Edmonton (Alta.) - 1996-1999 - DP1_Towards a new land use bylaw review (1998-05-14)

SD L BRARY

II

i till Ill

i 1 17200607845

Choosing Directions for Planning and Developing Edmonton in the Future

TOWARDS A NEW LAND USE ft

BYLAW

DISCUSSION PAPER #1

Manning

and Drio*VirrAl,

LIBRARY The City of Edmonton

@frionton 1 313.1a .E3 E373 19961999a1

PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT

Planning Services Branch May 14, 1998

Table of Contents I

Introduction

1

II Methodology

1

III

An Opportune Time to Review the Land Use Bylaw

2

1. Fifteen Years of Change 2. New Civic Leadership 3. Municipal Government Act 4. Planning Process Round Table 5. Municipal Development Plan

2 2 2 4 4

IV

Systems of Land Use Control

5

V

Summary of Comments at Idea Exchange Sessions

8

1. Inner City/Suburban Dichotomy 2. Use Class/Impacts Dichotomy 3. Certainty/Flexibility Dichotomy 4. Suggestions for Minor Modifications to the LUB

9 11 14 17

VI Conclusions

20

VII Recommendations

21

Figure 1 Societal Trends Impacting Land Use Planning

3

Chart 1 Summary of Innovative Zoning Techniques

6

Table 1 Innovative Zoning Methods Utilized

by Edmonton's Land Use Bylaw

7

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw

^

^

^

I. Introduction

The fundamental objective of land use planning is to maximize the potential of the environment for the use and enjoyment of the community as a whole. Put more simply, it is to pursue the public interest. Today, there is an increasing demand, on the part of the public and elected officials, that more innovative and cost effective means be utilized in attaining this objective. Increased expectations have translated into greater pressures on municipal planning organizations to do more with less. The tried and true practices of the past and present are being criticized for being no longer capable of achieving an evolving public interest.

This report is intended to assist in a future review of the City's existing land use control system. It identifies the strengths and positive aspects of the present Land Use Bylaw (LUB), along with its shortcomings and inadequacies with the objective of recommending the direction and form a new LUB for the City of Edmonton should take. The report provides background on, and an examination of, alternative land use control systems with the objective of identifying those that may have potential for application in the context of Edmonton's social, political, economic and cultural environment.

II. Methodology

This report was produced via a three stage process. During Phase I of the project, a literature review was undertaken, and a broad cross section of alternative zoning methods, utilized by various North American municipalities, were identified.

Phase II was comprised of a series of "Idea Exchange Sessions" held with Planning and Development Department sections. During these sessions staff provided feedback on the information gathered in Phase I, with the objective of identifying those zoning techniques that could become the philosophical foundation of a new LUB, or could be utilized in a strategic manner to address unique or special land use control problems. Also, insight was obtained from staff regarding the relative strengths and weaknesses of the present LUB. This report represents the third and final Phase of the Preliminary Review of the LUB; providing a synthesis of the data gathered through the literature review, and the feedback and opinions expressed by Planning Department staff obtained via the Idea Exchange sessions.

The report concludes by providing recommendations as to the philosophical basis and general direction that the future LUB should take.

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw

1

III. An Opportune Time to Review the Land Use Bylaw

There are several ongoing and recently completed initiatives that have and will mandate change in the City's land use regulation system, thus making the next year or two an opportune time to undertake a review of the Land Use Bylaw: 1. Fifteen Years of Change The Land Use Bylaw has been in existence for over 15 years, receiving Council approval on July 3, 1980. Since the LUB's approval, societal changes have placed new and unanticipated demands on all public and private organizations, mandating that new ways of doing business and providing services be formulated. It is clear that such massive societal change has the ultimate result of placing new and different expectations on all regulatory agencies and legislation. The regulation of land use development, or more simply land use planning, which determines the spatial form and pattern of cities, has been significantly impacted by societal change. Some of the more significant trends for land use planning are identified in Figure 1.

In terms of the Land Use Bylaw, the stresses of across-the-board change has manifested itself in the form of over 160 amendments, which of late appear to be increasing in frequency and complexity. This situation suggests that the LUB is increasingly becoming a patchwork document of adhoc amendments making it more apparent that a fundamental rethinking of its foundation and direction is required.

2. New Civic Leadership In 1995, the City of Edmonton civic election produced a dramatic change in the composition of City Council, as well as the election of a new Mayor. The significance of this change for the Land Use Bylaw is that the new Council and Mayor are demanding a re-examination of how the City conducts its affairs, with the objective of achieving greater efficiency and increasing the City's efforts and emphasis on promoting local economic development.

