Good evening, everyone. I would like to call the order
this public hearing meeting of City Council for Wednesday, August
26th as we gather on Tradey Six Territory and the
traditional homeland of the May T People. In this commemorative
month as we mark the 150th anniversary of the signing
of Treaty 6. In Chambers tonight we have councillors, Jeffrey's
Dubois Ford Kelleher Parker McDonald and Pierce. We have Councillor
Donauer online, Councillor Donauer. Yes, you're from here. Can you
hear me? Yes, we can, thank you. Councillor DePohn will
not be joining us and we are still awaiting. Oh,
Councillor Davies, you're online. Can I just want to make
sure you can hear us. Councillor
Davies. We'll make sure that we can get a communication
to him and make sure that he can confirm that
he is here for the beginning of any public hearing.
As those gathered no, it's important that any Council member
is in attendance for every part of a Public Carry
in order to be able to vote. So it's important
that we make sure that he has that communication. And
if we have a technical issue, perhaps I would await
a flag on that so that we don't miss out
on a Council Member participating. Gotta get somebody to move
confirmation of the agenda. Move by Councillor McDonald and seconded
by Councillor Pierce. Is anyone opposed. I am seeing none,
and that is inclusive of a number of requests to
speak. And as it is a Public Hearing, anyone in
the gallery is able to speak following the Speakers that
are on the list. Does anyone have a conflict of
interest to declare. I am seeing none. Could I get
a mover for the adoption of the minutes moved by
Councillor Dubois and seconded by Councillor Ford? Is anyone opposed.
I see none. I'd like to try one more time.
Councillor Davies, are you with us for this Public Hearing?
Terrific. Fantastic. We shall proceed. We go now to 5.
1. 1 zoning bylaw Text Amendments, primary dwellings in established
neighbourhoods, sidewall area, and dorsal height. If I could get
a mover for first reading of Byla No. 102. So
you might. Want to join. Okay. Thank you for flagging
that City Clark Titamore. We have one Council member, Councillor
T. Moan, who is able now is able to join
us virtually. And so we are just going to take
a quick moment to get him connected, and we will
be on our way shortly.
All right. Councillor Tmone, can you hear me.
Yes, I can. Terrific. Okay, I think we have all
members of Council participating in this Public Hearing. So we
will move forward and ask, did I ask this already?
A mover in secondary for first reading of the Byla.
I'll ask again. Mover in second of her first reading,
move by Councillor McDonald's, seconded by Councillor Kelleher. Is anyone
opposed. Seeing none, the hearing is now open, and I
will turn it over to our administration. Thank you, Madam
Chair. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Paula
Catocic Toth, senior planner with a Planning and Development, Department.
Tonight I will be presenting Zoning Byla Tax Amendment. This
is an amendment to the text of the Zoning Byla,
number 9990. The Zoning Bylaw regulates held Landon Buildings can
be used within Municipality. Its purpose is to guide development,
protect public interests, and ensure that different land uses are
organised and compatible. This is different from MAP Amendment, which
Council often sees as that is the specific rezoning of
a site. The amendments are specific to primary dwellings in
the established neighbourhoods, and we also have a housekeeping amendment
for gardening garage suites. If approved, these changes will apply
to all primary dwellings, both new and existing in the
established neighbourhoods and to garden garage and garden suites throughwide.
The amendments have been separated into two public hearings for
each topic. The project background will be provided in the
first presentation. Bylaw number 102. 03 provides the amendments for
primary dwellings. After the agenda was published, we phoned an
error on figure 5. 1, 19c on page 5 of
the attached bylaw. The bottom of the picture. In the
bottom picture, the larger portion of the dwelling should be
87 square metres, not 78 is shown. This has been
corrected in the proposed bylaw. And just to note, this
figure is an illustration of the regulations and does not
provide a regulation as an example only. By all number
10204, provides the text amendment to the garden grass suite
regulations. Next slide. In 2013, the neighbourhood
level, infield development strategy, was undertaken to respond to concerns
and established neighbourhoods for new development that was occurring specific
to large infill houses. This report contained recommendations for the
creation of garden and grass suites, primary dwellings, and for
corner site development. This report was endorsed by City Council
in December of 23. They're 2013, pardon me. The regulations
for primary dwellings were drafted based on the recommendations in
the report. At that time, a working group with staff,
the development community and the public develop the regulations for
sidewall among others, including the Dorsill height and front porches.
This collaboration created a maiden Saskatoon solution by the creation
of the sidewall area regulation. In 2022, as part of
the Zoning Byla Review Planning and Development brought forward a
report for amendments to the infill regulations, including the ones
we're considering tonight. Sidewall area endorsal height. City Council did
not approve the amendments and asked for clarification on these
elements insidewall. This is covered in the bylaw in front
of you tonight. Next slide. This slide provides the background
for bringing the amendments forward at this time. Under the
housing action plan and our agreement to receive funding under
the housing accelerator fund, we committed to reviewing regulations for
infill development. In regard to the half targets, we have
met some of them. However, housing is still needed in
our community. And the amendments tonight provide for additional housing
units and improvements to our residential areas.
Next slide, please. Based on our commitments to have, we
hired consultant, middle, and small housing to complete a report
with several recommendations, including the Garden of Garage Suite. Primary
dwellings, which are one and two unit and semi -
detouched wellings. And four unit dwellings in the established neighbourhood,
and multiple unit dwellings on corner sites. This is the
second report recommending Zoning Bylax Amendments. The previous amendments for
Garden and Garage Suites and Swell Multiple Unit dwellings were
adopted by City Council on May 27th of this year.
Next slide, please. Enfield Development generally refers to the Development
within the established neighbourhoods. Which includes those neighbourhoods with encircle
drive plus Montgomery Place, Forest Grove and Sutherland. The map
shows the two categories. The blue areas are the pre
- World War II neighbourhoods and the pink are post
- war. These categories were developed. Back in 2013 with
a neighbourhood level infield development strategy. The regulations that exist
for primary dwellings today were developed from that strategy, and
there are some regulations that only apply to category one
primary dwellings. Next slide, please. Bylan number 10203. The next
few slides will walk you through the Proposed Byla change.
Before I begin, I would like to provide the following.
To note, I have worked on this file in various
capacities since 2013. And I'd like to identify some ongoing
themes. Neighbourhoods are changing. And being renewed through new construction.
Some neighbourhoods more than others. And change is not easy
for residents. Infill residential development is complex. There are one
- off issues that arise can arise due to any
unique issue or circumstance on our particular site. As example,
City trees, water and sewer. Other technical issues that may
occur. And lastly, the city has tried to balance and
needs of the greater community. Local residents in the development
industry. In 2015, when we brought Bylaws forward to implement
these changes, we experience the same situation we have today.
With speakers, both foreign against the amendments. Next slide, please.
The current regulation for Dorsill Height requires that the DoriSill
for permeate wellings and category one neighbourhoods be a maximum
of one metres, pardon. This is proposed to be 1.
3 metres or approximately one foot greater than the current
regulation. The current regulation can create challenges for basement design
and livability, including window placement and size and access to
natural light. These challenges can be more significant for dwellings
with basement secondary suite, as well as infill housing forms
were an efficient use of space is important. Through our
consultation over the years, servicing constraints, including shallow, including shallow
utilities, may also limit the feasible design options and substantially
increased construction costs due to this regulation. Next slide, please.
So sidewall area. Sidewall area regulations control the size and
massing of the sidewalls of the dwelling. This regulation uses
height, setbacks, and site depth to limit the visual bulk
of infill development. The allowable sidewall area applies to primary
dwellings and is intended to ensure that building proportions are
made consistent with the surrounding development patterns. A sidewall is
the exterior of a building wall that faces a side
property line. We're a building has multiple wall planes or
step backs only the portion of the wall that align
in the same direction are included in the sidewall area
calculation. Next slide. Please. So this slide explains the area
sidewall calculation. It looks like a bit of a geometry
problem, but I'll do my best to explain it. Step
one. The wall height is determined by a 45 degree
angular plane measured from a height of six metres, projecting
vertically from the side property line. The allowable wall height
is determined where building setback's intersect the 45 degree angular
plate. The calculation of this is essentially six metres or
six plus the side yard setback. So in most cases
where the minimum side yard setback is. 75 metres, this
number is 6. 75. Step two, determine wall length. The
maximum allowable wall length depends on the site depth. For
site's less than 40 metres in depth, the maximum wall
height is 14 metres. For sites greater than 40 metres
in depth, the wall length is determined by site depth.
Times 50 percent minus the required front yard setback. Through
the allowable sidewall area, these two numbers are multiplied. However,
this doesn't limit designed to a box, but rather provides
the maximum area of sidewall that can be utilised when
designing the home. Next slide, please. The amendment tonight keeps
the sidewal area sidewall area control in place. While reducing
unduted consequences. The report from middle and small housing indicated
that the side will regulation was an impediment to housing
development. This, just, the report did not prescribe a method.
And through our work with the development industry, we are
proposing the following. I would like to note that we
worked with developers and designers who both wanted to retain
or strengthen this regulation. And those wishing to increase or
remove the sidewall area regulation. Tonight, we have prepared a
balanced approach and our proposing that to increase the allowable
solidal area by 10 percent. Exempt portions of the sidewall
set more back than 4. 5 metres from the side
property line. Exempt facades along a flanking street and to
clarify exemptions for features like covered patios and decks and
three season rooms. Next slide, please. The proposed ink, it
is proposed at sidewall increased by 10 percent. This calculation
is explained on the previous slides and will be adjusted
to increase the essentials rectangle by 10 percent. This is
much simpler than exempting specific design features such as dormers,
gables, or other things for interpretation. Any grey areas are
perceived grey areas in the Zoning bylaw require additional work
for planning, staff, and frustrate designers and builders. The intent
of this is to bribe a modest amount for additional
design flexibility while retaining the sidewall area regulations original purpose
for managing building massing. The infrared review identified situations where
the existing calculation can unnecessarily constrain building design, even when
the Proposal continues to apply with the API applicable 8.
5 maximum building height. Side, rear, in front yard setbacks.
Even on narrow sites, this allows for more interior space.
Next slide, please. This is a corner site. Corner sites
have access from both the flanking and front streets. And
throughout our work on Enfil throughout the years have been
identified for additional development and density. This slide illustrates the
form of the Bing's former building that could be built
on a quarter site. With a portion of the building
setback 4. 5 metres from the adjacent site. The change
would remove the regulation on the port on corner sites
proposes that as the flanking street has a different relationship
and does not create the same adjacent property mass and
impact. It allows for design flexibility and for the ability
to build an attached garage with an amendment to the
flanking street. For the four - point metre setback exemption,
just to note the minimum side yard setback is. 07
metres. 075 metres. The purpose of, as the purpose of
the sidewall area regulation is to primarily manage perceived massing
of the billing in relation to adjacent property. We're a
portion of the building is set back more than 4.
5 metres from the side property line. There's a greater
separation from neighbouring property and the potential massing impact is
reduced. Exempting this portion allows for greater flexibility in building
design. Well portions of the building located closer to the
neighbouring properties will continue to be regulated. This exemption only
would apply to that portion set back greater than 4.
5 metres. And portions of the building closer to the
cyprien line remain subject to the area of the sidewall
regulation. Next slide, please. This is an example of corner
site development in one of our older neighbourhoods. This form
is very common in the established neighbourhoods. And when the
sidewall restriction is removed off the flanking streets, a concentrates
the massing away from the adjacent dwelling as the homeowner
would have their yard behind the dwelling. Rather than additional
space on a flanking street or in the front yard.
Next slide, please. The last amendments are to clarify what
is to determine clarification on what is included in sidewall,
and that's the first bullet. And the second bullet proposes
to exempt three season rooms. As they do not contribute
to the massing as they are one story required to
have open walls. And also are proposing a clarification. That
sidewall is not counted for open areas, including their supporting
structure. Next slide, please.
This slide provides summary of the engage summary of engagement
on this amendment. However, I'd like to like to note,
middle and small housing did engagement as part of the
infill project that they did. They conducted focus groups with
community representatives. Builders, developers, architects, designers and city staff. This
included two mixed panels and follow - up interviews. The
City in the consulting team also hosted a Public Online
Forum. Information session on October 23rd, 2015. The findings and
recommendations were presented and participants were able to ask questions.
A follow - up survey was sent to those who
attended the information session. It was based on the work
to date. We understand that the industry mostly wants the
regulations removed. And that the community mostly wants them to
stay or even be strengthened. We feel that our current
approach reflects a balance between these consideration. For metechnical perspective,
we feel that all the work is done and we
do not need further technical review. This come down to
balancing the perspectives of our community. This concludes my presentation
on the enemy's departmentary dwelling regulation and administration is recommending
that the Propose Amendments be approved. Thank you. Thank you
for the presentation. The floor is open for questions. From
Council.
Uh, I'm sorry. We should go to the speakers before.
I was just checking if you guys wanted to ask
questions first. We used to go to Secrets. We'll do
that first. Uh, that sounds like a better approach. And
I'm going to go first to Margaret Thompson. And as
you make your way, uh, just a reminder to everyone
in the gallery that you are allowed five minutes for
your presentation at four minutes, the Amber. Lights go on.
I missed the NPC report too. Okay. It's been a
long day. Excuse me, Ms. Thompson. Ms. Thompson. Ms. Thompson.
If you don't mind, can I just ask you to
step aside for a moment while I'm going to invite
the Municipal Planning Commission to make their presentation? Uh, I
have the notes right in front of me knowing that
this is what I'm supposed to do. So this is
all on me guys. Sorry.
