Housing options for a new subdivision in Riverside will expand beyond single-family homes after council approved changes to the land use bylaw on Tuesday.
On April 6, city council passed second and third readings of redistricting amendments to the land use bylaw for developer Genstar's application for a new subdivision off Rankin Drive.
The majority of those lands in the subdivision, totalling 52.9 acres, are currently zoned as low-density residential (R1), which allows for single family homes. Another 3.4-acre parcel is zoned as low-density residential (R2), which allows for duplexes and semi-detached homes.The amendments would change 50.4 acres from R1 to RX, 2.5 acres from R1 to RXL, and 3.4 acres from R2 to RX.
In total, council received four written responses from residents (one submitted after deadline), all opposed to the changes.
Suzanne Bennett, city planner, told council that the redistricting application was in line with the neighbourhood's original low-density plan. The city will be using a federal grant to build out a park site east of the neighbourhood, and the redistricting application was a key step in the process, she said.
Before the vote, council heard from two residents during the public hearing on the changes. Both disagreed with the changes, as they told council they had purchased their homes in Riverside with the understanding other single family homes would be built in the area.
Resident Matthew Gleddie said Genstar's application goes against the plan sold to his family when they purchased their home in Riverside. He questioned whether changes to the plan were needed when Genstar could reduce side lots through variances, and how much of an environmental impact the changes would have on the area.
"If the Riverside rezoning is approved, St. Albert will lose its touch with nature – less park and green spaces, more chunky blocks of houses. Essentially, paving paradise to put up a parking lot for townhouses."
Another resident, Douglas Nixon, said people who have invested in an R1 district are "being discriminated against." Single-family homes were what attracted them to the neighbourhood, and he felt he did not trust the developer to keep density low.
"We've been here since the beginning, we've seen many changes, and what is said is not done. We're getting sick of it."
Shane Leppky, Genstar development manager, said applying for variances would have meant keeping one extra metre of side yard. He said the 15 townhomes would have to be built with laneway access, so "we won't be going and throwing townhomes willy-nilly throughout the neighbourhood."
"This specific stage consists of 79 lots. Of those 79 lots, we have 15 townhomes and 22 (duplexes). The rest is single-family dwellings," Leppky said. "At the end of the day, we're not increasing the population even though it sounds like we're picking up four extra units."
Coun. Wes Brodhead said the reality of modern urban development is that situations change over time, and developers can apply to the city to change their plans. It's up to council to decide how to balance the look and feel of a community with those changes.
Coun. Sheena Hughes said she wasn't convinced the redistricting was needed, and residents have gone through changes to the plan in the past.
"The lot sizes have already been reduced dramatically as R1 ... so I think it's not a necessary change."
Coun. Ken MacKay said he agreed with Hughes in that he didn't see need for the amendments, and could understand resident concerns.
Coun. Natalie Joly echoed Brodhead's points, and said council had committed to increasing the housing types offered in St. Albert by creating these two districts. Coun. Ray Watkins said an increase of five units from the original plan didn't seem like an increase in density, and removing the one-metre of side yard would reduce the cost of a lot by around $15,000 for buyers.
"I didn't really hear any argument or evidence presented about the negative impact that it was going to have ... I didn't hear anything about property values being decreased or anything, I just heard, 'I don't like this, it's too much density, it's not what we were promised.' Well, things change, and over time a lot of things change."
The amendments passed in a 4-2 vote (councillors MacKay and Hughes opposed; Coun. Jacquie Hansen absent).
