CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

Transcription

1 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: (C ) That Council provide workbook feedback, Workshop Exercise #2, to Administration by Friday May 20, City Council Agenda July 11, 2016/ Page 1 File No.:B06

2 (C ) 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, 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, forprofit, 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. City Council Agenda July 11, 2016/ Page 2 File No.:B06

3 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. City Council Agenda July 11, 2016/ Page 3 File No.:B06

4 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, City Council Agenda July 11, 2016/ Page 4 File No.:B06

5 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, 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 City Council Agenda July 11, 2016/ Page 5 File No.:B06

6 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 deeplyrooted 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 City Council Agenda July 11, 2016/ Page 6 File No.:B06

7 Attachments 1. LUB Residential District Amendment Strategies 2. Land Use Bylaw Residential Districts Review, District Analysis Summary 3. LUB Residential District Amendment Process 4. Previous Council Motions Relative to Residential District Design Originating Department(s): Author(s): General Manager Approval: City Manager Signature: Planning & Development Lory Scott, Affordable Housing Liaison Gilles Prefontaine, Chief Community Development Officer Date: City Council Agenda July 11, 2016/ Page 7 File No.:B06

8 ATTACHMENT 1 LUB RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AMENDMENT STRATEGIES STRATEGY #1: INTEGRATE A BROADER SPECTRUM OF HOUSING FORMS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS TO SUPPORT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR MIXED DENSITY HOUSING SUGGESTED ACTIONS: 1.1 Broaden options for secondary suites including above garage suites, garden suites and above grade suites, where suitable. 1.2 Broaden multi-family housing form definitions Broaden discretionary and permitted housing forms in current districts Broaden uses in current districts i.e. child care and seniors care, home based businesses Broaden Established Neighbourhood District requirements to encourage multi-family infill transition and reinvestment RATIONALE: Secondary suites provide opportunities for seniors and youth to remain close to family in existing neighbourhoods. At grade or above-grade suites are more suitable for seniors and persons with disabilities than basement suites. Secondary suites maintain single family character in existing neighbourhoods Provide an affordable option for tenants and are a mortgage helper for the homeowner Triplex and fourplex housing forms do not have their own definition. Current townhouse definition is geared towards large scale developments and is not suited for smaller developments Discretionary uses tend to be used in very limited circumstances, and do not provide certainty to the development industry Encourages incremental densification without major redistricting changes Uses in districts are limited and are not reflective of current trends Re-investment in existing neighbourhoods is needed beyond large home redevelopment. Multi-family street-oriented infill will provide incremental densification while retaining the character of the neighbourhood Contributes to intensification targets Page 1 of 5

9 ATTACHMENT 1 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. SUGGESTED ACTIONS: 2.1 Broaden regulations to permit zero lot line developments Broaden opportunities for narrow lots Increase permitted site coverage 2.4 Simplify sideyard setback requirements to minimize complexity RATIONALE: 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 Assists in increasing density and providing affordable housing options Maintains single family character with moderate density increases If implemented in established neighbourhoods contributes to intensification targets Allows for increased densities in alignment with CRB density targets Provides for more efficient use of land Current side yard requirements are confusing and vary based on built form, building height and lot width Requirements are inconsistent between districts that permit 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) Page 2 of 5

10 ATTACHMENT 1 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. SUGGESTED ACTIONS: RATIONALE: 2.5 Reduce lot width requirements for duplexes 2.6 Increase maximum permitted site coverage In the Downtown District remove building location requirements and increase site coverage Count parking spaces within private garages towards the satisfaction of parking requirements for residential uses Reduce visitor parking requirements to align with other Capital Region municipalities Broaden opportunities to more easily accommodate semi-detached and duplex units in mature areas where lanes exist Lot width requirements are too restrictive to encourage this type of housing form Reducing minimum lot width would enable alternative duplex housing forms Site coverage requirements do not align with comparator municipalities Large yards are becoming less desirable due to waning interest in maintaining them Fewer restrictions would encourage development opportunities Counting garage spaces provides more efficient use of land, and is in alignment with best management practices in comparator municipalities Enables more units to be built on a site within current densities, providing increased revenue to the City Meeting existing parking stall requirements without counting garage spaces is difficult Recommended to align with best practices in comparator communities Existing neighbourhoods with lanes provide redevelopment opportunities that cannot be accommodated in areas without rear property access Provides housing options Contributes to intensification targets Page 3 of 5

