Central Alberta

Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study

December 2004

Central Alberta Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study

Table of Contents

1. Introduction...... 1 1.1 Study Purpose ...... 2 1.2 Study Objectives ...... 2

2. The Highways 2/2A Corridor...... 3 2.1 Introduction...... 3 2.2 Highway 2...... 3 2.3 Highway 2A ...... 4 2.4 Alberta Transportation Authority ...... 5

3. Aesthetic Regulations from Partner Municipalities ...... 7

4. Aesthetic Regulations from Other Municipalities...... 19 4.1 Introduction...... 19 4.2 Other Municipalities...... 19

5. Billboards...... 24 5.1 Introduction...... 24 5.2 Approaches to the Regulation of Billboards ...... 24 5.3 Conclusion...... 26

6. Municipal and Public Consultation ...... 27 6.1 Municipal Consultation...... 27 6.2 Public Consultation...... 27 6.3 Municipal and Public Response...... 28

7. Conclusions and Recommendations ...... 30 7.1 Existing Plans and Regulations ...... 30 7.2 Aesthetic Regulations from Other Municipalities ...... 31 7.3 Regulation Coverage...... 32 7.4 Aesthetic Regulation Structure ...... 32 7.5 Next Steps...... 34

Appendix A Checklist for a Traffic Impact Assessment Appendix B Comment Sheet Appendix C Highway Corridor Overlay District

Central Alberta i Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study December 2004

1. Introduction

Recently cited as the fastest growing region in the nation, the Highway 2/2A Corridor between Edmonton and Calgary is a magnet for commercial and industrial growth and development. Highway 2’s role as a critical link in the North American Trade Corridor (CANAMEX), combined with an active provincial economy, suggest that demand for such development along the Corridor will intensify in future. Average daily traffic volume on the Central Alberta segment of the highway is approaching 30,000 vehicles. This means that developments adjacent this segment are visible to more than 11 million vehicles annually. Highway 2A performs an increasingly important function as a regional arterial roadway linking urban and rural municipalities surrounding the City of Red Deer to the north and south. The segment of Highway 2A north of the City has the highest current traffic volume in Central Alberta at about 13,500 vehicles a day. This daily volume equates to almost 5.0 million vehicles annually driving by adjacent developments. By initiating the Central Alberta Highway 2/2A Corridor Design Study, 15 partner municipalities are assuming a proactive approach to promoting a common, high standard of design for future development along the highways. The benefits of promoting high design standards are both economic and social, in that new businesses may be attracted, property values may increase, and population growth may be stimulated. Also, the aesthetics of the built environment and the quality of life of area residents are linked in that improvement to the built environment may enhance quality of life for Central Alberta residents. For the purposes of this project, the Study Area is generally described as a strip of land on both sides of Highways 2 and 2A, from the north boundary of the County of Wetaskiwin, south to the south boundary of Mountain View County.

Central Alberta 1 Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study December 2004

The 15 partner municipalities participating in the Central Alberta Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study are linked by these highways and include:

• County of Wetaskiwin; • The Town of Millet; • The City of Wetaskiwin; • Ponoka County; • The Town of Ponoka; • Lacombe County; • The Town of Lacombe; • The Town of Blackfalds; • Red Deer County; • The City of Red Deer; • The Town of Penhold; • The Town of Innisfail; • The Town of Bowden; • Mountain View County; and, • The Town of Olds.

1.1 Study Purpose The purpose of this study is to identify common development guidelines that may be applied to all future commercial and industrial operations that are visible from Highways 2 and 2A, as well as development visible from those highways within the Study Area that connect Highways 2 and 2A. The primary focus of the study is to prepare appropriate common development design guidelines, and to recommend a coordinated approach to applying these guidelines to new development. 1.2 Study Objectives The following study objectives have been used to direct the study approach and methodology, and reflect the purpose of the study. • To complete a comprehensive inventory of existing and potential commercial and industrial land uses within the Study Area. • To complete a comprehensive inventory of the development design standards being applied by each of the participating municipalities as per approved statutory planning documents, Land Use Bylaws and municipal policy. • To investigate relevant examples of design standards and regulations being applied along high visibility corridors in other areas. • To identify common design standards and elements of existing guidelines that may appropriately be applied on a coordinated basis to all new commercial and industrial development within the Study Area. • To recommend a common best practice approach for Central Alberta municipalities in applying design standards to new and redeveloped commercial and industrial developments in the Study Area based on the study findings.

Central Alberta 2 Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study December 2004

2. The Highways 2/2A Corridor

2.1 Introduction The value of land along Highway 2 for economic development purposes is affected by traffic volumes with higher visibility locations perceived as having higher value. Visibility and land values may be greatest near interchanges because of additional traffic volumes generate by the intersecting highway. Access is also a significant factor in determining land value and economic development opportunities. Traffic volumes and access for Highway 2 and Highway 2A are discussed below. 2.2 Highway 2 Highway 2 is a four lane divided freeway with provision for widening to six lanes within current right-of-way limits. Alberta Transportation is the road authority for the highway, and is proposing to upgrade Highway 2 to full freeway standard. Full freeway standard means that no at-grade intersections with the highway will be permitted, and that all existing at grade accesses will be removed with alternative access provided by the local road system or parallel service roads. Access to Highway 2 will be limited to grade separated interchanges spaced at 6-10 mile (10-16 kilometre) intervals in rural areas. The spacing between interchanges may be reduced in urban areas, where higher traffic volumes result in increased access demands. However, Alberta Transportation’s draft Position Paper - Rationale for Planning and Design Standards – Freeway Facilities suggests that interchanges on a freeway in urban areas should be spaced at three (3)kilometres (or greater) intervals. Although Alberta Transportation is committed to developing Highway 2 to a full freeway standard, the staging of the improvements required to bring the roadway to the desired standard is dependent on the availability of funding. Interchange construction and median widening from Bowden to Innisfail is a current example of ongoing improvements based on funding availability. Traffic volumes on Highway 2 and the intersecting highways in the Study Area are increasing (see Figure 1). Volumes at all intersection locations increased by more than 20% over the ten year period between 1994 and 2003, with three of the fourteen locations increasing by more than 30%. Within the Study Area, Highway 2 traffic volumes are highest between Highway 11 (67 Street) and 32nd Street, where traffic volumes have increased in excess of 35% in the last 10 years, and about 20% in the last five years. Volumes generally decrease proportional to the distance further north or south of this location. The exception is the segment between Highway 53 at Ponoka, and Highway 13 at the Wetaskiwin turn-off, where traffic volumes are the lowest at 18,880 vehicles per day. At the north boundary of the Study Area, traffic volumes rise to 20,240. At the south Study Area boundary near Crossfield, the 2003 traffic volume is recorded 20,890 vehicles a day. In both the regional and provincial context, it is important to note that the traffic volumes on Highway 2 at Nisku and adjacent the City of Airdrie is greater than 50,000 vehicles per day.

Central Alberta 3 Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study December 2004

Figure 1 - Selected Highway 2 Traffic Volumes (AADT) 1994-2003

30

Thousands 28

26

24

22

20

18

16

14

12 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Millet (616) Wetaskiwin (13) Ponoka (53) Lacombe (2AN) Lacombe (12) Blackfalds (597) Red Deer (11A) Red Deer (11) Red Deer (32 St) Penhold (42) Innisfail (54/590) Bowden (581) Olds (27) Carstairs (580)

Source: Alberta Transportation: Alberta Highways – Traffic Volume History (1994 – 2003)

2.3 Highway 2A Highway 2A parallels the east side of Highway 2 north of the City of Red Deer, and the west side south of the City. Highway 2A is currently classified as a major two-lane highway, which allows for a much higher level of land access than is permitted on Highway 2. As such, Highway 2A plays an important role in linking urban and rural communities in the Central Alberta region. The standards and character of Highway 2A vary greatly throughout its length, with rural sections providing access to adjacent lands and urban sections acting as arterial streets. Highway 2A traffic volumes also vary with those sections located south of Red Deer experiencing between 2,500 and 4,500 vehicles trips a day, and those sections located north of the City of Red Deer experiencing higher volumes in the range of 6,500 to 13,500 vehicles trips a day (see Figure 2). The highest volumes are recorded at Highway 11A north directly north of Red Deer City and at Highway 12 in the Town of Lacombe. Traffic rate increases on Highway 2A are generally lower than comparable locations on Highway 2. The highest traffic volume increases during the last 10 years occurred north of the City Red Deer.

