City Council Agenda
August 22, 2016/ Page 1 File No.:B06
CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT
Subject: LAND USE BYLAW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AMENDMENT STRATEGIES
Recommendation 1. That consideration of the Land Use Bylaw Residential District Amendment
Strategies be postponed to allow additional time for direct dialog with interested Council members on proposed strategies.
2. That all reports and motions be referred to a special meeting date to be set by
Agenda Committee for debate and direction. Purpose of Report This report returns the Land Use Bylaw Residential District Amendment Strategies originally introduced at the July 11, 2016 Council meeting. Council Direction At the July 11, 2016, Council meeting the following resolutions were passed:
(C482-2016) That this item be postponed to a date set by Agenda Committee.
City Council Agenda
August 22, 2016/ Page 2 File No.:B06
Background and Discussion At the July 11, 2016 Council meeting, the LUB Residential District Amendment Strategies were presented for Council’s consideration. Discussions were postponed to a later date established by Agenda Committee, subsequently scheduled for August 22, 2016. Following the July 11, 2016 Council meeting, Administration requested that feedback on suggested amendments be received by July 31, 2016. Nineteen suggested amendments from three members of Council were provided. Administration also received two information requests. Refer to: Attachment 1 Administration is recommending that this matter be postponed to a special meeting date established by Agenda Committee for debate and direction. This postponement can be utilized to engage members of Council and Administration in flexible conversations around the proposed strategies and suggested amendments at Council’s convenience through to September 30, 2016. Council’s endorsement of the proposed direction will enable the Consultant (Stantec Consulting Ltd.) to proceed with the initial draft of the LUB amendments. Consultation with stakeholders and the public will be undertaken prior to the specific text amendments being presented for Council’s consideration at a future public hearing date. Implications of Recommendations a) Financial:
Additional decision delays may impact project timelines and may result in additional contract costs.
b) Legal / Risk:
None at this time.
c) Program or Service: Delivery of municipal services is improved by ensuring that the City’s LUB
responds to market demands and to resident requirements.
d) Organizational:
Consideration of the LUB Residential District Amendment Strategies will ensure that potential changes to land use requirements are managed in the direction Council wants to achieve.
City Council Agenda
August 22, 2016/ Page 3 File No.:B06
Alternatives and Implications Considered If Council does not wish to support the recommendations, the following alternatives could be considered:
a) Alternative 1: Consider discussions around specific actions from the LUB Residential District Amendment Strategies that Council wishes to change at the August 22, 2016 Council meeting.
b) Alternative 2: Do nothing. Defer all decisions until the final amendments are provided to Council in Q4, 2016.
There is a risk that the Consultant and Administration may proceed with work that is not aligned with Council’s objectives. Additional time and public consultation efforts would be expended debating options in areas that would not ultimately be supported.
Strategic Connections a) City of St. Albert Strategic Plan (Policy C-CG-02)
Pillars of Sustainability SOCIAL – We are a friendly and inclusive community of passionate equals, where everyone feels a sense of belonging. We believe that community starts with the person next door. ECONOMIC – We prosper and excel through a strong and diverse economy that is supported by forward-thinking commerce, outstanding local businesses and a dynamic downtown core. BUILT ENVIRONMENT – We build our community towards the future to sustain balanced development, with a reverent eye to the past, honouring our unique settlement history and distinct identity. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT– We protect, embrace and treasure our deeply-rooted connections with the natural environment through championing environmental action. Governance Strategy Council is committed to ensuring that the City of St. Albert is a responsive, accountable government that delivers value to the community.
City Council Agenda
August 22, 2016/ Page 4 File No.:B06
Service Delivery Strategy Council is committed to ensuring that the City of St. Albert is engaging residents to identify opportunities to improve delivery of services to the community.
b) Long Term Plans
Municipal Development Plan
Social Master Plan
c) Corporate Objectives
Deliver programs and services that meet or exceed our standards
Exercise strong fiscal management
Ensure our customers are very satisfied d) Council Policies
City of St. Albert Strategic Plan C-CG-02
Affordable Housing C-P&E-06 e) Other Plans or Initiatives
Housing Diversity Action Plan Attachments 1. Council Feedback Summary 2. Council Agenda Report “LUB Residential District Amendment Strategies”,
dated July 11, 2014 (previously distributed).
Originating Department(s): Planning & Development Author(s): General Manager Approval:
Lory Scott, Affordable Housing Liaison Gilles Prefontaine, Chief Community Development Officer
City Manager Signature:
Date:
ATTACHMENT 1 COUNCIL FEEDBACK SUMMARY
SUGGESTED AMENDMENT RESPONSE
1 2.1 - Restrict zero lot line to lane way product This amendment could be incorporated into the discussion on item 12.
2 3.4 - Remove the words "or remove" from suggested action to read : “Simplify lot distribution ratios”
This amendment could be incorporated into the discussion on items 6 and 13. Additional information will be provided by Administration to inform this discussion by September 30, 2016.
3 3.4 - Remove the words "would support implementation of manufactured home district" from rationale
4 For corner lots to get housing design correct and possibly reduce operating costs – change fence height and set backs.
This suggestion is assumed to refer to sideyard setbacks and appearance from corner lots where houses face the opposing street, in order to improve the street appearance.
5 DARP needs to permit long term care above the first story
“Long term care” is defined as housing that provides access to full-time professional nursing care and personal support services. Typical uses include a nursing home, auxiliary hospital, and respite care facilities. Patients have high health needs, are not independently mobile, and would not contribute towards to the economic vitality of businesses within the downtown core. Downtown represents one of the most important opportunities to intensify land uses, also playing an important role as a civic, cultural and commercial hub. Residential uses within the downtown core contribute to the local customer service base of downtown businesses encouraging residents to live, work, shop, and play within the downtown area. Long term care facilities do not contribute towards this objective.
Page 1 of 4
ATTACHMENT 1
SUGGESTED AMENDMENT RESPONSE
6
We do not need to go less than 10 meter lots but allow more 10 meter lots
This amendment could be incorporated into the discussion on items 2 and 13. Additional information will be provided by Administration to inform this discussion by September 30, 2016.
7 Basement suites should count toward parking for LUB.
Basements suites must currently provide one on-site parking stall per bachelor, 1 or 2 bedroom dwelling unit, and 2 stalls per 3+bedroom dwelling unit.
8 LUB (DARP) needs to include shared parking or transportation demand parking
Current flexibilities exist in the Downtown District, however additional work will be considered in 2017 to establish more specific criteria outside of the LUB review of Residential Districts.
9 Need to adjust parking for seniors housing complexes
Seniors housing projects that fall under the definition of “supportive housing”, or “long term care housing” currently have different parking requirements than other multi-family housing. The DO has a ability to request a parking management study at the development permit stage to determine the appropriate parking for the development.
10 Change DARP to adjust for mobility management, pedestrian friendly and promoting alternate transportation modes
Alternate transportation modes will be addressed in the Transportation Master Plan. The Downtown District currently provides requirements for private streetscape amenity areas, pedestrian continuity and vehicle flow. Public space design is the responsibility of the City.
11 LUB change for city staff parking This suggestion will need to be handled outside of the LUB update. The LUB addresses land use, not land user.
Page 2 of 4
ATTACHMENT 1
SUGGESTED AMENDMENT RESPONSE
Remove the following recommendations from Attachment 1 of the July 11, 2016 Agenda Report:
12 Remove recommendation 2.1 - Broaden regulations to permit zero lot line developments
This amendment could be incorporated into the discussion on item 1. Additional information will be provided by Administration to inform this discussion by September 30, 2016.
13 Remove recommendation 2.2 - Broaden opportunities for narrow lots
This amendment could be incorporated into the discussion on items 2 and 6.
14 Remove recommendation 2.3 - Increase permitted site coverage
This initiative would align regulations with other CR municipalities, and would result in the ability to place a larger house on a smaller lot.
15 Remove recommendation 2.5 - Reduce lot width requirements for duplexes
Duplexes come in many forms beyond the traditional side by side duplexes developed since the 1950’s. New duplex forms include up/down duplexes as well as back-to-back duplexes, both having the appearance of a single family dwelling, while requiring less land. The current lot width requirements discourage these types of duplexes being developed as the land cost exceeds price point practicality. This initiative also supports Councils strategic Plan to: Encourage the development of entry level and affordable housing, and innovative neighbourhood housing and design trends.
16 Remove recommendation 2.9 - Reduce visitor parking requirements to align with other Capital Region Municipalities
Higher parking requirements in St. Albert, discourage investment and economic competitiveness with other regional municipalities, and are added to the cost of housing.
17 Remove recommendation 5.3 - Implement land use districts that incorporate complete communities – design neighbourhoods so private vehicle is not a necessity
This initiative supports Council’s Strategic Plan to: make transit a convenient and competitive mode of transportation, and to: establish sustainable priorities for the City’s investment in transportation and infrastructure. It also supports the strategy to: implement innovative civic, neighbourhood and housing design trends that foster increased efficiencies, capacity and incorporate cutting-edge technology solutions.
Page 3 of 4
ATTACHMENT 1
SUGGESTED AMENDMENT RESPONSE
Remove the following recommendations from Attachment 2, St. Albert Land Use Bylaw Residential District Analysis Summary from the July 11, 2016 Agenda Report:
18 Remove the option for unlimited building heights in R1 and R2 Districts, all third storey buildings.
The Neighbourhood Overlay District provides an additional layer of development control over infill sites, which may include building height limitations due to the location and heights of existing homes. This recommendation would align building height requirements in existing areas with the requirements in new areas, providing more certainty to infill reinvestment. Permitted building heights would not be permitted to exceed the height requirements of the specific district.