3. Municipal Government Act In May 1995, the Alberta Planning Act was repealed and replaced by Part 17 of the Municipal Government Act (MGA). Although the MGA does not mandate a wholesale review or the development of a new Land Use Bylaw, it does at the minimum require that several amendments be made to the LUB prior to September 1, 1998.

The required amendments are, for the most part, minor, however, some are of significance, for example: augmentation of the Development Officer's powers to include the authority to issue development permits for minor variances for sites that contain non-conforming structures. Also, the MGA has downloaded the Alberta Planning Board's subdivision appeal hearing responsibilities to municipal governments. In Edmonton, this responsibility has been added to the former Development Appeal Board's (DAB) responsibilities (now called the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board).

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw

2

Figure 1

Societal Trends Impacting Land Use Planning Environmental Movement • preservation of wetlands and woodlots • preservation of prime agricultural land • reduction of hydrocarbon emissions • conservation of natural resources via decreased consumption and recycling • preservation of historical resources

Demographic Shifts

Political Change

• aging population • smaller households/fewer children • increase in ethnic diversity

push for deregulation adoption of "open for business" philosophy downloading of responsibilities from senior levels of government to municipal level public demand for greater accountability demand for tax freeze/reductions

Economic Change

Social Change • deinstitutiona1i7ation of physically and mentally handicapped • health care system reform • increasingly multicultural population • increase in nontraditional family households

• evolution from post-industrial economy to information based economy • decreasing real incomes • increase in home based businesses • continued downsizing of government and large corporations • continued decline of manufacturing activities • stagnant tax revenues • rapid shifts and fluctuations in retailing and small business development

Technological Advancement • communications technology developments and their impact on employment, settlement and movement patterns

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw

3

4. Planning Process Round Table

In early 1993, the Planning Process Round Table was organized to review the current planning process in terms of the interaction of all of the stakeholder groups and make recommendations to improve it. The Round Table identified several problems with the Land Use Bylaw, and put forward a number of recommendations to address them. For example: Earlier notification of development permit applications (i.e. receive notice before the Development Officer has issued a decision, thus allowing the public greater opportunity to provide input into the development process and the ability to influence decision makers).

Simplification of the LUB regulations (plain speak) iii. Increase flexibility of zoning regulations iv. Improve urban design regulations

i.

5. Municipal Development Plan

The Municipal Government Act requires the City to approve a new Municipal Development Plan (MDP). The MDP is intended to be the prime municipal document which describes how a municipality is facilitating development, reducing regulation, responding to its chosen economic development objectives, achieving desired environmental objectives, and managing its infrastructure and financial resources to achieve its development objectives.

The City of Edmonton is presently in the initial stage of undertaking the development of its MDP, which has been dubbed "Plan Edmonton". Plan Edmonton will include a plan for the physical development of the City over a ten year time frame. All planning documents, including the Land Use Bylaw, will be required to conform to, as well as implement, the objectives and provisions of Plan Edmonton.

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw

4

IV. Systems of Land Use Control The zoning or land use bylaw is the fundamental tool of land use planning. It regulates the use of land and establishes basic standards for development. It is the vehicle that implements a municipality's land use and development policies as expressed in a general plan or other statutory and non-statutory plans and studies.

The practice of zoning as we now know it began in North America in the 1920s, largely to deal with the havoc created by rapid population growth and urbanization. During this period, most North American cities adopted zoning bylaws in order to segregate land uses, reduce crowding and fire hazards and limit the height and bulk of buildings. By identifying in advance the uses considered suitable for a particular property, the introduction of zoning eliminated the need for individual land owners to take court action under the common law of nuisance. Early zoning bylaws simply divided a municipality into land use zones and applied across the board regulations within each zone. This system of land use control, now known as Conventional or Standard Zoning, provided for an extremely strict segregation of land uses and a fixed form of development in terms of design, lot size, and yard requirements.

Flexibility in terms of facilitating innovative or unique development concepts was sacrificed for the certainty and security that Conventional Zoning mandated.

Over the years, as urbanization progressed, it became increasingly apparent that the basic land use control provided by conventional based zoning bylaws was, on its own, inadequate to address the new problems and unique situations that were continuously emerging in the rapidly growing cities. It was concluded that an effective land use control system required a greater degree of flexibility, however, it could not be so flexible that private land owners' certainty with regard to enjoyment and value of property were compromised. In an attempt to introduce an acceptable degree of flexibility to land use control several alternative, or so called 'innovative' zoning techniques, have been devised and implemented by many North American municipalities.

