: land use bylaw residential district amendment...

City Council Agenda

August 22, 2016/ 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


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


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


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


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


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


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


(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


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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 2

Land Use Bylaw

Residential Districts Review

District Analysis Summary

PREVIO

USLY

DIS

TRIB

UTE

D


ATTACHMENT 2

PREVIO

USLY

DIS

TRIB

UTE

D


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


ST. ALBERT LAND USE BYLAW ATTACHMENT 2 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT ANALYSIS

SUMMARY

1

PREVIO

USLY

DIS

TRIB

UTE

D



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



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



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



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.


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



SUMMARY

6


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



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.


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.


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



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.


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



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



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.


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.



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



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.


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.


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



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



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


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



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.


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



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



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



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



SUMMARY

17

PREVIO

USLY

DIS

TRIB

UTE

D



SUMMARY

18

PREVIO

USLY

DIS

TRIB

UTE

D



SUMMARY

19

P

REVIO

USLY

DIS

TRIB

UTE

D



SUMMARY

20

PREVIO

USLY

DIS

TRIB

UTE

D



SUMMARY

21

PREVIO

USLY

DIS

TRIB

UTE

D



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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



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


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


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



SUMMARY

39

d) Rebecca (single young person –still living at home)

Strongly

Agree Agree

Neither Agree


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


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


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



SUMMARY

40

2. IMPROVES AFFORDABILITY.

Strongly

Agree Agree

Neither Agree


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


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


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


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



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



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


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


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


: land use bylaw residential district amendment...

Documents