Report for City Council March 20, 2006 Meeting

Report for City Council March 20, 2006 Meeting

Attachment 1

TERMS OF REFERENCE

RESIDENTIAL INFILL STRATEGY

BACKGROUND

Residential infill was firstproposedas part of the City’s growth strategy 25 years ago in the1980 General Municipal Plan. This Plan proposed the development of a “Compact City” where a significant amount of new growth would be re-directed / accommodated within the older areas of city, through the redevelopment of obsolete industrial (including railway) lands, infill and redevelopment in inner-city neighbourhoods, the development of mixed-use regional town centres,and medium-high density residential and office development around LRT stations.

The subsequent downturn in the economyled the City to shift its emphasis in the ensuing decade from managing to facilitating growth. The 1990 Edmonton General Municipal Planwas therefore much less prescriptive than its predecessor, but it still recognized that residential infill was an important part of any strategy to revitalize older neighbourhoods. Policy 1.B.3 of this Plan stated that the City would “Encourage selective redevelopment and sensitive infilling to increase the amount of housing, especially family housing, in the inner city.”

Cutbacks in senior government funding through the 1990’s, and the growing gap between the City’s tax revenues and the substantial costs of building and replacing infrastructure, provided the impetus for a renewed interest in residential infill and redevelopment, as a means of reducing the need for new infrastructure.

The 1998 Municipal Development Planestablished the utilization of existing infrastructure as a priority and indicated that the City would “Support increased densities of land use through infill development that is sensitive to existing development” (Strategy 1.3.5). In approving this Plan, City Council directed the Administration to undertake the development of a Land Use Intensification Strategy.

The first phase of the Land Use Intensification Strategy – Edmonton’s Intensification Audit -- was completed in January 2002. This Audit provided an overview of Edmonton’s current development trends and densities, and provided comparisons with other cities. The Audit also documented current intensification policies as well as, opportunities for,and obstacles to, intensification.

Focus groups that were established during the Audit process expressed the opinion that the project name created negative impressions, and limited understanding of the issues that needed to be addressed in making decisions about the future of Edmonton’s physical environment.

City Council and the Administration responded by recasting the Land Use Intensification Strategy to address a broader range of matters related to infrastructure, growth and redevelopment, and by renaming the project “Smart Choices for Developing Our Community”.

Further work and consultation with stakeholders culminated in the publication of the Smart Choices Catalogue of Ideas (June 2003), and Council approval of “Smart Choices for Developing Our Community” – a report containing 9 recommendations (March 2004).

MANDATE

City Council gave the Administration the mandate to proceed with the development of a Residential Infill Strategy when they approved the following recommendation contained in the Planning and Development Department’s Report “Smart Choices for Developing Our Community”on March 23, 2004:

“That a small scale and medium density infill strategy be developed to encourage infill and enhance certainty in redevelopment situations for communities and development proponents. The strategy will investigate better ways to align community and developer expectations by:

  • identifying characteristics that indicate strong small scale or medium density redevelopment potential;
  • identifying geographic areas that meet those characteristics or neighbourhoods facing significant redevelopment pressure (or invite neighbourhoods to identify themselves);
  • undertaking community development or education exercises to raise community awareness of potential redevelopment activity, to discuss community expectations and to inform the community about urban design options for redevelopment that lessen the negative impacts on the community; and,
  • developing neighbourhood specific urban design principles for potential redevelopment projects from those exercises.”

City Council subsequently identified the development of a Residential Infill Strategy as one of four initial priorities for the Smart Choices Program, when they approved the following recommendation contained in the“Urban Sustainability Initiative Action Plan” on August 31, 2004:

“That Smart Choices implementation shall initially focus on the following priority areas;

  • Neighbourhood Reinvestment;
  • Transit-Oriented Development;
  • Infill Strategy (supported by elements of walkability and urban design); and,
  • Development Incentives for the Infill and Transit-Oriented Development Strategies.”

City Council provided further direction with respect to the preparation of the Residential Infill Strategy when they passed the following Motion in March 2005:

“That the Administration report back to Executive Committee no later than August 24, 2005, on the development of a set of principles and terms of reference for addressing local and downstream infrastructure impacts of infill.”

PURPOSE /SCOPE

The purpose of the Residential Infill StrategyProject is:

1. To identify opportunities for residential infill development in Edmonton, and to establish procedures, zoning regulations, design guidelines, and incentives that will facilitate quality, small scale and medium density residential infill that is compatible with,and complementary to, existing development in the city’s older neighbourhoods.

2. To increase public acceptance of residential intensification, to enhance certainty in redevelopment situations for communities and development proponents, and to reduce the number of rezoning applications which proceed to City Council Public Hearings for resolution and approval.