This? That's okay. Let's keep. Going. All right. Good evening,
worship and members of council. My name is Craig Harley,
chair of the Municipal Planning Commission. Thank you for having
me this evening. The Municipal Plan and Commission at its
regular meeting held on June 23rd, 2026, considered a report
of the Community Services Division regarding Propose Zoning Biolatex Amendments
for Sidewall Area Calculations and Dorsill Height Regulations for Primary
Dwellings in Established Neighbourhoods. The Commission's report attached to the
agenda and my comments this evening while I was a
stand for the Propose owning Bylax Amendments for Garden and
Garage Suites in item 5. 1. 2. During the meeting,
the Commission members discussed the effectiveness and complexity of the
sidewall area rule. Considered its impact on infill development. Alternatives
such as setbacks and lot coverage, and the rationale for
retaining and not simply removing the regulations. A letter submitting
comments from Nicole Burgess from the Saskatoon Region Home Builders
Association was provided. The Commission members reviewed points from the
letter. Discussing the adequacy of the 10 percent sidewall area
increase. And the 4. 5 metre setback exclusion. Particularly for
smaller lots. The members also sought clarification on the use
of terms like Gable in the Bylaw Language. And the
specifics of the administration committing to clear language in the
final Biola draft before Council today. After discussion, the Commission
was satisfied with the responses to questions and is recommending
that the Proposed Zoning Bylate text amendments for the primary
dwellings. In established neighbourhoods sidewall area and door - sill
height be approved. Thank you. Do we have questions for
Mr. Harley? Councillor Dubois. Thank you Mayor Bloch. Thank you
for the report and thanks for your work on the
commission. Can you tell me, was it a unanimous vote
at the Municipal Platinum Commission? Yes, it was. Okay, thank
you. Are there any other questions? Seeing none. Thank you,
Mr. Hurley. And Ms. Thompson, I apologise this time you
are up. And I think you know the rules, but
just for everyone else. You have five minutes. After four
minutes, the Amberlite comes on five minutes, the red light
goes on, it's a very loud noise, and your presentation
will need to conclude. So with that, I will turn
the podium over to Ms. Thompson and ask you to
introduce yourself and you're ready. Thank you. My name is
Margaret Thompson. Your worship mayor block and councillors. I appreciate
this opportunity to have my voice heard as I suspect
that most residents in established neighbourhoods are blissfully unaware of
what council is considering accepting in this suggested by Lord
Amendment. Until the spring, when the house on the Colonel
Lauder Jason to my property was demolished, I too, naive
about infills. However, when I attended my first meeting of
the Development Appeal Board, I learned how the building industry
promotes their interpretation of the City bylaws. Today's submission from
this industry highlights their approach. They demand predictability. Surely a
sidewall formula and by laws achieve this goal. Apparently not.
As they are trying to remove the formula and are
picking away at our effective infill bylaws. However, then they
are complaining. They need flexibility. In addition, they want simple
and easy to understand regulations. But then they try and
put their own interpretation on simple phrases, like making reference
to similar builds that are not at all similar. I
have lived in Utana for 57 years. I am not
against the demolition of old homes to be replaced with
ones that have the capacity to be energy efficient and
wired with the latest technology. What I am against is
this move to replace existing moderately - sized homes with
massive mansions more suited to an acreage than the landscapes
of the established neighbourhoods like Nutana and Varsity Bu. I
am retired and therefore have had the luxury of the
time to ask questions of City staff about what is
permitted and an infill. The CitySarf have been unfailingly helpful,
but I have become increasingly concerned at the limited protection
afforded by City bylaws to adjacent property owners and the
campaign by developers and builders to weaken the current system.
Which though it could be strengthened is working. I'd like
to remind Council that the Bylaw relating to sidewalk restrictions
was approved in 2015 because of the number of complaints
that were being made about in fulls. It's been highly
successful in cutting down these complaints. Now council is being
encouraged by the Saskatoon home builders association to ease the
sidewall restrictions for what they refer to as design, sensibilities.
This is a ridiculous rationale. The development appealed board has
the power to ground variances in special circumstances while still
maintaining the intent of the bylaws to protect neighbouring properties
from an infills excessive mass. These bylaws have been successful
and should be left alone. Now, if this bylaw amendment
goes through, it will mean, for example, homes which are
alongside side lots will have no protection from the mass
of the build next to them, as there'll be no
constraints on the sidewall facing the road on that type
of lot. Our neighbour,
whose original plans for a building had almost. Referred to
in the appeal board hearing as single story were actually
almost as tall as my true story house. It has
the amendment passes. All he needs to do is to
apply for a revised building permit and another Munster house
is born. The number of building designs was so caught
three seasoned rooms will surely saw. These rooms were not
counting the sidewalk calculations. They for the life of me
I see no difference in the mass of a regular
forces in room and a three - season room. In
closing, I would suggest far more needs to be known
about the impact of the current influx of infills in
established neighbourhoods. What is the impact of these infills on
adjacent properties? To what extent has the City's canopy of
trees been affected. What about drainages use. So survey the
property owners don't just rely on guidance from the Satin
home builders association. And I respectfully ask counsel to stand
firm. Don't change the infill bylaws. Defeat this bylaw amendment
and protect our established neighbourhoods from being destroyed. And thank
you for listening. Any questions. I will open up the
floor of questions. I'm not seeing any, but thank you
for being here. Next is Douglas Thompson. Hello.
Hello, Mr. Thompson. We can hear you. Okay, I've submitted
a video. In case the connection problem. Okay. Thank
you. Good morning or good evening. Madam Mayor. City of
Saskatoon Council. Thank you for allowing me to submit my
video comments on the bylaw amendment discussion for maximum sidewall
square footage. I live on Temperance Street in Varsity View.
And my mother lives on University Drive in New Tana.
It just so happens that my mother's home is second
from the corner. So the bylaw amendments that are going
to be discussed before city council are rather important to
our family. It's important to understand that our family has
been learning a lot more about maximum sidewall square footage
over the past few months. It just so happens that
the corner home next to my mother has been taken
down and, uh, new infill is being constructed right now.
Now when I saw the proposed design, I thought it
looked good and it did look good. And it was
a great design, but it's not suited for a residential
street in Saskatoon. It'd be much more suited for an
acreage. For example, the attached garage is 1100 square feet.
And, uh, the walls were 13 foot 10 inches tall.
Now granted, they were an attached garage. So, uh, as
far as the height restrictions, they don't have the height
restrictions. There's a detached garage. But nonetheless, the proposed design
exceeded the current bylaws by 21 percent on one side
and 39 percent on the other. City council understands the
unintended consequences of these bylaws relating to corner lots. Because
when I looked at it and I looked at the
proposed design that was changed as a result of the
refusal of the city to allow, uh, them to proceed.
Anything more than 4. 5 metres from the property line
will not count towards the maximum sidewall square footage. And
anything basing a side street, like in the case of
the corner lot next to my mom, it won't count
as well. So now all of a sudden this 1100
square foot, uh, garage potentially is back on the, on
the table again. If City Council approves, uh, these amendments,
uh, the builder and the developer and the homeowner can
go down to City Hall and submit a permit revision
and say, okay, we want to change our plans again
because now as a right, we can build it. And
in fact, instead of, uh, going with the, uh, the
original plan, which was a seven metre, uh, tall, uh,
attached garage. Why not just keep on going up? Because
nothing counts anymore. If it's more than four and a
half metres. So technically they can actually make the place
even larger. So instead of going, where my mom is,
uh, my mom is over here. Mom helmet is over
up. My mom's property is over here. On the proposed
design that was seven metres, uh, tall for the attached
garage. They can just keep on going up and they
can go right up to eight and a half metres.
Because nothing counts anymore. And now all of a sudden
when my mom goes out into our backyard or my
mom's in her kitchen with a big window looking out
in the backyard, there's not going to be any light.
It's just going to be a wall of, uh, of
building and shingles. You're going to be able to create
an entire wall and that entire triple car garage, 1100
square feet or whatever it was, I think 103 metres
squared. It won't count at all. The only restriction will
be site coverage. This, these bylaw amendments are going to
create a lot of conflict amongst neighbours. And once it's
been done, it can't just be undone. I won city
council to understand how, how little four and a half
metres is. Four and a half metres is only 14
foot nine inches. That's less than the length of two
sheet supply wood. I got my tape measure out. And
I set it up on the corner here. And I
went over to here. Just over to this chair to
the midpoint of this chair. There we go. That's four
and a half metres. That's not very much. That's not
very much at all. And so now if you go
with something like that, if you set up your, uh,
your, uh, your corner lot, you can go all the
way up to eight and a half metres and not
one square inch will count towards the maximum sidewall square
footage. This is going to create a lot of conflict.
An urged city council to turn down this amendment. Thank
you very much. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Other questions for
the speaker. I'm not seeing any, uh, thank you for
your presentation. Nicole Burgess. Thank you. Nicole, are you online?
Oh, sorry. You're in this, in the chambers. Awesome. Uh.
Can begin the introduce yourself when you're ready. Okay. Good
evening. Your worship and members of Council. And thank you
so much for the opportunity to speak today. My name
is Nicole Burgess and I'm the CEO of the SaaTonian
Region Home Builders Association. And I'm here to speak in
support of package two coming out of the city's infill
review process. Before I begin, I want to recognise administration
for the immense amount of work that went into getting
this package here. This has been a lengthy process with
significant engagement and many different perspectives to balance. And we
truly appreciate all the work that has been done to
move these changes forward. So tonight my ask is simple.
Please approve package too. It is a positive, long overdue
and important step forward. But I'm also hoping that this
isn't the final step. Because the more work to be
done if the city is serious about meeting its infill
targets. And those targets matter because in film matters. Infill
creates housing choice and opportunities for gentle density and affordability.
It renews aging housing stock, provides a city with additional
tax revenue and makes better use of the infrastructure we
already have. So this is not simply an industry priority.
It's a city priority. It's your priority. The official community
plan calls for 50 percent of long - term growths
in regulatory barriers. And I can tell you that in
my time with the association and countless conversations with infill
builders and designers and everything that I have learned through
this review. I keep coming back to one conclusion. Saskatoon
has some of the most restrictive. Very terrify. And complex
is now joining. Then anywhere in Canada. And if Council
is serious about increasing their infill targets, that should matter.
For us, the clearest example of this is the sidewall
calculation. The City's independent review found that Saskatoon layers this
additional complex mass and control onto infill homes beyond height.
Setbacks, and site coverage. The review also could not identify
one other city currently using the same measure. So this
regulation is very unique to Saskatoon. So the question then
becomes, what is different about Saskatoon? That means the usual
Zoning Controls used elsewhere are not sufficient here. Because sidewall
is not just complicated math on paper. Right now a
home can comply with all the requirements and still require
costly redesigned because of it. And the review further found
it can actually penalize thoughtful design choices that add to
the neighbourhood character like Gables articulation and larger side setbacks.
Well also encouraging at the same time more simple building
forms just to make the calculation work. Now I do
want to be fair to administration's concern around massing. Yes,
sidewall adds another layer of control over to size. But
height, setbacks and site coverage already limit how large a
home can be and where it sits on the lot.
So why then does Saskatoon need this additional layer? And
could removing sidewall allow a larger build form in some
circumstances? Yes, absolutely. And sometimes we need that. But just
because zoning allows something does not mean that's what's going
to get built. In practice, I can assure you that
what actually gets built is rarely determined by the maximum
size zoning weight might allow. Instead, it is driven by
things like the buyer, the lot, design preferences, the market,
and especially today what people can afford. And sometimes having
that flexibility is exactly what allows the right housing solution
to work on a particular site. For example, on an
affordable or multifamily infill project, the amount of usable area
can directly affect Project Viability. And in some cases determine
whether an additional unit can be accommodated at all. So
yes, sidewall can have a very real impact on how
much housing gets built. So if Saskatoon truly needs this
additional regulation, then let's identify why. And determine whether there's
a simpler, more predictable way to achieve a similar outcome.
Which brings me to my second ask. Please direct administration
to continue working with industry and other stakeholders to further
evaluate removal of the sidewall calculation. And whether it's objectives
can be achieved through simpler, more conventional zoning controls. I'm
not asking counsel to consider removing sidewall tonight. I am
simply asking you to approve the amendments before you, and
please keep the door open to going further. Thank you
very much. Any questions? Uh, open up the floor for
questions. Councillor Pierce. Thank you, worship. Thank you for being
here. Uh, you made a comment about us having the
most restrictive requirements in Canada. Like, can you quantify that
for me? Because I know of some pretty restrictive places
in Canada. So I'm trying to appreciate that comment. And
it really comes down to that sidewall calculation and the
complexity that it prevents to development. I am not saying
we're the only one that is very restrictive. But my
conclusion after all the discussions I've had with many different
infill builders and designers and everything I learned, um, through
this report, that the independent consultant produced leads me to
believe we are among the most restrictive and complex, yes.
Okay. Thank you. I don't see another, oh, Council Killer.
Thank you. And through you, your worship, uh, Ms. Burgess.
In your opinion, Dori, could you just comment on what
utility you believe, you know, this sidewall requirement provides that
isn't accomplished through setback requirements height restrictions. And, uh, the
site footprint. Yeah, for sure. For sure. Like as administration
noted, sidewall was created for a reason. And it was
to prevent this overly massing of houses is what we
say. So, um, does the sidewall accomplish that in these
established neighbourhoods? Yeah. It does. It does keep a house
small. Um, it's not the same rules that apply when
you're in a newer development area. Um, it's very specific
to, to infill. But it's also got regulations by height.
Height is still much shorter. And this isn't being addressed
in any way shape or form in this package. We're
just talking sidewall here. Um, so there, even if you
remove sidewall, you're still not going to be as big
as a house. In Stonebridge, for example. Um, so we're
not talking necessarily, you know, we're talking a lot about
monster hoses and mansions. But in my frame of reference,
I'm also considering four units and three units in other
neighbourhoods like Sutherland and Confederation in other areas that are
equally impacted by these regulations that are limited by what
they can build. Okay. Thank you. Council Sarport. Thank you,
your worship through you. To Ms. Burgess. I just had
one question, especially in established neighbourhoods. Does infill development guaranteed
density. And does it also guarantee affordability. Because it's all
based on what type of the development happens, correct? Absolutely.
