manager Project Supervisors Willard Hughes and Brian Kropf

Susan Chychota, Paula Ainsley, Grace de Jong, Jeff Greene, Trent Soholt

Project 2b Inter-municipal Requirements Project 3b Information Delivery

MGA Satisfy with requirements surrounding municipalities Look for opportunities technological though enhancements to improve service and information sharing and prepare for E commerce

Stream 3— Zoning Innovations Project lc Industrial Zone

Project 2c Industrial Plan

Project 3c

Project Technical Support Project Secretary Project Legal Advisor Project Communications Consultant

Tami Hinse and Rob Metcalf Juli Soros Greg Heaton Calder Bateman Communications August 2000

Page 6 of 43

SUMMARY OF PROJECT OUTCOMES How significant are the changes found in the draft Zoning Bylaw? Table 2 provides a general assessment of the scope of the proposed changes in the new Zoning Bylaw for each of the 14 projects — whether there was No Change, Minor Change, Major Change or New Recommendation.

Table 2

Edmonton Zoning Initiative Project Overview and the Scope of Changes

No Change

Topic

Minor Change

Major Change

New Recommendation

Stream 1 — Updating the Bylaw Project la — Annexed Lands Project 2a — Operative Administrative (Sections 1 to 27) Project 3a — General Development Regulations and Special Land Use Provisions (Sections 50 to 64, 69 to 77, 80 to102) Project 4a — Parking and Loading (Sections 65 to 68) Project 5a — Signs Section 79 Project 6a — Conventional (Land Use) Districts (Sections 110 to 630) Project 7a — Direct Control (Land Use) Districts (Sections 710 to 750) Project 8a — Overlays and Special Areas (Sections 810 to 999)

100% 65%

25%

10%

65%

30%

5%

75%

5%

5%

15%

5% 70%

30% 15%

30% 5%

35% 5%

20%

5%

75%

30%

5%

30%

35%

Stream 2— Managing Land Use and Development Services * * * Project lb — Process Review * Project 2b — Inter-municipal * * * * Requirements * * Project 3b — Information Delivery * * Stream 3— Zoning Innovations Project lc — Industrial Zone 20% Project 2c — Industrial Plan * Project 3c — Mature Neighbourhoods 85% Overlay

10% * 10%

10% *

60% * 5%

Note: *These projects are related but independent of the drafting and approval of the proposed new Zoning Bylaw. These projects have separate work programs.

Page 7 of 43

Table 2 illustrates very well the previously stated intentions for the three work streams, the scope of the changes increasing in intensity from the first (updating the bylaw) to third stream (zoning innovations). The accompanying Project Summaries for each of the 14 projects will further elaborate the scope of these changes, for each project.

The draft Zoning Bylaw represents an update of the existing Land Use Bylaw 5996 rather than the creation of a completely new one, although there are several significant changes and new additions. The following is list of some of the significant proposed changes (significant outcomes) to the Zoning (Land Use) Bylaw and accompanying processes: Administrative changes proposed such as a reduction in Development Classes from five • to two (Section 14); revised submission requirements (Section 15), etc.

Use Class revisions such as proposed changes to Minor/Major Eating and Drinking • Establishments (Sections 10.3.22 to 10.3.25), and placements in zones, etc.

Proposed revisions to Parking and Loading provisions, based on parking consultant's • study (Section 66) Proposed new Sign regulations (Sections 79, 10.8, 9.2); Signs proposed to be Use Classes • by definition Proposed revised Religious Assembly provisions which would double the parking • requirement and direct larger facilities to peripheral non-residential locations (Section 81) An option to combine all three single detached residential zones (RF1, RSL, RPL) into • one zone (Section 135) An option to combine inner city infill housing zones (RF2 and RF3) into one zone • (Section 145) Proposed single performance-based Industrial Zone (Sections 400, 10.4.7) for future use • and only with new Industrial Statutory Plans • Proposed "Alternative Jurisdiction" Zone (Section 560) to replace current DC4 (Special Public Service) District Proposed reduction from 5 to 2 Direct Control Zones — DC1 remains; DC2, DC3 and • DC4 deleted; DC5 remains but with a narrower focus Overlays — proposed deletion of the Section 820 series of overlays (Sections 820A to • 820M) which are used for several inner city neighbourhoods and replacing them with three new issue-specific overlays (Sections 813 Pedestrian Commercial Shopping Street Overlay; Section 815 Medium Density Residential Overlay; Section 816 High Rise Residential Overlay); Overlays - Section 819 Mature Neighbourhood Overlay remains, with some revisions, • but applied to all "mature areas" as identified in the Municipal Development Plan Overlay - new Section 817 Suburban Neo-Traditional Overlay • • Overlay — Section 830 Industrial Statutory Plan Overlay for use with new Industrial Statutory Plans Proposed conversion of the Annexed Lands land use districts, from pre-existing County • Land Use Bylaws into the new zones of the (Edmonton) Zoning Bylaw Enhanced information availability using computer technology to place on the web such • materials as the text of the Zoning Bylaw, statutory plans and documents, and neighbourhood profile information Enhanced information delivery to speed and better link development review processes to • benefit front counter customer service

Page 8 of 43

la) Annexed Lands In 1999, The Planning and Development Department and a communications consultant sought the public's input in terms of the direction in reviewing the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw. Eight roundtable sessions were held with key stakeholders groups representing Communities, Builders and Developers. While there was no desire for a complete rewrite of the Bylaw, stakeholders recommended that the Department build on the current foundation and only change that which was necessary. In short: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." This direction was supported by City Shaping Discussion Paper # 1, prepared by planning and development staff, which identified areas of the existing Land Use Bylaw 5996 which required fixing.

The "annexed lands" were acquired by the City of Edmonton from the surrounding municipalities of the County of Strathcona, Sturgeon County, County of Parkland and the City of St. Albert on January 1, 1982 but were never incorporated into the fabric of the City's current Land Use Bylaw. During the past 18 years these land have been governed by a patchwork system of regulations; a system that utilized both the administrative portion of the City of Edmonton's Land Use Bylaw and the District regulations from the annexed lands' Land Use Bylaws.

Edmonton's (1998) Municipal Development Plan (strategy 1.1.19) provides strategic direction to adopt a new Zoning Bylaw that reflects the land development philosophy of the Plan.

The following is a list of "annexed lands" Land Use Bylaws and the number of land use districts that apply to Edmonton's "annexed lands": •

County of Strathcona Land Use Bylaw 44-80, September 1980 — 10 land use districts

•

Municipal District of Sturgeon Land Use Bylaw 388/81 —4 land use districts

•

County of Parkland No. 31 Land Use Bylaw 19-79, January 1981 —9 land use districts

•

City of St. Albert Land Use Bylaw 32179, December 1979 — 2 land use districts

Methodology The zones that apply to the "annexed lands" were translated into the closest "equivalent" Districts under the existing City of Edmonton Land Use Bylaw 5996.

These "equivalent" Districts were then 'filtered' through an evaluation of relevant policies and objectives of the City's statutory plans such as the Municipal Development Plan, Area Structure Plans, Area Redevelopment Plans and so on. Therefore, the initial "equivalent" District could be altered by any relevant statutory plan direction.

Various 'rules' were developed in conjunction with the translation exercise to deal comprehensively and fairly with similar development situations throughout the city. These 'rules' encompassed examples such as the following: existing country residential; existing mobile home parks; lands with the Transportation Utility Corridor; lands designated by Edmonton's Municipal Development Plan (Plan Edmonton) but not zoned for agricultural, industrial or business and employment, and future suburban uses; and finally, lands zoned for• agricultural uses and located within an Area Structure Plan. Universal 'rules' were created to treat all situations fairly, without bias and so as not to 'legitimatize' a use that would conflict with a statutory plan. To do otherwise would establish undesirable precedents, undermine the objectives of statutory plan(s) and open the door to further exemptions.

Page 9 of 43

Outcomes 25 separate land use districts from four "annexed lands" Land Use Bylaws were translated into 7 "equivalent" zones from the new Edmonton Zoning Bylaw.