Central Alberta 4 Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study December 2004

Figure 2 - Selected Highway 2A Volumes (AADT) 1994-2003

14 Thousands 12

10

8

6

4

2

0 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Millet (616) Wetaskiwin (13) Ponoka (53) Lacombe (12) Blackfalds (597) Red Deer (11A) Penhold (42) Innisfail (54) Bowden (587) Olds (27) Carstairs (580) Source: Alberta Transportation: Alberta Highways – Traffic Volume History (1994 – 2003)

2.4 Alberta Transportation Authority As the road authority for Highway 2, Alberta Transportation does not support development that relies on existing at-grade intersections with Highway 2 as the primary means of access. Along Highway 2A, proper spacing of intersections to accommodate development is required. As well, the Department does not support the use of good agricultural lands for the linear development of high visibility type commercial or industrial uses along Highway 2, in particular. Such uses typically desire exposure to highway traffic, but do not require highway access. Alberta Transportation does support development of highway related land uses in the immediate vicinity of existing interchanges on Highway 2. This strategy, modelled on the interstate system in the United States, is intended to focus highway related land use at points of access to the freeway.

Central Alberta 5 Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study December 2004

Alberta Transportation is currently preparing plans to upgrade sections of Highway 2A to a four lane facility. The focus of the roadway planning is north of Red Deer to Lacombe. As these sections of highway are upgraded, direct land access will be eliminated and directed to adjacent municipal roads, usually in the form of parallel service roads. Future upgrades of Highway 2A will see a continuance of the transition of the highway’s arterial function with at grade access, towards a freeway function that favours increased roadway capacity. To assess the impact of adjacent development on provincial highways, Alberta Transportation typically requires a traffic impact assessment be completed (see Appendix A - Checklist for a Traffic Impact Assessment), as well as details on the proposed use and subdivision pattern. Departmental approval is contingent on implementing the recommendations of the traffic impact assessment, and may include the construction of any required highway improvements. On-site traffic remedies also may be required. In reviewing an application for a development permit along a highway, Alberta Transportation considers factors such as appropriate lighting, fencing, landscaping, signage and any other features that may jeopardize the integrity or safety of the highway. It is also important to note that, under the Public Highway Development Act, all highway approaches and access points are temporary, at the discretion of Alberta Transportation. The department typically requires that the developer and/or the municipality pay for the costs of all improvements necessary to serve a development.

Central Alberta 6 Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study December 2004

3. Aesthetic Regulations from Partner Municipalities The Intermunicipal Development Plans, Municipal Development Plans and Land Use Bylaws of each of the fifteen partner municipalities have been reviewed to identify policies and regulations regarding design and other standards for commercial and industrial development adjacent Highways 2 and 2A. The relevant policies and regulations are summarized in the tables below. The Land Use Bylaw regulations of the partner municipalities have been summarized using 12 categories, which represent the best practice for such regulations and is reflected in the structure of the aesthetic regulation recently adopted by Lacombe County. The tables that follow are organized according to municipal location including the north, central and south portions of the Study Area. The resultant municipal distribution is as follows:

Table 1 - North Table 2 - Central Table 3 - South

ƒ Town of Millet ƒ Town of Lacombe ƒ Town of Olds ƒ Wetaskiwin County ƒ Lacombe County ƒ Mountain View County ƒ City of Wetaskiwin ƒ Town of Blackfalds ƒ Town of Bowden ƒ Town of Ponoka ƒ Red Deer County ƒ Town of Innisfail ƒ City of Red Deer ƒ Town of Penhold

Central Alberta 7 Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study December 2004

Table 1 - North

Town of Millet Wetaskiwin County City of Wetaskiwin Town of Ponoka

Intermunicipal ƒ N/A ƒ No new commercial signs within 3 km of City without AT approval ƒ N/A Development Plan Policies Municipal ƒ None ƒ None ƒ Highway commercial with careful ƒ Policy 12 – improve signs and Development attention to overall appearance, landscaping along main highway Plan Policies building design and landscaping entrances. ƒ Strategy 20: improving the ƒ Policy 36 – ensure that siting, form, appearance of highway entrances. and character improves the visual ƒ Industrial areas required to meet quality of the highway. high building design, signage, landscaping, and appearance standards particularly in areas of high visibility. Land Use ƒ Highway Commercial District (C3) ƒ 3.11(f) necessary landscaping as a ƒ Section 18(2)(d) a detailed ƒ Section 3 – Design, Construction Bylaw − Parking condition of Development Permit. landscaping plan and treatment of buildings Regulations − Landscaping and Screening ƒ Highway Commercial – ƒ Section 8 – Landscaping to the ƒ Section 4 Schedule C appearance and siting satisfaction of the DA requirements including; − provisions requiring landscaping to the satisfaction of the Development landscaping, fencing, Authority

Specific Partly Yes Regulation for No No the Highway 2 ƒ additional requirements in Highway ƒ Major Entranceway provisions of Corridor Commercial (C2) District only the LUB (57.13)

Central Alberta 8 Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study December 2004

Town of Millet Wetaskiwin County City of Wetaskiwin Town of Ponoka

Completion of Partly Yes a Landscape No No Plan ƒ applies only to C2 District ƒ mandatory (s57.3)

Landscaping No No No No Plan Terms of Reference

Planting Yes No Yes No Standards ƒ density (1 tree//50m2), species mix, ƒ density (1 tree/40m2 and 2 screening and top soil shrubs/100m2), species mix, min planting bed (5 trees/6 shrubs)

Maintenance Yes No No No Period ƒ one planting season

Security No No No No

Signs Yes Yes Yes Yes ƒ Section 5.5 – in UR district adjacent ƒ Specific regulations regarding ƒ Comprehensive sign regulation - ƒ Section 16, most signs do not highways. highways. Schedule C. require a DP. ƒ Town approval required. − tractor trailers that bear a sign − applied to specific highway related require a Development Permit uses

Central Alberta 9 Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study December 2004

Town of Millet Wetaskiwin County City of Wetaskiwin Town of Ponoka

Billboards Yes No Yes No ƒ Section 5.10 - Billboards ƒ Comprehensive regulation (freestanding signs for rent) are ƒ Discretionary use in C3 and C3A define as a use. (Hwy C) Districts − only were allowed as a use − 1 per parcel − no flashing lights or moving objects

Lighting No No No No

Access No No No Yes ƒ Clearly defined efficient and convenient circulation system.

Building Yes No Yes Yes Appearance and Design ƒ Within Commercial and Industrial ƒ Specified in District standards, new District standards. buildings, exterior finish to the satisfaction of the DA, highway side to complement other developments on site and on adjacent sites.

Highway Partly No No Yes Setbacks ƒ Specified in C3 (Hwy C) District ƒ as required by Alberta ƒ Highway 2A – as required by ƒ minimum front yard setback 46.0m Transportation Alberta Transportation (150 ft)

Central Alberta 10 Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study December 2004

Table 2 - Central

Town of Lacombe Lacombe County Town of Blackfalds Red Deer County City of Red Deer

Intermunicipal ƒ Although the strategic importance of the ƒ 5.4.3 Hwy 2 & 597 Development ƒ 7.2.4 Both municipalities will work towards the adoption of Development Hwy 2 and 12 interchange is Standards uniform aesthetic standards for major entranceways to Plan Policies acknowledged, no specific policies relate − Both municipalities will cooperate to identify the City. to land use and/or development adjacent development standards ƒ Section III 13.0 Existing Area Structure Plans, the corridor. − Standards implemented through LUB. Developments adjacent Highways 2, 2A, 11 and 11A shall ƒ 8.1.3 Highway 2 Corridor Economic provide for landscaping for that portion of the lands Development Study adjacent to the Highways. − Town to work with the County to help ensure This or similar policy is directed at the following Area its successful completion. Structure Plans: Blindman, Central Park, Northwest, Calgary and Edmonton Trail, Medicine River and East Hills. Municipal ƒ 61.3(g) Highway ƒ 9.2 The County will make ƒ 6.1 The Town will prepare ƒ 5.7 Work with the City of ƒ None Development Commercial land use efficient use of existing development and Red Deer, Towns of Plan Policies adjacent to Highway 12 roadway facilities. landscape standards for Bowden, Innisfail, and west limited to tourist ƒ Relevant amendments lands along highways. All Sylvan Lake and Alberta related type services and proposed for the MDP are development adjacent to Transportation to develop that all development be of to include: Highways 2 and 2A and design guidelines for lands a higher design and Secondary Highway 597 along highway corridors, to Industrial and commercial architectural standard. − will require higher design enhance their visual development to locate in 3 nodes adjacent Highway 2. and landscaping qualities and economic standards. development potential. − An Outline Plan or ASP may be required. ƒ 4.6 Highway Commercial Such guidelines would not be limited to landscaping − Comply with aesthetic Development: b) Must and signing standards guidelines in Highway 2 maintain a high visual Corridor Study. standard, including currently in the Land Use landscaping. Bylaw.