Absolutely. Um, you know, when we were going through the
housing accelerator fund, um, you know, the idea for units
as of right, um, honestly, when we looked at, and
there was a lot of analysis that was done, uh,
the various lot sizes that would apply. And in most
cases, um, we kept coming to the conclusion that it's
just not buildable. Like it's just not feasible, which definitely
would restrict what development would go in. So, you know,
it's difficult to answer your point. No, I guess the,
um, that you're going to get denser building forms. It's
the opportunity to have them more than anything. Right. So
basically this infill could just be just a big house
for a fact kind of thing. Sure. Sure. It could
be a house that, you know, and really we're talking
more, you know, length into the backyard, right? Um, you
know, I do myself with in Stonebird not in a
monster house. And I, I don't have issues, you know,
and the sidewall calculation there. Okay. Thank you. Councillor McDonald.
Thank you, Madam Mayor, and through to Ms. Burgess. You
spoke about, um, Saskatoon being pretty restrictive. What is the
extra kind of layer complication with infill, this particularly in
established neighbourhoods that you're hearing from your builders. Sidewall, full
stop. Sidewall continues to be one of the biggest barriers.
Um, and, and leading to redesign a lot, um, there
was many examples that I can provide you, uh, I'm
not a builder myself, but I hear all the stories.
You know, in one case, they had to remove literally
a closet in order to make the design work because
of the sidewall rules. So sidewall is one of those
complexities. And I think we got to remember that infill
in itself is highly complex. You know, there is sometimes
you're dealing like you're dealing with city trees. There's very
strict regulations around that. So you're navigating around that. You're
navigating around the community that you're building within. You know,
the complexity. And so, you know, we're adding another layer
of complexity to something that's already challenging. And something we
desperately need as a city. So really what we want
to see is just, you know, that flexibility. And yes,
that certainty, um, in order to encourage more growth, the
city that we've already built. Thank you. Councillor Parker. Yeah.
Uh, to Councillor McDonald, you gave her one example of
what the sidewall calculation has caused as far as redesign.
I guess I'm looking for kind of more practical examples
of how that's impacted design. And I think kind of
what I'm trying to get at is, um. How will
the 10 percent increase in the sidewalk calculation. Changed those
issues? So, um, to me, if you need an extra
10 percent, why wouldn't you design to 90 percent and
then use your 10 percent for flexibility rather than here's
a hundred percent of what you used to have. And
here's another 10 percent. So yeah, I'm just kind of
looking for, for me, cause I was just looking at
a picture, um, that kind of compared a home that
was built a beautiful infill home. And it had kind
of this, I need to show you the picture, but
really it was kind of a square. It felt more
like the neighbourhood. And they actually had to change it
to like that style. Um, just to meet the sidewall
calculation. Like it was just a tweak. It was, but
it doesn't change anything about the overall size of the
house. Do you know what I mean? It just created
a design problem because of the calculation. Um, I do
think that exemptions and considerations are going to be very
helpful. I am in no way, um, ungrateful, uh, for,
you know, the changes that are being made every little
bit helps. I think where you're still going to encounter
barriers is more when you're dealing with those, you know,
say four units or three units. I think you're probably
still going to butt up against a lot of challenges,
even with the 10 percent increase. But yeah, that's, okay,
has the home builders association advocated for exceptions specific to
four or three unit structures rather than the primary dwellings?
No, no. That's nothing that we've ever considered is, you
know, having those, you know, kind of specific exemptions. I
think sometimes when you start adding rules to rules, you
can create a little bit more confusion and complexity. And
really, I'm hoping that we're moving towards more simplicity. I
look at Edmonton. I know that they recently did some
changes where it pertains to their, their infill kind of
regulations. And, um, at one point I was asked like,
what cities doing it right? You know what I mean?
Like we all kind of have our challenges. We all
have our nuances. And I would say Edmonton, I would
say Edmonton's, you know, they removed what they called their
mature neighbourhood overlay, um, which was highly restrictive. And they
did so in the name of creating more consistency and
simplicity. And so sometimes I think the more rules you
create are the more rules you have to manage. And
the more rules that are open to say interpretation. So
if you're looking for more simplicity, um, I think perhaps
other than the planners in the room, uh, I would,
I would say the sidewalk calculation is not simple. Um,
so how does adding 10 percent that lean towards simplicity
as far as it doesn't. However, it does give, like
say, designers that much more kind of leeway, if you
will. I think every little bit helps. And this is
going to help. I think the door sill height, very
important thing, especially when we got to consider, we need
those units that are, you know, in order to accommodate
basement suites, that dorsal height had to move, right? So
I think they, they hit the nail on the head.
You know, do you even need a number? They're probably
not no one's going to build that way. But again,
that's a very important adjustment that speaks to how we're
building housing now for today. I think the very interesting
looking house on 11th that would tell you that people
will build that way. Um, but I appreciate that. Thank
you very much. I'll just add just a couple of
quick questions on understanding sidewall and the cell height. We
talked a lot about these massive houses and how that
these bilade changes that are recommended could accelerate very, very
large homes that ruin people's views and all of that.
And that's always been a challenge with infeliz that I'm
noticing in info neighbourhoods are those, uh, lots of been
subdivided and trying to figure out how to fit a
home on them and how do you even have a
home if you don't have a bit of sidewall. And
can you just speak to that? Because this is relatively
new that we have these very narrow homes on those,
say 50 or 60 foot lots. Yeah. No, I think
that's a very good point. Um, and I think it's
those narrow lots that really kind of are more challenged
by these sidewall calculations, right? In terms of the actual
home that you're able to put on them. Um, so
I think that that's a very important consideration because we
are seeing that. I know it's equally challenging in Greenfield
Development, right? Where we're seeing smaller and smaller lots, right?
So there is challenges to that. But fortunately in Greenfield,
you don't, you don't have the sidewall calculation. You're still
dictated on size by those basic rules of height and
setback and percent site coverage. And, you know, have the
opportunity to ask others hopefully, but I, uh, just, can
you speak to that? Cause if that's the way that
we provide rules around development outside of the infill, uh,
is fair to say that this is character preservation and
trying to keep things the same, uh, how do you
understand how these rules are being applied? This is probably
a better question for administration, but I'm just curious to
review. Like in terms of the comparison to Greenfield or
newer device? Right. You said in Greenfield, you don't have
the same restrictions. And neighbours still, I guess that's where
I'm personally challenged, right? Um, you know, like I said,
I live in Stonebridge and I can tell you for
certain, you know, if I look down my street very
regular street, no one's maximizing that building envelope. You got
bungalows, you got two stories. You got a diversity of
housing that kind of goes into these, these neighbourhoods. You
know, you have the backyard that you have, you know,
based on however the length of your house, because you're
not as limited by the sidewalk calculation. Um, and you
still have to follow the same rules of, you know,
no more than say 40 percent. So it will dictate
the size of the home. So, you know, I struggle
with that because I think of, you know, I couldn't
take, you know, just, you know, say I had a
maximized hosts, like I couldn't take that and put an
info because info still has regulations on height, you know,
to keep kind of that character, if you will, um,
to the existing neighbourhoods. Okay. I think, um, most of
my other questions are probably better left to administration, but
thank you. And oh, online, we're going to go now
to Councillor Donau. Thank you, worship, Ms. Burgess. Thank you
for your comments tonight. I just want to clarify a
few things. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Great.
Okay. The report indicates that the home builders is advocating
for the complete removal of infill provisions. And that was
said again tonight. I just want to clarify, is that
what you're asking for. Um, I'm asking for approval of
the package that's on the table. I think it's an
important step forward. And further to that, I am asking,
hopefully, uh, that Council will direct administration to further pursue
consideration of removal of the sidewall. Yeah. But you understand
and don't necessarily disagree to infel the guidelines as long
as they're simple and reasonable or okay. Yes. Yeah. Okay.
Um, how do other cities manage massing if they don't
use this calculation? Um, there's, there's a diversity of ways.
Um, that this can be be handled. I don't know
that there's any as complex as our particular sidewall rule.
Um, I believe that there's something called a floor area
ratio that Regina. And who else does it? I forget
Rejoin in another one uses. So again, that's more calculating
that I believe the maximum kind of square footage of
sorts. So it's still kind of controlling size. Um, I
don't know that that's a better solution. Um, I believe
Calgary does a stepped height or angular plane control, which
again is considering similar to how administration was talking about
the further they're out from the neighbouring property, the less
potential impact there is to that neighbour. Right. So it's
kind of more of consideration of that. But there's also,
you know, I've talked to others like designers that work
in municipalities that, you know, in order to create, because
it's really about the visual, right? The massing and just
like, you know, imagining a blank wall. But by using
different materials, um, articulations, you can actually really break up
that massing so it's not so, you know, abrupt, if
you will. Um, so, so there's different ways that you
can tackle it. I don't know that I have the
perfect solution. And, you know, if Saskatoon, you know, still
wants to retain some level of control, um, over mousing,
there is probably a multitude of things that can be
looked at that would make it more simple and certain
and better encourage infill to happen. Thank you. Thank you,
worship. Okay. I don't see any more lights on for
questions. Thank you. Uh, next we have Odell Genoway.
Good evening, worship mayor and councillors. I'm Rodelle Genoway, CEO
of Hometown Homes. Um, a home builder here in Saskatoon.
We've designed and built, um, eleven homes in the Varsity
view in Newtown neighbourhood and also do acreages in other
areas. But today I'm speaking on behalf of, um, some
of our challenges with infill development. And speaking on behalf
of Saskatoon and Region home builders association where I serve
on the board. So firstly one thing of how our
company works is we're design build. So I don't put
my personal taste on our homes. We design any style.
We design what our clients ask for. Obviously with our
guidance. So when I speak about rules or having to
take something off a drawing, it's not impacting me personally.
It's impacting our clients who are paying for it at
the end of the day. So I have a real
example we have in our design phase right now that
I think will be helpful to share. Um, it's being
designed for a lot that our clients own in Varsity
view. Um, they're a retired couple. They're in their 60s.
This is the last house that they'll be building. Their
style is traditional craftsman. And their goal is for this
home to look like it's always been there. So the
front of the house has, I have some photos, but
it's not going to help from this far away, but
the front of the house, um, has a really steep
gable. So a gavel is like a triangle. Like how
a kid draws a house. And rather than the whole
house just looking like one big triangle. The gable is
just a little feature on the right side of the
house. So in order to give it that curb appeal,
we need another roof line on the left, which requires
a gable on the sidewall on the side of the
house. So now that's the rule that creates the problem.
The city gives every house a sidewall budget, if you
will, in the bylaw. That's what the sidewall area is.
So it only covers two sides of the house. It
doesn't matter about the front or the back. So you
measure from the ground up to the highest point of
the roof. It has to fit within that budget. But
when you have a gable on the side, that triangle
counts towards that budget. So in this case, that gable
on the side spent a chunk of their sidewall area
budget and they went over. So a typical fix for
that would be make the house shorter or push the
whole house into the ground. So first we tried pushing
the house into the ground. But on this street specifically
the sewer depth is quite shallow. So we were, we
were hitting the, hitting the sewer line, um, we had
the lot surveyed. We had our sewer contractor involved and
they confirmed the number, the footing counset, lower than 501.
85. We were one inch below that. So that meant
the plumbing would be running uphill. And it ain't going
to work if that's the case. So we couldn't push
the house down, which left making the house shorter. So
we took 12 inches out of the second floor ceiling.
So it went from a nine foot ceiling to an
eight foot ceiling. So that spends less budget for that
sidewall area. And it led us lift the house back
up away from the sewer. But this is where it
gets tricky because the wall budget passes, but the sewer
doesn't. It's still too shallow. And the house needed to
come up four inches more. So two ways to find
four more inches is either take another foot out of
the ceiling height, which was the basement was our next
plan. I'd imagine nobody building a brand new house wants
to have an eight foot basement instead of a nine
foot basement. So that was the trap. The sewer says
lift the house. The front door rule says don't. The
wall budget says don't. But our clients gave up 12
inches of sealing upstairs. Their basement is next. And it's
all ultimately because of the style of roof that's on
this house. If it was a flat roof style house,
this would all be working perfectly. Um, what gets me
is that this house already passed on height on lot
coverage on how far the wall sits from the property
line. Those are all factored in how big this house
can actually be. But it's ultimately the roof that we
want to put on this house that will fit the
most in the neighbourhood is the issue that we're having.
So in the end, taking that gable off, the neighbour
doesn't get less house. They just get a flatter blank
or wall, um, which nobody wants to look at either.
So our ultimate ask, um, from my company hometown homes
and on behalf of the Saskatoon Region home builders association
is to approve package two. And at the end of
the day, nothing changes on ultimate massing. The height restrictions
are there. The setbacks are there. Thank you. Are there
questions for the speaker? I'm not seeing any, but I
have one. If these are passed, how would that impact
the project you just described. The roof line would get
to stay with its little peak on the front and
a nice, um, I don't know what you would call
a gable from the side. Ultimately it's going to have
the curb appeal that the neighbourhood wants. And so it
would actually fit with some of the change, some of
those changes that you had mentioned would still need to
happen. Yeah. But the roof design could stay. And with
the dorsal height, all we need is an extra four
inches. So just because this passes and we can have
12 inches, we're not going to take it. It would
make this house look weird. It's just that four inches
that we need. To bring it up and pass that
sewer. I don't want to get in the weeds on
one project, but I'd probably raise the ceiling, but that's
me. Anyways, thank you. Uh, I appreciate that. Uh, I
don't see their lights on for questions. So thank you.
We're going to move on now to Sherry Tarasoff. Hello.
Hello, Ms. Tarastoff. We can hear you. Hey, I have
a presentation that I'm hoping the clerk can display while
I'm presenting. We can see your presentation. Okay. Thank you.
Your worship and city councillors. My name is Sherry Tarasov.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak. Existing infill regulations
are working. The amendments before you are not necessary. Next
slide, please. There are many items to consider on this
agenda. Let's go through each of them. Next slide, please.
City Council still waiting for report back. In 2022, City
Council directed administration to track the impact of still height
restriction over a year's time. No detail is provided on
the time frame that was tracked and with the data
revealed. The infill review project did not address this information
before making recommendations. So his Council Direction now become optional.