Annexed Area Bylaws and Equivalent City of Edmonton Land Use) Districts (Zones)

County of Strathcona Annexed Area — Closest Equivalent Edmonton Land Use District County District AG (Agricultural) SH (Small Holdings) CR (Country Residential) MHR (Mobile Home Residential) C-3 (Highway Commercial) RR (Rural Recreation and Open Space) RI (Restricted Industrial) GI (General Industrial) HI (Heavy Industrial)

City District AG (Agricultural) AG (Agricultural) RR (Rural Residential) RMH (Mobile Home) CHY (Highway Corridor) AP (Public Parks) TB (Industrial Business) liN4 (Medium Industrial) IH (Heavy Industrial)

Sturgeon County Annexed Area — Closest Equivalent Edmonton Land Use District County District AG (Agricultural) CR (Country Residential) PI (Public Institutional) GI (General Industrial)

City District AG (Agricultural) RR (Rural Residential) US (Urban Services) IM (Medium Industrial) or B3 (Business Industrial)

City of St. Albert Annexed Area — Closest Equivalent Edmonton Land Use District Annexed District City District DC Direct Control (Restricted AG Agricultural Development) Agricultural Urban Reserve AG UR

Page 10 of 43

Parkland County Annexed Area - Closest Equivalent Edmonton Land Use District County District AG (Agricultural Mixed Land Use) DC/AG (Direct Control Agricultural Mixed Land Use) CR (Country Residential) DC/CR (Direct Control Country Residential) (Direct Control-Country DC/CR* Residential - Big Lake) IC (Industrial Commercial) Industrial (Direct Control DC/IC Commercial) DC/ICR (Direct Control Industrial Commercial Reserve) DC (Direct Control)

City District AG (Agricultural) AG (Agricultural) RR (Rural Residential) RR (Rural Residential) RR (Rural Residential) Medium Industrial IM (Medium Industrial) IM (Medium Industrial) AGI (Industrial Reserve) AG (Agricultural)

Statutory Plans •

Meadows ASP (Bylaw 6997, adopted October 12, 1982)

•

Yellowhead Corridor ASP (Bylaw 7044, adopted April 13, 1983)

•

Aurum Industrial ASP (Bylaw 7586, adopted July 10, 1984)

•

Terwillegar Heights NASP (Bylaw 11056, adopted September 8, 1995)

•

Blacicmud Creek NASP (Bylaw 11705, adopted May 19, 1998)

•

Ellerslie ASP (Bylaw 11870, adopted January 5, 1999)

•

Richford Neighbourhood Area Structure Plan (NASP) (Bylaw 12118, adopted September 20, 1999)

•

Pilot Sound ASP (Bylaw 6288, adopted June 24, 1981)

•

Mistatim ASP (Bylaw 7205, adopted July 12, 1983)

•

Castle Downs Extension ASP (Bylaw 7361, adopted November 15, 1983)

•

The Palisades ASP (Bylaw 7464, adopted April 24, 1984)

• •

Rampart Industrial ASP (Bylaw 7465, adopted April 24, 1984) Lewis Farms ASP (Bylaw 8733, adopted June 14, 1988)

•

Big Lake ASP (Bylaw 9878, adopted September 24, 1991)

•

The Grange ASP (Bylaw 11749, adopted May 25, 1998)

•

Edmonton's Municipal Development Plan (Plan Edmonton, Bylaw 11777, As Amended, Approved August 31, 1998)

Page 11 of 43

•

'Rules' Developed in conjunction with the Zoning Translation Exercise The treatment of existing country residential development; Plan Edmonton is not supportive of country residential development as it prematurely fragments agricultural land prior to the extension of cost-effective urban services. However, City Administrators recognize that existing country residential developments are relatively permanent uses that are not likely return to agricultural use if restricted. In addition, existing country residential developments could be incorporated into future suburban development patterns relatively easily without great concern for compatibility with future surrounding land uses. Given this, existing country residential developments that presently possess a Country Residential zoning designation or development right should be translated to the City's equivalent RR (Rural Residential) Zone. Where the existing country residential development does not conform to the annexed lands zoning, they should be zoned AGI (Industrial Reserve) or AG (Agricultural), depending upon the direction of Plan Edmonton or the respective statutory plan.

The treatment of existing mobile home parks; several mobile home parks exist within the city.

Three in particular are sensitively located in agricultural or industrial areas within the "annexed lands". These land uses either have been, or will be, the subject of incompatible land use conflicts. Since Plan Edmonton does not support residential development in these areas, they are should be zoned AG (Agricultural) and AGI (Industrial Reserve) respectively, depending upon the direction of Plan Edmonton.

Any lands within the Transportation Utility Corridor should be zoned to the City's most restrictive zone, the AG (Agricultural) Zone. The AG Zone should extend over the entirety of lands that are privately held and partially effected by the TUC. Any lands addressed in an industrial context through an ASP that are: (i) less than 8.1 hectares in area or (ii) in an industrially developed state, should be zoned IH (Heavy Industrial), IM (Medium Industrial) or TB (Industrial Business) as directed by the respective Plan.

Lands that are: (i) less than 8.1 hectares in area and not presently developed or (ii) zoned for industrial purposes, should be zoned AGI (Industrial Reserve).

Any lands addressed in an industrial context through an ASP that are equal to or greater than 8.1 hectares in area and in an undeveloped state, should be zoned AGI (Industrial Reserve).

Any lands not contained within an ASP and not presently zoned for industrial purposes, but identified as "Business and Employment Area" on Map 1 of Plan Edmonton should be zoned AGI (Industrial Reserve) so as to be consistent with Plan Edmonton.

Any lands not contained within an ASP and not presently zoned for agricultural purposes, but identified as "Agricultural Area" on Map 1 of Plan Edmonton should be zoned AG (Agricultural) so as to be consistent with Plan Edmonton.

Page 12 of 43

2a) Operative and Administrative Clauses In 1999, The Planning and Development Department and a communications consultant sought the public's input in terms of the direction in reviewing the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw. Eight roundtable sessions were held with key stakeholders groups representing Communities, Builders and Developers. While there was no desire for a complete rewrite of the Bylaw, stakeholders recommended that the Department build on the current foundation and only change that which was necessary. In short: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." This direction was supported by City Shaping Discussion Paper # 1, prepared by planning and development staff, which identified areas of the existing Land Use Bylaw 5996 which required fixing.

The Operative and Administrative Clauses of the Zoning Bylaw establish the basic legal and administrative structures and processes required to make the Zoning Bylaw work. The Operative and Interpretative Clauses (Sections 1 through 10) contain important structural elements which help to establish the Zoning Bylaw, such as land use and other definitions. These Clauses also provide the link to Provincial legislation, particularly the Municipal Government Act. The General Administrative Clauses (Sections 11 through 27) delegate powers to the Development Officers and set out the fundamental processes to be followed by applicants and the Development Officers in considering development proposals. These Clauses deal with many of the processes and related matters dealing with the issuance and maintenance of the development permit.

Methodology The initial direction for updating the existing Land Use Bylaw 5996 was to review theses Sections 1 to 27 with the intent of only fixing what needed repair. A team drawn from a cross section of planning and development staff did this work.

To ensure consistency in this approach three principals were developed to help guide the review: Remove unnecessary cross references to other pieces of legislation or civic bylaws. This principle recognized that the 1980 bylaw attempted to place in it everything that one would need to know in order to understand the Planning process. In 2000 it is recognized that there are far more technologically sophisticated ways of providing information and by eliminating these references we could save a number of future text amendments.

Remove what was absolutely obvious and unnecessary from a legislative perspective. This will avoid misinterpretations and again save on future text amendments.

Identify in broad view two or three major areas where significant change would improve the clarity and function of the Planning Process.

Page 13 of 43

Outcomes Table 1 describes the scope of change that the revised Operative and Interpretative, and General Administrative Clauses have undergone in relation to the existing Edmonton Land Use Bylaw 5996.

Table 1

Topic Section 1 Section 2 Section 3 Section 4 Section 5 Section 6 Section 7 Section 8 Section 9 Section 10 Section 11 Section 12 Section 13 Section 14 Section 15 Section 16 Section 17 Section 18 Section 19 Section 20 Section 21 Section 22 Section 23 Section 24 Section 25 Section 26 Section 27

Edmonton Zoning Initiative Project Summary and the Scope of Changes Operative and Administrative Clauses

No Change 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 80% 75% 65% 70% 95% 95% 40% 50% 40% 85% 85% 85% 100% 25% 100% 100% 90% 100%

Major Change

Minor Change 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 20% 25% 100% 20% 15% 15% 15% 5% 5% 100% 50% 10% 50% 10% 15% 15% 15% 100% 25% 100%

New Recommendation

50%

•

10%

•

The definitions (Section 10) for Major and Minor Eating and Drinking Establishments have undergone a major revamping, creating four new definitions. This would allow restaurant and entertainment facilities to be regulated on a more refined basis, eliminating some of the problems currently being experienced from these uses in close proximity to residential development.

•

Section 14 has been amended to replace the present five divisions of permit classes with a two division. This will eliminate newspaper advertisement of permitted uses, which conform in all respects to the Zoning Bylaw. This change will reduce the permit application time line by 25 days for approximately 1000 applications a year.

Page 14 of 43

•

Section 16 has been amended removing specifics about such issues as soils stability report details and replacing the details with a simple requirement that submissions be to "professional standards".

•

Sections 9, 10, 14 and 22 have been significantly revamped to reflect the changes to how signs are dealt with (Section 79, see project 4a Signs).