Chart 1 provides a summary of information on innovative zoning techniques, as well as synopsis of their strengths and weaknesses (for more detailed information on these zoning techniques see the October 18, 1995 report, Summary Review of Zoning Techniques). Of note, other than a few small, rural municipalities, most of the identified alternative zoning methods have not been implemented on a "stand alone" basis. The reason for this is simply that no one zoning technique is capable of attaining the required balance between certainty and flexibility. Rather, they have been utilized as components of a land use control system, as the growing complexity of the urban environment has made the reliance on a single zoning method impractical, if not impossible.

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw

5

Chart 1 Summary of Innovative Zoning Techniques Zoning Technique

Contextual Zoning *

Development Control or Direct Control * Express Purpose

Floating Zones Impact Zoning

Incentive Zoning *

Inclusionary Zoning Land Use Intensity System (LUI)

No Zoning

Overlay Zoning *

Performance Based Zoning *

Planned Unit Development *

Point System

Risk Management Zoning

Definition

Zoning regulation that provides for protection and continuation of neighbourhood architectural and cultural characteristics. Key objective is to ensure compatibility with existing development.

Permission to develop is at the discretion of the planning authority, that is, there are no predetermined permitted land uses attached to a property. The use and form of development that can occur is determined via a process of negotiation.

Zoning system where detailed comprehensive plans are prepared at the neighbourhood level and policy direction is expressly provided for in the land use zones. Essentially, land use plans become the foundation of the zoning.

A zone described in the text of a zoning bylaw, but which is not affixed to any particular location until applied by the planning authority.

System that regulates development on the basis of impacts on the environment, municipal infrastructure and fiscal capacities rather than on use and scale of development. By comparing the available capacities with the estimated demands, impacts of development are identified.

Grants concessions to a developer (i.e. development rights beyond those that are as-of-right in the underlying zone) in return for the funding of, or development of, public amenities (i.e. parks, affordable housing, daycares.)

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

Complete land use regulatory system of site development standards. Using development density as a bench mark. It utilizes mathematical relationships to determine the following elements: mass, bulk, height, recreation space and parking.

Properties have no predetermined use or siting regulations attached to them.

Market forces are relied upon to determine land use, density and development form. (See Enclosure V for the Houston experience with no zoning.)

Application of additional or different land use regulations to the existing zoning of a property, with the purpose of increasing flexibility or imposing additional requirements in order achieve an objective.

Zoning system that allows development to occur in an almost laissez faire fashion by permitting any uses to be adjoining as long as they are compatible based on performance standard criteria (externalities and off site impacts).

(See Enclosure for more information on Performance Based Zoning.)

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

Developments are evaluated in relation to a standard set of criteria in a check list format, thus they are reviewed on their individual merits. Approval is contingent upon the proposal achieving some minimum score.

Zoning system intended to regulate the location of industrial uses with the objective of minimizing, to some acceptable level, the potential impacts that an emergency/accident could incur in terms of casualties and property damage.

* Utilized by Edmonton's current Land Use Bylaw to augment conventional zoning.

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw

6

Table 1 Innovative Zoning Methods Utilized by Edmonton's LUB (Bylaw 5996)

Zoning Method

Implementation Vehicle(s)

Contextual Zoning

DC1 District; Belgravia & Low Density Redevelopment overlay schedules

Direct Control Zoning

DC5 District

Incentive Zoning

RFS & RF6 Districts (increased density for underground parking); CMX Districts in the Downtown ARP

Overlay Zoning

Flood Protection, N. Sask. River Valley, Airport Protection, Entrance Routes, Major Commercial Corridor overlays; Area Redevelopment Plan SPOs

Performance Zoning

Limited degree by IH, IM & TB districts

Planned Unit Development

DC2 District

The evolution of land use control in the City of Edmonton is no exception to the above described history of zoning in North American. Land use control in Edmonton has progressed from the relatively simple conventional zoning based 1933 Zoning Bylaw to today's relatively complex Land Use Bylaw (Bylaw No. 5996), which augments its Conventional Zoning foundation with several innovative zoning techniques. Table 1 identifies those innovative zoning methods utilized by Edmonton's LUB, as well as the vehicle(s) through which they have been implemented.

Several of the innovative zoning techniques identified in Chart 1 may have the potential to be utilized in a revised LUB. Those with particular promise are Contextual Zoning and Performance Zoning, both of which have been utilized to a very limited degree by the present LUB. As a means for providing increased flexibility to the City's system of land use control, a greater and more concerted application of these methods is an option that should be further explored. Also, the Point System of zoning, in a modified form, may have potential for improving the implementation of land use policy by providing more direction and greater certainty to Development Officers, communities and the development industry, alike.

