Seniors' Assisted Living Phase II - Direct Control Development Permit

108 Pages·2013·19.66 MB·English

CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA REPORT

Subject: 20 HEBERT ROAD - SENIORS ASSISTED LIVING
PHASE II - DIRECT CONTROL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT

Recommendation(s):

1. That Development Permit No. DP-2013-000758 by Architecture ATB on behalf
of Rosedale St. Albert Holding Corporation to authorize the construction of a
78-unit assisted living facility on Lot 386, Block 10, Plan 0822814, known
municipally as 20 Hebert Road, be approved subject to the specific conditions
outlined in Attachment 1 to the Agenda Report dated July 15, 2013.

2. That motion number C533-2012 dated November 19, 2012 be hereby
rescinded.

Report Summary:

Direct Control Development Permit
A development permit application has been received for the construction of a 78-
unit, six storey Supportive-Housing development. The property is districted as
Direct Control (DC) and in accordance with Section 3.9 of the Land Use Bylaw and
641(1) and (2) of the Municipal Government Act, Council may issue a development
permit for any use in a Direct Control District and impose such conditions as it
considers appropriate. The proposed development will be the second phase of
development at 20 Hebert Road. Existing development on this property includes
one building consisting of 148 Supportive Housing units.

This application, if approved, will supersede development permit DP-2012-001505
approved by Council on November 19, 2012 for a 52-unit, four storey supportive
housing building.

Legislative History:

On July 7, 2008, Council passed the following motion:

City Council Agenda
July 15, 2013/Page 1
File No.: 710-8
(C436-2008)
That Development Permit Application No. DP-2008-000455 by Rosedale
Developments to authorize the construction of a 148-unit assisted living facility on
Lots 384 and 385, Block 10, Plan 0822814, known municipally as 8 and 20 Hebert
Road, be approved subject to the 17 conditions identified in the Agenda Report
dated July 7, 2008.”

On November 19, 2012, Council passed the following motion:

(C533-2012)
That Development Permit No. DP-2012-001505 by Architecture ATB on behalf of
Rosedale St. Albert Holding Corporation to authorize the construction of a 52-unit
assisted living facility on Lot 386, Block 10, Plan 0822814, known municipally as
20Hebert Road, be approved subject to the following conditions. (Conditions were
outlined in the Agenda Report of November 19, 2012)

Report:

Architecture ATB, on behalf of Rosedale St. Albert Holding Corporation, has
submitted a development permit application to authorize the construction of a six-
storey 78-unit Supportive Housing Development and related site improvements.
This application represents the second phase of the Rosedale Senior’s Centre
facility. The proposed development will be located directly southwest of the
existing first phase running parallel with Hebert Road.

City Council authorized development for phase 2 of the Rosedale Senior Centre
facility on November 19, 2012. Since then, the proponent has revised the
proposed expansion to include an additional two floors and 26 units for a six-storey
building with a total 78 units. Should Council approve the revised project; the
decision made on November 19, 2012 will be rescinded, as per Recommendation
No. 2.
Description of Land
The property is located at the corner of Hebert Road and Arlington Drive in the
Akinsdale neighbourhood. To the east and southeast of the site are single family
dwelling units; to the south are commercial uses including Re/Max Real Estate,
CIBC, Canada Safeway, and a number of commercial retail units. On the north
side of Hebert Road is the Sturgeon neighbourhood with single family dwelling
units backing onto Hebert Road. The majority of the 1.03 ha site has been
developed as a result of construction of the project’s first phase. The existing
building is situated in the northeast half of the site with surface parking to the
southwest. Improvements associated with the proposed second phase consist of
approximately 21% of the total site area. (Attachment 3, Map Figures 1 and 2).
Plans and Regulatory Documents in Effect
In 2008 the Akinsdale South Area Redevelopment Plan (ASP) was amended in
order to accommodate the first phase of the Rosedale Supportive Housing project.
City Council Agenda
July 15, 2013/Page 2
File No.: 710-8
In this regard, the ASP was amended to change the future land use of the site from
commercial to Institutional/Medium Density Residential.

The amendment to the ASP allowed the site to be redistricted from Corridor
Commercial (CC) to Direct Control (DC) giving Council the authority to approve
Institutional and Medium Density Residential uses. The proposed second phase of
the project meets the definition of Supportive Housing and is therefore consistent
with the amendments approved by Council in 2008.