Next slide, please. A return to larger dwelling units. These
proposed amendments will not address housing affordability. In fill targets
growth objectives or supply challenges. They will, however, allow for
larger dwelling units. Why should massive infill buildings be allowed
to be built again? Next slide, please. Half initiative already
complete. Admin highlights that these amendments form part of the
housing action plan. In May, admin also reported that approval
of the Zoning Bylaw Amendment for Development on Corner Lots
in the transit development area corresponded to the final milestone
and initiative three. It appears that this milestone has already
been completed. Next slide, please. Engagement favored industry reps. In
2022, when amendments to infill regulations were last considered, and
eight page engagement summary, detailed the workshops, meetings, surveys, and
presentations that were undertaken. This time engagement was primarily one
way. The exception being directed men engagement with industry reps.
And the Saskatooning region home builders association. Why wasn't a
focus group convened again. The mixed panel that the consultants
formed only involved three Community members. And their report even
stated further engagement will be required before any of the
recommended amendments proceed for Council's consideration. Next slide, please. Don't
fix what isn't broken. New primary dwellings in established neighbourhoods,
Lake Mutana, continue to be built under the infill regulations
that were implemented in 2015. Pictured is the 800 block
of university drive with three new builds. Next slide, please.
As provided by administration, the number of building permits for
one unit dwellings and established neighbourhoods continues to increase since
the infill regulations were adopted. Rising from 61 in 2014
to 148 last year. Why amend regulations that are already
working. Next slide, please. Appeals to push the boundaries. Few
appeals have been heard by the development appeals board regarding
sidewall deficiencies. All of these appeals were for massive single
family homes, not affordable homes. Next slide, please. Uh. In
summary in field regulations are in place to ensure new
infill development does not detract from the character of the
neighbourhood. And to balance demand for contemporary housing with the
existing built form. The existing infill regulations are working as
demonstrated by the growing number of building permits for primary
dwellings and established neighbourhoods. The amendments before you are not
necessary and are aimed to benefit massive infill housing, not
affordable housing. And one final note. Comments have been made
about the multi - unit dwellings or MUDs. And I
believe the Byla already has an exemption for MUD's in
certain areas regarding sidewall calculation. So perhaps admin to address
that more clearly. Thank you for your time. Thank you,
Mr. Tarasoff. Are there questions for the speaker. McDonald. Thank
you Madam Mayor through you. Um, thank you for your
presentation, Ms. Tarasoff. I was just wondering if you could
clarify one of your statements or actually just maybe provide
the background for me. I think I'm just missing it
on slide four. You said we don't need to build
large or infill doesn't need to have large hoses built
again. Yes. Can you just give me the ground on
that one. I'm just before the infill regulations came about
in 2015. There was a lot of. Frustration with the
size of buildings being built. And the infill regulations for
sidewall seemed to temper that. And now we're kind of
easing that. So we're going to increase them. Which perhaps
is going to make things difficult again. No, thank you.
Uh, very much for that clarification. Not seeing any of
the lights on. Thank you, Mr. We'll go now to
Carrie Tarasoff. Sherry Tarasoff is now exiting. I have
a presentation. Thank you. Thank you worship. My name is
Kerry Tarasoff and Council. I appreciate this opportunity. First slide
that I'm showing you today is our rework of the
city's own slide. And, uh, the yellow square at the
top was the existing number for that size of lot.
The green would be what the city's proposing. Minus the
4. 5 metre setback. Once you take that 4. 5
metre setback, which is being deemed as not significant when
it's very significant. When you get to the bottom, you
see that big red rectangle. That's actually the size of
building you can build. And I've got 39 years behind
me. So I think I'm fairly close. So someone can
call me out on it if they wish. Next slide,
please. This is the larger lot size again. So the
city wants to increase by 10 percent. What the real
damaging application is for this, uh, 4. 5 metre setback.
Next slide, please. So here is under the current regulations.
A front view that is in an established area. And
it shows the footprint and the plan view. So you
could still have a detached scratch, but it wouldn't be
attached. There'd be a break between the structures. And next
slide. So this is an isometric view to give you
an idea of the scale of a building. And this
is to scale. Next slide. So here is what will
be proposed if the city goes ahead tonight and you
vote this serum. The front view looks the same. I
agree. But if you look at the plan view, you
see this building got exceptionally long. And there's great implication
for that. Next slide, please. So here's what a side
view from the street looks like in a side view
from the neighbour. And you'll say, well, but they're going
to try to make it look better. We don't have
our architectural controls. This is the envelope that someone can
build within. And when somebody has an envelope, they will
take advantage of it. Next slide, please. So here's a
niceometric of what that looks like. And when you see
those four garage doors, that is the scale of a
building. We're talking about. It's massive. And this is a
40 percent lock cover for the building, an extra 10
percent added for the deck. And I've only used a
22 foot high wall, which is set up, uh, 0.
75 metres from the property line. So I believe there's
actually even room for me to get a little bit
bigger on some things, but I won't get into it.
This is more than enough to prove the point, isn't
it? So what we're really talking about is affordable versus
affluent. And really, the big push for all of this,
especially the 4. 5 emission and stuff is affluence, because
it makes, instead of having these exteriors separated garages, they
can all just be one big large structure. What would
be the harm in that. But let's talk fire protection.
I live in Westview and we had a massive fire
this year. I went and looked at that structure and
the cleanup crews that were working on it told me
that 22 structures were affected. And across the street from
where the fires took place is 24 metres away. And
they're siding is melting off their houses. So the problem
that we have is firefighters have a real problem fighting
these huge fires. And we're just going to double the
size. In fact, this is 110 percent increase of wall
area. And we were not considering the fire implications of
this. And we're putting firefighters lives at risk to try
to fight even more and more unreasonable fires. And we're
not putting any fire protection into the wall construction. So
if you were going to increase the wall construction and
say, well, we'll put extra fire rating in there, but
we're not doing that, are we? Because we wouldn't want
to add cost. So let me ask you a question
here. Um, if we're going to care about the people
that sleep in these homes at night and we're going
to care about the firefighters and we're already showing how
many infills, in fact, Ms. Genoway, they build a beautiful
house by the way. And they've done 11 infills. So
obviously they've been able to work within regulations. So do
we really need to make a big change. There might
be some small changes that are needed. But this 4.
5 metres is devastating change. And it was not even
properly presented by administration for you to consider tonight. So
one thing you need to realise as well is Edmonton
is doubling back right now is just passed in Council
and they will be going back to look at the
implications of infill. Because as they quoted Edmonton, Epton's having
a devastating effect for infill right now. And I don't
want us to go the same place. Any questions. Opening
the floor for questions. I'm not seeing any at this
time. But thank you. Next we have Peggy Sargent.
Good evening. Thank you for your time. My name is
Peggy Sargent. And I'm speaking here as a resident of
a neighbourhood which is under considerable development pressure. I'm concerned
about the possible relaxation of regulations regarding the sidewall area
of infill development. And the subsequent impact on adjacent residences.
This is a complicated issue. Which is difficult for the
lay person to understand without professional help. Certainly it is
for me. However, residents able to register an opinion about
the proposed bylaw when they are unable to determine the
impact of an infill on their adjacent property. Would an
increase of 10 percent inside wall area affect the light
into a dwelling through additional shading. Would an exemption for
the sidewall area of a development 4. 5 metres from
the side property line increase the ability of the new
infill to overlook its neighbor's property. I'm actually really concerned
about that 4. 5 exemption. I just don't know. What
this would actually look like. Over the years, the city
has recognised the community's desire for infill of regulations to
mitigate impacts on adjacent property. They also understand and have
stated that removal of regulations can often result in large
dwellings. Not more housing. And I can certainly attest to
that. With regard to the proposed new zoning by law,
however, I feel there has been little engagements with the
public to explain the new proposals. The city has had
multiple conversations with the development community, but residents, the people
most affected by a new adjacent development of barely mentioned.
I don't consider providing some information on the City's website
and asking the reader to contact the planning department adequate
engagement. It assumes that residents are following City Development Activities
Online, leaving many members of the public out in the
cold. There have been no public engagement sessions. And I
would suggest that most members of the public have no
idea, not a clue that this bylaw is being considered
this evening. The City can do better than this. I
know that. I'm asking the City to withdraw this proposed
by law. And at this time to allow for more
engagement with the public at large. This should include the
provision of illustrated examples of how the proposals could have
an impact on adjacent properties. The more pictures, the better
so much more easily, her accessible for people like me.
I believe this action will be appreciated by the many,
many citizens who will be affected by future info development.
Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Sargent. Are there questions, should
speak her? Not seeing any. Uh, thank you so much
for being here. Uh, we now come to the end
of the list of speakers, but anyone in the gallery
who, uh, wishes to speak may do so. Is there
anyone who would like to speak to this item.
Uh, whoever, I'm sorry, who? All right. Please go to
the podium. Welcome. And, uh, I think you've heard the
rules of engagement here. And so if you could just
kind of introduce yourself when you're ready and begin. Sure.
I just have an image that I could pass around
of what a step actually, a step height, looks like
at 1. 3 metres. So I'll just.
And I'll just ask you to adjust the microphone so
that you can, we can hear you a little better.
Thanks. Perfect. Thank you. Um, your honour and council, thank
you for the opportunity to speak this evening. Um, my
name is Mark Robin and I'm a local architect. And
a builder of Infill Homes with Design Build. And our
longstanding member on various panels regarding SaaStoons infill regulations from
their early inception. In 2010, 16 community associations came together
through concern over scale and character of infill homes rising
in existing neighbourhoods. A mass of amount of work was
done over five years to balance current building practices with
interests of character and scale. Together with council in 2015,
we implemented these landmark regulations. These regulations are working well.
Exterior scale and massing have drastically improved basement development is
up over 60 percent has even made a comeback. Large
scale wells and other innovations are becoming commonplace. The building
industry is maturing. And now using previously underutilized parts of
the home to find their extra square footage. The regulations
have helped by the confidence of residents in established neighbourhoods.
And the adverse reaction to infill has slowly declined over
this period as a result. Two primary recommendations have been
made this evening undermine the effectiveness of the regulations. The
relaxing of sale height and the permitted psi wall area
are not tied to any higher municipal goals of affordability
or density. And we'll simply result in larger, more expensive
homes. Neighbourhood residents are not asking for these changes. The
development industry is. In 2014, consultant firm Brooke McElroy recommended
a maximum seal height of 0. 9 metres. Development pressure
later saw this increase to 1. 0 metres. A two
bedroom basement suite is easily accommodated under the existing regulations
on the very small list of lots. A 24 inch
tall egress window can be accommodated without a window well.
And much larger with the window well. Consulting with three
different architecture firms, sewer depth arises in about three percent
of cases. And in every single case, this has been
resolved by going through an eight foot, sorry, going to
an eight foot basement ceiling instead of a nine foot
or a tent foot. In a situation, if a situation
were to arise where a shallow utility could not be
resolved through design, a pump or a variance application are
both tools in place that could be available. Had the
administration directly track and report back on data of non
- standard utility connections as directed by Council on May
24th of 2022. They likely would have seen this very
similar results. An image of a front step at 1.
3 metres is included that I've circulated. Um, a sill
height increase from one metre to 1. 3 metre is
unnecessary. Relaxing sidewall area bylaws, the very small
list of lots, a 25 foot by 130 foot will
yield up to 2, 000 square feet. As a two
- story. And an additional 600 square feet with addict
development and an additional 1, 000 square feet with basement
development. Larger lots will yield much larger homes. Loopholes still
remain in the bylaw as to propose this evening. However,
well - intended, whenever an exemption is made in the
bylaw, it exposes the byla up to gaming manipulation and
exploitation. Originally in 2015, fascia soffits and all other elements
were intended to be included as mass in the sidewall
area calculation to simplify the bylaw. But we're not. And
are still not remedied in this new proposal. A definition
of steeply slope proofs versus walls is also not included
in this proposal. Nor are roofs over occupied areas versus
decorative roofs on sidewalls. This would have been the opportunity
to clean up and simplify the bylaw. However, these loopholes
remain. Interpretation will continue to be a problem for administrative
staff. In summary, these proposed changes fail to meet four
key benchmarks. They don't increase density. They don't produce affordable
housing. They don't improve context - sensitive design and they
don't address existing loopholes or problems in the bylaw. I'm
sorry. That's it. Thank you. Thanks for being here. Do
we have questions for the speaker. I'm not seeing any,
but thank you for your presentation. Thank you. Are there
any others who would like to speak. Go ahead.
Your worship councillors. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. I'm
Jonathan Naylor and I'm speaking on behalf of the vast
if you community association, which is asking you not to
pass. The sidewall variants, the set - pack exceptions, or
the change in Silhite. To just sort of put this
in personal terms, many of our residents remember the time
when we did not have the sidewall rule. We had
very large rectangular homes which pushed deep back into the
lot. They only housed one family. Uh, and the neighbours
suffered privacy and shading concerns. We also lost a lot
of trees. Which is one of the features of our
neighbourhood, which many residents treasure and certainly provide ecological benefits.
There's a lot of infillin on neighbourhood. Sam Hc showed
data that starts housing starts for up in Saskatoon. The
current by - laws appear to be working just fine.
If you pass by laws which allowed, or Bylow changes
which allow bigger changes, but will the result of that
be. What limits housing in Saskatoon. One of the things
is labour. I'm trying to get, change it done by
basement. I know. Um, so if you divert your labour
into building very large homes, then you take it away
from building more affordable homes. It's just pretty much that
simple. What is the typical house that's built in vast
if you on a 25 wide lot. Well, typically it's
2, 000 square feet. Typically it has a thousand square
feet. Which could be a secondary suite. Um, as Marcus
said, um, you could be creative about the attic and
that even more space. A lot of the people who
live in those homes are one or two people. Because
typically their older people who actually have the money to
afford to live in that neighbourhood. And they've typically often
their kids have left. I mean, occasionally, hopefully. So there
are losses to the neighbourhood when we have increased sight
coverage. We do have less vegetation. We do have less
shading. We do have less trees to soak up the
water. So there are losses associated with these proposed changes.