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw

7

V. Summary of Comments at Idea Exchange Sessions

Idea Exchange Sessions were held with LUB users of all three Branches of the Planning and Development Department. Staff were asked if, at a philosophical level, they believed there was a need to fundamentally change the direction in which the existing LUB regulates land use in Edmonton. The overwhelming opinion was that extreme forms of land use control were not desirable. No support was expressed for the options of "no zoning" (full flexibility) or "rigid zoning" (pure conventional zoning). As well, it was postulated that the new Municipal Government Act may limit the extent to which a new LUB can be "unconventional". The MGA requires a land use bylaw to divide the municipality into districts with prescribed permitted and discretionary uses, however, the Act continues to allow for direct control districts. A land use bylaw must also establish the number of dwelling units permitted on a lot. Staff also identified the Alberta Building Code as being very restrictive, and in many instances may limit innovation.

Another recurring theme was that extreme change is not realistic nor warranted. Staff supported many of the basic features and the general approach of the present LUB, that is, a Bylaw based on conventional zoning, but augmented with several innovative zoning techniques. However, general agreement was expressed that many of the LUB's regulations, and its format, are in need of fine-tuning. Some elements of the LUB require replacement or need to be augmented with innovative approaches that will increase the Bylaw's flexibility.

Also, there is general agreement that the LUB would benefit from a revised layout that utilizes illustrations, charts, matrices, and user friendly language.

Within the context set out above, the following three strong, and sometimes overlapping, dichotomies emerged from the Idea Exchange Sessions as areas which must be addressed by a revised LUB. The discussion of these three major issue areas is followed by a summary of the minor modification and lay out changes suggested by staff

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw

8

1. Inner City/Suburban Dichotomy

A significant criticism of Edmonton's built form is that new development generally does not fit within the context of the existing built environment. A revised LUB should take into account those characteristics that make inner city and suburban areas unique, and incorporate regulations that acknowledge and respect these differences.

Background-- Edmonton's 125 inner city neighbourhoods were built prior to 1970. Many feature grid patterned streets, narrow residential lots with alleys and boulevards, streetoriented commercial areas, heritage structures and mature landscaping. Some of the land use issues facing inner city areas include declining or obsolete commercial and industrial areas, aging housing, deteriorating infrastructure and land use conflicts. The current Municipal Development Plan recognizes that inner city neighbourhoods have a critical role to play in the overall health of Edmonton; the Corporation already directs resources to revitalization initiatives focused on the special needs of inner city areas.

The city's ever-expanding suburban areas have characteristic curvilinear streets and cul-desacs, centralized schools and parks, strip malls, identification signs at their entrances and perimeter fencing. Similar to inner city areas, the suburbs reflect development trends, consumer tastes and economic conditions existing at the time of their development.

Therefore, suburban areas vary in their mixture of single family detached development, row housing and apartments. Site layouts vary as well, with some developments oriented along the street front, and others oriented in projects or clusters. The current Municipal Development Plan focuses on managing suburban growth, ensuring adequate neighbourhood services and maintaining a balanced mix and density of dwellings.

Commercial districts vary across the city as well. Older areas often feature street-oriented shops and offices, although strip malls and power centres have been developed in infill situations. In the suburbs, auto oriented strip malls and large scale shopping centres prevail.

Commercial centres have also developed along major entrance routes and in warehouse-style wholesale outlets bordering on industrial areas.

The current LUB tries to maintain the integrity of its land use districts on a City wide basis.

For example, the RF1 district is the same, whether it is applied in Westmount or Twin Brooks. Some attempt to recognize locational differences was introduced with the RF2 and RF3 districts for inner city infill situations and the RSL and RPL districts in suburban areas.

On the commercial side, the regulations of the CNC district are the same regardless of inner city or suburban locale. Some ARPs have attempted to promote the development of more pedestrian oriented commercial developments and unique residential development through the use of overlays.

Inner city residents have voiced objections to developments that they believe are not compatible with their communities. For example, Belgravia, McKernan and Parkallen

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw

9

residents demanded that new developments respect the architectural form of existing development. There is increasing demand from other communities to address similar issues.

A movement to replicate the past has found its way into new suburban development with the Terwillegar Towne proposal in southwest Edmonton. Neo-traditional design, or new urbanism, is an attempt to capture the nostalgic atmosphere of small town life, through the built environment. This prototype community will emulate features from both traditional suburban and traditional inner city neighbourhood design. Due to the inflexability of the LUB's standard districts, the Terwillegar Towne concept could only be achieved via the application of a "special area overlay" (Section 900).