11 ATTACHMENT 1 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 SUGGESTED ACTIONS: Group comparable uses of similar form and character into districts Provide clarity to confusing and conflicting requirements. Provide greater incentives for density bonus of desired attributes (e.g. underground parking, affordable units, additional amenities, etc) 3.4 Simplify or remove lot width distribution ratios RATIONALE: Will enable a wider range of compatible uses in districts without increasing the complexity of the bylaw or necessitating recurring updates Provides more diverse housing opportunities in existing districts Govern open space through site setbacks and lot coverage requirements Rationalization will provide better clarity and consistency between districts Current density bonus requirements are not high enough to encourage development Amenity bonus must equal or exceed amenity cost to be a serious consideration 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 Page 4 of 5

12 ATTACHMENT 1 STRATEGY #4: PROVIDE OPPORTUNITIES FOR BUILDING AND SITE DESIGN INNOVATION SUGGESTED ACTIONS: 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) RATIONALE: Providing opportunities for flexibility will enable the City to negotiate for desired elements Environmentally sustainable development can be achieved utilizing this method STRATEGY #5: ALIGN AMENDMENTS WITH CAPITAL REGION BOARD GROWTH PLAN REQUIREMENTS SUGGESTED ACTIONS: 5.1 Provide opportunities for infill densification in select areas RATIONALE: Existing areas with lanes or sites adjacent to future transit corridors, and corner lots are more appropriate for development transition areas Will help achieve CRB intensification targets 5.2 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 5.4 Increase the maximum densities permitted in districts Will enable Transit Oriented Development (TOD) and mixed residential districts where appropriate Design neighbourhoods so private vehicle use is not a necessity CRB Density requirements can be more easily met Aligns with density requirements in comparator municipalities Page 5 of 5

13 ATTACHMENT 2 Land Use Bylaw Residential Districts Review District Analysis Summary

14 ATTACHMENT 2

15 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 ESTABLISHED NEIGHBOURHOOD OVERLAY DISTRICT PARKING REGULATIONS WHAT WE HEARD CONSULTATION SUMMARIES DEVELOPMENT INDUSTRY STAKEHOLDERS DECEMBER 15, COMMUNITY WORKSHOP JANUARY 28, COUNCIL WORKSHOP MAY 11, STRATEGIES APPENDIX A STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP-DECEMBER 15, APPENDIX B COMMUNITY WORKSHOP -JANUARY 28, APPENDIX C COUNCIL WORKSHOP MAY 11,

16 1

17 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 2

18 R1 DISTRICT The Low Density Residential (R1) Land Use District is intended to provide an area for singledetached 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 3

19 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. 4

20 R2 DISTRICT The Low Density Residential (R2) Land Use District provides for an area for duplex and semidetached housing and other development compatible with the low density residential nature of the district. This district allows for low-density residential uses with up to two dwelling units. Permitted Residential Uses Duplex, semi-detached housing, single-detached house, basement suite associated with a single-detached house. Analysis Parking Meeting existing parking requirements for semi-detached and duplex units is difficult. The requirement is 2 on-site stalls per unit (exclusive of the garage). Only in established neighbourhoods where lanes exist can the requirement for four on-site parking stalls be easily met for these housing types. Corner Lots Corner lot provisions which require duplexes to have a minimum 15 m lot width and a minimum lot area of 460 m 2 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. 5

21 Options for Consideration 1. Consider amending the bylaw to permit all garage space to be counted towards parking stall requirements. 2. Consider simplifying side yard setback requirements to reduce differences with the R1 District, and to remove height and roof pitch conditions. 3. Consider amending regulations for duplex housing to make this housing form more feasible, in particular reducing lot size and width requirements. 4. Consider reducing side yard requirements for corner lots to more easily permit garage access to the flanking roadway. 5. Consider expanding the list of uses to include small townhouse projects, with accompanying development regulations. 6. Consider amendments to more easily accommodate semi-detached and duplex units in mature areas where lanes exist. 6