The scope of thisProject, in accordance with the Smart Choices Recommendation and the Council Motion of March 2005, will involve the following major tasks:

  1. Preparation and testing of a list of characteristics / criteriathat will be used by the Planning and Development Department to identify areas and sites in older neighbourhoods withstrong potential for residential infill and redevelopment;
  1. Development and implementation of a community education programthat will provide general information about the process for preparing the Residential Infill Strategy; describe the existing regulations and planning process governing residential infill, and possible changes; increase public awareness and understanding of the benefits of residential infill; and, bring to their attention potential opportunities for infill in their respective neighbourhoods;
  1. Preparation of a residential infill atlas with maps showing areas and siteswithin 29 older neighbourhoods that havestrong potential for small-scale and medium density residential infill and redevelopment;
  1. Completion of a market analysis to determine the demand for infill development in Edmonton (location, magnitude, type of housing, and amenities);
  1. Preparation of design guidelines for infill development;
  1. Amendments to zoning regulations (including the Mature Neighbourhoods Overlay), to facilitate residential infill (this could include broadening the range of permitted uses in the low density residential zones);
  1. Establishment ofprinciples andcost –recovery mechanism(s) for addressing local and downstream impactsof residential infill and redevelopment on hard and soft infrastructure;
  1. Customization of a planning and consultation processes for infill / redevelopment applications;
  1. Completion ofpro-forma analyses to determine development economics for various types of infill development;
  1. Identification of incentives that the City might use to promote small-scale residential infill and medium density redevelopment; and;
  1. Construction of demonstration projects to promote small scale residential infill and medium density redevelopment.

This Project will build upon the work already accomplished through the preparation of Edmonton’s Intensification Audit and the Smart Choices Catalogue of Ideas.

DEFINITIONS

The definitions below are provided to clarify the use of the terminology in these Terms of Reference. Please note that these are “working definitions”, and may be refined as the Project proceeds and there is further consultation with stakeholders.

Small-scale residential infill - Small-scale residential infill refers to the redevelopment or intensification of development on an existing lot or small assembly of lots in an older neighbourhood with low-rise, lower density housing types including single-detached houses on smaller subdivided lots, semi-detached houses (duplexes), triplexes, four-plexes, and up to 6 units of rowhousing. Small-scale residential infill also includes secondary suites, coach houses, granny flats, and suites above garages.

Small-scale residential infill usually involves new construction, though it may involve conversion and expansion of an existing house into several residential units. Small-scale residential infill usually involves development that is dispersed throughout a neighbourhood amongst existing housing, but infill may also be restricted to a sub-area or to the perimeter of a neighbourhood.

Medium density redevelopment–Medium density redevelopment refers to intensification on a moderate scale. It usually involves larger sites or sub-areas of a neighbourhood (rather than individual lots), and the construction of medium density housing types including linked or patio-homes (single-storey retirement complexes), rowhousing (more than 6 units), and apartment housing (up to 4 ½ storeys).

An example of medium density redevelopment is the redevelopment of the GreyNun’s site developed by Christenson Developments in Avonmore.

Residential infill –Residential infill refers to both small-scale residential infill projects and to medium density redevelopment.

SPECIFIC ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED

The proposed Residential Infill Strategy will address the following issues that have been identified bythe 3 main stakeholder groups (Community, Development Industry, City Council / Administration) through prior work on the Smart Choices Program:

Community

  1. Compatibility of new development

The perennial concern of residents in older neighbourhoods is that new infill development will not be compatible with existing development, in terms of scale, height, massing, siting (setbacks and site coverage), architecture and exterior building materials.

This is a valid concern. While there are some good examples of residential infill inEdmonton, there are a sufficient number of precedents where there is room for improvement. Typical problems are projects that are overbuilt for their sites, and create problems of shade and loss of privacy for adjacent property-owners.

Community groups have expressed an interest in more detailed design guidelines as a means of ensuring that residential infill is compatible or complimentary to existing development.

The Planning and Development Department has attempted to address the issue of compatibility through the Mature Neighbourhoods Overlay, which was incorporated into the new Zoning Bylaw in 2001. The Overlay includes regulations on front drive garages, building height, and front and rear yards. However, there are some problems with the Overlaythat need to be corrected (see discussion below under Development Industry concerns).

  1. Traffic and parking impacts

Traffic and parking impacts are probably the two (related)concerns most consistently raised by residents facing potential infill development in their neighbourhood.

For most small-scale and medium density residential infill situations, the existing roads will have adequate capacity to handle the resulting increase in traffic.

Where it is anticipated that a new development might generate enough traffic to create congestion or safety problems, the Transportation and Streets Department currentlyrequires the developer to undertake a Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA). This TIA might result in a requirement to reduce the size of the project, or to undertake certain improvements to adjacent roads (e.g. road widening, turning lanes) or traffic management / calming measures.

Medium density redevelopment can create an on-street parking problem, even though the new development complies with the parking standards of the Zoning Bylaw. This happens when building tenants choose to park on local streets to avoid paying monthly charges for off-street parking stalls.

  1. Opportunity for community review

Community stakeholders have indicated that they would like to have more opportunities than currently exist to review proposals for residential infill.

