Many Akinsdale residents are suspicious of a rezoning application that would see city council assume direct control over the approval of an affordable housing project being proposed for the neighbourhood.
During a public hearing on a controversial Habitat For Humanity project Monday evening, many residents voiced concern that the city was trying to skirt its own development regulations by seeking a zoning designation called "direct control."
"This direct control you're seeking to implement seems to me to allow developers to disregard existing bylaws if they need to," said Donna Prato, whose yard backs onto 70 Arlington Dr.
The land is pending a sale from St. Albert Protestant Schools to Habitat For Humanity, which wants to partner with private developer Apollo Developments to build 58 townhouse units. The sale requires that city council approve a zoning change.
The usual zoning for townhouse developments is medium density R3, which has criteria for site density, lot coverage, building height, setbacks from adjacent property and parking. The Habitat proposal fails to meet the R3 guidelines for density, setbacks and parking.
City development manager Jim Killoh explained Monday that direct control zoning is better for the neighbours because it puts council in charge rather than city staff.
"With direct control, council has the ultimate discretion," Killoh said.
Mayor Nolan Crouse agreed this would be better for residents who are leery of the project.
"Doesn't the community benefit by direct control, which means you have a voice?" he said. "It allows residential input into what's there, whereas R3 doesn't."
The land in question is currently zoned "public and private service." A discretionary use for this zoning is "transitional residential services." Crouse noted that this would allow a hostel or shelter to be built there today and council would have no ability to stop it.
Conversely, if council approved a rezoning to R3, any development that met the criteria could go ahead. With direct control, council has more input, he said.
The city has used direct control for controversial developments in the past, such as the Amacon redevelopment of Grandin Park Plaza and the Rosedale seniors' complex at Hebert Road and Arlington Drive.
Comparison
The Habitat proposal would have a density of 47.9 units per hectare, 37 per cent more than the 35 units allowed under R3. The project would also have 114 parking stalls, 22 fewer parking stalls than allowed under R3.
The Habitat project would be about three metres closer to Attwood Park than allowed under R3 setback regulations and would also not meet internal setback regulations, meaning its parking stalls would be closer to the townhouses than is normally allowed.
The proposal would be three metres or one storey shorter than allowed under R3, have 44 per cent less lot coverage and meet all other setback requirements.
"The development as I've outlined is not 100 per cent consistent with the R3 but we would respectfully submit that it will function," Killoh said.
He noted that city administration has prompted the developer to add fencing at the front corners of the proposed building to provide more privacy to the backyards and has secured a commitment to provide eight more parking stalls if needed in the future.
Density
Many neighbours say the proposed complex would be too large and too dense for the 1.2-hectare site.
Because many of the servicing costs are fixed, it makes sense to build as many units as possible, said Simon O'Byrne of Stantec, the consulting firm retained for the project.
"Every unit that we would take off the site will erode the affordability and the nature of the project," he said.
The number of parking stalls proposed would accommodate 49 units, according to R3 regulations.
Mayor Nolan Crouse and Coun. Gareth Jones pressed representatives from Habitat and Stantec to discuss whether or not the project would be financially viable at 49 units.
"Could we go to 49? Yes. The reason we want 58, we think that's the optimal number," said Habitat board chair Mary Cameron.
Some area residents whose properties back onto 70 Arlington are angry because their lots are 10 feet shorter than normal, which was allowed for properties backing onto green space, confirmed senior planner Lenore Mitchell.
Now those residents face the loss of that green space and building setbacks from their back fence.
Comparison Table
Criteria Proposal R3
Density 47.9 units per hectare 35
Lot coverage 22.4% 40%
Building height 8 m 11 m
Building setbacks
• front 6 m6 m
• side7 m6 m
• park1.7 to 2 m5 m
Parking1.76 stalls per unit2 stalls per unit
plus one visitor stall per 3 units
plus 1 visitor stall per 5 units
PROPOSAL VS R3 GUIDELINES
see bottom of story