22 R3 DISTRICT The Medium Density Residential (R3) Land Use District, provides for an area for townhousing compatible with the medium density residential nature of the district. This district is primarily for the development of townhousing. The district also allows for small apartments on a discretionary basis, and semi-detached housing in limited locations, also on a discretionary basis. Permitted Residential Uses Townhousing Density Maximum of 35 units/ha. Analysis Density The maximum density permitted under the R3 District is 35 units/ha, which is low for townhouse product. Street oriented townhousing typically achieves at least 35 units/ha, with developments on larger project sites and those with underground parking often achieving significantly more. Although density bonusing is provided for in the zone, allowing up to 10 units/ha of additional density if underground parking or other site design improvements are pursued, the incentives are of minimal benefit to street-oriented townhouse projects intended to be sold as independentlyowned 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 semidetached dwellings in the R1 and R2 Districts. As townhouses are similar in side profile massing and height to single-detached and semi-detached homes, there seems little reason to require additional setbacks for this dwelling type. Lot Coverage Maximum lot coverage for townhouses in the R3 District is less than those in comparable zones in other Alberta municipalities (at least 45% and as much as 57% in Strathcona County, Spruce Grove, Leduc, Lethbridge and Edmonton). This undercuts the affordability of the land component, requiring a larger site area to develop comparably sized units. Options for Consideration 1. Consider increases to the maximum density permitted for the district. 2. Consider increases to the maximum site coverage permitted for the district. 3. Consider simplification and reduction of side yard requirements for townhouses. 7

23 R3A DISTRICT The purpose of the Medium Density Residential (R3A) Land Use District is to provide an area for apartment buildings and townhousing compatible with the medium density residential nature of the district. Permitted Residential Uses Townhousing, apartment buildings. Analysis The R3A District provides for low-rise apartment development. Modifications could be pursued to make low-rise apartment more attractive for development. Building Heights The current height maximum in the R3A District may overly restrict storey height; increasing the height maximum may provide additional incentive to make use of the district. Side Yards Maximum side yard requirements could be considered to limit the amount of site area lost to side yards if maximum heights are pursued, as well as simplification and reduction of building separation space requirements. Density Density maximums of 94 units/ha, although in general accordance with development practice in the Capital Region (low-rise apartments are typically being constructed at densities of units/ha) could be increased somewhat to provide additional incentive to build this type of housing. Maximum site coverage is not addressed in but should be considered Options for Consideration 1. Consider increases to the maximum density permitted for the district. 2. Consider increases to the maximum height permitted for the district. 3. Consider simplification of side yard setback requirements. 4. Consider adding site coverage maximum for apartment housing 8

24 R4 DISTRICT The purpose of the Medium/High Density Residential District is to provide an area for medium to higher density multi-unit residential development. Permitted Residential Uses Apartment buildings, stacked townhousing. Townhouse Developments Townhousing must comply with the development regulations of the R3 district (see Section 3.3 above). Analysis Building Heights The R4 District permits heights of up to 25 m, equivalent to approximately 8 storeys (and up to 35 m at the discretion of the Development Officer). Although this district provides for adequate height, the maximum density of 141 units/ha is moderate for this type of development, meaning the density and affordability benefits of mid-rise development may not be maximized, and the cost effectiveness of mid-rise construction may be challenging. The DR District permits the same maximum density within a maximum building height of 15 m (with the potential for increase up to 20 m). Proportionately, the additional height permitted would suggest that a maximum density of 235 u/ha might be appropriate for the R4 District. This is comparable to densities permitted under Edmonton s RA8 Medium Rise Apartment Zone. Options for Consideration 1. Consider increases to the maximum density permitted for the district. 2. Consider amendments to the district to remove building location requirements, instead governing site open space through site setbacks and lot coverage requirements. 3. Consider amending the district to include a site coverage maximum of 50% (currently not addressed). 9

25 DOWNTOWN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT The purpose of the Downtown Residential District is to provide an area for a high density residential development in the downtown area. Apartment buildings and stacked townhousing are listed as discretionary uses. This district is currently applied to five properties in the vicinity of Green Grove Drive and Sir Winston Churchill Avenue. Permitted Residential Uses No uses are permitted uses in this district. Analysis Applicability This district currently has very limited application, applying only to a handful of developed sites in Downtown. The application of the district could be expanded, though significant uptake would be aided by the relaxation of several aspects of the district, most notably the lack of permitted uses. Permitted and Discretionary Uses Making all uses discretionary significantly reduces certainty for applicants regarding what they can build on the site, discouraging investment. Setbacks Indeterminate site setbacks discourage investment by making it difficult for prospective builders to determine prior to undertaking a permitting exercise how much of the site they will be able to build on. This could cause designers to be excessively conservative in the hopes of avoiding design revisions through the permitting process, limiting density and reducing affordability. Options for Consideration 1. Consider expanding the geographic applicability of the DR land use district to allow for additional redevelopment. 2. Consider an expansion to the list of permitted uses in the district. 3. Consider amendments to the district to remove building location requirements, instead governing site open space through site setbacks and lot coverage requirements. 4. Consider amending the district to include a site coverage maximum of 50% (currently not addressed). 10