• •

Minor amendments have been made as follows: removing entire Sections such as 8, 21 and 23 because they simply reported on other superior legislation

• •

Changing the name, "Land Use Bylaw" to "Zoning Bylaw" Modernizing the wording without changing the basic intent, i.e. "Home Occupations" to "Home Based Business"

•

Minor changes to basic intent with minimal impact, i.e. amalgamating the definitions for "Funeral Homes" and "Crematoriums"

•

Updating and modernizing language

•

Adding clarifications

Page 15 of 43

3a) General Development Regulations and Special Land Use Provisions In 1999, The Planning and Development Department and a communications consultant sought the public's input in terms of the direction in reviewing the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw. Eight roundtable sessions were held with key stakeholders groups representing Communities, Builders and Developers. While there was no desire for a complete rewrite of the Bylaw, stakeholders recommended that the Department build on the current foundation and only change that which was necessary. In short: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." This direction was supported by City Shaping Discussion Paper # 1, prepared by planning and development staff, which identified areas of the existing Land Use Bylaw 5996 that required fixing.

The General Regulations (Sections 50 to 79) establish many of the important on-site development conditions and rules for all types of development. The Special Land Use Provisions (Sections 80 to 102) establish similar development conditions and rules but for specific types of development such as churches, group homes and home occupations, which are found in a wide a range of (but not all) land use districts (zones). The General Regulations and Special Land Use Provisions are a necessary adjunct to (and should be consulted with) the development regulations specified within each separate land use district (zone). In Edmonton Zoning Initiative (EZI), some of the Sections within the General Development Regulations — Signs, Parking and Loading — were separated from this project, for separate review (see projects 4a) and 5a) due to the complexity of issues engendered by these subjects.

Methodology Existing regulations were reviewed to determine if they were still valid and, if not, revised or eliminated. The existing regulations were deemed to be working if their objectives were still reasonable, perhaps linked to Provincial legislation, for example, and if their administration was effectively being carried out without significant difficulty and met the needs of the public and development industry. Amendments were limited to updating/revising the text to "fix" the identified problems. Many of the General Regulations and Special Land Use Provisions have been amended since the adoption of the Land Use Bylaw 5996 in 1980 and reflect the current development environment.

The review was undertaken with the intent of being consistent with Edmonton's Municipal Development Plan and Provincial legislation, particularly the Municipal Government Act. Finally, the review was intended to ensure that clear, concise language is used in order to provide for ease of clarity and interpretation for stakeholders and users of the document.

Outcomes Table 1 describes the scope of change that the revised General Development Regulations and Special Land Use Provisions have undergone in relation to the existing Edmonton Land Use Bylaw 5996.

Page 16 of 43

Table 1

Topic Section 50 Section 51 Section 52 Section 53 Section 54 Section 55 Section 56-62 Section 63 Section 64 Section 69 Section 70 Section 71 Section 72 Section 73 Sections 74-75 Section 76 Section 77 Section 80 Section 81 Section 82-89 Section 90 Section 91-102

Edmonton Zoning Initiative Project Summary and the Scope of Changes General Development Regulations and Special Land Use Provisions

No Change 50% 40% 100% 80% 95% 90% 75% 100% 80% 100%

Minor Change Major Change 50% 30% 30% 100%

New Recommendation

20% 5% 10% 25% 20% 100% 100%

100% (interim) 85% 70% 85% 50% 70% 80%

15% 30% 15% 50% 10% 20%

20% 100%

80%

20%

Overall, a review of Land use Bylaws in Canada confirmed the practice of General Regulations and Special Land Use Provisions as an effective approach to dealing with regulations required to achieve the intent of the General Regulations and Special Land Use Provisions Sections.

The majority of changes were minor and many Sections remained largely unchanged with the exception of minor administrative and editorial changes. One section required changes related to the Municipal Government Act. Seven sections required revisions as they were out of date or had identified problems. Four Sections were deleted or moved/incorporated into other parts of the document. Twenty-two Sections required minor updates and wording changes for clarification.

Section 73 Performance Standards was recognized as needing amendments, which will be undertaken in the Industrial Zone Project. The new Industrial Zone will eventually replace the existing industrial zones and incorporate revised performance standards. However, the new Industrial Zone cannot be implemented until a new generation of Industrial Plan is introduced and implemented. In the interim, the regulations of Section 73 remain unchanged.

Page 17 of 43

4a) Parking and Loading In 1999, The Planning and Development Department and a communications consultant sought the public's input in terms of the direction in reviewing the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw. Eight roundtable sessions were held with key stakeholders groups representing Communities, Builders and Developers. While there was no desire for a complete rewrite of the Bylaw, stakeholders recommended that the Department build on the current foundation and only change that which was necessary. In short: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." This direction was supported by City Shaping Discussion Paper # 1, prepared by planning and development staff, which identified areas of the existing Land Use Bylaw 5996 which required fixing.

The objective of the parking and loading project is to prepare a revised parking and loading regulations that will respond to current and projected future development trends for parking and loading demand in the City of Edmonton. The project involved coordination with Transportation and Streets Department in the hiring of a consultant (Reid Crowther and Partners Ltd.) to update parking and loading sections of the Land Use Bylaw.

The consultant was responsible for the following: • Examine the suitability of existing parking and loading standards • Establish new regulations where necessary • Review and improve procedures for evaluating parking and loading impact and requirements

Methodology Documentation of background information and problem identification — the consultant initiated a series of research projects including comparative review of parking and loading regulations from municipalities in western Canada, literature review on available parking and loading publications and review of the ID Engineering's report "Land Use Bylaw Parking Review (1993)" and stakeholder interviews.

Establishment of parking requirements for specific land uses— the consultant conducted on site surveys to obtain actual parking generation rates for those land uses that are suspected to be problematic and based on the results of the background research to recommend changes to the parking and loading regulations.

Evaluation and analysis of parking stall geometry and the percentage of small parking stall allowance — the consultant conducted Vehicle Segmentation Analysis to determine the geometry and percentage of parking stall allowance.

Outcomes Table 1 describes the scope of change that the revised Parking and Loading regulations have undergone in relation to the existing Edmonton Land Use Bylaw 5996.

Page 18 of 43

Table 1

Edmonton Zoning Initiative Project Summary and the Scope of Changes Parking and Loading

Topic Section 66.1 Section 66.2 Section 66.3 Section 66.4 Section 66.5 Section 66.6 Section 66.7

No Change 60% 60% 95% 100% 95% 100% 100%

New Recommendation Minor Change Major Change 25% 15% 5% 25% 10% 5% 5%

The revised parking and loading section of the Bylaw is logical, clear, easy to administer and user friendly. The majority of the parking and loading regulations remain intact with minor editorial changes to make it simple and concise. Because of the new section headings, text from the existing bylaw has been moved around to its appropriate location in the revised text. The new regulation is broken into seven (7) sections, namely: Section 66.1 - Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements and Regulations • Section 66.2 - Required Off-street Vehicular Accessory Parking • • Section 66.3 - Bicycle Parking Facilities Section 66.4 - Off-street Vehicular Loading and Unloading Facilities • Section 66.5 - Passenger Drop-off Spaces for Public and Private Elementary, Junior High • and High Schools Section 66.6 - Hard surfacing and Curbing of Parking, Loading and Unloading Spaces • • Section 66.7 - Parking Garages • Section 66.1 "Off-street Parking and Loading Requirements and Regulations" is a new section for general applicability and requirements for vehicular off-street parking, bicycle parking and loading and unloading areas to eliminate duplications within each section.

• Parking requirements for general commercial use classes has been broken down into four categories to reflect a more evenly graduated scale. The parking rates follow fairly closely to the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) fitted curve equation for shopping centres. In addition, new parking rates are introduced for "Specialty Food Services", "Restaurants", "Neighbourhood Pubs and Bars" and "Nightclubs" to make it consistent with the new definitions for these uses.

• New parking rates are also introduced for "Religious Assembly" to make it in-line with the actual vehicle occupancy counts from on-site surveys.

• Some use classes are further broken down into more specific uses to better reflect parking rates for these uses. For example, a general parking rates is assigned to "Indoor Participant Recreation Services". However, specific parking rates for uses such as "Health and Fitness Clubs", "Bowling Alleys" etc. are set because these uses warrant a different (higher or lower) parking rate or is more appropriate to use a different unit of measurement to calculate the required parking stalls.

Section 66.5 "Passenger Drop-off Space for Public and Private Elementary, Junior High • and High Schools" has been relocated from Section 76 of the existing Land Use Bylaw 5996 as passenger drop-off space share similar characteristics of loading and unloading area.