19 Remove the recommendation to: remove the discretionary powers to request shadowing studies and the consultation with neighbours for infill in established neighbourhoods. (P. 11 and 12)
Shadowing studies are an unusual requirement for low density development. No clear parameters are included within the text of the Overlay. Public consultation requirements for infill properties are modest but additional to those for permits for permitted uses elsewhere in the city, and may serve to discourage infill redevelopment, due to uncertainty in the process.
INFORMATION REQUEST RESPONSE
A. Provide an analysis of whether small lots actually nurture lower assessed values with apples-to-apples comparisons, and statistically based data.
This information can be provided by September 30, 2016
B Provide information whether the Basement Suite Program managed as per the May 22 (2007) LUB amendments, the grant program (January 2009) and the criteria put forward in this regard. Was it truly monitored and adhered to?
This information can be provided by September 30, 2016
Page 4 of 4
City Council Agenda
July 11, 2016/ Page 1File No.:B06
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Subject: LAND USE BYLAW RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AMENDMENT STRATEGIES
Recommendations 1. That the LUB Residential District Amendment Strategies, provided as
Attachment 1 to the July 11, 2016 agenda report entitled Land Use Bylaw Residential District Amendment Strategies, be approved.
2. That the Land Use Bylaw Residential Districts Review, District Analysis
Summary, included as Attachment 2 to the July 11, 2016 agenda report entitled Land Use Bylaw Residential District Amendment Strategies, be received as information.
3. That Administration return in Q4, 2016 with proposed Land Use Bylaw
Residential District amendments for Council consideration.
Purpose of Report The purpose of this report is to obtain direction from Council on the Land Use Bylaw (LUB) Residential District Amendment Strategies to enable Stantec Consulting Ltd. (the Consultant) to proceed with the first draft of the LUB amendments. In September 2015, Stantec Consulting Ltd. was retained by the City to undertake the Land Use Bylaw review of Residential Districts. The LUB Residential District Development Strategies do not bring forward any actions related to lanes. Council Direction At the May 11, 2016, Council meeting the following resolutions were passed:
(C318-2016) That Council provide workbook feedback, Workshop Exercise #2, to Administration by Friday May 20, 2016.
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2
City Council Agenda
July 11, 2016/ Page 2File No.:B06
(C319-2016) That the presentation by Administration and Stantec be received as information.
Background and Discussion The LUB Residential District Amendment Strategies are being presented for Council’s consideration to guide the remaining work on the Land Use Bylaw (LUB) update of Residential Districts. Council’s approval of the intended direction will enable the Consultant to proceed with the first draft of the LUB amendments. A second round of community engagement will be undertaken prior to the amendments being further refined for Council’s consideration at the Public Hearing in Q4, 2016. Refer to: Attachment 3 The anticipated revisions to the LUB Residential Districts are expected to align regulatory requirements with Council’s strategic goals, and to manage the change in development trends that is already occurring. Demographic shifts in household composition, emphasis on environmental sustainability and growth management, and increasing housing costs are driving the demand for broader choices of housing forms, and efficiencies in lot design. The proposed Capital Region Board Growth Plan 2.0 may add an additional layer of regulatory recommendations for consideration. Strategic Alignment Land Use Bylaw (LUB) review of Residential Districts aligns with the direction provided in the Municipal Development Plan (CityPlan 2007), and with the City of St. Albert’s Strategic Plan Policy C-CG-02, which directs Administration to focus on actions that achieve the following results:
Embrace a safe and healthy community that promotes diversity through inclusive community design, universal accessibility, programming, and cultural celebrations.
Encourage the development of a diversity of housing options through advocacy and partnerships with relevant stakeholders, not-for-profits, for-profit, and government entities.
Ensure the City of St. Albert supports expansion and attraction of desired business and industry through competitive policies, bylaws, taxes, infrastructure, and services.
Increase the number of residents working in St. Albert through identifying opportunities to create local employment opportunities and improve the availability of local labour.
Implement innovative civic, neighbourhood and housing design trends that foster increased efficiencies, capacity, and incorporate cutting-edge technology solutions.
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
City Council Agenda
July 11, 2016/ Page 3File No.:B06
Encourage progressive development that is planned for and regulated while ensuring development is environmentally sound, preserves the unique character of St. Albert, promotes safety, and is accessible to the community.
Promote sustainable neighbourhoods and transportation choices through progressive urban and transportation planning initiatives.
The following LUB Residential District Amendment Strategies are being proposed:
1. Integrate a broader spectrum of housing forms in residential districts that
support the opportunity for mixed density housing. 2. Provide amendments to lot size and building location criteria, to align with best
practices in comparator municipalities, while maintaining St. Albert's distinct character.
3. Provide opportunities in specific districts that will support the more efficient use of urban residential land while providing predictability and transparency to the development industry.
4. Provide opportunities for building and site design innovation. 5. Align amendments with proposed Capital Region Board Growth Plan
requirements. These strategies identify specific actions and the rationale behind these actions, to inform specific amendments. Strategies have been refined as a result of the feedback from the three stakeholder sessions and recommended best practices research. Refer to: Attachment 1 The Land Use Bylaw Residential Districts Review, District Analysis Summary provides the analysis behind these recommendations, as well as the results of the three engagement sessions. Administration is recommending that this report be received as information. Refer to: Attachment 2 The intended strategies do not provide any consideration towards lanes; however specific initiatives such as narrow lots, garden suites, and garage suites would be limited in their ability to be implemented without rear access. This limitation may restrict the City’s ability to respond to market demands for these types of housing products. Refinement to the proposed changes is expected after the second phase of public engagement. Council will have the opportunity to consider each specific amendment and the specific criteria around these amendments in Q4 at the Public Hearing. Additional changes could be incorporated at that time.
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
City Council Agenda
July 11, 2016/ Page 4File No.:B06
Refer to: Attachment 3 Current Actions In order to enable some developments to commence construction this season, Administration will be proposing amendments to the LUB during the Public Hearing on July 11, 2016, as they relate to how parking is counted in private garage spaces, and housekeeping adjustments to townhouse regulations in three land use districts. There may be other suggested amendments to parking and townhouse regulations during the LUB Residential District amendment process. Stakeholder Communications or Engagement The Land Use Bylaw Review of Residential Districts is a Level 4 (Collaborate) of the City’s approved public engagement spectrum. The first phase of engagement was achieved through the following events: December 15, 2015 – Development industry stakeholder session. Invitations
were sent to 33 land developers, 55 builders, and 15 consultants. Twenty (20) participants attended.
January 28, 2016 – Community workshop. Eighty-one (81) participants from the general public, the development industry, Council, and interested organizations attended. This event was advertised in the St. Albert Gazette, and on the City’s website. Invitations were sent to specific stakeholders.
May 11, 2016 – Council workshop. Feedback was requested from Council on the various development opportunities, in order to refine the anticipated development strategies.
Continuous on-line engagement has been occurring since the project’s inception through the MindMixer website link, advertised on the City’s website. In addition, project website updates are provided on a regular basis. Prior to the completion of the draft amendments, two additional stakeholder sessions will be held on different dates, in order to optimize public feedback. The results of the public consultation sessions may result in further amendment refinement, prior to returning to Council for final consideration in Q4, 2016 Implications of Recommendations It is the responsibility of the City to ensure that this change is managed in the direction the City wants to achieve. While the LUB revisions will broaden permitted housing forms in many districts, it will not specifically address affordable housing,
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
City Council Agenda
July 11, 2016/ Page 5File No.:B06
or direct all new housing growth to new areas. As infill redevelopment occurs in existing areas, it is inevitable that existing neighbourhoods will change and evolve. a) Financial:
Administration is compiling data on the fiscal impact of proposed amendments which will be provided to Council when available.
b) Legal / Risk:
None at this time.
c) Program or Service: Delivery of municipal services is improved by ensuring that the City’s LUB
responds to market demands, and to resident requirements.
d) Organizational: Approval of the recommendations will enable the project to meet Q4
timelines. Additional decision delays may impact project timelines and may result in additional contract costs.
Alternatives and Implications Considered If Council does not wish to support the recommendation, the following alternatives could be considered:
a) Alternative 1: Delete specific actions from the LUB Residential District Amendment Strategies that Council does not wish to pursue. The Consultant will not proceed with drafting amendments in those areas.
b) Alternative 2: Defer the LUB Residential District Amendment Strategies until a later date to allow Council additional time to consider the various options. Project timelines may be delayed subject to decision dates, potentially resulting in additional project costs.
c) Alternative 3: Do nothing (do not accept the LUB Residential District Amendment Strategies). Defer all decisions until the final amendments are provided to Council in Q4, 2016.
There is a risk that the Consultant and Administration may proceed with work that is not in alignment with Council’s strategic plans. Additional time and public consultation efforts would be expended debating options in areas that would not ultimately be supported.