Central Alberta 11 Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study December 2004

Town of Lacombe Lacombe County Town of Blackfalds Red Deer County City of Red Deer

Land Use ƒ Part II Schedule B - 7(6) ƒ Current provisions within ƒ Schedule B – 8(4) ƒ Section 57 – Landscape ƒ Sections 72-80 and Bylaw − provisions requiring District standards include − provisions require Design Standards Section 83(1) Building & Regulations landscaping to the requirements for conservation and retention − regulations on retention of Landscape Design satisfaction of the landscaping with of natural vegetation natural features, Standards on Major Areas Development Authority restrictions regarding the − planting standards include landscaping plan − includes specific − provisions including: design, character and density (1/40m2), species requirements and, planting application, building planting density (1/50m2) appearance of buildings. mixture, and minimum standards regulations, access and and mix (33% coniferous) ƒ Amendments to the Land landscape area − Major Entranceways loading, signs, additional regulations for gas bars, − completion of landscaping Use Bylaw include a − hard landscaping maximum additional regulation adjacent highways service stations, fast food by the end of the first full Highway 2 Corridor 10% of site area. growing season following including , higher planting outlets to ensure a high Overlay District with − completion one year after completion of construction. standards, minimum standard of appearance specific provisions To construction/occupancy number of trees and ƒ Sections 81-85 - ƒ Highway Commercial establish a positive visual ƒ Highway Commercial minimum landscape area Landscaping Regulations District (C2) impression of the Highway District (C2) (15% of site, DA discretion) − includes landscaping plan − All outdoor storage shall be 2 corridor. − requires completion of a ƒ Section 58 – General Site screened and requirements, landscape plan Design − specific planting − same level of landscaping − regulations regarding as 8(4) (above) requirements for major vehicle and pedestrian entrance areas including − district standards includes circulation, integration of Highway 2, site development, storage site circulation systems, − screening of exterior walls, and building design signs regulations − additional landscaping − regulations for gas bars, requirements on larger service stations, fast food parking lots. outlets to ensure a high standard of appearance

Specific Yes Partly Yes Regulation for Yes the Highway 2 No ƒ recent amendments to ƒ additional requirements in ƒ Major Entranceway Corridor include Highway 2 Overlay Highway Commercial (C2) provisions of the LUB ƒ Major Entranceway District. District only (57.13)

Central Alberta 12 Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study December 2004

Town of Lacombe Lacombe County Town of Blackfalds Red Deer County City of Red Deer

Completion of a Yes Partly Yes Yes Landscape Plan No ƒ mandatory adjacent Hwy 2 ƒ applies only to C2 District ƒ mandatory (s57.3) ƒ mandatory (s81) corridor

Landscaping No Yes No No Yes Plan Terms of Reference ƒ comprehensive ƒ landscape design ƒ (s10, s82) requirements requirements (57.4) provide some direction

Planting Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Standards ƒ density (1 tree/50m2), ƒ density (1 tree/40m2 and 1 − density (1 tree/40m2 and 2 − higher standards adjacent − density (1 tree/40m2 and species mix, screening shrub/20m2) higher density shrubs/100m2), species highways 1 shrub/100m2), height, and top soil for parking islands, mix, min. planting bed and species mix species mix, min planting (5 trees/6 shrubs) − minimum planting bed bed (5 trees/+ shrubs) (4 trees/6 shrubs) ƒ additional requirements − minimum height

Maintenance Yes Yes No Yes Yes Period ƒ one planting season ƒ complete within 1 year of ƒ none specified ƒ completion within time ƒ within 1 year of occupancy period (length not development completion ƒ two year maintenance specified) ƒ two year maintenance period ƒ two year maintenance period period

Security No Yes No Yes Yes ƒ letter of credit ƒ discretionary ƒ letter of credit

Central Alberta 13 Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study December 2004

Town of Lacombe Lacombe County Town of Blackfalds Red Deer County City of Red Deer

Signs Yes Yes No Yes Yes ƒ Comprehensive sign ƒ specific regulations ƒ Section 54, DP required, ƒ Sign Bylaw (Schedule D – regulations regarding Highway 2 max size 12m2, LUB) − limit number, height and − applied to specific highway size related uses

Billboards Yes No Yes No Yes ƒ Grouped with Class 3 ƒ Section 5(3) ƒ Discretionary Use signs as discretionary use − Grouped with freestanding ƒ not allowed adjacent in Commercial and signs Hwy 2, restricted on major Industrial Districts − Display must relate to on- arterials within City ƒ comprehensive regulation site developments.

− Max size 75m2 (Hwy 2) ƒ Billboards approved at appeal

Lighting No Yes No No No ƒ light pattern, height and type restrictions

Access No Yes No Yes Yes ƒ clearly defined efficient ƒ clearly defined efficient ƒ (s50) number and location and convenient circulation and convenient circulation of access to City’s system system engineering standards.

Central Alberta 14 Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study December 2004

Town of Lacombe Lacombe County Town of Blackfalds Red Deer County City of Red Deer

Building No Yes Yes Yes Partly Appearance and Design ƒ within Commercial and ƒ specified in District ƒ some standards within Industrial District standards, new buildings, Commercial districts standards exterior finish to the satisfaction of the DA, highway side to complement other developments on site and on adjacent sites.

Highway No No No Yes No Setbacks ƒ as required by Alberta ƒ Highway 2A – as required ƒ minimum front yard ƒ None specific to highways Transportation by Alberta Transportation setback 46.0m (150 ft)

Central Alberta 15 Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study December 2004

Table 3 - South

Town of Olds Mountain View County Town of Bowden Town of Innisfail Town of Penhold

Municipal ƒ 3.1.3 Design and exterior ƒ None ƒ Policy 8.2 – requires high ƒ Policy 2.6.2 (3) – Exterior ƒ Policy 7.2 and 8.2 – Town Development finish of commercial quality design and finish and design for expects high quality Plan Policies developments of high aesthetically pleasing site commercial developments building and site design quality and compatible design for all commercial should be of high quality and landscaping for with neighbourhood developments. and complement adjacent commercial and industrial ƒ 4.1.4 Industrial ƒ Policy 9.2 – high standard developments. developments. developments to address of site development, site ƒ Policy 14.8 – enhance siting, traffic circulation, landscaping and building appearance and parking, and loading design. landscaping along Hwy 2A facilities, landscaping, fencing, lighting and signage Land Use ƒ 6(6) Landscaping, ƒ Section 30: Landscaping ƒ Schedule B – 6(6) ƒ Section 8.16 – ƒ Section 8.4 – Bylaw Environmental require subject to approval Landscaping Landscaping Landscaping, Regulations Conservation and of DA − regulations to retain natural Environmental Development features and landscaping Conservation and − planting standards plan requirements. Development − Planting standards

Specific Yes Regulation for the No No No No Highway 2/2A ƒ Important intersections Corridor placed within DC districts.

Central Alberta 16 Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study December 2004

Town of Olds Mountain View County Town of Bowden Town of Innisfail Town of Penhold

Completion of a Yes Landscape Plan No No No No ƒ Requirement in some Districts

Landscaping Plan No No No No No Terms of Reference

Planting Yes No No Yes No Standards ƒ density (1 tree/35m2), 33% ƒ Density (1 tree/50m2), coniferous, minimize hard coniferous/deciduous mix landscaping, and top soil 1:2,

Maintenance No No No No No Period

Security Yes No No Yes No ƒ within the Development ƒ 100% of cost Agreement

Signs Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes ƒ Section 5 ƒ District specific regulations ƒ District specific regulations ƒ Section 8.27, subject to ƒ Section 5 MPC approval − comprehensive regulations

Central Alberta 17 Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study December 2004

Town of Olds Mountain View County Town of Bowden Town of Innisfail Town of Penhold

Billboards Yes No Yes Yes Yes ƒ Section 5(3) ƒ Section 5(3) ƒ Section 8.27(6) ƒ Section 5(3) − Grouped with freestanding − Grouped with freestanding − All billboards are defined as − Grouped with freestanding signs signs non-conforming uses signs − Display must relate to on-site − Display must relate to on-site − specifically prohibited in − Display must relate to on-site developments developments Hwy-C, Industrial or Rural developments Districts

Lighting No No No Yes No ƒ Section 8.19 − Light rays not directed at adjoining site, − Light rays do not interfere with traffic controls

Access No Yes No Yes No ƒ development consideration ƒ Section 8.4 − subject to DA approval

Building Yes Partly Yes Yes Yes Appearance and Design ƒ Section 1(2) Building ƒ Building location ƒ Section 1(2) Building ƒ Section 8.31 – Controlled ƒ Section 1(2) Building orientation and design orientation and design Appearance – acceptable orientation and design to DA.