Page 19 of 43

5a) Signs In 1999, The Planning and Development Department and a communications consultant sought the public's input in terms of the direction in reviewing the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw. Eight roundtable sessions were held with key stakeholders groups representing Communities, Builders and Developers. While there was no desire for a complete rewrite of the Bylaw, stakeholders recommended that the Department build on the current foundation and only change that which was necessary. In short: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." This direction was supported by City Shaping Discussion Paper # 1, prepared by planning and development staff, which identified areas of the existing Land Use Bylaw The current sign regulations were not an original part of the 1980 Land Use Bylaw 5996, Section 79 (Signs) being added in 1982. Section 79 represented a departure from the previous sign regulations found in the pre-existing Zoning Bylaw 2135. Primarily, the sign regulations were taken out of each zone (from Bylaw 2135) and consolidated in Section 79 of the General Development Regulations (Bylaw 5996). Section 79 is a microcosm of the larger Land Use Bylaw 5996. It contains, in its nine subsections, a description of 9 different types of signs, general and special regulations for these signs, and finally, a schedule identifying where the various types of signs are allowed in the land use districts (zones) along with accompanying regulations. This consolidation of the sign definitions/types along with their regulation and placement have been the subject of 18 separate amendments since 1982 and have become somewhat complex and cumbersome to administer. The large number of amendments to Section 79 have been done without the benefit of an exercise to streamline and better organize the regulations to add clarity and comprehensibility to the text. Finally, the more than 50 pages assigned to Section 79 require some expertise and experience in cross referencing its many regulations and schedules, and in interpreting the intent and precise meaning of its regulations.

The basic project goal was to overhaul the sign regulations structurally rather to adjust the existing regulations. The goal was to make the regulations as simple as possible and retain a 'purity' of sign form and function. However, the existing regulations formed the basis from which many of the simplified regulations were created, to ensure continuity.

Methodology To accomplish the goal, signs must be treated in the same manner as other land uses and use classes created. This then allows signs to be treated as either permitted or discretionary developments within the land use districts (zones), the same as any other development that may take place. The district would then refer to a specific set of regulations that are to be applied.

Regulations were then developed that are simpler and more easily applied. The original theory of a sign hierarchy was retained to ensure that business identification would be the most important form of sign and that general advertising should not predominate. Specialty regulations (such as those that deal with Portable and balloon signs) are blended to create a 'level playing field' for sign types.

All regulations affecting signs were reviewed. There is no direct correlation between the existing regulations and the proposed new structure; therefore a side-by-side comparison is not possible. The new sign schedules are arranged in order from most restrictive regulations to least restrictive regulations.

Page 20 of 43

Outcomes Table 1 describes the scope of change that the revised sign regulations have undergone in relation to the existing Edmonton Land Use Bylaw 5996.

Table 1

Edmonton Zoning Initiative Project Summary and the Scope of Changes signs

Topic No Change 100% Section 79.1 Section 79.2 Section 79.3 Schedules 79 A 10% to 79 H

Minor Change

Major Change

New Recommendation

25% 100% 25%

25%

50%

40%

25%

In summary, while the sign regulations have retained much of their current structure, significant changes nevertheless have been made in streamlining the regulations and changing the 'philosophy' of the regulations.

Signs are treated in the same manner as other land uses and reviewed under regulations that are simple, less prescriptive, understandable (as to their purpose) and easily applied.

The prescriptive nature of many of the regulations is condensed (Section 79.2 collapses existing Sections 79.2 to 79.5) and often replaced to more clearly relate the 'purpose' of the regulation.

Consequently, the regulations are more flexible and such things as the sign's 'message' is left to the marketplace. Complex calculations are replaced by more common sense regulations.

The regulatory focus is reversed, from "business identification" signs to "general advertising" signs. It is the "general advertising" signs which have proliferated over the years and caused most of the concerns or issues over signage. Conversely, "business identification" signs have historically, been much more strictly regulated while not raising the same level of concerns as the "general advertising" signs. This situation is rectified through the new Zoning Bylaw.

Much consolidation is done around the Temporary Sign category with Portable and Balloon Signs being regulated as a unit and not separately. The introduction of new sign technology and business practices has resulted in a piece meal and inconsistent approach to the accommodation of "temporary signs" which will now come under a more comprehensive and consistent approach. This should reduce the necessity of frequent amendments to the sign regulations with the introduction of new and different types of signage for essentially the same type (temporary) of signage.

Finally, the regulation of major entrance signage is taken out of Section 79.5 and redistributed to the applicable zoning category. This can be done because Signs can now be regulated within each zoning category in the new Zoning Bylaw. This should reduce or eliminate the need for• special regulations for signs situated at locations where special urban design and landscaping provisions apply.

A more detailed discussion of major 'philosophies' and their implications follows.

Page 21 of 43

Make a clear distinction between the 'form' of the sign and the 'function' of the sign.

The current regulations mix both the form and function and has regulations that deal with several different types of signs based what the sign is used for. Examples include portable signs, balloon signs and those signs used to advertise real estate. Each type has a separate set of regulations (that are not mutually exclusive) resulting in a multiple instances of each sign type on the property. This creates confusion related to the interpreting and applying the regulations depending on what message they are displaying.

The proposed regulations make a clearer distinction between the form of the sign and the function of the sign, and tie the regulations to the zoning of the property. For example, all signs that are not permanently installed on the property are considered a temporary sign, regardless of the form. All temporary signs are governed by one set of regulations, leveling the field and generally reducing the clutter from overlapping sign types.

Create sign use classes.

The current regulations do not recognize signs, as a use of land (rather is refers to them as 'allowable') and make veiled references to signs being permitted and discretionary through Section 14. Signs have been considered a mixture of regulations/uses for years and a source of confusion and legal challenges to the authority of the Development Officer.

The proposed new sign regulations create two sign use classes, 'On-premise' and 'Off-premise' that, along with the form of the sign (freestanding, fascia, roof and projecting), combine to create a sign use. The sign uses are further defined by a temporal variable. These sign uses are then listed as permitted and discretionary in the zoning regulations, removing the ambiguity of the current bylaw. The proposed sign uses will then be included in the permitted and discretionary uses of the district with references to regulations in a sign schedule (similar to the rest of the bylaw).

Respect for sign hierarchy.

The theory behind the sign hierarchy relates to the indexing of business and services along a commercial corridor so that a person can readily find a business or service that he is interested in patronizing. The order of precedence is business advertising (name of business), local advertising (products or service available), temporary business advertising and general advertising (billboards).

The current regulations inadvertently discriminate against the business signs which are intended to be 'first order' signage. For example, a business owner on a single site that does not have a frontage of at least 15m, can not get a freestanding sign for his business, however a Off-premise company may be able to construct a sign on the property.

The proposed regulations give the business owner greater opportunities to construct a sign for his business by removing arbitrary minimum regulations. This is intended to return primary emphasis to the 'business index'.

Further, the regulations for 'Off-premise' signs have reinforced that the sign locations are to comply with the yard regulations of the district. This means that Off-premise signs can only be located where a building could be located usually set back from the property line. This respects the sign hierarchy since 'On-premise' signs are allowed up to the property line and no `Offpremise' sign can block any 'On-premise' signs.

Page 22 of 43

Letting the zoning control sign opportunities.

The current regulations contain a number of regulations that are applied in a 'overlay' manner.

(An example is signs along corridor routes.) These regulations are better applied through the existing overlays.

The proposed regulations are designed to allow Off-premise Signs to be installed on property that has proper zoning and in any location where a building can be constructed, recognizing that Off-premise signs often precede development.

No business owner can claim loss of advertising from any off-premise sign since the sign locations will be within the building pocket and in a location where a building could be constructed.

Opportunities for businesses to have signs are improved.

The existing regulations penalize the small business on it own site by not allowing any certain Sign opportunities.

Minimum frontage requirements have been removed allowing the small business an equal footing.

Collapse and simplify references to sign forms.

The current regulations contain a plethora of sign types and different regulations for each. This can result in considerable sign overlap and multiple signs on the site, contrary to the intent of the regulations. An example is the regulations dealing with Temporary Signs and their various forms including portable, balloon, real estate and others. Another example is the various forms of projecting signs (including canopy and awning).

The proposed regulations collapses these various sign types and classifies them as either a sign on top of a building, attached on the face of the building, hanging off the building or standing independent of a building.

Eliminate complicated calculations.

The current Land Use Bylaw contains many complex calculations that must be reviewed before we can determine if a sign is allowed. More calculations must be done before we can tell how big a sign may be. Examples are: minimum frontage for freestanding signs, sign area based on street frontage and locations of projecting signs on buildings.

To simplify the regulations, minimum regulations have been replaced, with proposed maximum sizes, reducing the need for calculations.

Simply stated regulations.

Some of the existing regulations have double meanings depending on how they are read.

Examples are landscaping on general advertising and canopy signs providing protection over a sidewalk.

The new regulations are designed to be much simpler and less prone to multiple interpretation.

For instance, time limits on signs are specifically detailed rather than implied by regulations.

Projecting signs are given a maximum dimension only with no other exceptions.

Page 23 of 43

Reduce control of sign messages.

The current regulations contain many controls on the message that can be displayed on signs.

Examples are: minimum size of sign panels, maximum amount of changeable copy and maximum amount of local advertising.

Since controlling the message on a sign can lead to a challenge under the Charter and is not a planning consideration, the regulations have removed many of these controls. The purity of the function of the sign is retained by the 'On-premise' and 'Off-premise' use classes. The business owners have the choice to deploy whatever message they feel will serve their needs.

Portability of regulations References to specific zoning districts are removed from the regulations, placing the emphasis on the zoning district to establish which signs will be permitted. This allows the regulations to be applied to any zoning, especially those properties that have a direct control designation.