The proposed development is consistent with the Municipal Development Plan. In
particular, Section 4.8 states that the City of St. Albert should continue to facilitate
the designation of sites for seniors housing and other forms of special needs
housing.
Direct Control Development Permit Application
The applicant wishes to develop a 78-unit senior’s assisted living residential
complex. This development represents the second phase of the Rosedale
Senior’s Centre at this address. After receiving approval in 2008, the developer
constructed the existing Supportive Housing development consisting of 148
supportive housing units.

The subject property is districted as Direct Control as set out in the City of St.
Albert Land Use Bylaw 9/2005 (LUB). As stated in the LUB, the purpose of the
Direct Control Land Use District is to enable Council to exercise discretion over the
use and development of land or buildings within an area designated as Direct
Control. In situations of Direct Control, Council is the Development Approving
Authority. In accordance with the provisions of Section 10.5(3) of the LUB, City
Council:

a) shall determine the land uses that may be allowed in a DC district; and
b) may impose such standards and conditions it considers appropriate to
regulate the use.

In addition, Section 10.5(5) of the Land Use Bylaw states that Council may refer to
a corresponding conventional land use district or any part of the LUB to determine
land use regulations that may be applied to a prospective direct control
development permit. In this regard, in considering development regulations (i.e.
minimum building setbacks, height, parking requirements, etc.) staff reviewed the
application in context with the provisions of the Institutional Facilities (IF) land use
district and found for the most part, the development as proposed would be
consistent with the IF district governing all requirements, with height being the
most notable exception.

Within a Direct Control District, City Council, by approving a Direct Control
development permit application, ultimately determines the development regulations
that will apply to a development and there are no variances per se authorized
through any such approval. This report illustrates that although the proposed
City Council Agenda
July 15, 2013/Page 3
File No.: 710-8
assisted living facility is not entirely consistent with the corresponding Institutional
Facilities regulations, the development will nonetheless function from a practical
standpoint i.e. parking; and the setbacks and height are reasonable at this
particular location.
Proposed Seniors Assisted Living
The proposed seniors assisted living is summarized as follows:

Table 1 – Development Information

Description Amounts
Total site area for
development 1.032 hectares± (2.55 acres±)
Area of site to be
developed 0.22 ha (0.55 acres±)
Residential units 78 total
• one bedroom 62
• two bedroom 16
Parking (phase I & II) 102 total
46 surface parking stalls
56 underground parking stalls
Building height 20.41 metres (67 feet)
Setbacks Front - 69.1 m
Rear – 4.57 m
Flanking Side – 6.0 m to balconies; and 7.95 m to
building
Interior Side – 22.78 m

Building Setbacks
Within the IF District, the minimum building setback requirement is 6.0 m from any
property line. The building is to be located 4.57 m from the property line adjoining
the commercial development. This would be immediately adjacent to an internal
vehicular drive-aisle designed to accommodate access/parking for customers of
those developments. The deficiency of this setback requirement will be
indistinguishable and pose no adverse affects to either the amenities of the area or
the use, enjoyment, or value of neighbouring properties.

Building Height
The height of the proposed building has been calculated in accordance with
section 1.8 of the LUB and has been determined to 20.41 metres. While the
proposed height is greater than what is typical for the area, administration gave
consideration to the contextual nature of the area and whether or not the proposed
height is appropriate or reasonably compatible with surrounding development. The
location of the proposed development is within a significant activity node which
includes the commercial areas that surround the St. Albert Trail and
Hebert/Gervais Road intersection.
City Council Agenda
July 15, 2013/Page 4
File No.: 710-8
A sun-shadow study submitted demonstrates that the shadow cast from the
proposed building will not affect properties along the south side of Sunnyside
Crescent for the majority of the year. The proposed building will cast a shadow on
these properties during the days before and after the winter solstice; however, the
shadow would move across the affected properties relatively quickly. More
importantly, a row of mature coniferous trees located within a public utility lot
located directly behind the properties that back onto Hebert Road already impacts
shadowing on these properties.

Parking Requirements
The Parking Regulations of Part 7 of the LUB have been considered and in this
regard, a total 230 parking stalls would be required for both the first and second
phase of the project whereas 102 parking stalls are proposed. The parking
calculation is shown in Table 2.

The LUB also enables the Approving Authority to determine the number of parking
stalls required for a particular development if the findings of a parking study
demonstrate fewer parking stalls necessary based on the individual merits of the
development. As a Direct Control application, such a study may provide technical
justification for Council to determine the parking requirements, notwithstanding the
total of 230 stalls that would otherwise be required under Part 7 of the LUB.