26 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. 11

27 Corner Lot Setbacks Staggered setback requirements for corner lots where development faces the flanking street add a layer of complexity and result in a de facto requirement for customized house designs. Although this regulation will apply to relatively few properties in the city, this regulation may serve to discourage the redevelopment of corner lots. Additional Studies and Requirements Shadowing studies are an unusual requirement for low density development, and no clear parameters for assessment are included within the text of the Overlay. Public consultation requirements for infill properties are modest and at the discretion of the Development Officer, but additional to those for permits for permitted uses elsewhere in the City, and may serve to discourage infill redevelopment due to uncertainty regarding how the concerns of neighbours will be integrated into the development review process. Input from neighbours Options for Consideration 1. Consider the removal of the 45 degree angle component of building height limitations from the Overlay to enhance the attractiveness of up/down duplex housing forms. 2. Consider the removal of lot coverage and building depth limitations linked to existing development on adjacent sites. Consider the removal of staggered setback requirements for corner lots. 3. Consider the removal of discretionary powers to request shadowing studies and consultation with neighbours for these low density development forms. PARKING REGULATIONS The minimum parking requirements for all uses are outlined in Part 7 Parking Regulations, of the St. Albert Land Use Bylaw. Private garages Of particular note is Section 7.2 (4) which states: For the purpose of Section 7.3, with the exception of basement suites, in calculating the minimum parking requirement, parking accommodated for within private garage spaces shall not be taken into account (BL9/2013). This is an unusual regulation as most municipalities count all of the spaces within private garages as a parking space. By not counting spaces within garages the City makes it more difficult to meet off street parking requirements. Underground parking Underground parking should be encouraged for apartments, however provision of underground parking is very cost prohibitive and will increase the cost of units. This is contrary to the objective of trying to increase affordability. Alternatives could include removing this requirement to allow the market to determine whether underground parking is a desirable-enough amenity to justify the added cost, requiring underground parking only for developments above a certain density (which may serve to undercut demand for developments above the density threshold), to require only a proportion of parking be provided underground, or to limit the percentage of site 12

28 area that may be devoted to surface parking. Density bonuses could also be considered to then incentivize the provision of underground parking; in order to be competitive with other Capital Region municipalities, the density bonus would need to exceed typical density maximums elsewhere for comparable development to avoid perpetuating the disadvantage. Surface parking Screening and locational requirements for surface parking may also mitigate the visual unattractiveness of permitting surface parking while still offering affordability advantages for apartment development. Reductions in the requirements for different unit types and sizes could improve the competitive advantage of developments in St. Albert by reducing development costs; however, given the automobile dependent character of St. Albert transportation patterns, a reduction in parking requirements may have the effect of pushing parking onto public streets. Visitor Parking One area where the St. Albert LUB is out of step with other Capital Region municipalities is visitor parking for multi-unit developments. St. Albert requires 1 visitor parking stall per 5 units or portion thereof developed on a site, whereas many other Capital Region municipalities require less (Fort Saskatchewan, 1 in 6; Edmonton and Strathcona County, 1 in 7; Spruce Grove, 1 in 10). This increases development costs, particularly for larger developments, and reduces the attractiveness of St. Albert as a location of choice for development activity. Options for Consideration 1. Consider counting parking spaces within private garages towards the satisfaction of parking requirements for residential uses. 2. Consider allowing surface parking for apartment development, including the following: o o o Removing or reducing the requirement for all parking to be provided in underground parking structures. Developing additional landscaping regulations and/or locational requirements to mitigate the visual impact of surface parking. 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. 13

29 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. wideshallow 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. 14

30 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, 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 15

31 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 16

32 17

33 18

34 19

35 20

36 21

37 APPENDIX A STAKEHOLDER WORKSHOP-DECEMBER 15, 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 22

38 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 23

39 SINGLE DETACHED ESTATE HOME Advantages 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 Disadvantages 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 24