And as I've already said, I would urge you to
reject them. Thank you for your time. Are the questions,
Red Speaker. Not seeing any, but thank you. Uh, would
you like to speak. Go ahead and take the microphone.
So good evening. My name is Robert Clipperton. I'm speaking
on behalf of the new town Community Association. And I
urge Council to reject these proposed amendments. In my 12
years with the NCAA, we've been part of a community
- based effort to have infill protections put into place
first in 2015. And again, to push back against proposals
to relax these restrictions into 2022, these proposals were rejected
by Council. And here we are only four years later
with another initiative to once again make it easier to
build larger homes in our neighbourhoods. What has changed? Our
residents and homeowners pleading for these changes, which will allow
for larger houses. Do we see empty lots where builders
have found it impossible or even difficult to build new
housing? I think not. The NCA does not see any
benefit from these changes other than the more profit to
be made from the sale of a larger host than
a smaller one. So the proposals address two aspects of
host design. One is increased cell height. The main argument
for this is that there are lots where sewer services
are so shallow that it hampers the depth of basements.
And this has been referred to the admin report that
was supposed to track the impact of sale height restrictions
resulting from non - standard services connections. So where is
that data? And I suspect it's like a previous speaker
said. It is so small that, uh, the, uh, became
not worth mentioning. I've been told there's only been a
handful of instances like that in the past decade. Um,
the sale height on my house is 60 centimeters. Most
houses on my block are lower than that. I looked
at the house across the street and said, well, it
looks considerably higher. It's 80 centimeters. There's only one house
on our block, an older infield that looks to be
higher than the current one metre rule. And one third
of a metre may not only look like a small
amount, but it is a 30 percent increasescape. Those of
us living in existing neighbourhoods want them to retain the
character, which prompted us to take up residents there in
the first place. And the other aspect is sidewall massing
and other speakers have shown quite eloquently that this will
lead to much larger homes on corner lots, which can
affect quality of life and property values, not only on
adjoining properties, but in the neighbourhood as a whole. Throughout
these discussions, people refer to the constraints imposed by the
half initiative, according to the federal website. This funding is
meant to support the development of affordable inclusive, equitable and
climate resilient communities. And I don't think anyone can argue
that higher door sale height or increased wall massing will
result in an increase in either the number or affordability
of houses. Replacing a small three bedroom home with a
larger three bedroom home does not increase either housing supply
or population density and large houses are not more affordable
than small ones. And finally, a few comments on the
engagement process. And I must say that in recent years,
I found Saskatoon's engagement team to be pretty effective. I
suspect, however, they had very little to do with this
attempt. Uh, the city says, are the report says the
City Consulted with the home builders association through multiple meetings
to obtain input on proposed amendments? Why were there no
public meetings with residents of these affected neighbourhoods and the
men made a reference to a meeting in 2015 on
the internet? I was there. We called another one, uh,
on our own of Community Associations. And I guess, uh,
got the information that we wanted. So if you're really
interested in engaging the public on an issue, you wouldn't
do so during the sleeper months of July and August.
Somebody already said that most of the residents have no
idea this meeting's happening. Tonight far too complicated to have
abbreviated explanations on the internet, what we needed where a
public meeting are two where people could meet in person
ask questions and interact both with each other and civic
officials. And the materials posted on the City's Engage page
were lacking in detail. At one point, viewers were referred
to the infill review project report, which was not written
for the general public. Here's a quote. OUD's TUDs. SDD
S's MUS's in established neighbourhoods, except MUDs and CR1 and
CR2 Zones, CGA corner lots in TDA. Did you understand
that? I still don't. At one point, viewers were directed
to click on a link for more detailed information, but
when you did so, it just brought you back to
where you clicked on the link in the first place.
Um, tonight's meeting was initially advertised as being on Saturday,
August 29th. So I wrote in to say, Hey, I
think there's a mistake been made here. Both the ants
and the means to accomplish some are flawed and should
be put back on the shelf. Thank you. Thank you
Mr. Clipperton. Are there any questions. I'm not seeing any.
Thank you. Uh, I don't think there's anyone left in
the gallery to speak to this. Oh, go right ahead.
You were the only person who's not administration who has
not yet spoken.
Your Honour Council, my name is Brett Johnson. I'm an
owner of a design company called Final Draft in the
City. We cover, I would say probably, we're one of
six companies within Saskatchewan that covers the majority of your
residential design. So customers alike home builder. By the way,
I'm a part of the homebrew association for the last
25 years. Um, we covered design companies. And for design
for private individuals as well. So, um, me coming up
and speaking isn't necessarily to support one thing or the
other, but maybe give the council an opportunity to ask
questions or give my insight about some of the points
that weren't brought up. Um, the bigger thing is we're
very close to something that might be a compromise from
all courses. Um, in my office. I've said to Mark,
to your staff, by the way, who have been doing
a terrific job on bringing this forth, we're probably 10
to 15 percent. If we could go 10 to 15
percent, I could probably make our office could probably make
most of the wishes from our customers'work. So whether it's
a design related solution or city of Saskatoon solution or
just, uh, a technical solution for being able to make
the walls work, the roof heights work. Or it's a
stuff in the matter where the city has, for example,
the uplift station. Uh, we've worked in Alberta, worked in
BC. And there's a lot of cities that regularly use
uplift stations when the footing heights are lower than the
utility connections. And that would point to another greater issue.
Council, you're going to have to make a decision eventually.
And you make it street by street by street now.
Your utility connections. And your utility sewer heights. If you
went through and if you did a looked at all
that, there's a huge amount of that that is just
so outdated. That has to be upgraded and money needs
to be spent there to accommodate nowadays technology, the amount
of volume of water that we're using. And so that's
one solution. The other few solutions that come up mark
alluded to them, uh, we're coming back to using more,
uh, bigger window wells, um, people don't like window wells.
The reason why they don't like windows is because when
we built up until the mid or early 2000s or
early 1990s, no one would put a window well in
because we didn't have to stand pipes that would be
working with our sumps. So our sumps would then pick
up the water and discharge it. The city doesn't allow
us to take it into our own control. They ask
us to discharge it out onto the street so that
it can go in through down to the river and
so on and be on take it that way, which
was a simple thing that happened 20 years ago, gave
or take, um, I tell you how long I've been
doing this. But so the simple steps that have started
to work for everyone. I guess the question that the
council has to make a decision on all these little
things can get worked out. I am in support. Of
everything but the seal height. I think all of that
stuff is very easily worked out. Um, but what I'm
curious about is from council is you're not arguing about
all of these little things. All of these small points
you can hit there. You're actually talking about how much
is it going to cost? You talk about affordability. When
you say the word affordability, are you saying how much
has construction rows to be able to build anything? Or
are you talking about being able to build an affordable
house for someone that's going to be buying something that's
less than 500, 000 dollars. Our average, I don't have
this off the top of my head, but our average
house is rising up towards 400, 000 dollars now. So
our average cost is growing, but the part that we're
arguing about is not about a 4, 000 dollar house.
This is a 800, 000 dollar house or higher. We're
talking about the mansions. We're talking about houses that are
over 2, 000 square feet. Or much larger than that.
We're only hitting that on 30 feet or less lots
that are 30 feet or smaller, most likely on the
25 foot split. And when you put all those in
the sidewall starts to become an issue. And I guess
the 10 percent is worth looking at. Um, and worth
passing the sale height is a personal thing. I argue
and go back and forth not based on obviously I'm
speaking against some of the thing in the home builder
association would want. I'm arguing for good design. Now what's
good design. Everybody has an idea of what good design
is. But good design takes into all of those stuff
into account to what suits the neighbourhood, but also suits
the customer. So that speaker Councillor Ford. Thank you.
Your worship through you too. Is it Mr. Johnson? Yes.
You mentioned something I just wrote it down. You said
that the sewer utility lines are outdated. Can you speak
on that? Or is that did you say that? Is
that what I heard? Yeah. So five years ago, four
years ago, you placed most of Avenue G South. We've
done two houses. So if I could call off, uh,
two blocks directly, uh, towards the river from the friendship
in, I'm sure everyone knows that community relatively well. Cynthia,
you should, you've supported that for a long time. Uh,
that street was replaced. Any new house that goes on
to that will not have a problem with supplying water
or worse, the sewer. On that block, because that whole
street resempla placed, uh, only a few years ago. There
are multiple older neighbourhoods that house shallow, um, utilities. So,
and I'm just calling it out saying that you're going
to have an issue with that. If like something like
a fire happened or if you had a massive amount
of houses, that inventory that needed to be replaced. Because
all of them will have to be done. So it's
just old inventory. It's just like our, our housing requirements.
We have a massive amount of old inventory out there.
And it will still and get, get older and older
and older. Unless you can come to a conclusion. With
the association and my customers, because they're the ones that
are going to buy those old band and lots. Those
are the ones that are going to drop those houses
and put new houses up in whatever state they end
up designing it for. But it'll just sit there because
it's not affordable enough. Or most customers. I've had customers
come in, purchase a lot. And then sell it eight
months later because we couldn't get what they wanted out
of it. Okay. Thank you. Councillor McDonald. Thank you Madam
Mayor through. Um, you said, but you are a builder
in the city. Uh, I own final draft. So I
know last year we did 175 projects within the city
of Saskatoon. So in a lot of the pitchers that
we've seen today on like infills and things, like I've
noticed a lot of them have flatter roofs. Is that
to allow for a larger sidewall? Nope. No. No. That's
just for fun. Just practice this a little bit before
in what was it 2015 or five or six years
ago. I'm the one that put the physical form to
the sidewall calculation. Darryl and Mark and I put it
together mathematically. So it is sort of a Tetris version
of it, but it's about sidewall and shifting and making
as much sidewall or as little sidewall as you can
within a calculation that someone could understand. If you can
understand that hats off to you. But, um, most of
the sidewall stuff that comes up in our office, um,
it's exactly what everyone was saying. How high we have
to get it out of the water to get it
to float. And get away from the, uh, uplift station.
But everyone wants a nine foot basement. They want a
nine foot main floor and then one a nine foot
second floor. And we are literally 10 percent away from
that change from making that work. Cause the average house
that comes in that doesn't then feel is 18 to
2, 100 square feet. I will try to follow that.
Thank you. I think that's the end of the questions,
but thanks very much for being here. We've come to
the end of our speakers. So the next, uh, the
next opportunity is for Council to ask questions of administration.
So the floor is now open for that. Councillor Ford.
Thank you, your worship. And through you to administration, I
just had some questions. And I guess it's from some
of the comments that were made today. Counts Council considered
a similar sidewall changes in 2022 and did not approve
that bylaw at the time. What is different today. Thank
you for the question. Through the chair. So back in
2022, um, we had proposed the same change to store
cell height. Which we still support. Primarily based on the
sewer connections. Um, and that it's, it's minor. With sidewall,
we proposed, um, to exempt the distance from the flanking
street of three or flanking other property, the neighbouring property,
three metres. And now we're proposing that that setback be
greater, um, up to four and a half. So we're
increasing the setback for the exemption from three to four
and a half. And then also we had proposed to
exempt gable ends. That one was, although it would have
helped, um, certain designs, perhaps some that our speakers did.
It also left the potential for some very odd building
designs that could be accommodated with a very, with one
story and then a huge, a huge gable end that
again, um, really doesn't, doesn't gain anything. And it would
really contravene or not contravene. It wouldn't meet the goals
of the sidewall area. So for those reasons, council didn't
approve it. And we also had, um, the same opposition
from the same essentially from the same groups at that
meeting. Okay. So it went from 3. 5 to 4.
5. Is that what we're three to 4. 5. So,
so what new evidence data experiences administration obtained since 22
that supports approving these sidewall changes now. That's a very
good question. And through the chair. So instead of exempting
gay balance or specific architectural features like dormers or little
roof areas through our consultation and through the work we
did, we felt that the 10 percent increase would address
those, um, small, small design changes. So instead of exempting
specific architecture features like gay BLen's and getting for lack
of a better word goofy, potentially goofy designs, increase across
the board by 10 percent. So it provides for a
design flexibility. So this 10 percent, um, to most lots
on a 25 foot lot, this would increase the floor
area by about 100 square feet. So that would mean
the ability to have a second bathroom. In a house.
Um, on a, on a larger house, it could be
two to 300 square feet. On the floor plate. In
regard to the three to four and a half, that
increased distance, we felt it was adequate. To mitigate the
massing. And that four and a half would only really
be applicable on very wide lots. And on corners. And
I know we've heard tonight, you know, that it's the
term monster house mansion. Well, in neighbourhoods in particular, Varsity
view and new town. And we have mansions. So we
have them. They exist in the neighbourhood. Everyone accept, you
know, accepts them. But this exemption for coroner lots on
the flanking street and the SEPAC of four and a
half would really only provide those opportunities for the larger
houses on corner lots. For the average lot or the
interior lot, it won't provide that much extra. But when
I read this report, I actually thought it was just
corner lots we were talking about. No, all lots. It
is all oxygen. It is all lots. Okay. Okay. Just
again, so in 2022, counsel last administration to do further
work. And you sort of, I think you answered this
question for me. So I, but I just wanted to
ask it again. Can administrators tell us what work was
completed and what we learned, what was learned. And where
council can see those results. Great. Thank you. And through
you mayor block to the councillor. Leslie understand director of
Planning and Development. Uh, so, you know, reflecting on your
question and going back to 2022, we had been doing
our Zoning Byla review project at that time. So we
were going through a comprehensive update of the bylaw. We
were asked to do further work at that time. There
was the one specific one about the sewer heights at
that time we indicated we wouldn't be able to do
that with the current resources because that product was ending.