Highway Yes Yes No No Yes Setbacks ƒ Hwy 2A – 5.03m (16.5 ft) ƒ District specific regulations ƒ Hwy 2A – 5 m (16.4 ft)

Central Alberta 18 Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study December 2004

4. Aesthetic Regulations from Other Municipalities

4.1 Introduction Aesthetic standards are frequently applied by urban and some rural municipalities to developments at major entrances or adjacent to high visibility corridors. To ensure a high aesthetic quality, development standards typically consider such matters as increased landscaping requirements; buffering (or screening) of parking or storage areas; architectural controls; the screening of rooftop mechanical equipment; regulations on the placement of loading and trash facilities; and restrictions on the number and size of signs. The approach taken by other municipalities in regulating development along highway corridors is described below. 4.2 Other Municipalities As part of the review of aesthetic standards adjacent highway corridors, the bylaws of four Alberta municipalities outside the Study Area have been analyzed for comparative purposes, primarily to determine what approaches are being applied and what a comprehensive aesthetic regulation should include. The four land use bylaws selected for comparison purposes include: • The City of Edmonton • Strathcona County (Sherwood Park) • The City of Spruce Grove • The City of Grande Prairie The Land Use Bylaws of Calgary, Leduc and Airdrie were also reviewed. However; specific regulations related to highways do not exist although Calgary, Airdrie and the M.D. of Rocky View as considering undertaking a similar study to this Central Alberta initiative to prepare a common standard to be applied to new highway development. Very few municipalities have specific aesthetic regulation of development adjacent highway corridors, yet all recognize the need to present a high standard of appearance for lands adjacent high visibility corridors. No examples of intermunicipal regulations were found in spite of an extensive search across North America, although most municipalities recognize the value of maintaining a level playing field for development. Many municipalities choose to include Intermunicipal Development Plan or Municipal Development Plan policies that support coordination of aesthetic standards with neighbours. However, no examples of such standards exist. Highlights of each of the selected municipal approaches to regulating the aesthetic standards of developments adjacent highway corridors follow: 4.2.1 City of Edmonton Major Commercial Corridors Overlay: The Purpose of this overlay included as aprt of Edmonton’s Zoning Bylaw is to ensure that development along Major Commercial Corridors is visually attractive and that due consideration is given to pedestrian and traffic safety.

Central Alberta 19 Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study December 2004

The Overlay applies to those lands identified as Major Commercial Corridors in the Overlay Schedule. A number of specific corridors are listed. Where the provisions of the Overlay are in conflict with the regulations of any other Section of the Bylaw, the more restrictive provisions take precedence. Where there is no conflict, the provisions of the Overlay are applied in conjunction with the regulations of the underlying Zone(s) and other Sections of the Zoning Bylaw, which include: applicable setbacks, signing, lighting, screening and parking requirements. The Overlay provisions are included as part of the Land use Bylaw. However, the provisions stem from a Highways Corridor Study, which identified guidelines for control of development along corridors. Highway Corridor District: The purpose of this district is to provide for high quality commercial development along those public roadways, which serve as entrance routes to the City. Provisions similar to the requirements of the Major Commercial Corridors Overlay are included within zone standards. 4.2.2 Strathcona County (Sherwood Park) Landscape Requirements for Gateway Areas is a separate section of the Land Use Bylaw. This section applied to designated (by Schedule) areas of the County displaying a major entrance function. However, the County’s 2001 Land Use Bylaw requires a high standard of landscaping, screening and building appearance be applied to all commercial and industrial development, regardless of location. Strathcona’s Land Use Bylaw also contains provisions regarding, access and queuing requirements for drive-in establishments. 4.2.3 City of Spruce Grove The Highway 16A Corridor Overlay is intended to improve the appearance of the highway corridor by creating a simple landscaping theme, which is being consistently applied within the corridor. A consistent approach will allow business and property owners, and the City of Spruce Grove, to work cooperatively to improve the safety and beauty of the corridor. The theme emphasizes landscaping with coniferous trees and shrubs organized into typical beds, that are consistently repeated through out the corridor. 4.2.4 City of Grande Prairie A Land Use Bylaw Overlay defines common landscape elements intended to promote a consistent look. The overlay is applied to City and privately owned land, and allows some flexibility to accommodate individual developments and the special requirements of specific sites. Table 4 summarizes each of the preceding examples. The table’s structure (row headings) is the same as the structure used to summarize partner municipalities’ statutory plans and Land Use Bylaws.

Central Alberta 20 Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study December 2004

Table 4 - Other Municipalities

Edmonton Strathcona County Spruce Grove Grande Prairie

Specific Regulation Yes No Yes Highway Corridors Yes ƒ Major Commercial Corridors ƒ High Visibility Corridor ƒ Hwy 16A Overlay District Overlay District Overlay District Completion of a Landscape Yes Yes Yes Yes Plan

Landscaping Plan Terms of Yes Yes Yes Yes Reference

Planting Standards Yes Yes Yes Yes ƒ density (1 tree/25m2 and 1 ƒ density (1 tree/25m2 and 1 ƒ density (1 tree/40m2 and 1 ƒ density (1 tree/40m2 and 1 shrub/15 m2 of yard or shrub/15 m2 in non-industrial shrub/20 m2 of any yard) shrub/20 m2 of any yard) setback), higher density for districts, then 1 tree/46 m2 of higher density for parking higher density for parking parking islands, species mix, any yard) higher density for islands islands, species mix, minimum planting beds parking islands, species mix ƒ comprehensive plan of prescribed planting patterns

Maintenance Period Yes Yes Yes Yes ƒ complete within 1 year of ƒ complete within 1 year of ƒ complete within 1 year of ƒ completion within time period occupancy, allowance for occupancy development (length not specified) staged developments ƒ 2 growing seasons ƒ 2 year maintenance period ƒ two year maintenance period ƒ 2 growing seasons

Central Alberta 21 Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study December 2004

Edmonton Strathcona County Spruce Grove Grande Prairie

Security Yes Yes Yes Yes ƒ letter of credit or cash ƒ letter of credit or cash for ƒ letter of credit, discretionary ƒ letter of credit 110%

Signs Yes Yes Yes Yes ƒ extensive sign provisions, ƒ extensive sign provisions ƒ limits to the number and type ƒ additional limits for signs additional district regulations ƒ limit sign types by district of signs facing the corridor

Billboards Yes No No Yes ƒ Freestanding Off-premises − Maximum height 6m signs − Maximum dimensions 2 − Maximum height 8.0m 7.92x3.05m (24.156m ) − Maximum area 65m2 − Maximum approval period 5 years

Lighting Yes Yes No No ƒ restricts light pattern ƒ light pattern, height and type restrictions

Access Yes Yes Yes Yes ƒ refers to city engineering ƒ subject to the approval of the ƒ clearly defined circulation ƒ clearly defined circulation standards County Engineer system system, may require integrated parking

Central Alberta 22 Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study December 2004

Edmonton Strathcona County Spruce Grove Grande Prairie

Building Appearance and Yes Yes Yes Yes Design ƒ within Commercial and ƒ Design Standards (6.12) ƒ high standard of ƒ specified in District Industrial District standards appearance, reduce mass, standards, new buildings, screening of roof tops and exterior finish to the waste. satisfaction of the DA

Central Alberta 23 Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study December 2004