Strategic Connections
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
City Council Agenda
July 11, 2016/ Page 6File No.:B06
a) City of St. Albert Strategic Plan (Policy C-CG-02) Pillars of Sustainability SOCIAL – We are a friendly and inclusive community of passionate equals, where everyone feels a sense of belonging. We believe that community starts with the person next door. ECONOMIC – We prosper and excel through a strong and diverse economy that is supported by forward-thinking commerce, outstanding local businesses and a dynamic downtown core. BUILT ENVIRONMENT – We build our community towards the future to sustain balanced development, with a reverent eye to the past, honouring our unique settlement history and distinct identity. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT– We protect, embrace and treasure our deeply-rooted connections with the natural environment through championing environmental action. Governance Strategy Council is committed to ensuring that the City of St. Albert is a responsive, accountable government that delivers value to the community. Service Delivery Strategy Council is committed to ensuring that the City of St. Albert is engaging residents to identify opportunities to improve delivery of services to the community.
b) Long Term Plans Municipal Development Plan Social Master Plan
c) Corporate Objectives
Deliver programs and services that meet or exceed our standards Exercise strong fiscal management Ensure our customers are very satisfied
d) Council Policies
City of St. Albert Strategic Plan C-CG-02 Affordable Housing C-P&E-06
e) Other Plans or Initiatives
Housing Diversity Action Plan
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
City Council AgendaJuly 11, 2016/ Page 7
File No.:B06
Attachments
1. LUB Residential District Amendment Strategies2. Land Use Bylaw Residential Districts Review, District Analysis Summary3. LUB Residential District Amendment Process4. Previous Council Motions Relative to Residential District Design
Originating Department(s): Planning & Development Author(s): General Manager Approval:
Lory Scott, Affordable Housing Liaison Gilles Prefontaine, Chief Community Development Officer
City Manager Signature: Date:
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
LUB RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AMENDMENT STRATEGIES
STRATEGY #1: INTEGRATE A BROADER SPECTRUM OF HOUSING FORMS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TO SUPPORT THE OPPORTUNITY FORMIXED DENSITY HOUSING
SUGGESTED ACTIONS: RATIONALE:
1.1 Broaden options for secondary suites including above garage suites, garden suites and above grade suites, where suitable.
• Secondary suites provide opportunities for seniors andyouth to remain close to family in existingneighbourhoods.
• At grade or above-grade suites are more suitable forseniors and persons with disabilities than basementsuites.
• Secondary suites maintain single family character inexisting neighbourhoods
• Provide an affordable option for tenants and are amortgage helper for the homeowner
1.2 Broaden multi-family housing form definitions.
• Triplex and fourplex housing forms do not have their owndefinition.
• Current townhouse definition is geared towards largescale developments and is not suited for smallerdevelopments
1.3 Broaden discretionary and permitted housing forms in current districts
• Discretionary uses tend to be used in very limitedcircumstances, and do not provide certainty to thedevelopment industry
• Encourages incremental densification without majorredistricting changes
1.4 Broaden uses in current districts i.e. child care and seniors care, home based businesses
• Uses in districts are limited and are not reflective ofcurrent trends
1.5 Broaden Established Neighbourhood District requirements to encourage multi-family infill transition and reinvestment
• Re-investment in existing neighbourhoods is neededbeyond large home redevelopment.
• Multi-family street-oriented infill will provide incrementaldensification while retaining the character of theneighbourhood
• Contributes to intensification targets
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 1 - JULY 11, 2016
STRATEGY #2: PROVIDE AMENDMENTS TO LOT SIZE AND BUILDING LOCATION CRITERIA, TO ALIGN WITH BEST PRACTICES IN COMPARATORMUNICIPALITIES, WHILE MAINTAINING ST. ALBERT'S DISTINCT CHARACTER.
SUGGESTED ACTIONS: RATIONALE:
2.1 Broaden regulations to permit zero lot line developments 1
• Zero side yard lots decrease lot prices by approx. 5% –10% of overall lot cost
• Provides a single detached option that is more affordable• Zero lot line developments are permitted in most
comparator municipalities• Single family character and forms are maintained, while
gently increasing density• Fewer households are interested in maintaining large
yards
2.2 Broaden opportunities for narrow lots2
• Assists in increasing density and providing affordablehousing options
• Maintains single family character with moderate densityincreasesIf implemented in established neighbourhoods contributesto intensification targets
2.3 Increase permitted site coverage • Allows for increased densities in alignment with CRB
density targets• Provides for more efficient use of land
2.4 Simplify sideyard setback requirements to minimize complexity
• Current side yard requirements are confusing and varybased on built form, building height and lot width
• Requirements are inconsistent between districts thatpermit similar housing forms
1 In areas without rear property access through a public or private roadway, streetscapes may be dominated by concrete driveways and fewer trees.2 Permitted widths would be restricted in areas without rear lot access (lanes, access road)
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 1 - JULY 11, 2016
STRATEGY #2: PROVIDE AMENDMENTS TO LOT SIZE AND BUILDING LOCATION CRITERIA, TO ALIGN WITH BEST PRACTICES IN COMPARATORMUNICIPALITIES, WHILE MAINTAINING ST. ALBERT'S DISTINCT CHARACTER. SUGGESTED ACTIONS: RATIONALE:
2.5 Reduce lot width requirements for duplexes
• Lot width requirements are too restrictive to encourage thistype of housing form
• Reducing minimum lot width would enable alternativeduplex housing forms
2.6 Increase maximum permitted site coverage
• Site coverage requirements do not align with comparatormunicipalities
• Large yards are becoming less desirable due to waninginterest in maintaining them
2.7 In the Downtown District remove building location requirements and increase site coverage
• Fewer restrictions would encourage developmentopportunities
2.8 Count parking spaces within private garages towards the satisfaction of parking requirements for residential uses
• Counting garage spaces provides more efficient use ofland, and is in alignment with best management practicesin comparator municipalities
• Enables more units to be built on a site within currentdensities, providing increased revenue to the City
• Meeting existing parking stall requirements withoutcounting garage spaces is difficult
2.9 Reduce visitor parking requirements to align with other Capital Region municipalities
• Recommended to align with best practices in comparatorcommunities
2.10 Broaden opportunities to more easily accommodate semi-detached and duplex units in mature areas where lanes exist
• Existing neighbourhoods with lanes provideredevelopment opportunities that cannot beaccommodated in areas without rear property access
• Provides housing options• Contributes to intensification targets
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 1 - JULY 11, 2016
STRATEGY #3: PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES IN SPECIFIC DISTRICTS THAT WILL SUPPORT THE MORE EFFICIENT USE OF URBANRESIDENTIAL LAND WHILE PROVIDING PREDICTABILITY AND TRANSPARENCY TO THE DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRY
SUGGESTED ACTIONS: RATIONALE:
3.1 Group comparable uses of similar form and character into districts
• Will enable a wider range of compatible uses indistricts without increasing the complexity of thebylaw or necessitating recurring updates
• Provides more diverse housing opportunities inexisting districts
3.2 Provide clarity to confusing and conflicting requirements.
• Govern open space through site setbacks and lotcoverage requirements
• Rationalization will provide better clarity andconsistency between districts
3.3 Provide greater incentives for density bonus of desired attributes (e.g. underground parking, affordable units, additional amenities, etc)
• Current density bonus requirements are not highenough to encourage development
• Amenity bonus must equal or exceed amenity costto be a serious consideration
3.4 Simplify or remove lot width distribution ratios
• Ratios significantly limit overall allowable density(currently weighted to provision of larger lots)
• Formula for lot distribution is convoluted• Lot size determines product developed (large lot =
large house)• Lots of various sizes would improve variety of single
detached options• Would support implementation of manufactured
home district• Aligns with development industry feedback
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 1 - JULY 11, 2016
STRATEGY #4: PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN INNOVATION
SUGGESTED ACTIONS: RATIONALE: 4.1 Allow opportunities for alternative development
standards in exchange for measurable improvements to social, economic, or environmental performance (e.g. low impact landscaping, public amenity areas, affordable housing)
• Providing opportunities for flexibility will enable theCity to negotiate for desired elements
• Environmentally sustainable development can beachieved utilizing this method
STRATEGY #5: ALIGN AMENDMENTS WITH CAPITAL REGION BOARD GROWTH PLAN REQUIREMENTS
SUGGESTED ACTIONS: RATIONALE:
5.1 Provide opportunities for infill densification in select areas
• Existing areas with lanes or sites adjacent to futuretransit corridors, and corner lots are moreappropriate for development transition areas
• Will help achieve CRB intensification targets5.2 Amend lot sizes to align with desired densities • CRB Density requirements can be more easily met
5.3 Implement land use districts that incorporate complete communities
• Will enable Transit Oriented Development (TOD)and mixed residential districts where appropriate
• Design neighbourhoods so private vehicle use is nota necessity
5.4 Increase the maximum densities permitted in districts • CRB Density requirements can be more easily met• Aligns with density requirements in comparator
municipalities
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 1 - JULY 11, 2016
ATTACHMENT 2
Land Use Bylaw
Residential Districts Review
District Analysis Summary
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ATTACHMENT 2
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ATTACHMENT 2
Table of Contents
1.0 REVIEW OF ST. ALBERT’S CURRENT LAND USE BYLAW DISTRICTS AND RELATED
REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS .................................................................................. 2
R1 DISTRICT ..................................................................................................................................... 3
R2 DISTRICT ..................................................................................................................................... 5
R3 DISTRICT ..................................................................................................................................... 7
R3A DISTRICT .................................................................................................................................. 8
R4 DISTRICT ..................................................................................................................................... 9
DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT .......................................................................................... 10
ESTABLISHED NEIGHBOURHOOD OVERLAY DISTRICT .............................................................. 11
PARKING REGULATIONS ............................................................................................................. 12
2.0 WHAT WE HEARD – CONSULTATION SUMMARIES ...................................................... 14
DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDERS – DECEMBER 15, 2015 ......................................... 14
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP – JANUARY 28, 2016 ...................................................................... 15
COUNCIL WORKSHOP – MAY 11, 2016 ..................................................................................... 15
3.0 STRATEGIES .................................................................................................................. 16
APPENDIX A – STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP-DECEMBER 15, 2015 .......................................... 22
APPENDIX B – COMMUNITY WORKSHOP -JANUARY 28, 2016 ............................................. 31
APPENDIX C – COUNCIL WORKSHOP –MAY 11, 2016 .......................................................... 38
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
1
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
2
1.0 REVIEW OF ST. ALBERT’S CURRENT LAND USE BYLAW
DISTRICTS AND RELATED REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
The provisions governing housing development with the City of St. Albert are outlined in Land Use
Bylaw #9/2005 which contains six standard residential Districts:
Low Density Residential (R1)
Low Density Residential (R2)
o Established Neighbourhood Overlay District (Schedule E)
Medium Density Residential (R3)
Medium Density Residential (R3A)
Medium / High Density Residential (R4)
Downtown Residential (DR)
These land use districts are briefly described later in this section.
