Contractors erecting houses in Ingram, new parts of Takhini North and eventually Whistle Bend could soon face additional restrictions on what they build there.

City council is studying proposed changes to the city's comprehensive development zones.

City planner Kinden Kosick brought the zoning amendments forward at Monday's council meeting.

Now that the zones have been in place in some new areas of the city, he said, it has given officials a chance to review what's been constructed within the regulations.

The comprehensive zones were created for newer neighbourhoods, Kosick said in his report to council.

"These zones were developed as a response to public input that residents wanted to see a higher level of quality in neighbourhood development,” the report reads.

"Additionally, as these neighbourhoods were designed to be denser than traditional residential areas in Whitehorse, the comprehensive development zoning was expected to provide ‘density with dignity'.

"The desired result was creating aesthetically pleasing urban form and streetscape, while providing housing density at a more sustainable and affordable level.”

The zones have regulations such as the building's colour being different than that of adjacent homes, garages being set back from the front of the house and incentives for building to green standards, among a number of other requirements.

As Kosick and another city planner Mike Ellis recently explained at a more informal meeting of council and senior management, buildings in the new areas have been constructed to meet the standards, though they aren't meeting all the intentions of the bylaw.

There are a few homes in Takhini North that appear to be almost identical colours side-by-side.

As Kosick said: "The comprehensive development zones currently state that adjacent buildings cannot have the same colour scheme.

"This wording is vague and has caused difficulties in the permitting process. For example, the city received two adjacent applications with siding colours of ‘ash' and ‘sandalwood'. These are technically two different colours, but look very similar on the completed houses.”

The suggested change to the bylaw would see houses required to have a significantly different value and hue than that of next-door neighbours.

"Final colour approval would be at the discretion of the development officer,” notes the report.

"Administration is currently working on a colour matrix that will provide the development officer with guidelines regarding colour approval.”

The colour requirements would apply to all comprehensive zones except those that are multi-family zoned developments, "as there may be multiple buildings of different colour on each site.”

Another change would now allow garages in the comprehensive residential single-family 2 zone to be flush with the front of the house rather than set back, as is currently required.

While the regulation was put in place to reduce the prominence of garages, make the street more pedestrian-oriented and provide some diversity in architecture, Kosick said it is a difficult requirement for many to meet. There aren't many house plans which provide the garage setback, especially in the case of duplexes.

Changing the requirement so that a front of a garage is in line with the front of a house "will still achieve the goals of architectural diversity and a pedestrian streetscape.”

Kosick also suggested changing the front yard setbacks so there would no longer be a maximum set for comprehensive single-family and townhouse zones in cases where the front lot line is narrower than it is in the rear. It's also proposed the maximum be increased to six metres in cases where there isn't a rear lane access.

"Implementing a maximum front yard setback has created difficulties for home construction,” it was noted.

"On irregular-shaped lots where the front property line is narrower than the rear, it is difficult to construct a modest-sized house while still meeting the side yard setback requirements. Also, for lots where there is no rear lane access, it is difficult to provide parking in front of a garage in less than six metres.”

The amended zoning would also see its wording changed to be more clear on how to meet green standards. It would also reflect recent changes to construction standards and allow for a 30 per cent variance on the size of a porch if certain green standards are met.

A number of other housekeeping amendments are suggested as well, including:

• clarifying that amenity space must be available to all residents of multi-family buildings;

• requiring all outdoor lighting be capped and facing downward with high-pressure sodium bulbs prohibited;

• allowing suites on comprehensive single-family zoned lots that are more than 555 square metres;

• clarifying wording around tree retention; and

• permitting parking in any part of a lot that's fewer than 1,700 square metres where the front lot line is narrower than at the rear, though parking would still have to be screened from the street by fencing or landscaping.

Questioned by Coun. Ranj Pillai, Kosick informed council that developers are required to provide a site plan with the city and must have landscaping done within one year of occupying the building on the property.

In response to questions from Coun. Dave Stockdale, planning manager Mike Gau said the city has been providing hand-outs and pamphlets on the requirements for the comprehensive zones since they came into effect in 2008.

If council passes first reading of the proposed changes next week, a public hearing would then be held at the Nov. 22 council meeting. Staff would prepare a report on any concerns or issues which come up at that hearing for the following council meeting on Dec. 6.

Second and third readings would then likely come forward for a vote at the Dec. 13 council meeting.

Mayor Bev Buckway and Coun. Doug Graham were absent from last night's meeting.