5. Billboards

5.1 Introduction The number of billboards within the Study Area has grown significantly during the progress of this study. Regional politicians and the public have expressed mixed feelings regarding the proliferation of billboards. Although most recognize the legitimate need to advertise local facilities, activities or services, many have also expressed strong negative feelings regarding billboards. Negative feelings are particularly directed at advertising for companies or locations located outside the region. As well, many residents are very sensitive to the location of billboards, with a greater tolerance expressed for billboards located in urbanized areas or developed areas, and less tolerance for billboards located in rural areas. Alberta Transportation does not support the installation of billboards fronting provincial highways. Billboards are usually defined in Land Use Bylaws as signs advertising goods, services, activities or facilities not located on the land where the sign is located (i.e. off-premises signs). They are characterized by their large size and changeable display. A recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada stated that an absolute prohibition on so called third party advertising signs is not in keeping with the freedom of expression provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Court’s interpretation holds that, restricting the copy on a sign to advertising on-site developments only, is contrary to the freedom of the press and other media provisions of the Charter. In its ruling the Court determined that the municipality had failed to show that the absolute prohibition on third party advertising was rationally connected to the objectives of the bylaw or that it minimally impaired the freedom of expression. The Supreme Court had previously ruled that municipalities have the legitimate right to regulate the display of signs, including the size of such signs. However, the more recent Court ruling suggests that an absolute prohibition of billboards may be contrary to the Charter. Therefore, unless municipalities clearly link the prohibition of off-premises billboard signs to community objectives, restrictions to off-premises signs may not withstand a Charter challenge. Many of the Land Use Bylaws reviewed in Section 4 restrict the placement of billboards by requiring that the display on freestanding signs be limited to advertising on-site developments, thereby limiting third party advertising. However, unless the limit on third party advertising is rationally connected to community objectives, the current bylaw regulations may be open to legal challenge. The importance of the Highway 2 Corridor to Central Alberta communities, combined with overwhelming support of the public and their elected officials to restrict billboards because of their negative impact on the function and aesthetics of the Corridor, is an example of a community objective that may withstand a Charter challenge. 5.2 Approaches to the Regulation of Billboards Those Land Use Bylaws that allow for the placement of billboards define billboards as a use, and allow them as a discretionary use in specified districts thereby limiting placement to what are deemed suitable locations.

Central Alberta 24 Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study December 2004

The Town of Lacombe provides for billboards (Class 3 signs) in commercial and industrial districts but regulates billboards differently depending on location, be it adjacent Highway 2, Highway 2A or Highway 12. Each set of regulations specifies different standards for billboard size, height, property line setback distance, and proximity to other billboards. Billboards adjacent Highway 2 may add a snipe sign that shall advertise or provide direction to a Lacombe business. The snipe sign may not extend beyond the sign area that must not exceed 75m2. The City of Red Deer allows billboards as discretionary uses in some commercial and industrial districts, but does not permit billboards to locate adjacent Highway 2 and along select City arterials. Although not a partner municipality, Fort McMurray has applied an interesting, different approach to dealing with billboards, whereby the City owns all billboards, and no privately owned billboards are permitted. Fort McMurray contracts out third party advertising on their signs that are located along Highway 63. Space is also provided to advertise community and charitable events, and public service messages. Revenues generated from the billboards are used within the community and the placement, standards and contents of the signs are fully within the City’s control. The regulation of billboards typically includes maximum size and height, as well as standards regarding illumination, construction, placement, and landscaping. Some municipalities issue development permits for a specific period of time - five years in the case of Edmonton and Calgary. Some municipalities also require that the sign owner obtain a municipal business license as a condition of the development permit. The foregoing approaches for allowing the placement of billboards vary, and each reflects different community values. The three approaches to regulating billboards as they apply to this study are municipal ownership, inclusive and exclusive, and are described as follows: 1 – Municipal Ownership: This approach assumes the municipality owns all billboards and is responsible for locating, controlling and maintaining billboards. The approach could be implemented independently by any of the partner municipalities, cooperatively between groups of like-minded municipalities or by all the partner municipalities. Municipal ownership maximizes municipal control of billboards. 2 – Highway Inclusive Regulation: This proactive approach to billboards provides for off- premises signs as a discretionary use in commercial and industrial districts adjacent Highway 2, with successively smaller billboards allowed on commercial and industrial parcels adjacent other provincial highways. The inclusive approach maximizes the visibility of billboards for viewers outside the community. 3 – Highway Exclusive Approach: This approach provides for off-premises signs as a discretionary use in industrial and commercial districts, but excludes such signs along Highway 2 and sections of municipal arterials. The exclusive approach maximizes the visibility of billboards for viewers inside the community, and maintains the status quo for many of the partner municipalities.

Central Alberta 25 Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study December 2004

5.3 Conclusion Although municipal ownership of billboards provides for the greatest municipal control, suggesting that all billboards in central Alberta be municipally owned is contrary to the traditional separation of private and public sector roles. Defining billboards as a discretionary use, and limiting their location to appropriate districts and/or imposing restrictions in specific locations provide a good balance of regulatory control and flexibility. Community values and objectives can then be applied to determine appropriate standards with regard to:

1. Location: Relative to the site, relative to other billboards and to designate or exclude areas of the community appropriate for the location of billboards; 2. Size Maximum length, width and area; 3. Height Maximum height above grade; 4. Setback From property line and/or right-of-way, 5. Illumination Including lighting, flashing lights, and use of electronic displays; 6. Construction Including type and/or number of supports, use of guy wires, and placement of electrical facilities; 7. Landscaping Organization and minimum planting standards; 8. Maintenance Billboard condition and surrounding area; 9. Time Period Permit expiry time and renewal provisions.

Standards for billboards may also consider items such as: − two sided billboards; − minimum height restrictions to improve adjacent sight lines; − overhang on adjacent municipal property or utility rights-of-way; and, − permit reviewed in context with the surrounding development.

Central Alberta 26 Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study December 2004

6. Municipal and Public Consultation

6.1 Municipal Consultation A group of more than 60 Mayors, Reeves, Councillors and senior administrators from the 15 partner municipalities attended a workshop in June 2004 to determine the what features comprise their vision for the corridor, and to direct the preparation of a common set of aesthetically based design standards for new industrial and commercial developments located along Highways 2 and 2A. Partner municipalities recognized the importance of maintaining a visually appealing landscape adjacent Highways 2 and 2A in particular, as well as all intersecting highways. The workshop featured presentations regarding existing regulations, the characteristics of the corridor, photographic examples of landscaping techniques, and illustrations of a series of successive landscaping improvements applied to a typical site and the commensurate cost implications. Break out group sessions were held to allow for meaningful dialogue about a vision for the corridor and key aesthetic features related to a common vision. Each participant was provided a comment sheet to be completed prior to leaving the venue, or soon thereafter. A copy of the comment sheet is contained in Appendix B. Twenty eight (28) comment sheets were returned. The responses on the comment sheets mirror both the general and group discussions, and can be summarized as follows: • Support for common design standards adjacent Highway 2 was unanimous and very strong support was evident for similar standards adjacent Highway 2A. • Most participants felt that billboards should not be allowed adjacent either highway. Some support for billboards existed in terms of a functional use for directing traffic. • No clear consensus was reached regarding the distance aesthetic development standard should be extended adjacent Highways 2 and 2A. The level of interest and support for common development standards was very apparent. Many participants remarked that this type of gathering was unprecedented, and illustrates the importance of maintaining a high standard of development adjacent the corridor to the economic development and well being of participating municipalities. 6.2 Public Consultation Public consultation events for the Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study were held on October 6th, 2004 in the Lacombe County Office, and October 7th, 2004 at Our Lady of Peace Church in Innisfail. To provide different opportunities for public comment, each public event included a combined drop-in open house and formal session style consultation formats. The open house components of the events ran from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 pm. Information sessions followed the open houses and ran from 7:00 to 9:00 p.m. Project team members from ISL (Butler Krebes) and Lovatt Planning Consultants facilitated the events. Letters of invitation were sent to over 800 landowners and key stakeholders. A newspaper advertisement and accompanying news release were placed with the following newspapers:

Central Alberta 27 Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study December 2004

• Central Alberta Advisor • Wetaskiwin Times Advertiser • Red Deer Express • Lacombe Globe • Ponoka News • Olds Gazette • Red Deer Advocate • Innisfail Province • The Pipestone Flyer • Olds Albertan The ads were placed to run once a week for the two weeks prior to the events. As well, the release and ad were submitted to municipal newspapers such as those published by Lacombe and Red Deer Counties and to local broadcast media. Both events were well attended with 79 registered participants attending the October 6th event, and 77 participants attending the October 7th event for a total of 156 participants. Each participant was asked to complete a nine question comment sheet that repeated some of the same questions listed on the workshop comment sheet. Over 55 comment sheets were received. 6.3 Municipal and Public Response Specifically, six questions were common to both the workshop comment sheet and the public opn house/information session comment sheet. For comparative purposes, responses to these six questions are graphically illustrated below.

Question 1 Do you support the application of consistent intermunicipal design standards for industrial and commercial developments adjacent Highway 2?