Staff Conclusions -- Standard land use districts do not respect the uniqueness of existing communities nor do they embrace new concepts for suburban development such as neotraditional neighbourhoods. Staff recommended that a philosophy be built into LUB regulations that recognizes and respects the differences between inner city and suburban areas, as well as the evolving aspirations of suburban designs. The LUB has failed to provide the necessary tools to achieve community goals regarding preservation and promotion of neighbourhood character. Existing residential districts lack the flexibility to preserve inner city character or permit the development of emerging trends in suburban community design.

Potential solutions to this problem are to formulate new residential and commercial districts that are applicable to select areas of the city, specifically, the inner city and suburban areas.

Another suggestion was to increase the flexibility of the regulations within the existing districts so as to accommodate greater diversity in built form. Finally, some interest was expressed in the wider application of overlay districting to address community aspirations for unique land use regulations. This, in effect, would be a limited and strategic application of contextual based zoning. However, if this latter approach is to be successfully adopted, a more effective implementation mechanism is required rather than putting the onus on the Development Officers to interpret loosely written community plans.

A potential mechanism for ensuring and assisting with the implementation of contextually based overlays is a point system based development permit, which would provide evaluation criteria reflecting the goals and objectives of the overlay and community plan. Such a 'system' would provide clear, objective direction to the Development Officers when considering proposals in communities wishing to retain or enhance their character.

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw

10

2. Use Class/Impacts Dichotomy There are several indications that the standard land use districts, and particularly the method of separating use classes, have failed to accommodate evolving trends. Revised LUB regulations must place greater emphasis on the impacts of uses and built form in order to reduce the reliance on DC5 districts and overlays, and the need for ad hoc text amendments.

Background -- The LUB is the most obvious tool that leads to actual change on the ground.

The districts in the LUB attempt to group land uses on the basis of similarity of impacts, such as traffic flow, noise generation, parking requirements, scale of structure and density.

However, this is not a purely objective exercise, as the extent of a particular land use's impacts on adjacent properties is to a degree a subjective judgement. As well, the acceptability of land uses may change over time in response to evolving economic, cultural, social and consumer trends.

The existing LUB separates different land uses into broad categories, including industrial, commercial, residential and institutional. These land use categories are further divided into districts, based on the intensity of the activity or use. Additionally, the LUB's General Development Regulations and Special Land Use Provisions provide more specific requirements in order to mitigate significant impacts of a land use. Philosophically, through both its standard districts and general regulations, the current LUB tends to regulate the "edge" treatment of developments, setting out criteria for such components as yards, setbacks, landscaping, outdoor storage, fencing and parking. Other than a few generic, and often obtuse, references to massing, roof slope, and articulation and treatment of building facades, the LUB provides minimal direction regarding built form.

When the list of permitted or discretionary uses set out in standard districts cannot accommodate a development, or where a standard district won't work, direct control districts can be applied. As well, LUB overlays have been utilized to alter the uses and regulations of the underlying standard districts. Statutory Plan Overlays represent a direct link with policy initiatives laid out in ARP exercises. Overlays have also been applied to address comprehensive environmental issues (e.g. River Valley Protection, Floodplain Protection) or corridor issues (e.g. Major Commercial Corridors, Entrance Routes). The LUB has also utilized Overlays on a neighbourhood basis to address local issues (e.g. Belgravia, McKernan, Parkallen and Riverdale neighbourhoods). Most recently, the LUB was amended to include an Overlay Schedule to address issues related to Major and Minor Secondhand Stores.

Performance zoning, where uses are allowed if they meet all established standards, is applied to a very limited degree in the Edmonton context. The heavy, medium and business industrial districts (i.e. IH, IM, IB) refer to provincial standards with regard to air and water contaminants, noise levels and fire and explosion hazards. The Department is currently evaluating guidelines that would involve a risk management approach to heavy industrial

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw

11

development. Such a process would link separation distances from heavy industries with potential impacts.

Recent Land Use Bylaw amendments have centred around the moral unacceptability and perceived safety risk of certain businesses. Solutions to date include: restricting unpopular uses to certain land use districts (e.g. Adult Mini Theatres); downgrading unpopular uses from permitted to discretionary status (e.g. Secondhand Stores); iii. requiring a direct control district for unpopular uses (e.g. Casinos and Other Gaming Establishments); iv. applying city-wide or "floating" overlays which mandate community input (e.g. Secondhand Stores); and v. separating unpopular uses from schools, churches and parks (e.g. Alcohol Sales).

i.