We were at the end of that project. However, subsequent
to that, um, we did have the housing accelerator fund
come in that prompted wide scale changes to our zoning
bylaw. Um, massive changes to our regulatory regime in Saskatoon,
particularly affecting our older neighbourhoods, uh, through those discussions there
was quite a bit of, um, very challenging discussions and
good discussions about what does our community want to see
in these areas. And there was also that pushback against,
we're going to lose our character in our older neighbourhoods
by making those changes. Now a wide variety of those
changes did go into place. So we did have the
opening up of our Zoning Bylaw throughout the city, uh,
to allow more building forms such as the four units
on every site. Uh, so that change has occurred. And
as part of our housing accelerator fund initiatives, we also
had a commitment to review our infill regulations. So that's
led to the work here today. Um, including other packages
that have already been before council. So I hope that
answers your question. It does. It does. Thank you. And
I know that in the conversations that we heard from
some of the presenters today that the, it sounds like
the engagement was in very well done. And I just
wanted to, can you speak on that? Like or the
information wasn't easily accessible. There was a hope variety of
things that was brought forward by some of the speakers
today. Yeah. Thank you for the question. So, um, we
felt the broader Public Engagement, public meetings, um, in -
person meetings. Because these changes could be, um, articulated on
our website. We felt that it wasn't needed. And we
have gone out and consulted with the community several times
from 2015. And we typically get, and I'm being frank
about this and I apologise. We get the same result.
We get the existing, a few existing residents against any
change. And we, you know, get the developers trying to
push the envelope. So we're trying again to balance this.
In terms of the engagement, um, yes, we could have
done a better job. We recently implemented a brand new
design or engagement platform. And that was just done in
August. Um, we could have certainly done a more robust,
more robust information. But we honestly felt that, um, changes
of this magnitude didn't warrant broader public engagement. And just
exactly what engagement was done again. I sort of was
confused. So we have through the half project, we collected,
um, I believe it was, um. Oh, 500, 500, um,
500 emails of interested people. And we did eBlasts to
them. Indicating what we were doing. We had social media,
um, the city social media, our communications team, um, pushed
them out that way. Uh. Dedicated engage page. And the
Public Notice was posted as per requirement on August 7th.
Thank you. I know that, uh, we saw a lot
of different drawings up here in the presentations. And I
was curious, like the one that it was interesting to
me was the example that Mr. Tarazoff showed. And I
just wanted to ask, based on these, the new bylaw,
and what he's shown, is that accurate? Is that what
is a possibility built with this new bylaw? You saw
his drawing in his presentation too. I was just curious
on that. Because I'm trying to figure this out myself.
That's a good question. What the drawings do to pick
is a very simple box. Built to the absolute maximum.
Height, sight coverage set box. So, you know, the more
useful drawings and part of that package where the site,
like the actual site plans, not necessarily elevations. Because in
my opinion, the elevations. They look a bit misleading just
the way they're done and how the, you know, how
the roof is oriented and it is just a big
blank wall. Towards the neighbouring properties. Like on a development
such as this with an attached garage. We would highly
unlikely see it look like this. Yeah. So, so there's
the one gentleman's video presentation said that they're, you know,
with the sidewalls, is there a height restriction? Like how
high can a person build those? Like it looked like
you could go quite high. So the maximum building height,
the established neighbourhoods to the midpoint of a peak roof
is eight and a half metres. So it has to
be below eight and a half metres. That contrast to
in the new neighbourhoods of 10 metres. So, um, dwellings
are that, you know, essentially a metre and a half
shorter. Or less high in the older neighbourhoods. So the
maximum height build is eight and a half metres or
10 metres. Eight and a half. Sorry. Okay. Thank you.
Those are my questions. Councillor Dubois. Thank you Mayor Bloch.
And through you two administration. So I've got a few
questions here. So first of all, I still need clarification.
On the timeline of these meetings. So we, this was
approved in 2015. And then what precipitated us having another
report in 2022. If things seem to be okay in
2025, we seem to not have having any issues. The
building was happening to high density homes are being built,
et cetera, et cetera. Through Siria, the chair, respond to
your question. So in 2022, the city undertook a comprehensive
zoning Bioware review. We identified a number of issues and
provided a number of reports this City Council, one of
the reviews that was identified was review of the city's
infill regulations, including sidewall, dorsill height, among others. So some
changes were made. So it was identified to look at
sidewall. Because. Often, and it's a lot of what we
heard tonight. Is it the regulation is hard to understand.
And it's sometimes hard to apply. So we looked at
it and recommended that we build in some flexibility. So
this change with the Zoning Bylar View, we did surveys.
We did a lot of Public Engagement. It was identified
as an issue. To look at. So at that time
we brought forward the proposal in 2022. That was denied,
um, so then move forward through the housing accelerator fund
amendments. And now we're in 2025. We had the consultant
prepare report. And through their research and their municipal scans,
and they did a plethora of work for us. They
identified that our sidewall regulations, which we are the only
city in Canada that have them are really unimpediment to
housing development. So I know we've talked about three and
four unit dwellings. Um, CMH, CH did their design catalogue.
I'm not sure. I hope I don't spur any more
questions. When they did their design catalogue, um, multiple smaller
multiple unit dwellings that could form to regulations across Western
Canada could not fit in Saskatoon because of the sidewall
area. And that is for three and four unit dwellings.
And Saskatoon We Group, everything together, one unit dwellings, two
uni dwelling semi - detached dwellings and multiple unit dwellings
with more than with up to four units. So that's,
that's why we did it this time. We met with
the home builders and designers on both sides of the
issue and came today with this compromise that really, in
our opinion, has less impact than the proposal did in
2022. Okay. Thank you. So that zoning bylaw review in
the U undertook in 2022. Why did you undertake that
review at that time. Like what, what precipitated you to
do a zoning bylaw review. Um, are the Zoning bylaw
hadn't been reviewed since 1997. It was in need of
an update. There was, we had a long laundry list
of amendments that needed to be made to bring it
up to, you know, accommodate new uses, look at some
increased regulations. Well, you might recall, we remove parking regulations
at the time through that project. We looked at infill,
just a large number of amendments. Okay. Thank you. So
I want to talk about the infrastructure again. These are
older neighbourhoods primarily that the, these, uh, these changes would
affect. And so the infrastructure is old and some of
it is outdated. And so how do we know that
if this goes through and we do have large homes,
for example, on, on corner lots, that that will, the
infrastructure will sustain what is being built there. And thank
you for the question. I believe we have the same
question when we talked about Garden of Grao Suites. And
our, um, our water and sewer engineers have modelled it
and replacement of housing and incremental increases in density can
be accommodated within our existing. Water and sewer connections. Like
we can accommodate the density. But oftentimes with info, we're
talking about replacing one home with another home. So there
is somewhat of an increase in density over time, but
in these low density neighbourhoods is typically a one -
to - one replacement or a one to two. Okay.
So you're telling me that a review is done and
that the infrastructure in these areas that would pertain to
these, uh, bilaw changes today, that they're all, um, the
infrastructure's all fine. There would not be any issues, not
any extra cost to the city in years to come.
Well, through the chair, that's infrastructure upgrades are, I think,
always on the horizon for the city, about misunderstand that.
Thank you. So, um, you know, this, we've talked about
this. I know here a few times where with our
infrastructure modelling that occurs in the city, our team, uh,
Saa's tune water and others, they do this on a
comprehensive basis regularly looking at what our system is able
to accommodate, um, what trends we are seeing coming through
and what that will mean for our system. And so
they're doing that on an iterative basis all the time
to understand what, what is needed. So these typical situations,
uh, Ms. Catholic to mentioned where it's basically a one
- to - one replacement. We know our system can
accommodate that. Some sites may have unique challenges. Mr. Johnson
addressed that as well. Um, that they will have to
respond to. And when we do see increased density coming
in to some of these areas, they may also face
a different challenge. But Council will also know you have
approved some Brers projects over the years where there are
larger infrastructure packages that are needed to address some of
our infrastructure in the community. So in particular, I can
think of the large flood projects that have been done
to address the storm events that we have and those
kinds of things. So there are things that are done
at the Citywide level. And there are things that are
needed at the site level, but we look at that
as a comprehensive package for infrastructure modelling at the city,
um, to accommodate it. Okay. Thank you. And so I'm
trying to wrap my head around. These bylaw changes. And
then half has been always thrown in there. And so
half is affordable housing increased density housing. It's not large
houses. And so I'm trying to figure out how this
goes together with what we're doing today. Great. Thank you
for the question. So, um, the housing accelerator fund is
really the newest prompt for these changes. We had talked
about the Zoning Byla review that we had done because
our Zoning Byla needed a real refresh. And so we
now have a new bylaw that we adopted or that
you adopted. So with the housing accelerator fund, that was
really an initiative, um, of the federal government to prompt
municipalities to look at the tools that we have in
our toolbox that can affect housing supply, uh, in our
communities. So with the housing crisis across the country, they
identified a package of work that could be done for
municipalities to look at our bylaws. Um, so part of
that was, um, things that could look at how we
develop affordable housing, um, I would say half was not
specific to affordable housing. It was looking at overall supply,
um, approaches in terms of municipal regulations in various ways.
So different tools, municipalities can use. But it did give
us an opportunity to look at how we could do
affordable housing. It gave us that, prompt to really look
at our regulations and the zoning bylaw throughout the city,
not specific to infill development alone. But look at all
of those things, um, in terms of what we can
do to increase the possibility for more housing supply in
our communities. It was really a call for municipalities to
look at our tools to respond to that issue. Uh,
so that, then one of our pieces was a specific
piece around infill regulations in the review of our infill
regulations. That gets us today. Thank you for that overview
of half, Ms. Anderson. So then, but I don't see
what we're working or discussing today how that is going
to increase the housing supply. Because more than likely, these
are going to be, um, one unit dwelling, so to
speak. They're not going to be, it's not going to
be high density housing. So it won't be, um, dealing
with the housing crisis that we have. So am I,
is that accurate what I'm, what I just said. Well,
I can't, I definitely see that. There is, I think
limited impact that will come from these changes to the
numbers of units that we will get overall. But this
is about considering our, our regulatory tools more complex than
they need to be for all types of housing. Um,
and so what we have here before you is what
we're trying to do is balance a demand from industry
for increased design flexibility increased options to respond to their
customers as well as try to maximize the way that
we can fit with our community character, because that has
been a long - term goal of council as well
as to try to maintain the character of her infill
neighbourhood. So we are trying to bring forward a balance
in this approach, but I think you're correct in that
this won't have a large effect on overall supply. And
thank you. And my last question. One of the speakers
mentioned that this meeting, this public hearing was advertised for
August 29th. Can someone an administration speak to that? Because
it is August 26th today. There was an error on
the engage page for the project that was fixed as
soon as Mr. Clipperton emailed us a week and a
half ago. But the official Public Notice that's required by
the city of Saskatoon, the day was correct. So the
engage page for the project. We speak closer to the
microphone. Oh, sorry. That's okay. Sorry. The engage page for
the project had an error on it. And we fix
that as soon as Mr. Clipperton let us know. But
the official Public Notice that's required by our Public's Notice
Policy was correct. Thank you for that clarification. Those are
my questions at this time. Thank. You. All right. We
still have questions from City Council. And I think we're
going to take a break and we will resume at
8 15. Thanks.
I don't care.
Councillor Pierce, the floor is yours. All right, thank you
your worship.
Thank you. So I just have got questions. You know
what, just one second. Good point. We need all members
of Council in attendance for every minute this Public Hearing.
So we're just gonna make sure everybody is present and
accounted for, I think, in Chambers. We are good, but
I'm just gonna double check Councillor Davies. Are you on
the line? I am, yep. And Councillor Donauer. Sam, yep.
All right, all members, Cimon. Yes. Okay. All are President
and accounted for. Now Councillor Pierce, four is yours. Thank
you. Point of order, hang on Councillor Pierce. We'll go
to Councillor Dubois. Thank you Mayor Bloch. Can you remind
counsel and the public on the timing? It's already quarter
after age, and I know we've got timing regulations where
the meeting ends and what happens if we don't finish
and all that. Could we remind every one of that,
please? Let's get a more to just update us. Yep,
so our procedural biolog dictates that we would stop the
meeting at nine o'clock p. m. However, with a two
- third majority vote of those present, we can extend
the meeting to a set time, to finish a set
item or whatever set. Time that council wants. It's a
long day. Yeah, thank you. And if they do not,
that means we have to return tomorrow at 1 p.
m., is that correct? And if we aren't done, we
would return at 1 p. m. Interval was the word
I was looking for. Okay. Am I free to resume
the Public Hearing now? Okay. Councillor Pierce of Floor is,
I think yours. All right, no pressure. My understanding is,
and from what I've heard tonight, the last consultation or
Public Engagement was 2015. That's not correct.
This project to review infill regulations started in 2013. With
the preparation of the neighbourhood level and - filled strategy.
Extensive consultation was done at that time. When we brought
the regulations forward for primary dwellings in 2015, again, extensive
consultation was done. When we brought forward the amendments in
2022 as a part of the Zoning Bylaw Review Project,
we also did consultation. It was online at that time
due to COVID. So we have been engaging on these
issues since 2015. The report that was done by Medal
and Small Housing last year, they did consultation, which is,
I mentioned it in my presentation. They had a steering
committee, they did focus groups. They did a full -
up survey of those people who attended. So we've been
consulting on that since then. With these amendments, the engagement
we did, or consultation. We consulted with developers and designers
on how we could perhaps meet in the middle to
bring a proposal forward on balanced to council. So we
met with. Several developers and builders on both sides of
the issue, as you have heard tonight. Okay, I'm just
making sure I had the fact street, because I was
hearing something different, obviously. My apologies. And with these amendments,
the engagement we did was have a dedicated engage page.
We did eBlasts out to half newsletter subscription, which was
over 500 people. We had our communications. People do social
media blasts. Those sorts of things. And our Public Notice
was on the City's Public Notice page as required by
the Public Notice Policy. Okay, so everything we've done is
basically has been basically, or mostly electronic. In nature. On
these specific amendments, yes. I have a concern about that,
but I'll leave that for later. Secondly, I wanted to
ask is, you know, with our stated strategy of wanting
more affordable housing and that sort of thing. And this
change is effectively, basically, looks like it's gonna be used
for single family - dwelling units. Does that really match
our strategy? Or is there a reason why we wouldn't
consider this for anything that is at least a two
or four or six unit dwelling, as opposed to a
single family dwelling? So that's a very good question through
the chair. So these changes would apply to the whole
gambit of primary dwellings. So those are one and two
unit dwellings. With a secondary suite. Two unit dwellings that
semi - detached. Two units and semi - detached. They
can also have secondary suites. And small multiple unit dwellings.