Question 2 Do you support the application of consistent intermunicipal design standards for industrial and commercial developments adjacent Highway 2A? Municipal Workshop Information Sessions

30 60

25 50

20 40

15 30

10 20

5 10

0 0 Yes No No Response Yes No No Response

Highway 2 Highway 2A Highway 2 Highway 2A

• Strong political and public support for common standards is obvious.

Central Alberta 28 Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study December 2004

Question 3 Billboards fronting Highway 2 should?

Question 4 Billboards fronting Highway 2A should? Municipal Workshop Information Sessions

25 30 20

15 20 10 10 5

0 0 Not be Be allowed Be allowed Other No Not be Be allowed Be allowed Other No allowed within anywhere Response allowed within anywhere Response urban limits urban limits only only

Highway 2 Highway 2A Highway 2 Highway 2A

• Restrictions on billboard has greater political than public support.

• The public is less sensitive to placing billboards in urban (developed) areas.

Questions 5 and 6 Design standards adjacent Highway 2/2A should extend for?

Municipal Workshop Information Sessions

10 20 9 8 7 6 5 10 4 3 2 1 0 0 100 300 800 100 300 800 the the Other Other No No metres metres metres metres metres metres Within Within sight of sight of highway highway Response Response 30 metres 30 metres Highway 2 Highway 2A Highway 2 Highway 2A • No clear consensus is provided regarding the distance the overlay should be extended adjacent the Highways 2 and 2A.

Central Alberta 29 Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study December 2004

7. Conclusions and Recommendations

7.1 Existing Plans and Regulations 7.1.1 Intermunicipal Development Plans The Intermunicipal Development Plans for partner municipalities all contain provisions that direct co-ordinated efforts to adopt uniform aesthetic standards adjacent Highway 2, and in some cases Highway 2A. 7.1.2 Municipal Development Plans With few exceptions, the Municipal Development Plans of the partner municipalities contain policies regarding development standards adjacent Highway 2 and/or other provincial highways. Most Municipal Development Plans contain specific policies that require a higher standard of development along a highway or at major entrances to urban communities. Red Deer County’s Municipal Development Plan directs the establishment of design guidelines in cooperation with other neighbouring municipalities. 7.1.3 Land Use Bylaws The Land Use Bylaws of all the partner municipalities contain provisions to ensure aesthetic considerations for development along Highway 2, and other major highways are included at the time of development. However, many of the provisions are subject to the discretion of the Development Authority, with regulations often described in general terms such as high quality or high standard of appearance. Excepting Lacombe County’s recently amended Bylaw to include a Highway Overlay District, none of the Land Use Bylaws examined contain comprehensive aesthetic regulations regarding Highway 2. The Land Use Bylaw aesthetic regulations listed in Tables 1, 2 and 3 are summarized below: • Specific Regulations for the Highway 2 Corridor – Most bylaws contain some regulations in regard to control of aesthetic standards. However, except for Lacombe County’s Bylaw, the regulations tend to be general and lack measurable criteria. • Landscaping Plan – Most bylaws may require a landscaping plan, but only Lacombe County and the City of Red Deer provide direction regarding the contents of such a plan. • Planting Standards – Standards are contained in most bylaws. However, standards vary with tree densities, for example, ranging from 1 tree per 25m2 of yard to 1 tree per 50m2 of yard. Most bylaws contain planting densities of 1 tree per 40m2 of yard plus shrubs. • Maintenance Period – Those bylaws that include a maintenance period require that it extend for more than a single growing season, with completion of the landscaping required within one growing season of site occupancy. • Security – Most bylaws require a letter of credit (or cash equivalent) equal to at least 100% of the cost of landscaping to ensure the completion of landscaping. Interestingly, the City of Grande Prairie requires 110%.

Central Alberta 30 Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study December 2004

• Signs – The bylaws of all partner municipalities contain provisions that limit the type, number and size of signs. • Billboards – Not all municipal Land Use Bylaws include provisions for billboards. However, for those that do, the approaches for regulating these signs vary substantially (see Section 5) and standards for size and location are largely based on community values. • Lighting – Lacombe County and the Town of Innisfail are the only jurisdictions that regulate on-site lighting. Standards include maximum height, lighting type and pattern of illumination. • Access – Provisions usually relate to municipal engineering standards. • Building Appearance and Design – Bylaw regulations regarding appearance tend to be general. However, Red Deer and Lacombe Counties, and the Town of Ponoka provide additional direction including coordination of building design on a site, hidden roof equipment, and requirements to use architectural features to provide relief for large building facades. • Highway Setbacks – Most bylaws defer highway setback requirements to Alberta Transportation. Red Deer County has established 46.0 metres (about 150 feet) as the minimum setback.

Discussions with Alberta Transportation indicate that setbacks less than 46.0 metres have been approved adjacent Highway 2 and that the Department would like to continue to be involved in defining appropriate highway setbacks, preferably at the Area Structure Plan stage. Review of client Land Use Bylaws indicates that, with the exception of Lacombe County, appropriate regulatory responses to Intermunicipal Development Plan and Municipal Development Plan policies that direct that aesthetic standards be applied to development adjacent to highways do not exist. Recommendation: In concert with urban and rural neighbours, standards to ensure aesthetically pleasing developments should be adopted. The standards should recognize the importance of the corridor, ensure that the integrity and safety of the highway are protected, and, should be capable of consistent application and enforcement with all adjacent municipalities. 7.2 Aesthetic Regulations from Other Municipalities The review of other municipal Land Use Bylaws clearly indicates that the preferred approach to dealing with high visibility corridors is to create an overlay district. An overlay provides overall aesthetic and/or development standards within specified highway corridor areas. These standards are applied in addition to any other land use district or general regulations. The advantages of implementing a highway corridor overlay are: • The overlay provides consistent standards for an area containing a variety of uses and districts to which other district specific standards may also apply;

Central Alberta 31 Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study December 2004

• Amendments to district or general regulations do not impact the development standards of the highway corridor; and, • Regulating highway corridor standards as part of the Land Use Bylaw promotes consistent application of the regulation across municipalities. The overlay should exempt the owners of the roadway (the municipality and the province) from the regulations of the overlay. Alberta Transportation has developed Landscaping Guidelines for Primary Highways Under Provincial Jurisdiction Within Cities and Urban Areas to assist municipalities and developers in planning for subdivision and development adjacent highways. The guidelines clearly indicate that Alberta Transportation is responsible for the highway right-of- way, and that the right-of-way will not be landscaped; only seeded. The same principle may apply to roads in rural areas. Recommendation: The standards should be implemented through the Land Use Bylaw as an overlay applicable to all commercial and industrial lands adjacent Highways 2 and 2A. 7.3 Regulation Coverage A common geographic area to which an overlay district may be applied is difficult to define given the variations in development between a rural and urban context. The large lots and limited access typical of the rural portions of the Highways 2/2A corridor require a very different regulatory requirement than the small lots and numerous accesses typical of urban portions of Highway 2A. The responses from public consultation and municipal workshop participants also do not anchor a consensus on the boundaries of the overlay district. In urban areas, generally only the parcels fronting (adjacent) the corridor are visible from a highway so that an overlay may be effective only for such fronting parcels. In rural areas, with broader highway rights-of-way and associated wider views, an overlay may be effectively applied to include any lands that are visible from the highway, but visibility requires some discretion on the part of the Development Authority. Typically, development is most visible within 300 metres of a highway but may be greater or less depending on factors such as topography and trees. Recommendation: In rural jurisdictions the standards should be applied to all commercial and industrial lands within 300m of Highways 2 and 2A. In urban jurisdictions parcels fronting (adjacent) Highways 2 or 2A should be covered by overlay. 7.4 Aesthetic Regulation Structure Typical regulatory elements that define the basic structure of a highway corridor overlay district are listed below. Like any land use district, two specific items are required: 1. Purpose: It is important that a general statement be included outlining the intent of the overlay. An example might be to establish a positive visual impression on major highway corridors. To aid in the interpretation of the regulation, the purpose should also state the intent of the regulations. The intent may address: compatibility with adjacent uses, visual intrusion, minimizing the harmful impact of noise, dust, or light intrusions, and other objectionable activities. 2. Application: It is important that those areas of the corridor that will be subject to the regulations of the highway corridor overlay be clearly identified. To address the very different