Other relevant sections of the Land Use Bylaw are:
Part 1 – General (definitions)
Part 7 – Parking Regulations
Other documents that regulate development include:
Design Guidelines for Compatible Development in Established Neighbourhoods: Low
Density Residential (Infill Guidelines)
Engineering Design Standards
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
3
R1 DISTRICT
The Low Density Residential (R1) Land Use District is intended to provide an area for single-
detached houses and other development compatible with the low density residential nature of
the district. The district is primarily for the development of single unit dwellings, though the district
does allow basement suites if they are associated with a single-detached dwelling.
Permitted Residential Uses
Single-detached house, basement suite associated with a single-detached house.
Discretionary Residential Uses
Duplex and semi-detached housing are discretionary uses within the R1 district and must comply
with the development regulations of the R2 district (see Section 3.2 below).
Lot Width Distributions
The district includes specific lot width distribution criteria, limiting smaller lots within each
subdivision. Lot width distribution ratios vary depending on whether the lands are governed by
an Area Structure Plan, as well as when that Area Structure Plan was adopted. The distribution
ratios favour larger lot sizes, limiting lots with widths of 10 m – 11.5 m to a max of 20% where 10 m
widths are allowed, with further restrictions on the proportion of lots of widths between 11.5 m
and 14.5 m. This lot distribution significantly limits the overall allowable density and the
opportunity to provide smaller single-detached housing options.
Small Lots
Lots less than 11.5 m in width are only permitted on through streets. Garages and driveways on
lots less than 12.2 m in width must be configured in such a way to provide one on-street parking
space for every two lots. Lots less than 11.5 m in width are restricted to driveway widths of 5.5 m
at the front property line.
Analysis
Lot Width Distributions
The lot distribution ratios significantly limit the overall allowable density. The formula for lot
distribution is convoluted. Opportunities for providing more narrow lot options are limited. Lot size
determines the size of product that is developed on the site. As land costs and housing costs
increase larger houses on large lots are becoming unaffordable to many.
Side Yards
Side yard requirements for the district are very complicated, varying significantly depending on
the height of the building, the lot width, the design of the roof, the location and orientation of
the garage, plus several other minor variations. The resulting regulations make it very
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
4
complicated to determine what the buildable area of a lot will be. Especially if the proposed
product is a duplex or semi-detached home
Housing Types
Although the inclusion of duplex and semi-detached uses in the R1 District makes them
theoretically possible, discretionary uses tend to be used in very limited circumstances,
particularly by commercial builders, who prefer certainty and avoid discretionary permits
whenever possible. These uses could potentially be made permitted in the R1 district, with larger
lot width and size requirements to allow greater development flexibility while maintaining a
distinction between the R1 and R2 districts.
Options for Consideration
1. Consider removal of the lot distribution ratios and replace with minimum and maximum
widths.
2. Consider expanding permitted uses to include semi-detached and duplex housing
3. Reduced minimum lot widths would also encourage development of semi-detached
and duplex housing.
4. Consider simplifying side yard setback regulations to minimized complexity. In particular,
consider removing side yard variations based on building height and lot width.
5. Recommend in established neighbourhoods where lanes exist, to allow subdivision of
larger lots to accommodate duplex housing or semi-detached.
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
5
R2 DISTRICT
The Low Density Residential (R2) Land Use District provides for “…an area for duplex and semi-
detached housing and other development compatible with the low density residential nature of
the district.” This district allows for low-density residential uses with up to two dwelling units.
Permitted Residential Uses
Duplex, semi-detached housing, single-detached house, basement suite associated with a
single-detached house.
Analysis
Parking
Meeting existing parking requirements for semi-detached and duplex units is difficult. The
requirement is 2 on-site stalls per unit (exclusive of the garage). Only in established
neighbourhoods where lanes exist can the requirement for four on-site parking stalls be easily
met for these housing types.
Corner Lots
Corner lot provisions which require duplexes to have a minimum 15 m lot width and a minimum
lot area of 460 m2 are difficult to meet. It could be easier for duplexes to be developed if lot
area, width and setback regulations were modified. Variable side yard setbacks depending on
height, limit the developability of both semi-detached and duplex units, but are particularly
restrictive for duplexes, which are typically in a multi-storey form.
Corner lot setbacks should be reduced to support the development of duplex or semi-detached
units where garages could face the flanking roadway. Engineering design standards may also
have to be adjusted to accommodate a second access from the flanking road.
Side Yards
Side yard setback regulations are simpler in the R2 District than R1, but are not consistent (the
rationale for a minimum side yard setback of 1.5 m for semi-detached development versus 1.25
m for single-detached development is unclear), and still vary based on building height and roof
pitch.
Housing Types
The list of uses in the district may be too limited and allowances should be made to include 3 unit
townhouse options as well.
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
6
Options for Consideration
1. Consider amending the bylaw to permit all garage space to be counted towards
parking stall requirements.
2. Consider simplifying side yard setback requirements to reduce differences with the R1
District, and to remove height and roof pitch conditions.
3. Consider amending regulations for duplex housing to make this housing form more
feasible, in particular reducing lot size and width requirements.
4. Consider reducing side yard requirements for corner lots to more easily permit garage
access to the flanking roadway.
5. Consider expanding the list of uses to include small townhouse projects, with
accompanying development regulations.
6. Consider amendments to more easily accommodate semi-detached and duplex units in
mature areas where lanes exist.
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
7
R3 DISTRICT
The Medium Density Residential (R3) Land Use District, provides for “… an area for townhousing
compatible with the medium density residential nature of the district.” This district is primarily for
the development of townhousing. The district also allows for small apartments on a discretionary
basis, and semi-detached housing in limited locations, also on a discretionary basis.
Permitted Residential Uses
Townhousing
Density
Maximum of 35 units/ha.
Analysis
Density
The maximum density permitted under the R3 District is 35 units/ha, which is low for townhouse
product. Street oriented townhousing typically achieves at least 35 units/ha, with developments
on larger project sites and those with underground parking often achieving significantly more.
Although density bonusing is provided for in the zone, allowing up to 10 units/ha of additional
density if underground parking or other site design improvements are pursued, the incentives are
of minimal benefit to street-oriented townhouse projects intended to be sold as independently-
owned fee simple units or condo units with minimal shared amenity space.
Side Yards
Side yard setback minimums are greater for townhouses than for single-detached or semi-
detached dwellings in the R1 and R2 Districts. As townhouses are similar in side profile massing
and height to single-detached and semi-detached homes, there seems little reason to require
additional setbacks for this dwelling type.
Lot Coverage
Maximum lot coverage for townhouses in the R3 District is less than those in comparable zones in
other Alberta municipalities (at least 45% and as much as 57% in Strathcona County, Spruce
Grove, Leduc, Lethbridge and Edmonton). This undercuts the affordability of the land
component, requiring a larger site area to develop comparably sized units.
Options for Consideration
1. Consider increases to the maximum density permitted for the district.
2. Consider increases to the maximum site coverage permitted for the district.
3. Consider simplification and reduction of side yard requirements for townhouses.
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
8
R3A DISTRICT
The purpose of the Medium Density Residential (R3A) Land Use District is to provide an area for
apartment buildings and townhousing compatible with the medium density residential nature of
the district.
Permitted Residential Uses
Townhousing, apartment buildings.
Analysis
The R3A District provides for low-rise apartment development. Modifications could be pursued to
make low-rise apartment more attractive for development.
Building Heights
The current height maximum in the R3A District may overly restrict storey height; increasing the
height maximum may provide additional incentive to make use of the district.
Side Yards
Maximum side yard requirements could be considered to limit the amount of site area lost to
side yards if maximum heights are pursued, as well as simplification and reduction of building
separation space requirements.
Density
Density maximums of 94 units/ha, although in general accordance with development practice
in the Capital Region (low-rise apartments are typically being constructed at densities of 80-100
units/ha) could be increased somewhat to provide additional incentive to build this type of
housing. Maximum site coverage is not addressed in but should be considered
Options for Consideration
1. Consider increases to the maximum density permitted for the district.
2. Consider increases to the maximum height permitted for the district.
3. Consider simplification of side yard setback requirements.
4. Consider adding site coverage maximum for apartment housing
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
9
R4 DISTRICT
The purpose of the Medium/High Density Residential District is to provide an area for medium to
higher density multi-unit residential development.
Permitted Residential Uses
Apartment buildings, stacked townhousing.
Townhouse Developments
Townhousing must comply with the development regulations of the R3 district (see Section 3.3
above).
Analysis
Building Heights
The R4 District permits heights of up to 25 m, equivalent to approximately 8 storeys (and up to 35
m at the discretion of the Development Officer). Although this district provides for adequate
height, the maximum density of 141 units/ha is moderate for this type of development, meaning
the density and affordability benefits of mid-rise development may not be maximized, and the
cost effectiveness of mid-rise construction may be challenging. The DR District permits the same
maximum density within a maximum building height of 15 m (with the potential for increase up
to 20 m). Proportionately, the additional height permitted would suggest that a maximum
density of 235 u/ha might be appropriate for the R4 District. This is comparable to densities
permitted under Edmonton’s RA8 Medium Rise Apartment Zone.
