PROGRAM UPDATE Urban Development Institute Edmonton, Alberta January 19, 2007
Today’s Presentation 1. SMART CHOICES Development Checklist 2. Grovenor/Glenora Planning Project 3. Basic Planning Principles for Residential Infill 4. New Planning Model for Re-development of Large Sites – Mature Neighbourhoods
The Smart Choices Program “A program to change the way the City grows and redevelops” Objectives: 1. Fiscal Sustainability 2. Environmental Sustainability 3. Quality of Development
Chronology of Events 1997 Edmonton Municipal Development Plan 2002 Land Use I ntensification Audit 2003 Smart Choices Catalogue of I deas March 2004 City Council Approval of Smart Choices Program (8 I nitiatives) August 2004 Urban Sustainability Action Plan (4 Priority Areas) April 2005 Smart Choices Program Manager
Program I nitiatives 1. Neighbourhood Reinvestment 2. Residential Infill 3. Transit-Oriented Development 4. Walkability
Program I nitiatives 5. Urban Design 6. Redevelopment of Older Commercial and Industrial Lands 7. Planning Education and Public Consultation 8. Municipal Growth Scenario
New Directions Low Density Mature Moderate and Planned Neighbourhoods I ntensification Separate Land Uses / Mixed Land Use / Developm ent Parcels Com prehensive Design Lim ited Variety of Housing Greater Housing Choice in Types Every Neighbourhood Autom obile-Dependent W alkable and Transit-Oriented Copycat Architecture / High Quality Building / Site “Builder’s Grade” Design and Public Spaces
Council Directives MARCH 20, 2006 WORKSHOP Smart Choices principles should be fully 1. integrated into all planning and development. Need clarity about what Smart Choices principles 2. actually mean. Want to know how well applications align with 3. Smart Choices principles.
Smart Choices and TOD Checklists v Prepared by IBI Consultants v Other Cities Using Checklists: New Westminster, B.C., Markham, Ontario v Reviewed by UDI (March 2006) v Internal Testing on Applications (August 2006) v Training of Planning Staff (October 2006) v Introduced into City’s Development Review Process November 1, 2006 v 6-Month Trial Period; Review and Revise
Smart Choices Development Checklist SECTI ONS A. Neighbourhood Re-investment B. Residential Infill C. Transit-Oriented Development D. Walkability E. Urban Design F. Redevelopment of Older Commercial And Industrial Lands
TOD Checklist SECTI ONS A. Density B. Mix of Uses C. Transit and Cycling D. Streets and Walkability E. Parking F. Urban Design and Amenities
EXAMPLE: List of Features for Walkability
Sample Scorecard SMART CHOI CES DEVELOPMENT - SCORECARD Total Total Points Score (% ) Comments Possible Applicable (Yes) (Yes and No) Neighbourhood 7 0 0 0% Not Applicable Reinvestment Residential I nfill 3 0 0 0% Not Applicable Transit-Oriented 12 8 3 37% Lacks Most Development Features of TOD Walkability 16 5.5 5.5 100% Contributes to Walkability Urban Design 14 2 2 100% Limited Assessment Redevelopment 12 0 0 0% Not Applicable of Older Commercial & I ndustrial Lands TOTALS 64 15.5 10.5 67.7% 2 stars
Smart Choices Rating System Final Score Band Rating 91 – 100% * * * * * 5 star 81 – 90% * * * * 4 stars 71 – 80% * * * 3 star SMART BAR 61 – 70% * * 2 star 50 – 60% * 1 star Less than 50% No stars
Use of Checklists in Development Review v Area Structure Plans v Neighbourhood Structure Plans v Area Redevelopment Plans v Non-Statutory Plans v Rezoning Applications v Subdivision Applications
The Checklist Process Step 1 Pre-Application Meeting Step 2 Application Submitted Step 3 Planner Evaluates / Scores Application Step 4 Planner Meets with Applicant to Review Results / Discuss Changes to Application Step 5 Planner Includes Smart Choices Assessment in Council Report
Applicability of Sections CHECKLI ST MATURE NEW SUBURBAN SECTI ON NEI GHBOURHOODS AREAS Neighbourhood x A. Reinvestment Residential Infill x B. Transit-Oriented x x C. Development Walkability x x D. Urban Design x x E. Redevelopment x F. of Older Commercial / Industrial Lands
Final Comments on Checklists v Greater Clarity / Awareness of Smart Choices Principles v Implementation Now v Consistent Treatment of Applications v An Interim Measure v Council Reports include Summary Assessment and Score (not Checklists)
Regulatory System versus versus Vision EXI STI NG SMART REGULATORY CHOI CES FRAMEWORK VI SI ON v ASP/NSP’s v ARP’S v City Policy v Zoning Bylaw v Subdivision Design and Servicing Standards v Design Guidelines
(Phase 1) GROVENOR/ GLENORA Planning Project KEY TASKS 1. Summary of Development Applications 2. Identification of Issues 3. Statement of Community Vision / Objectives for Project Area 4. Work Program / Innovative Approach (Phase 2)
(Phase 1) GROVENOR/ GLENORA Planning Project v Development Moratorium? v Completion Deadline: March 15, 2007
Basic Planning Principles for Residential I nfill To guide the location, form, and height of residential infill / redevelopment in Edmonton’s mature neighbourhoods.
Basic Planning Principles for Residential I nfill Consultation: v Mature Neighbourhoods Group (EFCL) v UDI v Edmonton Region Homebuilders Association Deadline for Draft Report: April 15, 2007
New Planning Model for Redevelopment of Large Sites in Mature Neighbourhoods v Community Planning eliminated in 1997 v Problem with DC2 Process: Consultation with Public / City Departments - inadequate, too late, and duplication.
New Planning Model for Redevelopment of Large Sites 1. Planning Process Chart with Stages 2. Consultation with Stakeholders 3. Submission Requirements v Deadline for Draft Report : April 15, 2007
Smart Choices Work Program 2007 v Basic Planning Principles for Residential Infill v New Zoning Regulations and Design Guidelines for Residential Infill (Initial Work) v New Models for Redevelopment of Large Sites in Mature Neighbourhoods v Grovenor / Glenora Planning Project (Phase 1 and 2) v Criteria for Prioritizing Neighbourhoods for Reinvestment and Planning v Walkability Strategy v RFP for TOD Plan – Stadium Station v Smart Choices Communications Plan and Website
The Smart Choices City v Older neighbourhoods with small-scale infill within interior, and some row housing / low-rise apartments around edges. v LRT stations with mixed-use medium-high density residential. v Older community shopping centres redeveloped as “urban villages”. v A city and neighbourhoods that are more walkable / cycle- able. v Improved quality of neighbourhood, site and building design.
Why we need to change 1. Infrastructure Gap 2. CO2 Emissions / Climate Change 3. Peak Oil / Rising Cost of Energy 4. A Great City
FOR MORE I NFORMATI ON www.edmonton.ca/smartchoices Greg Barker Smart Choices Program Manager 496-6127
Recommend
More recommend