Page 24 of 43

6a) Conventional Land Use Districts In 1999, The Planning and Development Department and a communications consultant sought the public's input in terms of the direction in reviewing the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw. Eight roundtable sessions were held with key stakeholders groups representing Communities, Builders and Developers. While there was no desire for a complete rewrite of the Bylaw, stakeholders recommended that the Department build on the current foundation and only change that which was necessary. In short: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." This direction was supported by City Shaping Discussion Paper # 1, prepared by planning and development staff, which identified areas of the existing Land Use Bylaw 5996 that required fixing.

The conventional land use districts (Sections 110 to 630) represent the standard "menu" for land use designation in the City of Edmonton. There are a total of 36 districts categorized as being primarily residential, commercial, industrial, urban service, or agricultural and reserve in nature.

For each district, land uses that are permitted (with or without conditions) or that may be allowed at the discretion of a development officer are specified. Regulations that must be followed if these uses are developed on land so districted are also listed.

Methodology The conventional land use districts were reviewed to determine their effectiveness in helping achieve the goals and strategies of Plan Edmonton, the City's Municipal Development Plan.

General purpose statements for the districts were modified if necessary to reflect current realities.

Land use opportunities (i.e. permitted and discretionary uses) were modified to reflect the current development environment, to correct inconsistencies created through twenty years of piecemeal amendment of the existing bylaw, or reflect changes being made in other parts of the bylaw.

Development regulations considered impractical or overly onerous were simplified or discarded.

Provisions for non-conforming uses developed before the non-conforming use provisions of the Municipal Government Act were improved were deleted.

Unnecessary cross references to the General Development Regulations and Special Land Use Provisions (Sections 50 to 102) were deleted.

Finally, wording was changed to make the text more understandable .and to remove occasional instances of gender-specific or age-specific language.

Outcomes Table 1 describes the scope of change that the revised conventional land use districts have undergone in relation to the existing Edmonton Land Use Bylaw 5996.

Page 25 of 43

Table 1

Edmonton Zoning Initiative Project Summary and the Scope of Changes Conventional Land Use Districts

Topic RFI (Section 110) RSL (Section 111) RF2 (Section 120) RPL (Section 130) RFI (Section 135) RF3 (Section 140) RI (Section 145) RF4 (Section 150) RF5 (Section 160) RF6 (Section 170) RA7 (Section 210) RA8 (Section 220) RA9 (Section 230) RMX (Section 240) RR (Section 250) RMH (Section 260) CNC (Section 310) CSC (Section 320) CB1 (Section 330) CB2 (Section 340) CHY (Section 350) CO (Section 360) CMX (Section 370) B3 (Section 410) EM (Section 420) 114 (Section 430) IS (Section 440) US (Section 510) PU (Section 520) AP (Section 530) A (Section 540) MA (Section 550) MA1 (Section 551) MA2 (Section 552) MA3 (Section 553) AJ (Section 560) AG (Section 610) AGU (Section 620) AGI (Section 630)

No Change 75% 75% 75% 88% 70% 78% 50% 80% 75% 70% 70% 80% 80%

70% 75% 70% 90% 80% 85% 90% 80% 90% 90% 90% 90%

Minor Change Major Change 25% 25% 25% 12% 20% 99% 20% 20% 25% 5% 25% 25% 5% 20% 20% 100% 20% 20% 20% 20% 10% 20% .

15% 5% 10% 10% 10% 10% 100% 15% 15% 10% 15% 30% 10% 15% 5% 15% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10% 10%

60% 75% 80%

10% 10% 10%

80% 80% 70% 65% 60% 70% 70% 70%

New Recommendation

10% 30%

10% 15% 10% 10% 10% 10%

100%

Page 26 of 43

30% 15% 10%

Most of the districts were determined to be generally effective in helping achieve the intent of Plan Edmonton. These districts were largely left intact. Minor changes to them were primarily the result of altered land use class definitions (e.g. "Foster Homes" and "Linked Housing" were dropped as a classes; "Minor Eating and Drinking Establishments" was changed to "Specialty Food Services, for less than 100 occupants and 120 m2 of public space") and new sign regulations that propose to make different kinds of signs permitted or discretionary uses.

The size of required yards in certain commercial districts was changed to increase consistency with adjacent residential development setbacks. In the CNC District, yards were increased from 3.0 meters to 4.5 meters. In the CSC District, yards were increased from 4.5 meters to 6.0 meters.

The major changes included adding or removing, as opposed to simply modifying, land use opportunities from either the list of permitted or discretionary uses. Table 2 describes proposed changes to land uses within each of the conventional land use districts (zones):

Table 2

Proposed Changes to the Land Uses within the Conventional Land Use Districts (Zones)

Zone

Use Changed from Discretionary to Permitted

New use

RI (Section 145) — compare to RF3 RF6 (Section160) RA9 (Section 230)

CNC (Section 310)

CSC

CB1

Use Changed from Permitted to Discretionary Semi-detached housing

Use Deleted

Apartment housing (was Discretionary) Specialty Food Services to a maximum seating of 40 within developments containing 150 dwellings or more (Discretionary) Minor Amusement Establishments, Public Libraries and Cultural Exhibits, Drive-in Food Services (Discretionary) Automotive and Equipment Repair Shops on a site of 2 ha or larger, Equipment Rentals within an enclosed building (Discretionary)

• Child Care Services, Drivein Food Services

Retail Stores, Convenience

Page 27 of 43

Gas Bars, Minor Service Stations (were Permitted); Minor Veterinary Services

Zone

Use Changed from Discretionary to Permitted

New use

Drive-in Food Services, Apartment Hotels

CB2 (Section 340)

Veterinary Services (Discretionary)

CO (Section 360)

Government Services (Permitted); Apartment Housing (Discretionary) Animal Hospitals and Shelters, Vehicle and Equipment Sales/Rentals, Industrial (Discretionary)

IM (Section 420)

US (Section 510)

Public Park (Permitted)

Auctioneering Establishments, Recycled Materials Drop-off Centres

Convenience Vehicle Rentals, Minor Amusement Establishments, Business Support Services, Convenience Retail Stores, Drive-in Food Services, Personal Service Shops, Rapid Drive-through Vehicle Services

CHY (Section 350)

IB (Section 410)

Use Changed from Permitted to Discretionary

Use Deleted

(was Discretionary) Spectator Sports Establishments with a capacity of less than 500 persons, Spectator Entertainment Establishments (were Permitted) General Industrial Uses (was Discretionary)

Non-accessory Parking (was Discretionary)

Child Care Services, Automotive and Equipment Repair Shops (were Discretionary) Fleet Services, Recycling Depots, Recycled Materials Drop-off Centres Cemeteries

-

Warehouse Sales (was Discretionary)

Minor Impact Utility Services, Greenhouses and Plant Nurseries (were Discretionary) Extended Medical Treatment Services, Religious Assembly,

A (Section 540)

AG (Section 610)

Page 28 of 43

Zone

New use

Use Changed from Discretionary to Permitted

Use Changed from Permitted to Discretionary

Use Deleted

Public Education Services, Private Education Services, Public Parks, Residential Sales Centres (were Discretionary) Public Parks, Public Education Services where the site is designated as school/park site by a Neighbourhood Structure Plan (were Discretionary) Public Parks, Residential Sales Centres (were Discretionary)

AGU (Section 620)

AGI (Section 630)

An Alternative Jurisdiction Zone (Section 560) was added to replace the existing DC4 district.

The RMX and CMX districts (Sections 240 and 370) were deleted because they have not gained acceptance in the development industry and remain virtually unused.

Alternatives to merge the existing RF1, RPL, and RSL districts into a single family residential district and to merge the existing RF2 and RF3 districts into a residential infill district were developed for discussion.

Regulations that were simplified or discarded included locational criteria for non-industrial land uses within the IB (Industrial Business) zone, locational criteria and buffering requirements for Religious Assemblies within IB, and environmental impact assessment requirements for development within the A (Metropolitan Recreation) zone.

New regulations included architectural requirements in commercial zones intended to reduce perceived mass of buildings, conceal a building's mechanical equipment, and enhance and lend interest to pedestrian-oriented shopping streets. In pedestrian-oriented shopping areas, parking and loading areas are now required to be at the rear of buildings.

Page 29 of 43

7a) Direct Control Districts In 1999, The Planning and Development Department and a communications consultant sought the public's input in terms of the direction in reviewing the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw. Eight roundtable sessions were held with key stakeholders groups representing Communities, Builders and Developers. While there was no desire for a complete rewrite of the Bylaw, stakeholders recommended that the Department build on the current foundation and only change that which was necessary. In short: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." This direction was supported by City Shaping Discussion Paper # 1, prepared by Planning and Development Department staff, which identified areas of the existing Land Use Bylaw which required fixing.

