Heritage and the new Land Use Bylaw Review

[newsposter]

The city is presently overhauling the land use bylaw. See for information. It has received third reading (July 2007) and will be implemented in June 2008, but there are outstanding issues being reviewed that may lead to amendments before then.

------------------------------------------------------------------


November 15, 2006

To the Land Use Bylaw Review Team,

The Calgary Heritage Initiative Society would like to take this
opportunity to thank everyone who has worked on the Land Use Bylaw review
to this point. We have some comments on the current draft, and may make
further comments as the process moves forward and the document evolves. We
would also appreciate the opportunity to discuss these issues further.

Some heritage buildings in Calgary are already officially designated as
heritage resources and are therefore protected. Other buildings of
historic interest are saved because of the attention and intervention of
the heritage community. This community includes the City of Calgary
Heritage Planners, the Calgary Heritage Authority (CHA), aldermen,
communities, and the public at large all working together to enable
positive heritage outcomes.

Certain tools are currently available that are utilized in this process.
The Municipal Inventory of Potential Heritage Sites is one very important
tool that the City uses to manage heritage. Inventoried buildings get some
differential treatment under City policy (density transfers or parking
relaxations in some areas for example). This Inventory is constantly
evolving as new buildings are added to the list and when others are
unfortunately removed due to demolition.

The character of many of Calgary’s favourite communities and streets
depends on many ‘historic’ buildings, not just the ones that have already
gone through the process to be added to the Inventory. We hope that the
forthcoming Heritage Resource Management Plan addresses this issue by
looking at historic districts and streetscapes in addition to individual
buildings. Funding and other resources (especially time) are needed
complete the massive project of thoroughly evaluating all of Calgary's
potential heritage sites.

The Land Use Bylaw, like other City policies, should be supportive of
Calgary’s built heritage by applying policy and procedure that sets
Calgary apart as an international example of how to "do it well". Calgary
has had a reputation of not caring about our heritage. We are all part of
a city-wide initiative to change that perspective.

We therefore have the following suggestions:

1. The present Draft LUB would (for example) allow an applicant to
demolish and replace a house on the Heritage Inventory with another house,
a permitted ‘single contextual dwelling’, without a Development Permit.
This might only come to the attention of the heritage planner when the
Demolition Permit is requested. This lacks public process, makes it
difficult for the heritage planner or CHA to be effective, and essentially
undermines the Heritage Inventory. Development applications for sites on
the Heritage Inventory should always require a Development Permit process
and be reviewed by the Heritage Planner.

2. Because context and sightlines are important heritage considerations,
sites in the vicinity of a Heritage Inventory site should also be
'flagged' and circulated to the Heritage Planner, and be subject to a
Development Permit process. Or, where such an application would normally
not require a Development Permit, perhaps a Development Permit process
could be initiated at the discretion of the Heritage Planner.

3. As mentioned in the preamble, buildings are always being added to
Calgary’s Heritage Inventory, and our historic neighbourhoods are made up
of many buildings that are not presently on the Inventory. We are hopeful
that evolving heritage policy will extend heritage recognition to
streetscapes and neighbourhood areas, as in the case in many other North
American jurisdictions where historic areas are valued. Unless and until
such areas are specifically identified, development applications for
buildings that (for example) are old enough to be on the Heritage
Inventory could be routinely circulated to the Heritage Planner. Again,
where such an application would normally not require a Development Permit,
a Development Permit process could be initiated at the discretion of the
heritage planner.

4. The new Land Use Bylaw appears to make notice posting optional. Public
notice posting is one way that Calgarians can find out about developments
proposed for Inventoried sites, potential inventory sites or in historic
neighbourhoods. This is important if members of the public and community
groups are to be involved in protecting Calgary’s heritage and assisting
in the process of developing alternatives to demolition. Notice posting
should be mandatory for sites on the Inventory and in the heritage-related
cases described above.

5. We also recommend more substantial, durable and informative notice
posting, earlier in the development application process and for a longer
period of time, in order to better inform the public and stimulate public
input into development decisions. Technology should also be employed,
including improved posting of development applications and more detailed
information on the City website (including the posting of development
plans). We believe that many Calgarians would appreciate such
enhancements. Time is of the essence when negotiations are required around
a development proposal on a heritage building.

6. Finally, we want to support the parking relaxation for heritage
buildings that is in the land use bylaw as this will aid in preservation
efforts.

Thank you for consideration of our comments.

Sincerely,

Janet Woolgar,
President
Calgary Heritage Initiative Society
info@calgaryheritage.org
www.calgaryheritage.org

[newsposter]

The Proposed Land Use Bylaw goes to a Public Hearing of City Council on March 19. You can speak to the bylaw at Council, or communicate with the members of City Council prior to the Public Hearing.

www.calgary.ca/landusebylaw

[newsposter]

New Land Use Bylaw raises concerns for heritage buildings

Real Estate News, March 15, 2007

Link: http://www.cren.ca/content_view?CONTENT ... 15%2C+2007

By Kristi Johnson, Director of Reseach, Calgary Heritage Initiative

The topic of the City Land Use Bylaw (LUB) is rarely gripping unless it involves your neighbour’s garage being converted to a recording studio. But for people who are concerned about heritage preservation, the new bylaw is of great interest.