The increasing frequency of demand for text amendments to the LUB may be an indication that its method of separating use classes is breaking down. This may be attributed to an evolving economy, changing consumer preferences and advancements in communications technology. There has been a breakdown in the traditional differences between activities, which the LUB has failed to accommodate due to its artificial distinctions between uses. For example, commercial districts have been criticized as having little or no impact differences between them. Also, existing commercial zoning is not necessarily in accordance with the general purpose of the commerical district. As a result, commercial strips encompassing a variety of standard commercial districts are virtually indistinguishable in appearance from each other.

There is an increasing demand for a greater diversity of uses in residential, commercial and industrial areas. For example, in residential areas, there is a large movement to home offices and the introduction of day cares and group homes. Churches no longer focus solely on worship, but have expanded to become multi-use facilities, incorporating day cares, recreation centres and schools. Also, lines between industrial and commercial uses are becoming increasingly blurred, as big box style retailers are attracted by the lower rents and large tracts of vacant and under-utilized land available in industrial zoned areas. This trend has been accelerated by the decline of smoke-stack style manufacturing and industrial activities. Some ad hoc LUB text amendments were implemented to accommodate the increasing demand for a greater melding of land uses. For example, new regulations for Child Care Services and Home Occupations have expanded the opportunity for these uses in traditionally residential districts.

Staff Conclusions -- Although staff believe that greater emphasis should be placed on the impacts of uses in each district, there was agreement that purely impact or performance based zoning is not feasible in the Edmonton context. Constraints with regard to resources (staff time and expertise, data requirements, monitoring capabilities) and the often subjective nature of land use control would make purely performance based zoning system unattainable.

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw

12

Yet, planning staff recognized the need to give greater consideration to performance and impacts. Some impacts of land use can be dealt with via Special Provisions, rather than within each standard district. This would clarify regulations for uses which have significant land use impacts, notwithstanding their location. For example, Special Provisions for high density residential uses could address access, traffic generation, sun/shadow impacts and view lines. These Special Provisions would apply whether a high rise apartment building is located in the inner city or suburbs.

While staff recognized that the LUB has been forced, often notwithstanding the Planning and Development Department's expressed concerns, to become a tool in the legislation of moral issues, they were critical of the Department's ad hoc approach of addressing evolving land use trends via piecemeal LUB text amendments. Staff were also critical of use class definitions that have become obsolete or are too narrowly defined and applied.

It was concluded that the standard districts must be broadened, to be based moreso on impacts, than use. For example, some staff recommended decreasing the number of commercial districts to three, based upon compatibility with surrounding development: i. Neighbourhood Business; ii. Corridor Business; and iii. Regional Business.

This would result in a more stream-lined LUB as several districts could be deleted.

Reworked standard districts must recognize the economic trends leading to an integration of uses, group uses together based upon common requirements and impacts and thus decrease the reliance on DC5 districts and overlays. Future districts must give greater consideration to built form, as the appearance, scale and style of a development can have significant impacts on, or enhance compatibility with, surrounding land uses.

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw

13

3. Certainty/Flexibility Dichotomy The development industry indicates a desire for greater flexibility on one hand, and yet certainty allows the system to work faster. A revised LUB must address the dichotomy between the practical benefits of having more certainty, where the rules are very clear up front, and the same for all players, versus the need to inject enough flexibility to accommodate innovation and reflect changing conditions and needs.

Background -- Presently, Edmonton's LUB provides some degree of certainty in the form of 32 standard districts and flexibility via site specific development control districts. Certainty is a desired objective because it provides developers and residents alike with clear rules and expectations with regard to future development possibilities. Flexibility is required to accommodate unique and innovative development concepts and sites with significant physical constraints.

Edmonton's LUB provides a degree of certainty by attaching several permitted uses to a specific property. If a development complies with all provisions of the LUB, it will be approved "as-of-right". However, these same standard districts provide some flexibility in that they also include a series of discretionary uses. If a proposed development conforms with the applicable regulations of the LUB and any statutory plans, the Development Officer has the discretion to approve the permit. Once approved, discretionary uses become subject to the "right of appeal" by impacted property owners.

When the standard districts do not meet the needs of a proposed development, applicants have the option of redistricting their site to a district which contains more appropriate permitted and discretionary uses. This exercise is done in an environment that requires public notice and Council approval. Another option is to redistrict the property to a direct control district. A DC5 District is composed of a series of regulations which specifically address the attributes and impacts of the development being proposed. The DC5 District is a flexible and negotiated approach to land use control, however, its application adds a layer of public consultation which must take place before the application will be accepted by the Planning Department for processing.