Edmonton Land Use Bylaw 5996 currently employs five Direct Control Districts: DC1 (Direct Control Development District), DC2 (Comprehensively Planned Development District), DC3 (Temporary Holding District), DC4 (Special Public Service District) and DC5 (Site Specific Development Control District). Direct Control Districts replace or substitute for conventional land use districts (zones) in the Land Use Bylaw; no list of 'uses' are initially specified for the Direct Control District; and there are separate information, procedural and other requirements for the Direct Control District. Unlike conventional land use districting (zoning), 'uses' and the accompanying development regulations are established as a result of the process required to establish the Direct Control District. Consequently, each Direct Control District is, with a few minor exceptions, individual and unique. For whatever reason, conventional zoning does not provide an adequate solution to the proposed development needs and a Direct Control District is required.

The five Direct Control Districts, as their names suggest, serve different purposes. The DC1 District has broad application to areas or sites in conjunction with statutory land use plans or the Historic Resources Act. The DC2 District applies to large, comprehensively planned projects.

The DC3 District has been applied to areas undergoing an Area Redevelopment Plan exercise.

The DC4 District applies to areas or sites owned or under the jurisdiction of the provincial or federal government. The DC5 District is the most recent (and popular) Direct Control District and applies to specific sites. The DC2 and DC3 Districts both have in-built time limits for their successful implementation and both Districts have fallen into disuse.

Finally, Direct Control Districts have been applied in two different contexts. The first context is to confirm the development rights for a "specific project." In this context, the built form and site planning details form the basis for the Direct Control District. 'Certainty' is the key planning principle. The DC2 District encompasses this principle very well and some (but not all) DC1 and DC5 developments. The second context is related a broader range of development rights without necessarily proposing a specific built form and site plan. This provides for greater 'flexibility' in determining the range of appropriate uses, and building and site designs that can occur. However, such flexibility creates more 'uncertainty' for adjacent property owners and residents who may feel impacted by the proposed development. The DC1 and especially the DC5 Districts are representative of 'flexible' development rights.

Page 30 of 43

Methodology The objective of this project was to examine the five existing Direct Control Districts to determine whether or not there is a need for each one, and if so, what changes were required to make them more effective in the current land use planning environment in Edmonton.

An assessment and evaluation of the general purpose and the need for each Direct Control District was undertaken. This assessment also included a historical review of the implementation of the Districts since the adoption of the Edmonton Land Use Bylaw 5996. This review resulted in one of two recommendations for each Direct Control District: include the District in the new Zoning Bylaw; or recommend that it not be included.

Following that decision, each Direct Control District that would be included in the new Zoning Bylaw was reviewed in detail to determine if any amendments were required to make it more effective or relevant in the current development context. The appropriate changes were then made to each Zone based on a number of principles: •

Develop a single administrative process for all Direct Control Districts that would apply to all (direct control) applications.

•

Apply conventional zoning where warranted, for example, to consider uses 'permitted' by provincial or federal legislation.

•

Use Direct Control (Zoning) to implement City Council's development or policy objectives (i.e. conservation of historic resources, the preservation of designated character areas, clean-up or mitigation of environmental contamination) for a site or area, for specific projects that do not fit a conventional zone.

•

Use Direct Control (Zoning) to require the development applicant to provide information to describe the proposed 'project' in sufficient detail so that the civic administration and City Council may be able to judge the relative merits of the proposed development.

•

Standardize and consolidate development regulations (i.e. information requirements) that are common to all direct control and conventional zones (eliminate duplication and redundancy).

•

Continue to require that the proponent of Direct Control (Zoning) consult with adjacent property owners and report the results of the consultation.

•

A longer term subproject of this review was started, dealing with the possible conversion of existing Direct Control Districts (Zones) to conventional zones.

Outcomes Table 1 describes the scope of change that the revised Direct Control Districts (Zones) have undergone in relation to the existing Edmonton Land Use Bylaw 5996.

Page 31 of 43

Table 1

Topic Section 710 Section 750

Edmonton Zoning Initiative Project Summary and the Scope of Change Direct Control Districts (Zones)

No Change 95% 5%

Minor Change 5%

Major Change

New Recommendation

95%

The original Direct Control Districts (Zones) were reduced from 5 to 2 of which two (DC2 and DC3) were eliminated altogether; the DC4 District was eliminated by replaced by a new conventional zone; the DC1 remained substantially unchanged; and although the DC5 remains, its focus has been changed to one of providing for specific development 'projects.'

The DC1 District is still an effective zoning tool for historical resources or unique character or special environmental areas identified in Statutory Plans.

The DC2 District is no longer being used by the development industry and can be effectively been replaced by the revised DC5 District and accompanying amendments.

The Temporary Holding District (DC3) is also no longer in use and its purpose in conjunction with an ongoing Area Redevelopment Plan exercise can be achieved administratively without resorting to the use of Direct Control.

There is merit in having a zone that applies to land that falls under the jurisdiction of a senior level of government. However, such a zone need not be Direct Control. A new conventional zone based on the DC4 District has been created that recognizes the City's lack of regulatory authority over lands owned or used by the Provincial or Federal Governments, or activities falling under their legislation.

The DC5 District (Zone) remains a valid zoning tool for site specific development proposals where 'conventional' zones can be demonstrated as not sufficiently workable to satisfy Council's development and policy objectives or which do not sufficiently addresses the impacts of the proposed development upon adjacent property owners. The new DC5 District (Zone) would focus the purpose of Direct Control on specific 'projects,' eliminating, in the process, broad development proposals of a largely speculative nature. This focus allows the intent of the preexisting DC2 District to be implemented through the new DC5 District (Zone) while eliminating some of the administrative constraints inherent in the DC2 District: The new DC5 District (Zone) strikes a balance between the need for development opportunity on the part of the landowner and the desire for certainty for the surrounding property owners and residents.

The Development Criteria and Information Requirements for both the DC1 and DC5 Districts (Zones) have been streamlined and some regulations common to both conventional and Direct Control Districts (Zones) have been consolidated within the new Zoning Bylaw.

A detailed work program will be brought forward in conjunction with the new Zoning Bylaw, describing an administrative and public consultative process for converting, where feasible, some of the existing Direct Control Districts (Zones), to conventional zoning.

Page 32 of 43

8a) Overlays and Special Areas In 1999, The Planning and Development Department and a communications consultant sought the public's input in terms of the direction in reviewing the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw. Eight roundtable sessions were held with key stakeholders groups representing Communities, Builders and Developers. While there was no desire for a complete rewrite of the Bylaw, stakeholders recommended that the Department build on the current foundation and only change that which was necessary. In short: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." This direction was supported by City Shaping Discussion Paper # 1, prepared by planning and development staff, which identified areas of the existing Land Use Bylaw 5996 which required fixing.

The current Land Use Bylaw currently contains three types of geographically based special regulations: city wide Overlays, Statutory Plan Overlays and Special Area to address specific issues in certain areas of the city. Overlays can be used to alter specific regulations attached to existing land use districts (zones), to deal with sensitive development situations such as proximity to environmental and man-made hazards (or other sensitive development situations) or to create new land use districts (zones) in conjunction with a statutory land use planning exercise. Special Areas cover large areas and often contain a number of land use districts (zones).

There are 9 city wide Overlays that have been implemented in specific areas. These Overlays provide for special development requirements within or near airports and floodplains, in areas adjacent to the North Saskatchewan River Valley, along major commercial corridors and entrance routes, in areas with a high concentration of secondhand stores and in areas where there has been concern regarding low density residential infill development. City wide Overlays do not require the preparation of an area (statutory or non-statutory) plan, and once in place, they can continue to be applied to areas which are experiencing similar issues or development conditions.

There are 13 Statutory Plan Overlays within the existing Land Use Bylaw 5996. These Overlays resulted from the preparation of an Area Redevelopment Plan (ARP) and have been used to create customized zoning solutions to address specific design concerns or concerns identified in the ARP. The Statutory Plan Overlays range from very lengthy and complex regulation to very minor changes to the underlying land use district (zone). Although a number of the Area Redevelopment Plans had similar issues, each Plan proposed a slightly different solution through the preparation of a Statutory Plan Overlay. Some of the Area Redevelopment Plans and the associated Statutory Plan Overlays were prepared in the early 1980's and may be irrelevant to today's issues or unsuccessful in their application. These Statutory Plan Overlays have not been capable of altering the uses of the underlying land use district (zone), and cannot be applied to areas outside the Area Redevelopment Plan.

There are 2 Special Areas in Land Use Bylaw 5996, the Downtown and Terwillegar Town Special Areas. Special Areas are used to implement an Area Redevelopment Plan or an Area Structure Plan. Special Area regulations can create an entirely new land use district (zone) to be applied only within the Special area. Generally, a Special Area is created when there is a need for a specific set of uses and regulation that is not contained in any of the standard land use districts (zones). The existing two Special Areas have both resulted from recent planning exercises.