The new bylaw proposes “contextual rules” for houses. This would encourage infill houses and additions that are in keeping with the existing pattern of development. If an old house is to be replaced, it must be of similar size and position on the lot as its neighbours to be deemed “contextual”. Contextual houses are allowed as a permitted use — the community would not be consulted and the approval could not be appealed. On the other hand, proposals that do not meet contextual rules would require community consultation and approvals could be appealed.

But what if the old house being replaced has historical significance? If a building has been placed on the City’s list of potential heritage sites by the Calgary Heritage Authority we might expect that this status safeguards it. But in the case of a contextual permitted application, there is no community consultation, no City discretion to refuse the application and no chance to appeal.

Another tool sometimes used to protect heritage is an Area Redevelopment Plan (ARP). According to Marilyn and Rick Williams of the Cliff Bungalow-Mission Community Association, “…#8230;the new contextual bylaw would only consider the height of the new home, and the setback from the street and so on, while our ARP would also take into account things like roof pitch, plus architectural details such as front porches and gables,” and also whether “any significant city trees are to be destroyed.” In short, contextual permitted-use approvals can trump some policies a community has built into an ARP, such as heritage character protection.

One goal of the new LUB is more clarity and consistency. It is hoped that having contextual rules in place will streamline the system while protecting community character. Also, the new bylaw provides the option to relax parking requirements for heritage buildings. However, other tools the City has put in place to preserve heritage, such as the heritage inventory or an ARP, could be rendered irrelevant in cases where permitted-use house replacement is the issue.

Due to the efforts of some community associations and other stakeholders the heritage implications of this bylaw have come to the attention of the City. Hopefully the LUB team will be able to work with the City’s heritage planners to ensure a solution is found that addresses these heritage concerns.

—Kristi Johnson is Director of Research for the Calgary Heritage Initiative Society. Visit their website at www.calgaryheritage.org

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 18, 2007

Re. Proposed Bylaw 1P2007

To Calgary City Council:

Mayor David Bronconnier
Ald. Craig Burrows
Ald. Joe Ceci
Ald. Andre Chabot
Ald. Diane Colley-Urquhart
Ald. Barry Erskine
Ald. Druh Farrell
Ald. Linda Fox-Mellway
Ald. Bob Hawkesworth
Ald. Dale Hodges
Ald. Ray Jones
Ald. Madeleine King
Ald. Helene Laroque
Ald. Gord Lowe
Ald. Rick McIver

With regard to the Proposed Land Use Bylaw, the Calgary Heritage
Initiative Society (CHI) is concerned that permitted use applications,
such as applications for single contextual dwellings, may result in the
demolition and replacement of buildings on the Municipal Inventory of
Potential Historic Sites without community consultation or the application
of development authority discretion.

We have raised this concern with the Land Use Bylaw Team and the Heritage Planner, and we ask that Council direct Administration to investigate solutions that better protect heritage in these cases.

The Calgary Heritage Initiative also wants to endorse the provision in the
Proposed Land Use Bylaw that allows parking requirements for buildings on the heritage inventory to be relaxed. This is a positive for heritage.

Thanks to everyone who has worked on the Proposed Land Use Bylaw.

Regards,

Janet Woolgar,
President
Calgary Heritage Initiative Society
email: info@calgaryheritage.org
web: www.calgaryheritage.org

[newsposter]

The Calgary Heritage Authority made several recommendations regarding the new Land Use Bylaw that are similar to concerns raised by CHI. Below are the issues and the response from the City, as recorded in Calgary Heritage Authority Minutes of March 2007. The Land Use Bylaw has received third and final reading in July 2007, but many issues continue to be reviewed, including Notice Posting, that may result in amendments. The Heritage Management Plan noted here is still being developed.


Response to CHA letter of November 15, 2006 and memo of February 1, 2007:
1. Request to require Development Permits on all sites on the Inventory of Potential Heritage Sites
• Would effectively change the Land Use Bylaw requirements for any property added to the inventory. Therefore, would likely require formal redesignation (rezoning) of any site added to the inventory as well as require Council approval when adding to the inventory
• Most changes to listed commercial or multi-residential heritage buildings would be a Discretionary Use in any event, and therefore already require a DP
• Need a policy direction first – refer to the Heritage Management Plan (HMP)
2. Request Notice Posting of listed heritage sites.
• The Land Use Bylaw team will be working with the Federation of Calgary Communities (FCC) and the building industry on the issues of notice posting.
• Issue should also be referred to the the HMP
3. Recommendation from the CHA that the “heritage preservation provisions within the Beltline ARP be included in the new Land Use Bylaw for the whole city of Calgary”
• The Beltline is not included in the draft Land Use Bylaw and will have its own district and set of rules
• Beltline heritage provisions were designed specifically for that context – not necessarily relevant to other areas of the city. .Bonuses for heritage buildings are available currently if designated as a MHR and given a Direct Control designation (1989 policy)
• Bonuses should come from a policy not the LUB – refer to the HMP