40 SINGLE DETACHED - REAR GARAGE (LANE REQUIRED) Advantages 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 ) all improve affordability and diversity but not allowed now Options 8-13 (see pgs )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 Disadvantages 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. 25

41 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 Affordability o Narrower lot Higher density Can be attractive if back No party wall In its true form there is no discernable difference General comments Skinny infill Increase existing density no opportunity for skinny o Due to lot street and parking requirement Disadvantages Design limitations o Code re: zero lot line Less privacy Neighbour conflicts DUPLEX/SEMIS/TOWN HOUSE Advantages Affordability Increase Density Energy Efficient Improved Security Disadvantages Neighbor conflicts Less privacy Design restrictions Parking 2 families occupying space of one Duplex-on single title not attractive due to ownership conflicts 26

42 MULTIS APARTMENTS Advantages Density Affordability Maintenance Caters to demographic change Build around transit Disadvantages 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 27

43 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 28

44 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 29

45 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. 1

46 APPENDIX B COMMUNITY WORKSHOP -JANUARY 28, 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 31

47 The graph below shows the number of dots that were counted in each of the columns: 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 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 2 nd 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. 32

48 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) 33

49 The graph below shows the number of dots that were counted in each of the column 100% Multifamily 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% Don t Support Support with Conditions Fully Support 20% 10% 0% A B C D E F G H A B C D E F G H Side by side, front attached garage Street-oriented Townhouse or Rowhouse, with or without front garages Stacked Townhouse Back to back Townhouse Front/back Duplex, front attached garage Front/back Duplex, with lane Up/down Duplex Side by side, with lane 34

50 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 35

51 Apartments 30 Where should they be located? New Neighbourhoods In Existing Neighbourhoods Downtown 0 Low Rise Apartments (1 to 4 storeys) Mid-rise Apartments High-rise Apartments (5 to 10 storeys) (10 storeys plus) Mixed Use Apartments Comments Low Rise Apartments Mid-rise Apartments High-rise Apartments Mixed Use Apartments (2 to 4 storeys) (5 to 10 storeys) (10 storeys plus) 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 36

52 Low Rise Apartments Mid-rise Apartments High-rise Apartments Mixed Use Apartments (2 to 4 storeys) (5 to 10 storeys) (10 storeys plus) 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 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 Appropriate everywhere. Good infill require in new development 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. 37

53 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 Tool # Strongly Disagree Tool #2 2 1 Tool #3 2 1 Tool # b) Margaret (elderly - can t keep up her home, wants to stay in St. Albert) Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Tool # Strongly Disagree Tool #2 1 2 Tool # Tool # c) The Albertsons (young family can t afford a house in St. Albert) Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Tool # Strongly Disagree Tool #2 2 1 Tool # Tool #

54 d) Rebecca (single young person still living at home) Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Tool # Strongly Disagree Tool # Tool #3 1 2 Tool #4 1 2 e) Paulo (employed in St. Albert can t afford to live in St. Albert) Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Tool # Strongly Disagree Tool # Tool # Tool # f) Evan (Kid - Mom can t afford a house. the apartment he lives in won t let him keep his dog) Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Tool # Strongly Disagree Tool # Tool # Tool #

55 2. IMPROVES AFFORDABILITY. Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Tool # Strongly Disagree Tool #2 1 2 Tool #3 2 1 Tool # PROVIDES A MIX OF HOUSING (AND TENURE) OPTIONS Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Tool # Strongly Disagree Tool #2 1 2 Tool #3 2 1 Tool # MEETS CRB DENSITY AND INTENSIFICATION TARGETS Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Tool #1 2 1 Strongly Disagree Tool #2 1 2 Tool #3 2 1 Tool # RETAINS THE CHARACTERISTICS THAT MAKE ST. ALBERT ST. ALBERT Strongly Agree Agree Neither Agree Nor Disagree Disagree Tool #1 1 2 Strongly Disagree Tool #2 2 1 Tool #3 2 1 Tool #

56 Make adjustments to existing districts Tool #1 Fully Support Support with Conditions Don t support 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 41

57 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 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. 42

58 ATTACHMENT 3 LUB RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AMENDMENT PROCESS JULY 2016 Stage 1 Information Gathering Stage 2 Amendment Development Stage 3 Implementation Best Practices Report Draft Amendments Present Amendments for Council Consideration Community Engagment Industry General Public Council Community Engagment (2 events) All Stakeholders Refine Amendments Public Hearing Approval and Implementaton Q We Q4, 2016 Are Here