Options for Consideration
1. Consider increases to the maximum density permitted for the district.
2. Consider amendments to the district to remove building location requirements, instead
governing site open space through site setbacks and lot coverage requirements.
3. Consider amending the district to include a site coverage maximum of 50% (currently not
addressed).
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
10
DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
The purpose of the Downtown Residential District is to provide an area for a high density
residential development in the downtown area. Apartment buildings and stacked townhousing
are listed as discretionary uses. This district is currently applied to five properties in the vicinity of
Green Grove Drive and Sir Winston Churchill Avenue.
Permitted Residential Uses
No uses are permitted uses in this district.
Analysis
Applicability
This district currently has very limited application, applying only to a handful of developed sites in
Downtown. The application of the district could be expanded, though significant uptake would
be aided by the relaxation of several aspects of the district, most notably the lack of permitted
uses.
Permitted and Discretionary Uses
Making all uses discretionary significantly reduces certainty for applicants regarding what they
can build on the site, discouraging investment.
Setbacks
Indeterminate site setbacks discourage investment by making it difficult for prospective builders
to determine prior to undertaking a permitting exercise how much of the site they will be able to
build on. This could cause designers to be excessively conservative in the hopes of avoiding
design revisions through the permitting process, limiting density and reducing affordability.
Options for Consideration
1. Consider expanding the geographic applicability of the DR land use district to allow for
additional redevelopment.
2. Consider an expansion to the list of permitted uses in the district.
3. Consider amendments to the district to remove building location requirements, instead
governing site open space through site setbacks and lot coverage requirements.
4. Consider amending the district to include a site coverage maximum of 50% (currently not
addressed).
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
11
ESTABLISHED NEIGHBOURHOOD OVERLAY DISTRICT
The Established Neighbourhood Overlay District (Overlay) provides a set of development and
subdivision regulations governing single-detached, semi-detached and duplex development
within 8 identified established neighbourhoods of St. Albert under the R1 and R2 Districts. The
companion Design Guidelines for Compatible Development in Established Neighbourhoods: Low
Density Residential (Infill Guidelines) provide additional direction, but are guidelines only;
guidelines do not have the force of a bylaw and therefore cannot ensure compliance, so the
elements of the Infill Guidelines that are not also embedded in the Overlay are a tool for
persuasion by Development Officers rather than regulation.
Analysis
Existing lots and dwellings in these established neighbourhoods often exceed the minimum
standards stipulated in the R1 and R2 land use districts. For instance, front setbacks in these
older neighbourhoods are typically much greater than the minimum required in the LUB. Lot sizes
in many circumstances are much larger than current district minimums, providing opportunities
for subdivision to smaller lots. The Overlay provides additional requirements regarding building
height and roof design, lot coverage, building depth, vehicular access, setbacks, shadowing,
servicing, landscaping and public consultation to ensure new development is compatible and
more sensitively integrated into the existing neighbourhood.
The companion Design Guidelines for Compatible Development in Established Neighbourhoods:
Low Density Residential (Infill Guidelines) provides some additional direction beyond what is
contained within the Overlay, but are guidelines only. Guidelines do not have the force of a
bylaw and therefore cannot ensure compliance, so the elements of the Infill Guidelines that are
not also embedded in the Overlay are a tool for persuasion by Development Officers rather
than regulation.
The Overlay provides guidance regulatory framework for property owners or developers wishing
to redevelop their sites in established St. Albert neighbourhoods, and give particular attention to
scale and character of new development in order to maintain neighbourhood character. In
some cases, however, the additional layer of development control may limit the developability
of infill sites.
Building Heights
Building height limitations will restrict the floor plate of upper storeys on multi-storey buildings. In
the R1 and R2 Districts, this may be particularly discouraging for up/down duplex development,
for which second or third storey floorplate limitations may significantly reduce floor area for
upper storey units.
Lot Coverage
Lot coverage and building depth limitations linked to development on adjacent sites may be
significantly limiting in cases where lot coverage or building depth in the vicinity is particularly
low, perpetuating low density development patterns. Given that information regarding lot
coverage percentages for neighbouring properties is not readily available to the public; this
requirement also adds a layer of uncertainty regarding the buildable area of any potential infill
lot.
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
12
Corner Lot Setbacks
Staggered setback requirements for corner lots where development faces the flanking street
add a layer of complexity and result in a de facto requirement for customized house designs.
Although this regulation will apply to relatively few properties in the city, this regulation may serve
to discourage the redevelopment of corner lots.
Additional Studies and Requirements
Shadowing studies are an unusual requirement for low density development, and no clear
parameters for assessment are included within the text of the Overlay.
Public consultation requirements for infill properties are modest and at the discretion of the
Development Officer, but additional to those for permits for permitted uses elsewhere in the City,
and may serve to discourage infill redevelopment due to uncertainty regarding how the
concerns of neighbours will be integrated into the development review process. Input from
neighbours
Options for Consideration
1. Consider the removal of the 45 degree angle component of building height limitations
from the Overlay to enhance the attractiveness of up/down duplex housing forms.
2. Consider the removal of lot coverage and building depth limitations linked to existing
development on adjacent sites. Consider the removal of staggered setback
requirements for corner lots.
3. Consider the removal of discretionary powers to request shadowing studies and
consultation with neighbours for these low density development forms.
PARKING REGULATIONS
The minimum parking requirements for all uses are outlined in Part 7 – Parking Regulations, of the
St. Albert Land Use Bylaw.
Private garages
Of particular note is Section 7.2 (4) which states: ”For the purpose of Section 7.3, with the
exception of basement suites, in calculating the minimum parking requirement, parking
accommodated for within private garage spaces shall not be taken into account (BL9/2013)”.
This is an unusual regulation as most municipalities count all of the spaces within private garages
as a parking space. By not counting spaces within garages the City makes it more difficult to
meet off street parking requirements.
Underground parking
Underground parking should be encouraged for apartments, however provision of underground
parking is very cost prohibitive and will increase the cost of units. This is contrary to the objective
of trying to increase affordability. Alternatives could include removing this requirement to allow
the market to determine whether underground parking is a desirable-enough amenity to justify
the added cost, requiring underground parking only for developments above a certain density
(which may serve to undercut demand for developments above the density threshold), to
require only a proportion of parking be provided underground, or to limit the percentage of site
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
13
area that may be devoted to surface parking. Density bonuses could also be considered to
then incentivize the provision of underground parking; in order to be competitive with other
Capital Region municipalities, the density bonus would need to exceed typical density
maximums elsewhere for comparable development to avoid perpetuating the disadvantage.
Surface parking
Screening and locational requirements for surface parking may also mitigate the visual
unattractiveness of permitting surface parking while still offering affordability advantages for
apartment development. Reductions in the requirements for different unit types and sizes could
improve the competitive advantage of developments in St. Albert by reducing development
costs; however, given the automobile dependent character of St. Albert transportation patterns,
a reduction in parking requirements may have the effect of pushing parking onto public streets.
Visitor Parking
One area where the St. Albert LUB is out of step with other Capital Region municipalities is visitor
parking for multi-unit developments. St. Albert requires 1 visitor parking stall per 5 units or portion
thereof developed on a site, whereas many other Capital Region municipalities require less (Fort
Saskatchewan, 1 in 6; Edmonton and Strathcona County, 1 in 7; Spruce Grove, 1 in 10). This
increases development costs, particularly for larger developments, and reduces the
attractiveness of St. Albert as a location of choice for development activity.
Options for Consideration
1. Consider counting parking spaces within private garages towards the satisfaction of
parking requirements for residential uses.
2. Consider allowing surface parking for apartment development, including the following:
o Removing or reducing the requirement for all parking to be provided in
underground parking structures.
o Developing additional landscaping regulations and/or locational requirements to
mitigate the visual impact of surface parking.
o Provide density bonusing for underground parking provision to encourage rather
than require.
3. Consider reducing visitor parking requirements to align with other Capital Region
Municipalities.
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
14
2.0 WHAT WE HEARD – CONSULTATION SUMMARIES
DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDERS – DECEMBER 15, 2015
Twenty people signed into the session. The stakeholders were asked for their opinions on the
advantages and disadvantages of the various housing forms. Then they were asked to
comment on what they can build in St. Albert under the current regulations, what they would
like to build in St. Albert and what was preventing them from doing so. Summaries of the group
discussions are included in Appendix A.
General comments were that the City’s current LUB regulations were preventing the
implementation of best practices, the ability to increase density and to provide a variety of
housing options for all affordability levels.
Lot Sizes and Lot Size Distribution
Many of the attendees indicated that the current lot sizes (minimum lot size) are larger than
many of the lots elsewhere in the region and setback requirements are also greater. The result is
that builders are unable to deliver the more affordable small lot products in St. Albert that they
successfully build and sell in other Capital Region municipalities. Attendees indicated that there
is no opportunity to provide narrower housing types with the current lot size minimums.
They also commented that the required lot distribution criteria in the current LUB is problematic
because it limits the type of product and the amount of product that they can deliver. Many
felt the lot sizes and setbacks were not based on current building practices, building footprints or
current market realities. Houses being built today can allow for equivalent square footage within
a smaller footprint. There is also a market shift toward smaller home sizes. Larger estate and
large suburban type homes are not selling.
Housing Diversity
Some commented that current regulations prevent diversity and affordability. Current
regulations limit townhouse options.
Many commented that flexible subdivision design would allow for more lot variation e.g. wide-
shallow lots, zero lot line, narrow lots and a mix of housing types including mixing multi-family
forms amongst single-detached options providing the opportunity for many more housing forms
(rental and purchase) and levels of affordability.
