Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues ZONING BYLAW REVIEW
January 2018—December 2018
PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT
The EFCL’s Planning and Development Committee (PDC) monitors and comments on amendments made to the Zoning Bylaw that impact the majority of Community Leagues. This document is intended to summarize those items that we as a committee responded to in 2018 and describes any changes that have already occurred or likely will occur early in 2019. Our position statements can be found at efcl.org
CHANGES 1. Alcohol Sales DISCUSSED: Breezeways Garden Suites MNO Privacy Screening RA9 High Rise Apartment Zone Secondary Suites Semi-detached Housing in RF1 and RF2
1. Alcohol Sales Proposal: To remove the 500-metre separation distance (approximately 3 city blocks) required between liquor stores, maintaining only the 100-metre distance for liquor outlets near parks and schools.
PDC Comments: Retain the 500-metre separation distance in mature communities and in areas where a high proportion of vulnerable populations exist.
Changes: Eliminate the separation distances between liquor stores in the Downtown, Oliver, and a portion of Westmount only.
Target Date: March 5, 2019—Urban Planning Committee
Proposed exemption area., where red = existing liquor store. Provided by the City of Edmonton Zoning Bylaw team. Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues ZONING BYLAW REVIEW
January 2018—December 2018
2. Breezeways Definition: A “breezeway” is an enclosed walkway between two structures such as a house and a rear attached garage. Proposal: Administration met with the PDC to discuss the possibility of allowing these structures and collectively opposed them to City Council.
Example of a breezeway in Highlands, Edmonton.
PDC Comments: Do not allow permanent breezeways in mature neighbourhoods as they are an inefficient use of land in a compact city and create significant visual barriers for neighbours. Changes: No changes were made to the bylaw to allow these structures.
3. Garden Suites Proposal: • Updating the language surrounding Inclusive Design to better facilitate development of accessible accessory dwellings • Maintaining the limit to the second storey of Garden Suites in mature neighbourhoods at 50 m2 as opposed to 60 m2 • Removing the 75 m2 cap on living area • Allowing an increase in building size from 120 m2 to 130 m2 • Exclude basements, elevators, and stairs from Floor Area Calculations • Removal of shrubbery as counting towards building articulation • Removal of minimum floor area
PDC Comments: We supported many of the recommendations put forward by administration, especially promoting accessible housing, maintaining the second storey limit on suites to promote building articulation and visual interest, removing basements from Floor Area Calculations to promote more suites with basements, and removing the minimum floor area to promote the development of smaller, less intrusive suites. We also supported removing the 75 m2 cap on living space as it will necessarily mean additions must be built at grade, but suggested caution with increasing the total building size unless it was for suites meeting Inclusive Design standards.
Changes: All of the above.
Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues ZONING BYLAW REVIEW
January 2018—December 2018
4. Mature Neighbourhood Overlay (MNO) Definition: “Setback” refers to the distance between a structure and the property line, such as a house or a garage. Proposal: Maximum front setback of 20% not applied to additions built on existing houses and remove the requirement for neighbour notification when a variance is issued for garages. PDC Comments: Encourage Council and Admin to revisit the setback issue as the new regulations have resulted in structures built much closer to the property line, as illustrated in the photo below. Also, do not allow the removal of garage-related variance notifications as City of Edmonton engagement indicates neighbours don’t feel adequately informed about development in their neighbourhoods.
Example of setback disharmony in Inglewood, Edmonton.
Changes: Garage related variance notification requirement removed. The minimum front setback is now either 20% of site depth or 1.5m less than the average setback on abutting lots, whichever is less. The maximum front setback must be 1.5 m greater than the average setback of abutting lots. This means home-builders have more opportunity to respond to the context of surrounding properties, but new homes will likely still be built closer to the property line than their neighbours.