Page 33 of 43

Methodology The review of the Overlays and Special Areas Sections of the Land Use Bylaw 5996 was done with the intention of reducing the number of Overlays, while preserving the intended purpose of the Overlay where possible. The Special Areas Section was left largely intact with a few minor revisions. Information was gathered to answer the following about each of the Overlays: Is the Overlay needed to implement a broader policy objective that could not be met by altering the regulations of a standard Districts or by altering the general regulations of the Bylaw?

Generally, this was the question asked regarding the city wide Overlays. A table was constructed outlining the purpose and regulations of each of the city wide Overlays, and there was discussion regarding whether the purpose of the Overlay was still relevant and if so could the purpose be achieved be achieved through some other means.

Is the Overlay serving its intended purpose? Information was collected on what development has occurred in the Statutory Plan Overlay areas. An assessment was made regarding whether new development was meeting the intent of the Overlay. The length of time the Overlay was in place was also taken into consideration. If very little development had occurred or if new development was not achieving the purpose of the Overlay, particularly where the Overlays has been in place for 10 to 20 years, elimination of the Overlay or alteration of the Overlay was considered.

Could the purpose of a Statutory Plan Overlay be met using a broader city wide Overlay? The intended purpose of the Statutory Plan Overlays and all of the regulations of the Statutory Plan Overlays were recorded on a table for each of the low, medium and high density residential land use districts (zones) and for each of the commercial land use districts (zones). A comparison was made to determine whether the intended purpose of each Overlay could be met using a more comprehensive city wide Overlay, or whether the intended purpose could be met by altering the regulations of one of the standard zones.

What are the common issues that individual Statutory Plan Overlays have attempted to address and what regulations could be included in a new City wide overlay to address these common issues. Five common issues were identified and the regulations of all the Statutory Plan Overlays were considered in creating 4 new city wide Overlays. It was determined that one of the common issues was already addressed with the Mature Neighbourhoods Overlay

Outcomes Table 1 describes the scope of change that the revised Overlays and Special Areas Sections have undergone in relation to the existing Edmonton Land Use Bylaw 5996.

Table 1

Edmonton Zoning Initiative Project Summary and the Scope of Change Overlays and Special Areas

Topic Section 800 Section 810 Section 811 Section 812

No Change

Minor Change

100% 100% 100% Page 34 of 43

Major Change

New Recommendation 100%

Topic Section 813 Section 814 Section 815 Section 816 Section 817 Section 818 Section 820 Sections 820A to 820M Section 900 Section 910 Section 920

No Change

Minor Change

Major Change

New Recommendation 100%

100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% deleted 100% deleted 90% 100% 90%

10% 10%

The following city wide Overlays will be retained as they are still required to implement broader city policy and development objectives for specific areas; 810 Airport Protection Overlay, 811 North Saskatchewan River Valley Protection Overlay, 812, Floodplain Protection Overlays, 814 Major Commercial Corridor Overlays, 818 Major and Minor Second Hand Store Overlay, and 819 Mature Neighbourhoods Overlay.

The Entrance Route Overlay was eliminated because the regulations of this Overlay could be met through the Constructions Standards Manual or through the implementation of existing City policy and practices.

The Low Density Overlay (815), Belgravia Overlay (816) and McKernan Parkallen Overlay (817) were eliminated as it was determined that the purpose of these overlays could be met through application of the Mature Neighbourhoods Overlay (819).

Four new city wide Overlays were created, including the Medium Rise Residential Overlay (815), The High Rise Residential Overlay (816) the Suburban Neotraditional Overlay (817) and the Commercial Shopping Street Overlay (813). These new Overlays were created to address common issues identified in the existing Statutory Plan Overlays, particularly the need to ensure that new infill residential development is compatible with the scale and character of mature neighbourhoods, and that the pedestrian oriented character of older commercial areas is maintained. The Suburban Neotraditional Overlay can be used to create neotraditional neighbourhoods in new suburban settings.

All of the Statutory Plan Overlays (Sections 820A to 820M) were eliminated. The intent of the existing Statutory Plan Overlays can largely be met through the application of the citywide Overlays. In some cases, the intent of the Statutory Plan Overlay could be addressed through an advisement in the Area Redevelopment Plan or through the application of a standard zone or a Direct Control Zone. The RMX and CMX zones, which can only be implemented through a Statutory Plan Overlay were eliminated, and were replaced with either a standard zone or Direct Control Zone.

The two Special Area, including 910 Downtown and 920 Terwillegar Towne will be retained as both are the result of recent planning exercises and the intent of the Overlays could not be met

Page 35 of 43

through standard zoning or city wide overlays. In the Terwillegar Towne Overlay the CMX zone was replaced with a unique town center zone.

The replacement of Statutory Plan Overlays with citywide Overlays will significantly reduce the amount of regulation, and redundancy in the Bylaw, and simplify the use of the Bylaw for both the City administration and developers. The new city wide Overlays will expand the opportunity to address specific issues for other areas in the future, as they can be implemented without an Area Redevelopment Plan.

Page 36 of 43

lc) Industrial Zone In 1999, the Planning and Development Department and a communications consultant sought the public's input in terms of the direction in reviewing the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw. Eight roundtable sessions were held with key stakeholders groups representing Communities, Builders and Developers. While the group was interested in seeing the Department look for innovative solutions to planning and zoning challenges, their direction was to ground all decisions in Edmonton's Municipal Development Plan and to Council priorities. This direction resulted in the creation, by the Edmonton Zoning Initiative project management team, of three separate projects that examined radical and innovative departures from the current planning and zoning system. The Industrial Zone Project was one of three innovative projects.

Edmonton's Municipal Development Plan (Plan Edmonton) gave considerable impetus to the Industrial Zone Project, identifying five strategies (1.1.2, 1.1.4, 1.1.5, 1.4.1, 1.4.2) which deal with industrial type, location, supply, compatibility, liability and risk, concentration and support.

The implications for the new Zoning Bylaw required the development of new performance-based zoning tools and impact assessment. The new Industrial Zone would have to reflect the differing impacts of industrial activities and hazardous uses, provide for transition to a new zone (through implementation of a new generation of industrial plans) and incorporate new regulatory approaches that recognize the performance of the use, type of activity and potential impact.

Methodology One performance-based industrial zone was developed which eventually will replace all the existing industrial land use districts (zones) in conjunction with the implementation of a new generation of industrial statutory plans. The existing industrial land use districts (IB, IM, IH, IS, AGI) will be replaced with the new industrial zone with the preparation and adoption of each new industrial plan for an area.

A general research program was developed to examine "best practices" from other municipalities; to search the literature on "performance" zoning and standards; to develop contacts and communications with key stakeholders and industrial experts; and to begin exploring a new statutory vehicle (industrial plan) for implementing the performance-based industrial zone.

A list of core stakeholders was eventually compiled, representing members from the development industry, builders and property owners/industrialists and others from government and universities. A workshop was conducted with a representative sampling of core stakeholders to 'test' some (4) of the "key ideas" which formed the major foundation of the new industrial zone. The workshop also identified valuable lessons to be applied in the development and implementation of the new zone.

The new Industrial Zone replaces the present permitted and discretionary land use (class) system found in conventional industrial zones with two new land use classes that are based on the North American Industrial Classification System. Industrial activity is first run through a screening model (matrix) to determine whether a proposed use is either permitted or discretionary.

Page 37 of 43

The general development regulations employ the most permissive site and building regulations from existing industrial zones (i.e. medium and heavy industrial) and thence become more restrictive (i.e. light and business industrial) as special or sensitive locations or situations are specified. The Industrial Statutory Plan Overlay is introduced to further "fine tune" some regulations based on the development of clustered development or business parks with specified development objectives. The Industrial Statutory Plan Overlay (ISPO) has the ability to alter not only regulations (as is the case currently) but also limit industrial activity. The ISPO therefore introduces a much greater degree of zoning flexibility and provides a strong link to industrial statutory plans.

On and off-site environmental impacts are dealt with, through planning (i.e. location in a statutory plan) and zoning (development impact assessment and regulation) mechanisms.

Generally speaking, the onus is on the applicant to demonstrate compliance with superior legislation or industry standards.

The implementation of the new Industrial Zone will require customer service improvements, including a new application form and procedure for industrial applications, technical upgrades and other administrative support. These improvements to the development approval process will be done to facilitate simpler proposals and to direct more City resources to assist with more complex proposals.

Outcomes: Table 1 describes the scope of change that the new Industrial Zone introduces in relation to the Edmonton Land Use Bylaw 5996.

Table 1

Topic Section 400.1 Section 400.2 Section 400.3 Section 400.4 Section 400.5

Edmonton Zoning Initiative Project Summary and the Scope of Changes Industrial Zone

No Change

Major Change

Minor Change 30%

90% 10%

10% 10%

40%

New Recommendation 100% 70% 100% 40%

One performance-based industrial zone that will replace all existing industrial land use districts in conjunction with the implementation of a new generation of industrial statutory plans — for all significant industrial areas of the city, whether or not an industrial plan exists for the area.

A new universal system to define industrial activity (uses) based on the North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) is being introduced.

A regulatory screening model will identify and evaluate the potential impact of development activity.