The Applicant submitted a report prepared by Bunt and Associates as part of the
original phase II application. That report was re-examined and updated to reflect
the additional units provided for with this application (Attachment 4). The updated
report reviewed the existing and proposed parking on the subject site and
assessed whether or not the proposed parking supply will be sufficient for the
future demand. The report concluded the proposed parking will adequately service
the proposed development and will not result in overflow parking beyond the
subject site.

The report analyzed the current parking situation, staffing and resident
characteristics of the facility, comparisons with similar developments in the
Edmonton area, and parking requirements of other Canadian and American cities.
The report found the existing parking ratio for the first phase is 0.31 stalls per unit
which results in a surplus of 19 stalls. While the report anticipates a higher
demand from the second phase, it estimates that the combined parking demand
generated by both phases will be between 63 and 100 parking stalls. This would
represent a parking ratio between 0.31 and 0.45 stalls per unit for the entire facility.
The 102 parking stalls to be provided represent a ratio of 0.45 stalls per unit.

Since the completion of the first phase of development, staff has observed that
parking has functioned satisfactorily and is not aware of any spill-over onto the
adjacent commercial development and supports the number of parking stalls that
are being proposed.

City Council Agenda
July 15, 2013/Page 5
File No.: 710-8
Table 2 – Parking Calculation

Phase I
Number Requirement Required # of
(Part 7 of LUB) Stalls
Self-Contained Units 82 One Stall per Unit 82
Non Self-Contained 66 One Stall for Every 5 14
Units Units
Proposed Phase II
Self-Contained Units 78 One Stall per Unit 78
Non Self-Contained 0 One Stall for Every 5 0
Units Units
Both Phase I and II
Visitor Stall One Stall per 7 Units 33
Staff 23 23
Total Required 230
Total Provided 102

Design/Appearance of Building
The proposed appearance of the building maintains the design, architectural
character and appearance established in the first phase of development. Exterior
building finishes include a significant amount of brick and siding. The sloped roof,
dormer windows, and architectural style of the project as a whole give the
impression of distinctive and original buildings.

Enclosed Connection
The application includes a main floor connection or “link” between the first phase
and the proposed second phase. The proposed link is located over a 10.06 metre
utility right-of-way. Prior to the construction of the link, the owner must enter into
an amended Utility Right of Way agreement with the City, which agreement will
allow for the existence of the structure.

Public Consultation
The applicant carried out public consultation in accordance with City Policy C-P&E-
01. Notice of the development was sent to landowners within 100 m of the subject
property. There were no concerns raised from nearby landowners. A summary of
the public consultation is included as Attachment 5.

Conclusion
Staff recommends the application be approved, subject to the 10 conditions listed
in Attachment 1.

City Council Agenda
July 15, 2013/Page 6
File No.: 710-8
Financial Implications:

There are no financial implications of particular note at this time.

Legal Implications:

Other than as indicated above, there are no legal implications of particular note at
this time.

Attachments:
1. Development Permit Conditions
2. Architectural Drawings
3. Location & Aerial Maps
4. Rosedale St. Albert Parking Review, Final Draft Report
5. Public Consultation Summary

Report Date June 5, 2013
Originating Department Planning & Development
Prepared by: Craig Thomas
Approved by Carol Bergum
City Manager Review Patrick Draper

City Council Agenda
July 15, 2013/Page 7
File No.: 710-8
Attachment 1
Development Permit Conditions
1. Approval includes the construction of a 78-unit assisted living facility and all related
site improvements.

2. The site shall be developed as per the plans stamped, signed and conditionally
approved by the Development Officer on behalf of City Council of the City of St.
Albert

3. Building elevations to be as indicated on the stamped, approved plans with the final
appearance and type of exterior finishing materials to be approved by the
Development Officer.

4. The site is to be serviced, landscaped and fenced as per the plans accepted by the
City of St. Albert, which acceptance may impose any conditions, including but not
limited to completion deadlines, the provision of security and minimum insurance
requirements that the City considers appropriate.

5. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the following fees, levies, charges,
securities and documentation shall be provided to the City:
a) Development permit approval fee of $4,390.90;
b) Off-site charges;
c) Construction water charges;
d) Street cleaning levy;
e) Detailed site grading and drainage plan;
f) Detailed plans for underground power, water, sanitary and storm sewer
servicing including the location of all service connections as required;
g) Two (2) complete sets of detailed construction drawings, including detailed
architectural, structural, electrical and mechanical drawings;
h) A Landscaping Plan, prepared by a Landscape Architect registered with the
Alberta Association of Landscape Architects, to the standards, Land Use
Bylaw requirement, and satisfaction of the City of St. Albert;
i) The posting of cash or a letter of credit, in a form and in an amount
satisfactory to the City, as security for ensuring that all obligations under this
development permit are fulfilled to the satisfaction of the City. The City may
call on such security in such amounts, and at such times as it determines
appropriate in the event the City determines that:
(i) The applicant/developer has failed to comply with any provision of this
development permit;
(ii) This development permit is suspended or cancelled;
(iii) Work has been commenced under this development permit but has not
been properly completed within a reasonable period of time, as
determined by the City;
j) A Certificate of Insurance to the satisfaction of the City;
k) Applicable building permit fees;
l) Payment of any outstanding property taxes;