Some have suggested that all infill development should become discretionary uses in the Zoning Bylaw, thereby requiring notification to surrounding property owners, and allowing the community to review the proposal not only at the rezoning stage, but at the development permit stage, with the opportunity of appeal at the Subdivision and Development Appeal Board.

Development Industry

  1. Lack of workable zones

It is difficult to build small-scale residential infill development under the regulations of the existing low and medium density residential zones. For example, the regulations of the RF5 zone do not allow the development of 6 street-oriented rowhousing units on 3 former single detached (50 foot x 120 foot) lots.

Consequently, developers who wish to construct infill projects are often forced to use theDC2 Site Specific Development Control Provision. This deters many smaller builders because of the high cost of the application fee, the requirement for pre-application consultation with surrounding residents, and more extensive submission requirements (site plan and elevations).

There are also problems with the Mature Neighbourhoods Overlay (MNO). Variances are often required for rear yards to accommodate decks, and for height because of the existing definition of grade.The MNO regulations are also difficult to apply to rowhousing projects on corner lots.

  1. Community opposition

Community opposition (“NIMBY’ism”) is a significant obstacle to developer interest in residential infill and redevelopment as it typically results in substantial delays and costs to resolve issues.

  1. Delays in approval process

Delays in the approval process for rezoning and plan amendments are another perennial concern of the development industry, despite the fact that the processing times at the City of Edmonton compare very favorably with those in other major Canadian cities.

Applications for residential infill and redevelopment may take longer than “greenfield” applications because of their uniqueness, complexity, and the need for sensitivity to existing development. One solution that has been suggested is to establish a special unit within the Planning and Development Department to handle infill projects. This and other solutions will be investigated in the preparation of the Residential Infill Strategy.

1

Smart Choices Program Implementation

Attachment 1

  1. Development economics

The development economics of undertaking residential infill and redevelopment in older areas of the city present a challenge. Land costs are generally higher than in new suburban areas, and a premium may have to be paid where land assembly is required. The developer may also have to spend more money on architectural design services in order to achieve a building that fits properly on the site and within the neighbourhood. These additional costs may not be offset by the additional density or the potential sale price of the new residential units.

  1. Market uncertainty

The real estate market is relatively buoyant right now in Edmonton. Notwithstanding this, developers (especially small builders) may be reluctant to experiment with new types of housing, or undertake residential infill projects in certain neighbourhoods, because of uncertainty about the buyer response.

City of Edmonton

  1. Impact on local parks and recreation facilities

Residential infill and redevelopment will result in an increaseddemand on community services such asparks and recreation facilities. Under the current provisions of the Municipal Government Act, the City is able to collect a redevelopment levy that could be used towards park acquisition. However, this may only be done within the context of an Area Redevelopment Plan.

Municipal Reserve (MR) is rarely an option in infill and redevelopment situations to obtain additional park space or cash contributions since Municipal Reserve has usually already been taken, or the proposed development does not involve subdivision (beyond the minimum two lots).

  1. Requirements for upgrades to local and downstream infrastructure

City Council has expressed a concern about the possible local and downstream impacts on (hard) infrastructure that might result from residential infill and redevelopment. The City needs to assess the possible magnitude of these impacts, and to establish a set of principles and cost recovery mechanisms for addressing these impacts.

  1. Lack of community plans

In the past, the Planning and Development Department had a Community Planning Branch that worked with older communities to prepare area or neighbourhood plans that would establish the location and type of future redevelopment. These projects usually took 3-5 years to complete and involved a team of 2-3 planning staff plus periodic involvement of staff from other City Departments. Constrained municipal budgets no longer allow this kind of resourcing. A new approach to identifying and facilitating infill and redevelopment opportunities is required.

METHODOLOGY

It is proposed that the Project to prepare the Residential Infill Strategy will be undertaken in 11 stages, as noted below.

Stage 1: Infill Criteria

Stage 2: Public EducationProgram and Communications Plan

Stage 3: Infill Atlas

Stage 4: Market Analysis

Stage 5: Design Guidelines for Small Scale Infill and Medium Density Redevelopment

Stage 6: Zoning Regulations for Infill Development

Stage 7: Principles and Cost-Recovery Mechanisms for Local and Downstream Impacts on Infrastructure

Stage 8: Planning and Consultation Process for Infill Development

Stage 9: Development Economics

Stage 10: Incentives for Residential Infill

Stage 11: Infill Demonstration Project(s)

The above stages are generally organized in chronological order. However, work on many of the stages will overlap or occur concurrently. The first of the proposed Demonstration Projects could be undertaken relatively early depending on funding, to develop new infill prototypes and test development economics.

Stage 1: Infill Criteria

In Stage 1, a list of characteristics or criteria that indicate aneighbourhood or area have strong potential for residential infill and redevelopment, will be prepared.

Some of thecharacteristics or criteria that will likely be included in the list are: condition of housing,size of lot, proximity to arterial roadway, vacant land, closed public institutions, capacity of existing infrastructure, and underutilized commercial sites with high vacancy rates.

Top View