Cost and Quality
Some commented that smaller lots and homes do not equal a lower quality product. By
allowing smaller sized products the City would decrease servicing costs, increase sustainability,
increase the tax base and increase density necessary for meeting the CRB density targets and
sustainability objectives.
Lanes
The attendees indicated that lane product was seen as one of the best ways to improve
affordability, walkability, improve the streetscape and curb appeal of smaller homes in St. Albert.
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
15
Parking Requirements
Participants indicated that the on-site parking requirements are too restrictive, and suggested
that this could be eased if spaces within garages were counted as parking spaces similar to
other jurisdictions. This would make provision of parking for secondary suites, semi-detached
and townhouses much easier to accommodate on-site.
Green Building Requirements
Participants indicated that the best way to encourage sustainable and green practices was not
via regulation in the LUB but rather incentives like density bonusing for the provision of
sustainable infrastructure (green roofs, rain gardens, etc.) or more efficient construction
practices.
COMMUNITY WORKSHOP – JANUARY 28, 2016
Eighty-one people participated in the community workshop on January 28, 2016. The session
was a drop-in format that allowed participants to review and comment on the information
presented at their own pace. Facilitators were available to answer questions and encourage
discussion.
The workshop consisted of stations detailing the various housing forms on the housing continuum
and asked attendees to indicate by way of a sticker, their support, support with conditions or
non-support of the various housing forms as a way to address the key considerations for the
residential district review: demographic change, affordability, diversity of housing and the need
to support energy efficiency as well as their applicability to the St. Albert context. The tables in
Appendix B summarize the participant responses.
Participants were also allowed to write additional comments regarding the different housing
forms. A summary list of these comments is provided in Appendix B.
The response from the majority of participants indicated a desire to investigate implementing
more of the housing options that were presented at the workshop. Participants were open to
adjustments of the current regulations as well and considering new land use districts in order to
facilitate this. Opportunities for intensification in existing neighbourhoods, e.g. infill, were not
generally supported by participants.
COUNCIL WORKSHOP – MAY 11, 2016
This was a special Council meeting where one of the agenda items included a presentation on
the Limited Land Use Bylaw Review project. The purpose was to provide Council with some
examples of the broad spectrum of housing options that are available, many of which cannot
be implemented in St. Albert due to current restrictions and regulations and highlight the
benefits and challenges of each of the housing forms.
The session included a workshop exercise that was intended to provide Council direction on
whether to proceed with some of the tools that were being recommended. Council was asked
to complete workbooks ranking the various tools to determine how well they met the needs of
the population, improve affordability, provide a mix of housing options, achieve the CRB density
requirements and retain the qualities that make St. Albert special.
Three workbooks were returned. A compilation of the responses in included in Appendix C
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
16
3.0 STRATEGIES
As a result of the review and analysis of the residential Land Use Bylaw Districts, best practices
and the consultation with stakeholders, the public and with St. Albert City Council, the following
strategies where identified.
These strategies build on the four tools presented at the Council workshop being:
Tool #1 – Make adjustments to current districts
Tool #2 – Create new small lot residential districts(s)
Tool #3 – Create a mixed residential district
Tool #4 – Increase the ratio of multi-unit products throughout the community
The strategies will assist in developing the amendments to the Land Use Bylaw. The strategies we
have identified are listed below and the supporting actions and rationale are included in the
tables on the following pages.
Strategy #1: Integrate a broader spectrum of housing forms in residential districts to support the
opportunity for mixed density housing in new and existing neighbourhoods.
Strategy #2: Provide amendments to lot size and building location criteria to align with best
practices in comparator municipalities, while maintaining St. Albert's distinct
character.
Strategy #3: Provide opportunities in specific districts that will support the more efficient use of
urban residential land while providing predictability and transparency to the
development industry
Strategy #4: Provide opportunities for building and site design innovation
Strategy #5: Align amendments with CRB Growth Plan requirements
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
17
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
18
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
19
P
REVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
20
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
21
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
22
APPENDIX A – STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP-DECEMBER 15, 2015
20 attendees
The workshop was divided into two parts. During the first part of the workshop the stakeholders
were asked for their opinions on the advantages and disadvantages of the several varieties of
housing forms that are available along the housing spectrum between single detached home to
high-rise apartments. During Part 2 of the workshop participants were asked to comment on
what they can build in St. Albert under the current regulations, what they would like to build in St.
Albert and what was preventing them from doing so. What follows is a synopsis of the
comments received.
Workshop – Part 1
Overall Group Questions and Comments:
Confirm/identify various housing options?
Identify the advantages and disadvantages of each. How they:
o Address changing demographics
o Improve affordability
o Diversify housing mix
o Become more sustainable/energy efficient
Some examples of various housing forms discussed
Single Detached
(1) Estate
Home
(2) Front
attached
garage
(3&4) Rear
garage
(5) Zero lot line (6&7) Skinny lot
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
23
Duplex Semi-detached
(8&9) Side by
side
(10&11) Front and
back
(12&13) Up and down (14&15) Side-by-side
Townhouses
(17) Street-oriented (18) Stacked (19) Back to Back
Apartment
(20) Low-rise (21) Mid-rise (22) High-rise
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
24
SINGLE DETACHED – ESTATE HOME Advantages Disadvantages
Privacy
Yard space
Green initiatives easier to
implement
Curb appeal
Lack of site constraints
Can be sustainable – owner
resources can help go off
grid, etc.,
May have higher household
density – generational home
Affordability
Poor utilization of land
Servicing costs
Promotes sprawl?
Not a starter home
Lack of walkability-amenities
Least affordable
Decreased appetite for this
type of home
Can be prime candidates for
infill
Does not diversify housing mix
– already many here
Higher side yard requirements
Drives home price up – CRB
now compliance
Lots are too big
Lot distribution negatively
affected
Too many estate lots now
SINGLE DETACHED – FRONT GARAGE Advantages Disadvantages
Maintenance for St. Albert As lot width narrow curb
appeal lessens
Parking restrictions
General comments
Depends on form – Large 1960ish style of smaller neo-traditional
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
25
SINGLE DETACHED - REAR GARAGE (LANE REQUIRED) Advantages Disadvantages
Curb appeal
Landscaping
Parking +/-
Affordable
House closer to street
Surveillance of street
Community – see each other
Use front porch
Highest demand product
50% of lots should be built this
way
Smaller sideyards/lots =
increased affordability
Could allow for wide/shallow
builds
Allow for single garage
Many similarities to estate
homes
Adding lanes opens up
options and increase safety
(CEPTD), streetscape increase
Should raise densities for these
products, and decrease sizes
to increase affordability
LEED communities MUST have
lanes
Options 3-7 (see pgs. 25-26)–
all improve affordability and
diversity but not allowed now
Options 8-13 (see pgs. 25 -
26)great ideas, all answers our
4 criteria but need lanes to
work
With Lane product missing -
entry level market is missing
With Lane product missing -
Streetscaping suffers
Lane product is #1 desired
improvement to LUB
o Walkability
o Streetscape
o More landscaping on street
parking
o Increase snow storage
Utility infrastructure in the
back lane
o Repair costs decrease
Maintain alley
Potentially smaller yard
Potentially no one watching
back – garage
Lane not as interactive
Need appropriate lot widths
to look good
Infills are not very affordable
and don’t really increase
density unless serval homes
become an apartment bldg.
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
26
General comments
Bylaw shouldn’t dictate lot size mix
Option 5 – improves architectural opportunities, can increase streetscape
Options 17 – can’t have front garages – need rear entry to look good
Option18 – Patio penthouse – could have a place here
* no mention of townhouse with front garage
*need to update LUB based on CRB density regulation.
*setbacks need to also shift, as well as lot widths and depths
*reduce road widths to change housing
*new engineering standards would increase affordability
Increased access to transit – can push it by decrease allowable parking
ZERO LOT LINE/SKINNIES/NARROW Advantages Disadvantages
Affordability
o Narrower lot
Higher density
Can be attractive if garage @
back
No party wall
In its true form – there is no
discernable difference
Design limitations
o Code – re: zero lot line
Less privacy
Neighbour conflicts
General comments
Skinny – infill
Increase existing density
no opportunity for skinny
o Due to lot street and parking requirement
DUPLEX/SEMIS/TOWN HOUSE Advantages Disadvantages
Affordability
Increase Density
Energy Efficient
Improved Security
Neighbor conflicts
Less privacy
Design restrictions
Parking – 2 families occupying
space of one
Duplex-on single title not
attractive due to ownership
conflicts
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
27
MULTIS – APARTMENTS Advantages Disadvantages
Density
Affordability
Maintenance
Caters to demographic
change
Build around transit
Maintenance
Less privacy
Neighbour conflict
Parking
Traffic
Lack of storage
Less amenity space
MISSING HOUSING FORMS
Participants were asked which housing forms were missing from our list.
Shallow / wide lots
Freehold townhouses / freehold
back to back
Front access/rear access semi-det.