On sites 50 feet or greater. So this change would
make that whole gambit of what we consider primary dwellings
larger. So where this fits in. Is really in the
housing continuum, and I'll just, if you'll let me embellish,
I'll use an example. Family A. Family A lives in
an apartment. They want to buy a house. They buy
family bees house that's maybe a smaller house in an
older, more peripheral neighbourhood. Family B wants to build a
new house. They want to be close to the university.
They want to be close to downtown. So they buy
a lot and they build an infill house. So anytime
there's new housing, you know, it continues with that housing
continuum. That house that they're building knew that could have
a secondary suite to support them and provide additional units.
Perhaps the unit with the house that was demalished did
not have a secondary suite or a garden and garage
suite, because we do permit up to three units on
a site right now with the primary dwelling. Well, the
one unit dwelling with a secondary sleep plus a garden
in garage suite. Okay, so if we use it for
just a single family dwelling unit, would we consider that
an abuse or an abusive use of the bylaw? Because
I want a super mega house. And instead, it's not
housing more people. It's housing the same amount of people.
We're just living in more square footage. That's a good
question. But you have to look at the one unit
dwelling, one unit could be two people. It could be
12 for a multi - generational family. We don't regulate
those sorts of things. The change that we're asking for
average lots, not on coroners and not 50 feet wide,
will only allow for an extra 10 percent. Increase, which
on a 25 foot lot, an average house of about
800 to 800 to 9 underscore feet. That's only an
additional, um, 100 square foot of floor space on both
stories of a two - story house. That's really the
lion's share of infills that are going to be built.
That's the bonus they're going to get. Okay, so, um,
I'm thinking about the recent issue with the Carl Miller
host, and I don't know the new family owner. I
apologise. Would that house actually now qualify as a legitimate
build. Under these regulations, under this bylaw change, the chair
recognising that that development is under the development under the
appeal process. But no, that house would not comply under
these regulations. Okay. We have done the analysis. Okay, thank
you. Councillor Parker. Great, thanks. Most of my questions have
been answered. I think I want to. Kind of zoom
out here a little bit. We've kind of heard the
issues with the sidewall calculation. And I think this was
a part of your presentation, but I really want to
kind of come back to it. Um, what are the,
what are the issues caused by the sidewall calculation and
how is increasing it by 10 percent. Helping. Does.
Is it gives you a box. That's, I'll say this
big, sorry. When you build your house, you can allocate
that area, all the, all the wall that faces the
certain, um, the same direction. Has to not exceed your
maximum allowed. So, and sorry, what was the second part
of your question? Um, I, I want to know what
the issue is with the sidewall calculation. So what is
the problem that we're solving. By adding 10 percent to
the sidewall calculation. So like one of the designers spoke
is being able to provide a different roof line. Or
you get out on the site, you discover that your
sewer line is higher than you expected. You're able to
raise the house without completely redrawing the drawings. And because
all of these things add up. For home builders, you
could raise it to accommodate where the sewer actually is
without having to redesign the house. Okay. So how can
we not making exceptions for these sewer issues or how
come we're not. I guess changing how we calculate the
sidewall based on the roof. Like if it's, if a
flat roof would work, but a peaked roof doesn't, then
why aren't we just changing the sidewall calculation to make
it not matter what the roof looks like. Thank you
for the question through the chair. What the sidewall tool
does. Provides that design flexibility. When you get into, okay,
well X, Y, and Z are exempt. Well, Y or
X, Y, and Z exact. Or, you know, the client,
for example, doesn't want a flat roof because there's certain
issues with it. What the sidal areas is, it's a
tool that can be applied. To all the thousands of
infill sites within the city. Without having our, without having
that room for interpretation. Well, this is included in, that's
included. Or you have to build flat roof houses on
this street or those sorts of things, I hope. I'm
explaining this properly, but it's the accepted tool within the
development community by which to design the houses. So we
could change the way we, sure we could use another
tool or change the way we do it. But this
is what we've been doing. It has been successful, but
the extra 10 percent we're proposing today is for that
flexibility. Because there's two sides. There's the residents that want
to new house. They want to build. They're spending substantial
money. And they want to build something that's nice in
most cases. Like we can't regulate. Ugly houses. And we
all don't agree with an ugly houses. But by using
this tool, we're not starting from scratch. Because through my
experience, when we start from scratch and the speakers can
attest to that it's what about this, what about that?
Then we draw it up. This doesn't work. That doesn't
work. We know this tool works, but we just want
to add that flexibility. I appreciate that answer. Um. Uh,
there's been a bit of discussion about kind of when
these infill regulations, uh, were created or are kind of
came in. It was based on a lot of Public
Engagement. Was the sidewall calculation, the only kind of thing
was that was added to these infill regulations and whether
it was 2013 or 2015, I'm not sure what the
actual date was. But was the sidewall calculation, the only
addition that was added that would restrict the massing of
infill housing. Um, through the chair, yes. I believe, yeah,
that, that was the one that dealt with the massing.
And in the report that the architects at that time
prepared, they proposed something different. And then when, when the
administration and the working group got a hold of it,
that's when the sidewall was calculated. We did a number
of things though back to 2015. We removed the restriction
on Lot width and category one neighbourhoods so that houses
could be built on 25 foot lots. We introduced porch
encroachment into the required front yard so that people could
build porches. There was, there was a number of things
that were done. It just, yeah, you don't have to
list off everything. But it was, yeah, it was to
address the massing. Okay. That report was about character and
massing was one component of it. Okay. Um. I guess
what are, and I think this has been spoken about
kind of in bits and pieces. How do we kind
of restrict or what are the other tools that we
have that restrict massing, um, or restrict the size of
houses, buildings that can go on. Thank you for the
question. So, um, on a site, we have setbacks. So
front yard setback, rare yards that back. An interior lot,
you need six metres in the front. Seven and a
half metres in the back. On each side. You need
a minimum of 0. 75 metres, but that is the
minimum and oftentimes houses are built. Sometimes with wider setbacks.
We do have a building height of eight and a
half metres to the peak of a peak droof. Um,
flat roofs, we have a regulation that's in the zoning
bylaw. And you can ask me online how that works
because it's in a similar vein of sidewall area. Um,
and then we allow for 40 percent site coverage. As
a maximum, but just, just to let you know, like
oftentimes it's very few cases where houses are actually built
to that 40 percent maximum. Usually, you know, I've done
a lot of analysis on infills. And, you know, typically
even on a large house year 30, 35. Okay. Um.
One question I think I have about the flanking street
exemption. I think most of the images that were shown
in most of the images that I can kind of
like draw to mind quite quickly, most of the. Area
that's being used just for, um, it's for street facing,
uh, garages. Have we. Had any concern or addressed any
concerns that this will lead to more vehicle pedestrian conflicts.
Along like sidewalks? Like every time that we put a
garage or we put a driveway that crosses the sidewalk,
we're increasing the chance of pedestrian vehicle conflict. That's a
good, that's a good question. Um, I know the construction.
And, sorry. What's that department? Sorry. Construction and design. Okay.
Construction is designed is currently reviewing the driveway crossing bylaw.
Right now. So, um, every time the driveway crossing, um,
the homeowner developer has to get a permit for a
new crossing that wasn't. Wasn't there. So they're reviewing that
process. Okay. So that concern would be addressed outside of
this. That's correct. Okay. Um, yeah, I think that's my
questions. Thanks very much. Councillor McDonald. Thank you Madam Mayor
and through you. So for the sidewall attached garages would
count towards a sidewall if they're on the side. That's
correct. But detached garages don't have their own cybal calculations.
Detached garages aren't subject to sidewall calculations. The maximum size
of a garage in the Citywide is 87 square metres.
And the maximum height is five metres to the peak.
And so detached garage is not part of the site
coverage percentage. They are in addition to that Zycover percentage.
Correct. Um, the psychoberge percentage for the house is one
number and garages along with the maximum square footage or
subject to a rear yard coverage. Regulation as well. Okay.
Um, and then what is the average lot size in
the established neighbourhoods. That's a really good question. Um, common
lot sizes is probably an easier way to answer that.
Um, and the category one neighbourhood so your older neighbourhood
city park, New town, um. Smallest again would be 7.
5 metres or 25 feet. 37 and a half feet.
So which is a lot in a half and 50
foot. In the category two neighbourhoods, um, they're predominantly 50
foot lots. So in the category one, um, areas where
they're about, you said seven metres, seven and a half
metres. Yeah. The narrow ones, yeah. Side set back exemption
really doesn't apply to these lots. Because you would be
building a host that would be like three metres wide.
Yeah. That's correct. Okay. So the sidewall in those areas.
Yeah. Like that exemption doesn't do anything for the majority,
I would say probably of our established neighbourhood laws. Well,
anything for generally speaking 40 metres or less you could,
you could have an exemption. Oftentimes the way the house
is designed at the front you would have like a,
an attached porch or a vestibule at the front. That
might be set back four and a half metres from
what the property line. And then the back you might
put a back porch. So on like not a large
lot, but kind of a medium size lot. You could
do those articulations to take advantage of that. Yeah. But
yeah, you'd be happy to shift to only allow one
side. Yeah. This exemption. And I don't design wise. Does
that actually work. It can work. Yeah. Okay. Um, you
said, uh, establish neighbourhood infill heights are 8. 5 metres
and a new areas are 10 metres. That's correct. Is
this common amongst other jurisdictions that newer areas have different
high restrictions than establish neighbourhoods. Uh, yeah, it is quite
common across Western Canada. I mean, I know in Calgary,
the new neighbourhoods, the maximum height is 11 metres, which
is step substantially taller than us. And I just ask
that you get a little closer to your microphone. Thank
you. An older neighborhood's like Winnipeg. They also have a
height limit that's lower than their new neighbourhoods. Is that
for aesthetic reasons only. Yeah, for the, for the character,
um, so although there are taller, older three - story
houses in the older neighbourhoods that are above that, you
know, generally speaking, eight and a half metres can accommodate
a very nice two - story house. Um, and even
in the areas that are predominantly bungalows, like, um, Adelaide
Churchill and those sorts of things, the bungalows are so
low. So, um, the eight and a half isn't as
substantial as it is. It is, it would be till
10. Um, can you just talk a little bit about
who middle is. And where like what they do. That's
a good question. I'm going to ask Ms. Gotman to
come up and answer. That.
Put on the spot. Christine Gettman planning in development. Middle
and small housing where the partnership of firms that were
hired to do our infill review study. Middle is a
firm out of Calgary. They primarily work in middle housing,
which is essentially townhome style, um, two unit dwellings, that
type of development. They do a lot of development themselves,
but they're also now supporting a lot of municipalities and
looking at this kind of work. Small housing is a
firm out of BC, and they do similar work. So
they partnered up to help us. So these two companies
have quite a bit of background with other municipalities and
what other places are doing with their restrictions and things
like that. Yep, absolutely. Middle in particular has done a
lot of work with Calgary. Regina, Edmonton, Winnipeg. They've done
a lot of work with other municipalities. So that was
one of the reasons we also focused on them as
well to help us with us. And for the site,
we'll coverage their recommendation was to remove it completely. They
did go down that road of that recommendation. They didn't
recommend, um, a replacement in particular, but they did recommend
that it was an impediment as Ms. Kutosic Toth has
mentioned to development. Did they recommend any alternatives. They brought
forward a number of, um, approaches that other municipalities use,
but they didn't recommend for us a specific approach that
we should look at. Did they. Within those suggestions where
they're rationales as to why they work better as like
a layered restriction on top of already having setbacks high
restriction site coverage. Just to clarify your question. Are you,
are you saying were they suggesting these other approaches? Because
they'd be more suited than our approach. I think one
of the cons, sorry, like one of the comments earlier,
I think, um, referenced square footage over a site wall,
um, as another kind of layer of regulation. So I
was just wondering if they had recommendations like that, um,
over the sidewall. Where we already have site coverage. We
already have high restrictions. We already have setbacks. Was another
layer, like we're, any of the other recommendations that would
be layered on this. Um, in their view. More straightforward
or easy or just like less cumbersome. They didn't give
us a specific recommendation. They did suggest that other municipalities
have these other approaches. Um, some of them have been
mentioned here tonight. Um, they would be layered on top
of things like site coverage, setbacks, height, all of them
seem to have those in common as well. Um, but
they didn't necessarily say one approach was better than the
other. They just listed these are some of the other
options you can explore. And that sidewald was really quite
complex. And again, as you've heard many times in impediment
to development. So. So what those recommendations we decided to
stay with sidewall and just give it an extra 10
percent. Or did we actually explore any of the other
recommendations? We did through that work with middle, explore those
other options. And as Ms. Catosic Tothos mentioned, it was
a matter of starting from scratch. Having to work through
what that could look like versus sidewall is something that
our building community is familiar with. And we can make
amendments to that which provided that flexibility to allow us
to move forward. So that's why we decided to stick
with a sidewall approach. Okay, thank you. I think those
are all my questions. I don't see any of the
lights on. I'm just going to check online. Is the
one online that has any questions. I'm not hearing
any, I still have just a couple just to make
sure I understand the piece that I heard about the
four and a half metre setback. I just want to
understand, cause I was going to ask the question, but
what happens once that four and a half metres is
met. And it's allowed to go further back into the
lot. And I think massing rules. Yes. You understand it
correctly. So, um, that portion four and a half percent
wouldn't count insidewall, but the size of the dwelling would
be limited to 40 percent site coverage. And it would
be inclusive of the amount that would happen. After the
four and a half metre setback. The whole building. The
whole building, no matter where it is. Okay. That, that,
that's good. Um, this sidewall issue is still, I think
perplexing to some of us because, uh, you know, I
read that we don't, uh, typically see this in Canada.