Central Alberta 32 Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study December 2004

circumstances faced by urban and rural municipalities, the overlay district shall be applied to land adjacent a highway in urban areas and land within 300 metres of the boundary of a highway right-of-way. Adjacent a highway means land that is contiguous to a provincial highway and includes land that would be contiguous if not for a railway or road. In addition, a number of other specific regulations are included. 1. Landscaping and Planting: Specific details covered under this topic include: • Landscaping Plan requirements, including plan details, conditions and letter of credit issues; and, • Planting Standards including such details as general or specific planting material types and locations. 2. Fencing and Screening: Specific details covered under this topic, include: • Fencing standards, to provide a minimum standard for design and visual appearance along the corridor; and, • Screening requirements, to hide less desirable visual elements such as trash and storage areas, vehicle parking areas and mechanical equipment (including roof top). 3. Design, Character and Appearance of Buildings and Structures: Where the desire to achieve a specific aesthetic look or design is identified. This is particularly important when dealing with many freestanding structures on a single site. Examples of architectural controls to be employed include: • Colour, material and finish of building facades; and, • Building height and setbacks. 4. Signs: To regulate the visual clutter associated with signage along a highway corridor, typical sign regulation elements include: • Restricting types of signs permitted; • Regulation of the construction and materials of signs; and, • Restricting the size, height, location and/or spacing of signs. 5. Lighting and Safety: Specific details covered under this topic include: Regulation of type and intensity of illumination to reduce potential conflicts with adjacent land and highway users; and, • Identification of location and types of facilities to ensure safe and efficient movement of both vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The foregoing guidelines provided the foundation for the preparation of a Highway 2/2A Corridor Overlay for application in all partner municipalities. In developing the overlay district, the best practices of all partner and surveyed municipalities were combined to provide the most advanced regulation in the province, and in the absence of similar examples in Canada or the United States, a true first. Although the overlay district is intended for application to the land adjacent highways, the regulation may be adapted to include all commercial and industrial lands within a municipality.

Central Alberta 33 Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study December 2004

Recommendation: That the Highway Corridor Overlay District be considered for adoption by all partner municipalities. A copy of the overlay district is contained in Appendix C. 7.5 Next Steps The adoption by the partner municipalities of a comprehensive corridor regulation is an important first step towards achieving a positive visual impression of the Highway 2/2A Corridor. Consistency can only be achieved if the partner municipalities adopt the same overlay. However, adoption of the same overlay will not in itself ensure similar interpretation of the regulation by all municipalities. The standards must be uniformly applied. A guide containing specific information on the real case interpretation of the standards is required. The guide should include templates that may be applied to urban and rural development, and provide developers and the Development Authority with illustrations of what is required. Recommendation: In order to facilitate common interpretation of the overlay district regulation, and to aid developers in achieving the desired results, a coordinated study to illustrate the regulation should be undertaken. The study should develop a model landscape plan, and include typical planting design alternatives and architectural features that meet the requirements of the regulation and the aspirations of the partner municipalities.

Central Alberta 34 Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. Highways 2/2A Corridor Design Study December 2004

Appendix A - Checklist for a Traffic Impact Assessment

General Information • Location of project in relation to the highway network. • Site plan of the project (subdivision or development)

Highway • Highway classification. Classification

Existing • Pavement width, lane and shoulder widths, edge of pavement limits (shown Infrastructure on plan). • Existing intersection/access configuration (lane configuration, existing radius and tapers, pavement markings, existing signs) (shown on plan). • Width of the existing intersecting road at the edge of the right-of-way boundary.

Existing/ • Location of the access centreline from a referenced location. proposed accesses • Intersection sight distance, stop sight distance and decision sight distances. located in the vicinity. • Grade of the highway & local road. • Design speed of the highway.

Other Existing • The existing highway cross-section, right-of-way boundary to right-of-way Infrastructure (not boundary. typically required) • Existing utilities (pipelines, cable, telecommunication, illumination, etc.). • Existing drainage structures (length, diameter, culvert material). • Known pavement design (i.e. depth of acp, subgrade, etc.)

Traffic • Existing/background highway traffic (volumes and % type of vehicles) • Highway traffics average annual growth rate (5-10 year summary) at the proposed location. • Existing traffic utilizing the access/intersection (volumes and % type of vehicles). • Projected background traffic (apply average annual growth rate over 5-20 year period). • Projected development traffic (volumes and % type of vehicles) over a 5-20 year period.

Traffic Distribution • Directional traffic split (What direction is the traffic coming / going?)

Vehicle Types • Type of vehicle utilizing the access/intersection (For example, can a WB 21 or 27 successfully make desired turning movement without interfering with other lanes?) • Passenger vehicle equivalency (PVE). (Has the traffic been converted into PVE?).

Peak Hour Analysis • Critical turning movements for AM and PM peak periods. (Typically used in vicinity of Urban Areas)

Highway Capacity • Level of service of access/intersection. Analysis • Level of service for each critical movement. • Vehicle delay for each critical movement (seconds/vehicle). • Need for left/right turn bays (based on warrants in the HGDG).

Pedestrian • Pedestrian movements crossing the highway. Movements • Recommendation for mitigation of pedestrian movements.

Illumination • Existing illumination in vicinity of access/intersection. • Need for modification as a result of development.

Signalization • Existing signalization at access/intersection. • Need for modification as a result of development. Note: TRANS - Alberta Transportation? does not support signals in rural areas.

Conclusions and • Required intersection improvements. Recommendations • Required pedestrian mitigation. • Required illumination. • Required signalization. Note: If intersection improvements are required, it must include sub- grade for two highway overlays.

Appendix B Highways 2/2A Design Study Comment Sheet

Your written comments are an important way for us to fully understand your perspective. Please indicate your views on the following questions.

1. Do you support the application of consistent Yes No intermunicipal design standards for industrial and commercial developments adjacent Highway 2?

2. Do you support the application of consistent Yes No intermunicipal design standards for industrial and commercial developments adjacent Highway 2A?

Comments: ______

3. Billboards fronting Highway 2 should?

Not be allowed. Be allowed within urban Be allowed limits only. anywhere.

Other ______

4. Billboards fronting Highway 2A should?

Not be allowed. Be allowed within urban Be allowed limits only. anywhere.

Other ______

Comments: ______

5. Design standards adjacent Highway 2 should extend for?

30 metres (98 ft.) 100 metres (328 ft.) 300 metres (984 ft.)

800 metres (½ mile) Within sight of the highway Other ______

(continued over) 6. Design standards adjacent Highway 2A should extend for?

30 metres (98 ft) 100 metres (328 ft.) 300 metres (984 ft.)

800 metres (½ mile) Within sight of the highway Other ______

Comments: ______

7. What changes would you make to the proposed aesthetic design standards?

Comments:______

8. Do you have any additional comments?

Comments:______

Please fill in the following contact information and/or include your business card: Personal information is protected under the Freedom of Name (please print): ______Information and Protection of Privacy Act. The personal Address: ______information______collected on this ______comment sheet relates directly to ______programs______being undertaken by Postal Code: ______Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc. Phone Number: ______Fax______No other use will be made of this e-mail: ______information.______

Please deposit your completed comment sheet in the box at the door or fax your response before October 15, 2004 to Jim Lovatt at (780) 452-3820 or mail to Lovatt Planning Consultants Inc., 9711-141 Street, Edmonton, AB, T5N 2M5 or send comments by email to [email protected]

All responses will be kept confidential. Thank you for your interest. Appendix C Highway Corridor Overlay District

1. PURPOSE

To establish a positive visual impression of the Highway 2 and 2A corridor by: • Providing greenery and seasonal colour to visually soften paved areas and buildings; • Preserving existing trees wherever possible; • Screening unsightly equipment or materials from the view of the highway, adjacent roadways or adjoining properties; and, • Enhancing the quality and appearance of developed properties within the overlay district.

2. APPLICATION 2.1 The Overlay regulation applies to the development or redevelopment of all lands Districted for Industrial, Commercial or Highway Commercial purposes, visible from the highway and located: (a) within 300 metres of the right-of-way of a provincial highway in rural municipalities; or, (b) adjacent a provincial highway right-of-way in urban municipalities, where adjacent means land that is contiguous to a provincial highway and includes land that would be contiguous if not for a railway or road. 2.2 The Overlay District regulations are to be applied as a condition of a Development Permit. 2.3 The Overlay District applies to the redevelopment of existing buildings and facilities as well as all new development. 2.4 Wherever possible, trees existing on the site shall be preserved and protected or replaced. Notwithstanding the status of existing vegetation, landscaping of the site shall be subject to the provisions of the Overlay District. 2.5 Where the provisions of the Overlay District conflict with other regulations of this bylaw, the more restrictive provisions shall take precedence.