Zero lot line
Rear lane access, park / greenspace
frontage (reverse housing)
Lane additions to all build types
Lane based housing
Skinny houses
Patio penthouse
Stacked back-to-back
Live/work units
Tiny homes
Garage suites
Manufactured homes
Rear detached garage, front access
Front drive townhouse single garage
2 main constraints
o No lanes
o Parking allowance of 2
stalls/unit
Can resolve snow removal/garbage
issues by building streets with
complementary products
Get rid of lot distributions – no further
need for so many estate homes
Remove side yard width variations
Lane product
wide shallows
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
28
GENERAL COMMENTS
SETBACKS
Side yard is larger than other regions
o This increases the prices by
approximately $10,000
o Should be 4’ like everywhere
else
balance with code requirements (i.e.
window wells)
side yard size & affordability are
related (lot size in general)
o Density targets
Front yard setbacks are too arbitrary
o Should be measured from
back of sidewalk to front of
garage
o standard parking length
o Don’t base on property line
o Fencing/repairs – utilities –
engineering standards need
to be more consistent
desire smaller rear yards
o wide shallows (missing)
PARKING
parking requirement for generational
homes too much
o parkades cost
Bunt + Associates study - every
rideshare can decrease parking by 4
stalls
Parking is a key factor / constraint for
product
LIMITATIONS
Min lot size and min parking
requirements – kill affordable
product
Current lot widths are too arbitrary
o Should be reorganized
o not based on building
envelopes
No mandatory distribution!
Need better town house regulations,
i.e. stacked and back to back
Bylaw regulations currently prevent
diversity of affordability product
Front/back splits – desired product
(#11)
o Townhouse (e.g. in
Rutherford)
Want more variety
semi-detached at grade, no
garages
stacked townhouses – good for
seniors (ground level)
Greatest issues!!
o Need Lane product
o Eliminate lot mix
o Parking requirements too
restrictive
MARKET DEMANDS
Market should influence the LUB –
not vice versa
o Market responsive
communities experience
greater growth
o Current bylaw dictates the
market
Market is demanding sustainability
o Help industry respond timely
and effectively to the market
o LUB should not impede
innovation and market
response
Need flexibility to respond to market
LUB shall not dictate the market, but
allow the market & industry to
provide opportunity for growth
“Why do you want to live in St.
Albert?”
o Population aging, increase
demographic
human needs drive housing
types/shifts; i.e. divorce –
affordability
o average house price
Infill - does the city have a mandate
to increase density in old areas
o Architectural standards are a
key piece compatible
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
29
SMALLER LOTS
Smaller does not equal lower quality
o Increase density
o Increase sustainability
o Decrease servicing costs
o Increase tax base
Shift is now for home size reduction
o Estate homes are not selling
SUSTAINABILITY
City should not mandate
sustainability through the LUB
o Should use density
Sustainability equals density,
diversity, incent the program
Innovation is limited
Density is “green”
o Attached is far more efficient
than detached
LUB is too restrictive for “green”
community i.e. LEED community
o it is as if the City does not
want best practices
Workshop – Part 2
Participants were asked the following questions. The following responses were received.
In St. Albert…
What can you build today? No lane front attached
Duplex – detach
Infills
Estate
Low/med rise apt
Single family
Townhouses (front attached garage)
What would you like to build? Lane product
Duplex with basement suite or
garden/garage suites
Zero lot line
St. oriented townhouse (freehold)
Back to back townhouses/duplexes
Walk ups
Condominium units
What is preventing you from building it? Parking requirements
Street oriented townhouse parking
for front attached physically not
possible
Lane product = smaller front yard
+/or shorter lot altogether
Lot width mix – lot distribution
o CRB density contradicts
Much too prescriptive in St. Albert
o Not market responsive
Price of oil
Single detached with 1 car garage is
not efficient lot use
o i.e. duplex remain side yard
regulations no sliding scale
o triple garage d/w width is too
small
d/w width is too prescriptive
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
1
What environmental/green initiatives should be considered as part of
this review? bldg. code has this covered
density = more green
incentives / competitive advantage
o i.e. reduction in required
parking
LUB should not mandate green, but
encourage thru incentives
Engineering standards /
administration
GENERAL COMMENTS POLICY
Want flexibility to build what market
demands
Lanes allow for LEED certification
LUB needs to be built to include
frequent and required updates
Get rid of lot mix ratio
LUB is preventing implementation of
best practices, increase density, etc.
Don’t use LUB to create incentives
for green initiatives – place other
instruments
Will need engineering standards
review once LUB is updates
Street/onsite parking dimensions are
not the same
BUILT FORM
Freehold townhouses/back to back
Anything that needs lanes
Rooftop decks/higher products
Drive under garages
Narrower unites with single
garage/single pad
Garage has to count as a parking
space
Make duplex/triplex flexible to be
either single or multi-density
ALIGN WITH REGIONAL STANDARDS
Need to align with other CRB muni’s
Changes should be towards
standardization with CRB muni’s –
being too innovative or different will
be just as bad as now
Spruce Grove LUB would be a good
template
o Not prescriptive, very simple
Airdrie is also a good example
SETBACKS
Setbacks don’t align to build form
Forces people to buy more lot than
they want – larger than regional
standard
Setback has to match actual build
Setback should measure from back
of sidewalk not edge of road due to
huge boulevards
Lot coverage percentage – set for
primary and 2 degrees bldgs. Or
overall coverage – just make more
flexible.
CONCLUSION The Stakeholders indicated that they felt the current Land Use Bylaw regulations for the City of St.
Albert were too prescriptive and overly complicated, particularly in relation to other regional
comparators. There was particular frustration with the lot distribution ratios in the Land Use Bylaw
stating they unnecessarily limit the ability to provide narrower lot housing products which could
assist with affordability. The Stakeholders also suggested that St. Albert should consider allowing
some laned product which would permit a greater variety of housing options.
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
31
APPENDIX B – COMMUNITY WORKSHOP -JANUARY 28, 2016
80 attendees
The session was a drop-in format. The workshop consisted of stations detailing the examples of
various housing forms on the housing spectrum and attendees were asked to indicate by way of
a sticker, their support, cautionary support or non-support of the various housing forms.
Single Family Dwellings
SUPPORT
Garden suites are ideal for keeping
senior family members close to relations
while providing independence. Ideal
for handicapped family members with
in care support
Secondary suites help first time renters
(youth) and young families buying first
homes - $ towards mortgage
I am okay with back lanes on collector
roads
More bungalows – no more huge
places
More exciting downtown
One of the best options for sure
innovative housing design and better
use of land, opens door to entry-level
home ownership re: narrow lots
Keeping young people in the
community is important
Young families help keep school viable
o School programming
CAUTIONARY
Tax assessment needs to be considered
Ensure there is enough parking for all
options
Plaza style, i.e. central place that brings
people together to a central location
and build community
Good parking a must
Zero lot lines need to be with lanes
Back alleys need arch controls – needs
to look attractive
Like narrow lots & zero lot line better
than with lane with attached garages.
The latter have very small back yards &
lanes which have safety &
maintenance concerns
Need adequately sized school sites in
the neighbourhood planning process
Snow storage is an issue
AGAINST
Not interested in being Edmonton
Mother-in-law suites are not in spectrum
Lanes: park and maintaining an alley is
a concern
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
32
The graph below shows the number of dots that were counted in each of the columns:
Multi Family Dwellings
SUPPORT
More housing on the land we have
available
Answer lies in diversity and choice
Some people will prefer smaller yards
and St. Albert doesn’t offer much
townhouse duplex.
Need more choice to allow for
affordable options
Up/down duplex’s should not be
delegated to specific areas/zones,
allow everywhere.
More affordable is important for
young families with fewer dollars to
spend.
Would like to see more housing
diversity as they have in Edmonton,
Spruce Grove, etc.
Boarding houses should be an option
– Especially good option as an
alternative to large expensive seniors
complexes (in short supply)
higher density in new areas
2nd unit is great affordable housing
and mortgage helper.
CAUTIONARY
Design controls and good
landscaping are really important.
More diversity of builders in each
neighbourhood to give more options
of housing type and designs.
Secondary suites great for
affordability, but don’t work well for
accessibility and can be dark in
basements – Garden suites could be
better options for seniors.
Infill needs to be where services are,
especially for seniors.
Anticipation growth of young
families with these housing options is
great. Therefore need more school
sites and adequate school sites.
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Estate
Home
Front
Attached
Garage (no
lane)
With Lane
rear
attached
garage
Zero lot line Narrow lots Garage
Suite
Garden
Suite
Secondary
Suites
Mixed Use
Fully Support Support with Conditions Don’t Support
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
33
How would backyard secondary
suites handle current setback
requirements of a primary house?
Okay with back lanes on collectors
but must build garage.
Multifamily shouldn’t really include
duplex.
Privately owned/maintained lanes
might be a better alternative to
public lanes – maintenance costs
not borne by taxpayer and owners
may take better care.
Town houses and stacked
townhouses with multiple storeys
need elevators – otherwise won’t
work for seniors.
Owner occupied being more
positive with respect to suites – more
choosy and better oversite.
Design – look and feel is important
Better public transit needs to be
provided in density increases.
AGAINST
More likely to have conflicts
between neighbours when you
share walls driveways.
Subdivision designs are ugly. Older
neighbourhoods are better – more
colour, size, type diversity
Concern with security of lanes,
Especially for seniors
Don’t like lanes – messy and unsafe.
No lanes is a distinct St. Albert
characteristic
Narrower housing types don’t work
very well without lanes – parking
takes over.
Higher density can be a real
challenge for parking – same
number of cars but less space.
Higher density makes for congestion
– parking and traffic (snow clearing)
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
34
The graph below shows the number of dots that were counted in each of the column
A Side by side, front attached garage
B Street-oriented Townhouse or Rowhouse, with or without front garages
C Stacked Townhouse
D Back to back Townhouse
E Front/back Duplex, front attached garage
F Front/back Duplex, with lane
G Up/down Duplex
H Side by side, with lane
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
A B C D E F G H
Multifamily
Don’t Support
Support with Conditions
Fully Support
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
35
Mixed Use Neighbourhoods
SUPPORT
Yes to infill
Yes to infill
Ageing is place-key - supported!
Then, supports in various levels of
need. Affordable!