5. Privacy Screening on Rooftop Terraces Definition: “Massing” refers to the impact a structure has on the eye. In this case, it means staring a big, blank wall where one did not exist before. Proposal: • Require privacy screening to run the entire length of the rooftop terrace that abuts a neighbouring property • Privacy screening will be 1.5-1.7 metres in height • Require a 1 metre stepback where privacy screening is provided to prevent massing effect on neighbours • Remove privacy screening where stepbacks of two metres or greater are provided
PDC Comments: We supported all of the proposed requirements as a means of protecting the privacy of both the rooftop terrace user and neighbouring properties. With regards to requiring a stepback where privacy screening is provided, we felt this was important as a means of preventing the effect of “massing” on neighbours.
Changes: All of the above.
Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues ZONING BYLAW REVIEW
January 2018—December 2018
6. RA9 Highrise Apartment Zone Definition: The RA9 High Rise Apartment Zone governs areas of the city tall buildings with high densities and is largely applied in central areas and along existing and planned LRT routes.
Proposal: The review of this zone was quite robust and featured a number of changes of which the Planning Committee had occasion to respond to.
PDC Comments: These amendments were in part meant to decrease the likelihood of developers applying for Direct Control Zoning to build higher density towers (which, as the name suggests, gives developers direct control over a specific development that will not be governed by another zones rules). However, while sometimes problematic for neighbours, DC developments do come with significant amenity contributions for communities, which we feel have the potential to improve the quality of a neighbourhood, especially when residential density increases (e.g. these contributions could include things like park space, etc). Because of this consideration, in the end we recommended not amending the RA9 zone at all and creating a new zone that included amenity contributions, as negotiated with members of the community as they are done with Direct Control Zoning.
Changes: The major changes included the allowance of 18 storey highrises, urban design and architecture regulations intended to improve both building aesthetic and the public realm at ground level, the removal of low-densities, and the addition
7. Secondary Suites Definition: Secondary suites refer to those suites that are self-contained apartments in an owner occupied single family home, such as a basement suite. Previously, suites of this nature were restricted to single family dwellings in certain zones.
Proposal:
• Allow secondary suites in single family homes on narrow lots, semi-detached, duplexes, and row-housing. • Remove secondary suite size limit of 70m2 or 40% of the above grade floor area of the house, whichever is less.
PDC Comments: Our recommendations regarding secondary suites focused on making them a discretionary use, as opposed to permitted, in row housing as this housing type is already quite an intensive on municipal infrastructure (e.g. water pressure, waste collection, parking, etc). If discretionary, the development officer would be able to check on those things to ensure the street could support additional density. We also recommended that administration develop a more moderate increase in Floor Area for secondary suites based on principal dwelling and lot size to ensure these suites remain subordinate to the principal dwelling.
Changes: Secondary suites now permitted in all above housing types. Suites must only be smaller than the principal dwelling.
Secondary suite. Retrieved from City of Edmonton. Edmonton Federation of Community Leagues ZONING BYLAW REVIEW
January 2018—December 2018
8. Semi-detached Housing in RF1 and RF2 Zones Definition: RF1 = Single Detached Residential Zone, RF2 = Low Scale Infill Zone
Proposal: Administration recommended opening up opportunities for semi- detached housing and duplex housing with no locational restrictions in small scale zones. They also proposed limiting RF1 lots to one subdivision, unless it was for semi-detached housing.
PDC Comments: Our recommendation was to extend the limit of one subdivision to RF2 lots, unless it was for semi-detached housing. We took this position as we felt it may incentivize building semi-detached housing on large subdivided lots, rather than rezoning to RF2 and building four “skinny” houses. Our desire to encourage semi-detached housing over skinny homes comes down to affordability for the young families we are eager to attract back to our core communities.
We also advocated that the city do a public awareness campaign to inform residents about the cumulative impacts of this change in conjunction with the changes to secondary suites, as it could dramatically increase the density of some residential streets in coming years.
Changes: Semi-detached housing and duplex housing is now permitted with no locational restrictions (e.g. they can now be built midblock) in RF1 and RF2. As for subdivision, RF1 lots are limited to one subdivision.
Example of semi-detached housing in Edmonton, Alberta.