General development regulations will allow for the most permissive site and building regulations (i.e. medium and heavy industry) unless reduced or restricted as a result of location in or adjacent Page 38 of 43

2c) Industrial Plan In 1999, the Planning and Development Department and a communications consultant sought the public's input in terms of the direction in reviewing the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw. Eight roundtable sessions were held with key stakeholders groups representing Communities, Builders and Developers. While the group was interested in seeing the Department look for innovative solutions to planning and zoning challenges, their direction was to ground all decisions in Edmonton's Municipal Development Plan and to Council priorities. This direction resulted in the creation, by the Edmonton Zoning Initiative project management team, of three separate projects that examined radical and innovative departures from the current planning and zoning system. The Industrial Plan Project was one of three innovative projects.

The successful development and implementation of a new performance-based approach to industrial land planning requires integration of a formal Industrial Plan vehicle and the appropriate regulatory mechanism i.e. the performance-based Industrial Zone (see Project 1c) Industrial Zone).

Edmonton's current industrial plans are inadequate for achieving the various industrial land planning and development objectives. Neither do these plans provide the direction or exercise the formative influence required to shape and implement the newly proposed Industrial Zone.

There is a widespread consensus that a new approach to planning for industrial land development in the City of Edmonton is needed in order to: •

Provide faster and more effective decisions regarding development proposals;

•

More clearly identify the range and supply of available industrial land;

•

Improve the flexibility and responsiveness of the planning process to accommodate global trends, market demand and the demand for innovation in industrial land development;

•

Protect and enhance community character through attention to land use compatibility, environmental protection and the management of nuisances and risk associated with industrial development; and Provide certainty regarding property rights to support land use negotiations, to provide confidence to prospective developers and peace of mind to adjacent industrial property owners and surrounding residential property owners.

•

In response to these and other needs, the City of Edmonton has chosen to introduce a performance-based approach to industrial land development planning. This performance-based approach was selected over other options because it can be proactively designed to produce planning outcomes that support a sustainable economy, community and environment. This approach also provides responsiveness to market demand that cannot be matched through conventional zoning. Finally, this Industrial Plan Project is timely, responding to the direction provided by City Council's Economic Vision, Edmonton's Municipal Development Plan and to contemporary business needs. The Edmonton Capital Region is challenged by issues (and opportunities), including industrial land supply, a booming economy, globalization of industry, trade and services, and efforts to diversify and strengthen the local economy. Local government must endeavor to create a favourable environment that both attracts business investment and supports and promotes community values.

Page 40 of 43

to a special or sensitive area — defined as sites: situated on major roadways, next to residential areas, suspected of being environmentally contaminated, emitting air or water contaminants and contain activities which require approval or registration under the Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act, and finally, sites which if released could cause fatalities off-site Adoption of a risk management approach is being implemented for industries which store or handle potentially hazardous substances to better manage risk and liability.

Environmental nuisances and health impacts will require review by other levels of government and the onus will be on the applicant to demonstrate compliance with the standards established by these other levels of government.

Environmentally contaminated sites will be identified and dealt with through a combination of statutory plan preparation and the development approval process, the latter including subdivisions, rezonings and development permits.

A new Industrial Statutory Plan Overlay can alter land uses or specify regulations for land uses or land use activity to achieve the local planning objectives of an Industrial Statutory Plan.

A specific development application form has been developed for industrial applications, linked electronically to the development impact model (and supporting background materials) as well as to the new Zoning Bylaw. There are other administrative support improvements to improve front counter customer service.

Page 39 of 43

3c) Mature Neighbourhoods Overlay In 1999, the Planning and Development Department and a communications consultant sought the public's input in terms of the direction in reviewing the Land Use (Zoning) Bylaw. Eight roundtable sessions were held with key stakeholders groups representing Communities, Builders and Developers. While the group was interested in seeing the Department look for innovative solutions to planning and zoning challenges, their direction was to ground all decisions in Edmonton's Municipal Development Plan and to Council priorities. This direction resulted in the creation, by the Edmonton Zoning Initiative project management team, of three separate projects that examined radical and innovative departures from the current planning and zoning system. The Mature Neighbourhoods Overlay Project was one of three innovative projects.

In 1998, the Planning and Development Department undertook a review of regulations in the low density residential districts (RF1, RF2, RF3, RF4 and RF5) which resulted in the approval of a Land Use Bylaw amendment in January 1999 to establish a set of regulations to ensure that new low density development in Edmonton's mature residential neighbourhoods is sensitive and compatible with existing development. While these regulations were added to the Land Use Bylaw, they were not applied to any specific geographic area or neighbourhood at the time.

The Mature Residential Neighbourhoods Overlay will be applied to all lands zoned RF1, RF2, RF3, RF4 and RF5 within mature neighbourhoods as defined by Edmonton's Municipal Development Plan.

This involves approximately 100 neighbourhoods.

The Mature Neighbourhoods Overlay will provide a consistent set of regulations to ensure that new development or major renovations in established neighbourhoods are compatible in mass and scale with existing housing, that pedestrian friendly streetscapes are respected and that privacy and sunlight are maintained on adjacent lots. The Mature Neighbourhoods Overlay will replace the following Overlays and Statutory Plan Overlays (SPO); Belgravia Single Detached Residential Development Overlay McKernan/Parkallen Single Detached Residential Development Overlay Low Density Redevelopment Overlay Rossdale SPO (RF3) Riverdale SPO (RF2 and RF5) Cloverdale SPO (RF3) Strathcona SPO (RF2 RF3 RF4 and RF5)

Methodology The existing regulations were evaluated to determine if they still achieved their objective for the Mature Neighbourhoods application area. This included a review of the Public preference survey undertaken when the 1999 Land Use Bylaw amendment was approved, and a "best practice" review examining the approach of other municipalities to redevelopment issues in mature neighbourhoods.

The Mature Neighbourhoods list was reviewed to determine the extent area of application.

Three approaches were explored for area of application; Page 42 of 43

Methodology An Industrial Plan Project Charter was developed to set out the purpose, scope and management (i.e. resources, cost, scheduling, etc.) of a project designed to deliver a performance-based industrial planning approach for the City of Edmonton.

This Project includes preparation of an industrial development plan for a specific geographic area, a model for developing this and future plans as well as the introduction and implementation of a new service delivery approach.

The performance-based approach is different in many ways from standard operating approaches and, as a result, planning, development and implementation requires the collaboration of various City departments and service providers along with the involvement of many different people representing a variety of stakeholder interests.

Implementation of the new planning approach will require the replacement the existing industrial land use districts (DI, 1M, IB, IS, AGI) with the new Industrial Zone in conjunction with the adoption of a new Industrial Plan.

Outcomes The Outcomes for this Project are currently under preparation. Completion of the Industrial Plan Project is anticipated for June 2001. It is anticipated that the first Industrial Plan exercise should commence early in 2001.

Page 41 of 43

i)

limited application to selected neighbourhoods,

ii)

apply to all existing neighbourhoods with overlays, and

apply to all Mature Neighbourhoods as defined by Plan Edmonton. iii) The mechanism for applying the new regulations (Overlay versus General Regulations) was examined relative to the approach taken by other municipalities and the approach for the new Edmonton Zoning Initiative with respect to the use of Overlays.

The existing Mature Residential regulations were revised and the "Area of Application" was established, based on the above analysis and review. A technical review of the regulations to ensure their workability and clarity was completed.

Two test workshops with the Greater Edmonton Homebuilders Association and community stakeholder groups were conducted to solicit feedback on the proposed regulations.

Outcomes Table 1 describes the scope of changes that the revised Mature Residential Overlay Schedule, Section 819, has undergone in comparison to the existing regulations approved in the existing Edmonton Land Use Bylaw 5996.

Table 1

Topic 819.1 819.2 819.3

Edmonton Zoning Initiative Project Overview and the Scope of Change Mature Neighbourhoods Overlay Schedule — Section 819

No Change 90% 10% 75%

Minor Change

Major Change

New Recommendation

10% 90% 5%

20%

Overall the review of the public preferences survey revealed strong support for the approach to apply regulations to address the issues of scale, compatibility, streetscape design, privacy and sunlight in Edmonton's Mature Residential Neighbourhoods.

The "Area of Application" was determined to be for all lands zoned RF1, RF2, RF3, RF4 and RF5 within the Mature Residential Neighbourhoods as identified in Plan Edmonton. This represents a greatly expanded area over the original approach of applying these regulations to selected neighbourhoods only.

Five additions were made to the Development Criteria, primarily incorporating elements of the existing Overlays into the new regulations.

Changes were made to the Notification process such that where a development application requires a variance to the Overlay, the pre-notification of the surrounding property owner will be the applicant's responsibility. This method of pre-notification reduces the number of owners to be notified but will allow for more direct interaction between the applicant and affected owners which may result in a more satisfactory outcomes when variances are requested. The intent is to focus the response on the variance being requested, and provide more consistent feedback from adjacent owners.

Page 43 of 43

111•1••••'•