CAUTIONARY
Consider parking exclusive to
residents given mixed use
neighborhoods attract
outsiders/non-residents who come to
the area to shop or work
Need to make housing areas more
attractive by a variety of colours,
sizes, shapes – today’s subdivisions
are boring!
Support with conditions. Need green
space integrated in these
communities, parking needs to be
addressed.
Definitely a broader range of
housing options needed for seniors &
empty nesters & youth & young
families. Keep them in St. Albert.
As we grow through density, need
better transportation system in town
and to Edmonton.
Provide a certain percentage of
each type in a neighborhood, some
affordable in each.
Ensure proper amenities for desired
resident mix are included in the
planning i.e. If the focus of an area is
to attract young low income
families, then access to schools,
parks, transportation are needed.
Don’t try to just hit a magic percent,
mix in each area
Ensure housing mix includes future
tax revenues in planning phase.
AGAINST
No infill in existing neighbourhoods
No to infill
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
36
Apartments
Comments
Low Rise
Apartments
(2 to 4 storeys)
Mid-rise
Apartments
(5 to 10
storeys)
High-rise
Apartments
(10 storeys
plus)
Mixed Use
Apartments
Challenges Wood frame
Noise
Transmission
Parking
Parking, s/b
mostly
underground
Emergency
Response
Difficulties
New
Neighbourhoods
In Existing
Neighbourhoods
Corner lot.
E.g. or buffer
to shopping
River
Downtown On corner of
arterial and
collector
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Low Rise Apartments (1 to 4 storeys)
Mid-rise Apartments (5 to 10 storeys)
High-rise Apartments (10 storeys plus)
Mixed Use Apartments
Where should they be located?
New Neighbourhoods
In Existing Neighbourhoods
Downtown
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
37
Low Rise
Apartments
(2 to 4 storeys)
Mid-rise
Apartments
(5 to 10
storeys)
High-rise
Apartments
(10 storeys
plus)
Mixed Use
Apartments
Other
By transit stop.
Need more of
this to meet
demand. There
are not
enough
(modern,
clean)
affordable +
options to
need demand.
Re: multi-story:
modern
affordable
No wood
frame
apartments
Transit oriented
development
Appropriate
everywhere.
Good infill
require in new
development
Nowhere! Nowhere!
Not here
Not here
No (x7)
We need to
think about this
seriously if we
ever want to
keep taxes
lower. Density
is the way to
share costs
over the
greatest # of
people
TOD or
Downtown
corridor
commercial
Nowhere!
Keep these
lower
Okay if lowrise
9-10 storeys or
less
Great for
downtown
vitalization let’s
think beyond
1985
Seniors service
on ground
floor
General Comments
SUPPORT
All ages and stages have a need for
housing options. Need to consider and be
open to densification to keep taxes lower.
Spread the costs over greatest number of
people. 4/5 story buildings today won’t be
enough to deal with future pressures.
Neighborhoods need to be designed with
ALL housing types: single family, multifamily,
apartments. Do not let developers dictate
density.
CAUTIONARY
Economic analysis is needed or else there is
a major cross-subsidization of smaller low
value houses by single family homes in St
Albert
Conclusion
It appears from the responses of those in attendance, that attendees were open to considering
additional housing forms over what is currently allowed in St. Albert, as long as the development
be properly managed and controlled.
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
38
APPENDIX C – COUNCIL WORKSHOP –MAY 11, 2016
Workbook results – 3 workbooks received
Tool #1 – Adjustments to current districts
Tool #2 – Create new small lot residential districts(s)
Tool #3 – Create mixed residential district
Tool #4 – Increase ration of multi-unit products
1. MEETS THE CHANGING DEMOGRAPHIC NEEDS OF ALL ST. ALBERT RESIDENTS.
a) Jim and Anita (mid-aged couple – children can’t afford to live in St. Albert)
Strongly
Agree Agree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Tool #1 1 1 1
Tool #2 2 1
Tool #3 2 1
Tool #4 1 1 1
b) Margaret (elderly - can’t keep up her home, wants to stay in St. Albert)
Strongly
Agree Agree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Tool #1 1 1 1
Tool #2 1 2
Tool #3 1 1 1
Tool #4 1 1 1
c) The Albertsons (young family – can’t afford a house in St. Albert)
Strongly
Agree Agree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Tool #1 1 1 1
Tool #2 2 1
Tool #3 1 1 1
Tool #4 1 1 1
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
39
d) Rebecca (single young person –still living at home)
Strongly
Agree Agree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Tool #1 1 1 1
Tool #2 1 1 1
Tool #3 1 2
Tool #4 1 2
e) Paulo (employed in St. Albert – can’t afford to live in St. Albert)
Strongly
Agree Agree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Tool #1 1 1 1
Tool #2 1 1 1
Tool #3 1 1 1
Tool #4 1 1 1
f) Evan (Kid - Mom can’t afford a house. the apartment he lives in won’t let him keep his
dog)
Strongly
Agree Agree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Tool #1 1 1 1
Tool #2 1 1 1
Tool #3 1 1 1
Tool #4 2 1
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
40
2. IMPROVES AFFORDABILITY.
Strongly
Agree Agree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Tool #1 1 1 1
Tool #2 1 2
Tool #3 2 1
Tool #4 2 1
3. PROVIDES A MIX OF HOUSING (AND TENURE) OPTIONS
Strongly
Agree Agree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Tool #1 1 1 1
Tool #2 1 2
Tool #3 2 1
Tool #4 2 1
4. MEETS CRB DENSITY AND INTENSIFICATION TARGETS
Strongly
Agree Agree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Tool #1 2 1
Tool #2 1 2
Tool #3 2 1
Tool #4 2 1
5. RETAINS THE CHARACTERISTICS THAT MAKE ST. ALBERT – ST. ALBERT
Strongly
Agree Agree
Neither Agree
Nor Disagree Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
Tool #1 1 2
Tool #2 2 1
Tool #3 2 1
Tool #4 1 1 1
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
41
Make adjustments to existing districts
Fully Support Support with Conditions Don’t support
Tool #1
Comes with
adequate
community
engagement and
understanding
Tool #2 Address fire code
Tool #3 This is a departure
Tool #4
Additional comments
Tool 1 -Adjustments to current districts
Keep the front trees intact when you/city does this
If one can’t afford it, any dwelling other than a homeless shelter will do
Really, it costs more to live in St. Albert than Fox Creek or Medicine Hat or Edmonton or
Stony Plain?
Adjustments to parking requirements may add strength to current district analysis
Current districting is responsible for a great community we have minor adjustments may
take us where we want to go.
Tool 2- Create new small lot residential districts(s)
How about taller with wider side yards (i.e. 3 storey)
Reminder lanes are not an option
I don’t understand “can’t afford to live in St. albert” meaning not even Big Lake Point
The new districts if not managed correctly will lead to a stratified community (rich areas
and poor areas)
St. Albert has some of this now – don’t need to reinforce it
Tool 3- Create mixed residential district
Remember back alleys are not an option; modular’s are.
So you introduced lanes (aka, back alleys) but not a modular home park, not a homeless
shelter, not a modular home district. Why did you cherry pick back alleys? That have
motions not to allow.
This option will need to be managed but may have the best opportunity to meet the
housing needs of the future.
Tool 4-– Increase ration of multi-unit products
No comments
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS
SUMMARY
42
Other comments
Do not make adjustments to existing districts
Option = Tool 3 without back alleys
Tell us in order of priority which of these tools you would like us to implement.
Tool #1
Make adjustments to
existing districts
Tool #2
Create new small lot
residential districts
Tool #3
Create a mixed
residential district
Tool #4
Increase the ratio of
multi-unit products
yes yes no yes
2 1 3 4
4 3 2 1
no no no yes
Conclusion
Due to the limited number of workbooks received and the diversity of the answers it is difficult to
determine any specific direction from the responses on which Land Use Bylaw tool or tools
should be considered.
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 2 - JULY 11, 2016
LUB RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AMENDMENT PROCESS JULY 2016
Stage 1 Information Gathering
Best Practices Report
Community Engagment
Stage 2 Amendment Development
Draft Amendments
Community Engagment (2 events)
Refine Amendments
Stage 3 Implementation
Public Hearing
Present Amendments for Council Consideration
Approval and Implementaton
Q4 2015 Q4, 2016
Industry
General Public
Council
We Are
Here
All Stakeholders
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 3 - JULY 11, 2016
PREVIOUS COUNCIL MOTIONS RELATIVE TO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT DESIGN
March 16, 2015:
(C136-2015) That any references to back alley/lanes be removed from the Housing Diversity Action Plan dated March 2015. (C135-2015) That the "Housing Diversity Action Plan", provided as Attachment 1 to the March 16, 2015 agenda report entitled "Housing Diversity Action Plan Agenda - Final Report", as amended, be received as information.
December 3, 2012:
(C565-2012) That the Engineering Standards Design Principles, as recommended by Administration identified as Table 1.0 of Attachment 1 to the Engineering Standards Update Report dated December 3, 2012 be approved, with the exception of Standards #11 &12.
April 26, 2010:
(C241-2010) That the "St. Albert Model for Future Growth" will provide a plan to continue moving toward the Capital Region Board's density targets for St. Albert. (C243-2010) That the "St. Albert Model for Future Growth" will not include back alleys. (C255-2010) That Administration, following an administrative review of the Municipal Development Plan for motions previously introduced by Council, bring forward a business case, a proposed Land Use Bylaw, including all changes appropriate to be considered, including Form Based Regulations considerations versus Land Use Bylaw considerations.
PREVIO
USLY
DIS
TRIB
UTE
D
ATTACHMENT 4 - JULY 11, 2016