Although staff noted that Edmonton is often criticized for over-regulating development, it is the opinion of staff that the problem is not with the philosophical basis of the land use control system, but rather in how it has been applied. Listed below are some of the problems staff identified with the application of the standard districts: Lack of flexibility. Standard districts are not providing enough flexibility in terms of development regulations, yard requirements, landscaping, F.A.R., and include some obsolete requirements (eg. % family oriented units). Simply put, they have failed to adapt to changing needs.

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw

14

Lack of architectural guidelines. Standard districts fall short in providing architectural guidelines or requirements to ensure attractive and compatible developments. iii. Overuse of variances. Development Officers have the discretion to vary LUB regulations. Often, the intent of the LUB's districts and regulations are being compromised by overly liberal interpretation and variances. iv. Lack of enforcement. Permit decisions are being made without site checks by Development Officers. As well, the limited amount of follow-up provided to ensure that conditions are being met, compromise the integrity of the LUB's regulations. v.

Too much flexibility. The CMX and RMX districts are intended to promote a wide range of commercial and residential uses within a development. However, experience has shown that they are too open-ended in their list of uses, that is, they do not provide a sufficient degree of certainty for developers. As a result they have not been utilized by the development industry as intended.

vi. Over-reliance on Development Officers' discretion and interpretation. Many regulations and plan policies rely on "the opinion of the Development Officer" to achieve land use control objectives, yet Development Officers rarely have the insight that would come with participating on a plan preparation exercise. Regulations require a stronger link between the intent of a policy and the exercise of discretion The result of so many flaws in the standard districts is the overuse of the DC5 direct control districts. Since 1980, over 400 DC5 Districts have been approved, reflecting the demand for more flexible zoning and the inability for standard districts to accommodate all development aspirations. However, even the DC5 District falls short in providing a truly flexible land use control option. In all situations, DC5 Districts add a layer of community consultation at the beginning of the permit process that is otherwise not mandated in standard districts. As well, at the development permit stage, all developments in DC5 Districts remain discretionary and require yet another level of notice to adjacent property owners, even after being approved through the public hearing process. While beneficial, these extra steps create uncertainty for applicants, add cost through longer processing periods, and run contrary to the open for business attitude being embraced by the Department and the Corporation.

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw

15

Staff Conclusions -- The LUB does not require a new philosophical approach to inject more flexibility into the system, but a new environment in which the current opportunities are better implemented. There are several vehicles by which Edmonton's LUB can provide improved flexibility: expand the function of existing standard districts, reduce the reliance on DC5 Districts and the discretion of Development Officers, and enforce those conditions that are required. The DC5 District should not be considered the cure-all for the various short-comings of standard districts. While the need for direct control districts remains, there are several areas where the process could be expedited, without jeopardizing community input. A revised LUB must balance the protection that some level of certainty brings, with the opportunities of a truly flexible approach.

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw

16

4. Suggestions for Modifications to the LUB During the Idea Exchange Sessions, staff identified several specific sections of the LUB that require review and amendment. Several of the identified regulations simply require review in order to bring their standards up to date. While in other instances, staff was of the opinion that the objective of the regulations were still relevant, however, their interpretation and hence implementation has been a problem. Finally, several areas as to where new regulations/policy directions may be taken, based on feedback from clients and experience, were suggested.

Accessory Uses The concept of giving the Development Officer the power to determine if a use is accessory to the primary use was seen as positive, as it provides flexibility. However, the actual implementation of this power has been a problem, i.e. the piggy backing of uses and activities that were never intended for sites (some of which have been incompatible with surrounding land uses and in contravention of the site purpose statement of the underlying districting).

Annexed Areas The lands annexed to the City of Edmonton in the early 1980s should be brought under the regulatory umbrella of the City's LUB, that is it is not acceptable that the bylaws (standards and policies) of other municipalities should be regulating land use in the City.

Direct Control Districts The continued need for the existence of the DC2 and DC4 districts was questioned. Also, the present practice of treating uses within direct control districts as discretionary (Class C development permits) may not be warrented as approval for the uses have been previously approved by Council. Essentially this practice injects uncertainty into the planning process and lengthens approval timelines. A June 1996 text amendment to the LUB which provides the opportunty to treat minor development in a direct control district as a Class B permitted use, has partially addressed this issue.

Overlays Overlays should continue to be part of the LUB, however it is necessary to ensure their regulations are implemented. This has been a problem with ARP's SPOs. There may be potential to use overlays on an issue basis, applied to the entire city, rather than just on a neighbourhood basis.