Note: All fees are as per Master Rates Bylaw, as approved by City Council.
Attachment 1
Development Permit Conditions

6. Screening requirements:
a) Any garbage/recycle containers, as proposed and future installations of same,
shall be located within enclosures that are screened to the satisfaction of the
Development Officer;
b) Any exposed rooftop mechanical equipment shall be visually and acoustically
screened to the satisfaction of the Development Officer.

7. Any proposed changes including but not limited to design, elevation or site plan
configuration, are to be requested in writing from the Development Officer and the
said changes are not to be undertaken until and if written authorization is provided
by the Development Officer. Any proposed change considered to be substantial or
inconsistent with this approval, as determined by the Development Officer, may be
referred to City Council for approval.

8. To ensure consistency with the plans as approved by City Council, the
applicant/developer shall provide the following to the Development Officer for review:
a) A Real Property Report prepared by an Alberta Land Surveyor at the
foundation form stage to confirm that the location of the building is consistent
with the approved site plan; and
b) A report or plan prepared by an Alberta Land Surveyor at the completion of
framing work for the structure, confirming that the height of the building is
consistent with the approved building height.

9. The applicant/developer will be required to enter into an amended Utility Right of
Way Agreement with the City to address the enclosed link that is to be situated over
the existing utility right of way.

10. Occupancy of the building will not be permitted until all conditions of this
development permit are fulfilled, or unless written authorization is provided by the
City of St. Albert.

NOTES:
a) A person applying for, or in possession of, a valid development permit is not
relieved from full responsibility for ascertaining and complying with or carrying out
development in accordance with the conditions of any caveat, easement or other
instrument affecting the building or land. Without limiting the generality of the
foregoing, the applicant/developer shall have particular regard to the existing
water main within Right of Way Plan 4580 K.S. and be responsible to ensure that
all construction does not impact this utility and that access to the water main will
not be compromised, all in accordance with the Utility Right of Way Agreement
dated July 9, 1958, as amended or replaced from time to time.

b) The applicant/developer shall be responsible for the following:
Attachment 1
Development Permit Conditions
i. The costs of paving, draining and curbing of all driveway and parking areas, as
well as the costs and installation of any curb cuts and driveway aprons that may
be required;
ii. The provision of on-site fire hydrants as may be required;
iii. The costs and installation associated with connecting to all required public and
private utilities. All utility lines and connections must be underground. If
connections to underground servicing lie under existing roadways, connections
must be augured and not open cut;
iv. The costs of relocating any existing off-site fire hydrants, as may be required;
and
v. Provision of adequate dust control as may be required during construction.

c) The applicant shall be responsible for compliance with all applicable Federal,
Provincial and Municipal laws, regulations and standards, as well as ensuring
compliance with, and be responsible for obtaining, all applicable permits, licenses
and approvals, at its own expense.

d) Without limiting the generality of the foregoing clause, the applicant/developer
shall be responsible for acquiring various permits as required from the City's
Engineering Department including an On Street Construction Permit, Water and
Sewer Connection Permit, etc. In this regard, please contact the Development
Supervisor (Greg Persson, 780-418-6603).

e) The City of St. Albert does not conduct independent environmental checks of
land within the city. If you are concerned about the suitability of this property for
any purpose, you should conduct your own tests and reviews. The City of St.
Albert, in issuing this development permit, makes no representations and offers
no warranties as to the suitability of the property for any purpose or as to the
presence or absence of any environmental contaminants on or within the
property.

f) An 'as-built' digital file of the underground servicing plan along with a landscaping
as-built package including one PDF file, one AutoCad file, and one 594 X 841
mm mylar is to be submitted (including a digital copy) to the satisfaction of the
Development Officer.

g) All construction must conform to the relevant requirements of the Alberta Building
Code, the City of St. Albert municipal engineering standards and all applicable
codes, laws, regulations and standards.

h) Addressing of individual units shall be coordinated with the City. Please contact
Kim Hamson at 780-459-1635.