3. GENERAL 3.1 All applications for development permits shall be accompanied by a landscaping plan completed by Landscape Architect or a person qualified to perform such work. No development permit shall be issued prior to the approval of the required landscaping plan. 3.2 In cases where the parcel being developed is less than 0.4 ha (1.0 acre) in size, the requirement for a landscape plan shall be at the discretion of the Development Authority. 3.3 The landscaping plan shall include the following: (a) Boundaries and dimensions of the subject site; (b) Location of all the buildings, parking areas, driveways and entrances;

(c) Location of all exterior lights on the site and their projected light patterns in relation to adjacent public roadways and developments; (d) Location of existing plant materials to be retained; (e) Location of new plant materials; (f) Plant material list identifying the name, quantity and size of plant material; (g) All other physical features, existing or proposed; including berms, walls, fences, outdoor furniture, lighting and decorative paving; and, (h) A location plan showing the proposed development and landscaping relative to the landscaping and improvements on adjacent properties. 3.4 The owner of the property, or his/her successor or assignees, shall be responsible for landscaping and proper maintenance. As a condition of a development permit, an irrevocable letter of credit may be required, up to a value of the estimated cost of the proposed landscaping/planting to ensure that such landscaping/planting is carried out with reasonable diligence. The conditions of the security being that: (a) If the landscaping is not completed in accordance with this Bylaw and the landscaping plan within one year after occupying the building or site, then the municipality shall use the security to complete the approved landscape development; and, (b) If the landscaping does not survive a two (2) year maintenance period, the applicant must replace it with a similar type of species and with a similar calliper width or forfeit the portion of the amount fixed equal to the cost of replacing the affected landscaping materials. (c) The letter of credit will be released when the landscaping and other improvements have been completed to the satisfaction of the Development Authority and the two-year maintenance period has expired.

4. PLANTING STANDARDS 4.1 All required yards on the site shall be landscaped in accordance with the approved landscaping plan. 4.2 To provide year round colour and interest, a tree mix of approximately 50% coniferous and 50% deciduous, shall be provided. 4.3 50% of required deciduous trees shall be at least 50mm (2.4 in.) calliper and 50% shall be a minimum of 75mm (3.0 in.) calliper above the root ball. 4.4 75% of coniferous trees shall be a minimum of 2.0m (6.6 ft.) in height and 25% shall be minimum of 3.5m (11.5 ft.) in height above the root ball. 4.5 Trees or shrubs shall be provided in accordance with this Section. The number is determined on the basis of the following: (a) One (1) tree for every 40.0 m2 (430.6 ft2) and one (1) shrub for each 20 m2 (215.3 ft2) of any required yard or setback; (b) One (1) tree for each 25.0 m2 (269.1 ft2) and one (1) shrub for each 10.0 m2 (107.6 ft2) of required parking area islands. In no case shall there be less than one tree per required parking area island. 4.6 Trees or shrubs should be clustered or arranged in planting beds within the site.

4.7 Trees and shrubs shall be evenly placed at regular intervals when used for screening of adjacent development. 4.8 As required by the Development Authority, all required yards and all open spaces on the site excluding parking areas, driveways, and outdoor storage and service areas shall be landscaped in accordance with the approved landscaping plan. 4.9 Planting beds shall consist of an odd number of trees to approximate a mix of 50% coniferous and 50% deciduous with shrubs in a mulched medium such as bark chips, rocks, or similar materials. Mulch shall not be used as a substitute for plant materials. 4.10 At a minimum, a planting bed shall be composed of a mix of three (3) coniferous trees, two (2) ornamental deciduous trees and shrubs. 4.11 As required by the Development Authority, the undeveloped portion of the site, excluding parking areas, driveways, outdoor storage and service areas must be graded, contoured and seeded. 4.12 On the advice of a Landscape Architect or Arborist, planting standards may be altered to suit unique site topography or soils or micro-climatic conditions.

5. LANDSCAPE ISLANDS WITHIN PARKING AREAS 5.1 Landscape islands shall be required within at-grade parking areas with a capacity of twenty-five (25) or more vehicles. These islands shall be landscaped in accordance with Section 4 – Planting Standards. 5.2 Parking islands shall be placed to provide visual relief and to organize large areas of parking into smaller cells. The number of islands provided shall be to the satisfaction of the Development Authority.

6. ADDITIONAL AESTHETIC REGULATIONS 6.1 The Development Authority may require the application of additional aesthetic regulations, if in the opinion of the Development Authority: (a) There is a likelihood that the proposed development will generate undesirable impacts on surrounding sites, such as poor appearance, excessive noise, light, odours, traffic, litter, or dust; (b) There is a likelihood that undesirable impacts may be generated on the site, and cause conflicts with other businesses within the development; 6.2 The additional aesthetic regulations that may be required at the discretion of the Development Authority may include, but are not limited to, the following: (a) Additional separation space between incompatible use classes; (b) The use of trees, shrubs, opaque fences, walls, and berms to buffer or screen uses of negative impact; (c) The use of trees, shrubs, planting beds, street furniture and surface treatments to enhance the appearance of a proposed development.

7. SIGNS 7.1 Signs shall identify on site developments or facilities only. Signs advertising off-premises developments or facilities (billboards) are not permitted within the overlay district. 7.2 Where more than one business occupies a building, additional signage shall be located in accordance with a comprehensive signage package prepared for the building, and submitted as part of the required landscape plan. 7.3 One freestanding identification sign per lot shall be allowed. The sign shall not exceed 9.13 metres (30.0 ft.) in height with no dimension exceeding 4.5 metres (14.76 ft.) 7.4 Illuminated freestanding signs shall not exceed 7.62 m (25.0 ft.) in height. 7.5 Moving or animated signs and electronic message boards that may distract adjacent highway users are not permitted within the overlay district. 7.6 Where buildings abut the highway corridor, signs facing and visible from that corridor may be considered by the Development Authority if they comply with the following principles: (a) One illuminated logo sign per visible façade. The maximum dimension of such sign shall not exceed 3.0m (9.8 ft.) in vertical and horizontal direction, parallel to the façade of the building, nor exceed a depth of 0.305m (1.0 ft.) (b) One illuminated business name sign per visible façade shall not exceed 15% of the area of the façade of the building or business premises, whichever governs and shall in no case exceed 40.0 m2 (430.6 ft2) (less the area of any logo sign: see a above). (c) To discourage the use of building facades as billboards a business sign exceeding an area of 10.0 m2 (107.7 ft2) and 1.5m (5.0 ft.) in height, shall be limited to individual letters or shapes.

8. LIGHTING 8.1 Outdoor lighting provided for security, display or attraction purposes for any development shall be arranged so that no direct rays of light are directed at any adjoining site or interfere with the effectiveness of adjacent traffic, and shall comply with the following provisions: (a) No light structure shall exceed a height of 7.62m (25.0 ft.); (b) No light shall be attached to a structure above a height of 7.62m (25.0 ft.) along that structure; (c) The developer shall provide a plan indicating the location of all exterior lights, including the projected light patterns in relation to adjacent public roadways and developments; and, (d) No flashing or strobe, or revolving lights, which may impact the safety of motorists using adjacent public roadways, shall be installed on any structure or site.

9. ACCESS 9.1 Vehicular entrances and exits, as well as on-site pedestrian and vehicular routes shall be designed in a manner that provides a safe and clearly defined circulation pattern. 9.2 Loading bays shall be located in such a manner as to not impede the efficient flow of traffic and pedestrian movement and to minimize impacts on adjacent land uses. 9.3 To provide opportunities for convenient and free flowing traffic movements between lots development on adjoining lots may be integrated by direct on site access connections.

10. ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES 10.1 All buildings on a lot shall follow the same theme and exhibit a high standard of appearance. Exceptions may be made to accommodate corporate images. 10.2 Rooflines and facades of large buildings single wall >30.0m (98.4 ft.) shall be designed to reduce the perceived mass by the inclusion of design elements such as arches, columns or gables with exterior finish materials composed of predominantly muted colours. 10.3 Mechanical equipment (including roof top mechanical equipment) shall be screened from view. Screening shall be compatible with the theme and character of the site. 10.4 All waste collection areas, visible from the corridor shall be screened. Screening shall take the form of berming, landscaping or solid fencing or any combination of the foregoing.

11. BUILDING SETBACK 11.1 Development setbacks will be established with input from Alberta Transportation as part of an Outline or Area Structure Plan, or at the time of subdivision or development.