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw

17

Parking Standards Parking standards must be updated to reflect changing demands and requirements (e.g. split for standard and smaller sized stalls, number of stalls required by development type, etc.).

Sign Regulations The sign regulations should be retained as part of the LUB, as signs are an integral part of a development. However, the regulations require fine tuning, for example the wording must be made clearer and more understandable. Illustrations would be helpful in improving the clarity of the regulations, as well as serve to shorten the section.

Enforcement A lack of enforcement efforts/resources has compromised the integrity of the LUB' s regulations. Greater resources should be directed to enforcement and to site inspection prior to development permit decisions. Also, there was a question as to the City's role in enforcing areas of Provincial jurisdiction (e.g. environmental risk of certain home occupations, Province's regulation regarding group homes and day cares).

Notification Process There is a demand, on the part of residents, to receive notice at a point in the planning process where they can still effect change (supported by Round Table exercise). There is merit in considering a requirement for the posting of notification signs for discretionary use Development Permit applications.

Use Class Definitions The present use class concept works well, however, many of the uses are defined too narrowly (too detailed) or are outdated, resulting in a lack of flexibility when considering development permit applications.

Special Land Use Provisions These have been an effective tool in controlling those uses that have been determined as having the potential to have significant impacts on surrounding land uses. However, there is a need to make them more prominent, as they are easily missed by LUB users. An improved cross referencing system between these regulations and the districts is required.

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw

18

Matrices

Consideration should be given to the development of a series of matrices which provide information on parking and landscaping requirements, fees and information requirements, and possibly the compatibility of land uses. Not only would the matrices make the LUB easy for users to understand, but it would also achieve the goal of reducing the Bylaw's length.

Format/ Layout Redesign

A number of improvements to the LUB's format and layout were identified, including, but by no means limited to the following: the development of an introduction that provides readers with the basic information needed to understand the role of the LUB: • use of clearer, friendly language; • the utilization of illustrations, charts and diagrams in order to clarify or replace text and convey complex ideas; and . a reorganization of the ordering of the Bylaw's various sections so that related components and subject areas appear consecutively in the document.

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw

19

VI. Conclusions Research into zoning techniques and consultation with Planning and Development Department staff indicates that the underlying philosophy of the current LUB is still appropriate to meet the challenges of land use control in the City of Edmonton.

A LUB built on a foundation of conventional zoning, augmented with innovative zoning methods, is the most practical and effective means for regulating land use.

However, the existing LUB must be strategically reviewed in order to address ongoing economic, social, political and technological trends. It must evolve as the city changes and it must adapt to pressures exerted on it by a changing world. There are at least three competing and overlapping dichotomies that must be resolved by a new and invigorated LUB. i.

Firstly, LUB regulations must recognize and respect the characteristics that make suburban and inner city areas unique.

Secondly, a new LUB must put more emphasis on the impacts of uses, built form and aesthetics when formulating land use regulations. iii. Thirdly, a new LUB must strike the appropriate balance between the practical need for certainty and the need to inject enough flexibility to accommodate innovation and changing conditions.

Additionally, there are several components of the current LUB, outlined in Section V, which are still relevant and appropriate, but require modification in order to bring their standards and requirements up to date. Also, Edmonton's LUB requires a revised, more organized framework which utilizes illustrations and user-friendly language.

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw

20

VII. Recommendations A strategic review of Edmonton's LUB is necessary which addresses the following priority areas: Major review of standard districts to address and accommodate emerging trends, to reduce reliance on DC5 districts, overlays and ad hoc LUB text amendments, and increase consideration of impacts and built form. Barring a comprehensive review of all the districts, the following priorities are recommended: . A review of the residential districts, particularly to address emerging issues related to inner city infill housing and redevelopment. • A review of the commercial districts, with the objective of putting greater emphasis on impact of uses and recognizing the suburban/inner city dichotomy.

Integration of community objectives to strengthen the link between community objectives and implementation. iii. Update and revise key components of the LUB, such as direct control districts, overlays, use class definitions, parking standards, sign regulations, special land use provisions and general administrative provisions to improve process efficiencies. iv. Incorporate annexed lands within the standard districts to ensure land develop is consistent across the city. v.

Strengthen the Development Officer responsibility to provide greater direction in the implementation of policies and community standards.

vi. Strengthen enforcement and monitoring activities to maintain the integrity of LUB regulations and promote quality development. The City should also investigate the coordination of its regulatory role with those of provincial and federal jurisdictions (e.g. environmental risk of certain home occupations; Province's regulation regarding group homes and day cares, communication towers).

Towards a New Land Use Bylaw

21