Did I hear it correctly that we may be the
only jurisdiction that has sidewall calculation. Um, through the chair.
Yes. That's correct. We're the only city that we know
of that uses it. And we've done an extensive municipal
scout. Why do you think sidewall is important. Thank you
for the question. Sidewall does mitigate the massing and ensures
that it houses are. You know, compatible in terms of
size with the existing built form. But again, character built
form size of dwellings. It's all block specific. Right? So,
you know, we, this, this is a tool. That, you
know, we failed as a very important to the community.
We want to retain it, but we just wanted to
add flexibility in certain circumstances like corner sites and to
allow that bonus overall. And one, I think I just
have one final question. It might be from a Sanderson.
I heard tonight that we are in consideration of some
change here to support design, to support some of the
infill for single family homes. And often homes that are
quite large. Is that, and yet I've heard you, uh,
also speak to, you know, the single family homes with
a suite in the basement, uh, the larger homes with
two suites that have a garage suite and the rest
of it. Who is this for. In your view, what
is the primary reason that we are having this in
front of us tonight. In my opinion. This is for
anybody that wants to build a house. In our existing
neighbourhoods. To be able to have some flexibility to get
the house they want in the neighbourhood they want. And
so. And also to provide that flexibility on larger sites
on the corner where perhaps people want to build larger
homes. And we can drive through many neighbourhoods through town,
a Varsity view we have representatives tonight City Park. We
do have larger. We do have sites for larger homes.
We accommodate them throughout the city. This will just potentially
allow a larger home on a corner site in our
older neighbourhoods. I guess when you say a larger home,
could it be homes plural. Absolutely. It could be for
units as of right. Uh, I think that everything we've
talked about tonight makes us seem to be mostly, you
know, talking about areas that are building very large single
family homes and not necessarily advancing the overall housing objectives
that we pass through the housing accelerator fund. So certainly
on a corner site, we could get a one, one
or two unit dwelling with sweets in them. You know,
two that would house. Two families or four families. Okay.
And then just one quick question. The home builders are
requesting, I guess, regardless of what happens, the conversation continue
about sidewalls. What's your view on that? Are we potentially
done talking about this for a while or is there
more to be done? Um. I think I'm going to
let Ms. Anderson talk a lot, last one. Sorry. That
was a rough question. Thank you. Um, you know, I
think that's a, you know, an interesting question to deal
with. So we can continue talking about sidewall, um, as
you've just heard, sidewall has been around for a while.
We've been using it. These adjustments will help make some
flexibility in the options for people. Um, you know, so
what I heard from, um, Ms. Burgess was a desire
to look at whether there are other options than sidewall.
And maybe I got that wrong. I'm not sure. But
that was kind of how I interpreted it. So we
can look at other options. You know, we can do
that just through the regular meetings that we have with
the home builders. Um, but I think from a perspective
of the work that's been done today and the direction
that we've had, we're kind of at the end of
possibilities in this realm here. Um, so, you know, we
could go out and do more engagement, for example, we're
likely not going to hear drastically different responses from either
side. This has been very consistent over the years. So,
you know, we're not, we're not suggesting that there would
be additional new information gained through further engagement. And we
could spend as much money or in as much time
as we want to do that engagement. And we're likely
to hear the same things again. There will be ongoing
discussions about development trends, development patterns, need for zoning bylaw
amendments over the years as a natural course of business
as well. Thank you very much. We've concluded questions. It's
time for, com, I think this is the time for
comments. I think we have to pass a few other
things first. Can I get someone to move a resolution
to receive the reports moved by Councillor McDonald and seconded
by Councillor Jeffries? Does anyone opposed. That carries. And a
resolution to close the hearing, uh, move by Council Keller
and seconded by Councillor Dubois. Is anyone opposed. That carries?
This is our opportunity prior to second reading. To provide
comments on. This hearing.
Who's ready to go first? Councillor Ford. Thank you
Mayor Bloch. Um, yeah, I'm not going to support this
motion. I think that they're, but I do want to
thank everybody for their presentations today. Um, I feel that
this does change the character in an established neighbourhood. I
don't necessarily think that in fill this type of infill
doesn't increase density and probably or affordability. Then with the
regards to the developments, I think that there would be
shadowing, reduced sunlight, privacy. I think the larger footprint also
does take away trees as one of the residents brought
forward and that possibly there could be some drainage issues.
And then other people have talked about fire and safety
issues when you have these big buildings and how they
could result in a problem with our fire protection services
and dealing with them. Um, but primarily my residents don't
want it. And, um, and, you know, and the data
that was presented shows, it's not needed. The existing bylaw
seems to be working fine. So I will not be
supporting this motion. We'll go now to Councillor Donauer online.
Thank you, your worship. Uh, I am going to support
the recommendations before us. And to be honest, I wish
they were going further. I think this is a compromise.
I, I look at the report and it admits that
Sill Height is not a common practice, but it's happening
in Saskatoon. It admits that side well calculation is not
typical. So in fact, we're the only say that we
can find that even does it. It's confusing. I heard
three speakers tonight on both sides of the issues, including
a builder who supports it. Say this is a confusing
issue. And good luck to you if you can understand
it. I don't think it's right for us to have
regulations. That the average homeowner when they're building doesn't have
a hope of understanding. Um, so, you know, I think
we've got some work to do to make our infill
regulations clearer. But I see this as, as a step
forward and a compromise. I think if we, uh, the
city of Saskatoon, what I've seen in the years that
I'm here is the more we get into people's lives
and get involved in what they're going to build the
less we see built. Heard a lot talk about affordable
housing ten. I'm not sure how this pertains to affordable
housing. I, well, we've heard very clearly from everybody in
the past few years is we need housing all across
the housing spectrum. Um, including infill. And we also heard
that if we can help with some of these changes,
um, it might make basements possible, which means basement suites
are more possible, which means people that can't afford to
build a house right now might be able to, because
that's what we're seeing in green field is that, uh,
more and more, what we're hearing from builders who aren't
evil people. They're actually representing home, homeowners. But more and
more, what we're hearing from builders in Greenfield is that
to afford to build in Saskatoon, people are putting sweets
in right away. And I think we're going to see
that. More and more for infill as well. Um, you
know, our own administration said tonight that sidewall rigs are
an impediment to development. Um, so I don't think this
is the highest and best, but I do think that
it's a step in the right direction. Um, and I
think it's something that we should do to ease restrictions
and make things a little bit clearer so that it's
a little bit more reasonable. You know, a few years
ago, half brought in broad sweeping changes right across the
city. That not everybody liked. And I think, um, sometimes,
um, neighbours should have a say over what they want
to build. They don't think it should have zero restrictions,
but I think that what's being put in front of
us today are reasonable guidelines for what somebody can build.
And then we should let them build. Thank you. Uh,
thank you. I guess I'll go next. Council Jeffries.
Thank you Mayor Bloch and appreciate everyone who is here
today to speak and share their thoughts and opinions and
contribute to the debate here today. And, um, I was
around the table, not only when we originally brought in
the infill guidelines and the sidewall calculation. But I remember
being in groups of people prior to serving on council,
uh, as we were having those discussions and know the
importance of the tool and certainly I'm not in favor
of some of the suggestions that have said that we
should be getting rid of the sidewall calculation and getting
rid of some of these pieces here. Uh, I think
it's been well demonstrated that these tools are helping our
infill to work well. And, uh, and I don't have
an interest in throwing that out. Um, but at the
same time, having been here through this entire process, I've
had the opportunity to see how sometimes there have been
unintended impacts. Um, uh, from what we have in place
right now. And what's in front of us here today,
by my estimation, our small changes, uh, that can have
big positive impacts. And I've seen it before. I've spoken
with people in doing in fills who are dealing with,
as has been noted, the sewer issue and the ability
then to actually create a livable below grade space, um,
and having that constrained in some cases, uh, with the
one metre. And, you know, this is not going to
make everyone happy at 1. 3, but I think provides
a fix to a problem that we've identified without throwing
out the intent of what is there by having that
cell height in fact in place. And on the sidewall
calculation, I mean, the, the thing that I've also seen,
and it's, it's well noted right in the document here
that's in front of us is that the current sidewall
area regulations can create unintended design constraints penalizing certain roof
forms of building designs even when the overall building scale
remains appropriate. And that's my conclusion here is what's in
front of us is, is a small change. Um, about,
you know, just about those typical, uh, that typical infill,
design flexibility. And I think I would actually argue, because
I've seen some of the renderings of what changes have
to be made to fit the sidewall calculation versus what,
uh, someone wanted to do. And the massing is very
similar on each. But you actually end up with a
less aesthetically pleasing house that I would argue just. Is
actually less nice to look at as a neighbour. Um,
then if we were to allow a little more design
flexibility, which isn't drastically changing, uh, any sense of massing.
So I think we've identified issues over time. Um, that's
a good thing. That means we're listening. It means we're
having conversations. And we've got very small, um, changes that
we can make to make things better without throwing the
baby out with the bath water. So I'm in favor
of these changes. Thank you, Your Block. Okay. Now I
think I'm next. Uh, I too, I guess it's really
want to thank everybody for their work on this and
for preparing your remarks and taking the time to come
down here and be with us. We are very lucky
to have so many people who care so much about
our community and especially our info neighbourhoods where we know
they are changing. And we want to make sure that
we are preserving as much as we possibly can. And
I think it's one of the reasons I've been really
grateful in my time on council to be able to
be a part of a new tree bylaw, uh, to
protect urban canopy and to be a part of it
finally, our very first drainage bylaw. All of the pieces
that I know are really important to make sure that
we are going forward with our infill in a way
that's not only respectful, but protects the neighbours. And I
wasn't around for the initial changes that happened after the
original infill guidelines were causing concerns. But I know how
much, uh, residents appreciated that some of those, you know,
rules were tightened to make it, um, better for their
neighbours. And that will always matter to me. I think
that based on what I've heard today, there has been
a good compromise. I really appreciate our administration's work on
this and the, uh, many tough questions that you had
to answer this evening. One of the things throughout the
evening that I couldn't stop thinking about is, why is
this only about people who are building really big homes?
Why is that the only thing we're thinking about is
that really what this, uh, change is about. And I
don't think it is. I think based on what we've
approved through the housing accelerator fund and a host of
other, um, you know, infill guidelines and incentives that we
are putting into our community for creating more types of
housing, more affordable housing, uh, more opportunities for people to
have more dwellings on a site that disenhances our ability
to do that. And I also heard tonight about the
difficulty and our infill neighbourhoods to be able to do
four stories as of right. These are all concerns that
we should want to address. And I'm, um, grateful that
we have the opportunity to make what I also consider,
um, relatively minimal change for an opportunity to see, you
know, better opportunities for info. And I agree that there's
also, the part about design matters to us. I think
it matters to us all. We'll all have an opinion
about what good design looks like. But I think having
the opportunity to ensure that those resonance that have those
visions and they're working with their builders should have. Better
options is maybe not quite the right word, but they
should have an expanded opportunity to make sure that that
design work can, can be fulfilled. So I will be
supporting this Councillor Dubois. Thank you, Mayor Bloch. And thank
you to administration. Thank you for all it spoke. And
thank you for all of the letters that came in.
This stuff is complicated stuff. We were even just talking
in the break. It's not clear, you know, it's not
ultra clear things that we're dealing with when we're talking
about these bylaw changes and whatnot. And. I was here
in 2022 when we, when we discussed that. And that's
why I need a clarification exactly as to why we're,
why we're here again. And there are things that I
don't like about this. And some of the, some of
them I asked the questions about. But I have to
make a vote here tonight. And I. We have to
keep moving forward. We can't stall and stand still. And
I've heard that the place else to go after this.
Although that I could even argue, there's always a place
to go. Uh, but we've been dealing with this for
so many years that, you know, how any more years
are we going to deal with it? Um, and. So
for me. For me, I think that we still have,
we still do have work to do. But I also
feel that we do have to move forward. We have
to make progress. And we need to have reasonable guidelines
that help infill. And I too at the beginning Mayor
Block, I felt this was a big houses mansions on
corners. Or on, maybe on corners is what I came
out of the report about actually. But I don't totally
feel that way anymore. And, um, I think that we
have, we have work to do. We have to take
small steps as we are to make sure that we
are doing the right things to improve in fill. And
I think this is a good step. So I'm going
to be supporting it today. I don't see any other.
Just a second. Before we go any further, uh, it's
9 p. m. We are, uh, in need of a
motion to extend if we are to continue this meaning
tonight. And we'll need two thirds vote. In order to
extend. What is the wish of council? Do we wish
to finish the agenda tonight. Or do we want to.
Councillor Dubois. Thank you Mayor Bloch. I mean, I asked
a question first of the administration in regards to item
5. 12. Is that an item that we could defer
to public hearings in September? Or is that, would that
cause a problem. For. Me?
Uh, through you, Mayor Bloch, we could defer it, but
it is also a very short item. Famous last words.
We said, well. It is just a correction from a
previous amendment. Okay. Well, I would move that we defer
the meeting to finish the agenda. As everyone okay with
that. I don't think we need to vote. I think
I just need a bit of a straw point. We
need a second. We're deferring. Did you say we're deferred?
No, we're going to finish the agenda tonight. We are
anticipating a very short next report. And then we should
be hopefully clear. Are you okay with that council down.
Yeah. I'd like to finish. Thank you. Uh, any opposition
online. But we need to move her in a second
report. I do need to move her in second or
okay. Okay. Move by Councillor Dubois and seconded by Councillor
Pierce. I'll call the question as anyone opposed. Hearing none,
we shall proceed Councillor Parker. Thanks. Um, I will try
to keep my comments unusually concise. Um, I, um, I
certainly appreciate that many of the speakers tonight are, uh,
from my ward. In fact, my neighbours, uh, in many
cases. A lot of this report addressed information that we
received from consultants from folks that we were asking for
their expertise, including NPC and including admin who has certainly
a lot more experience, uh, in this realm than I
do. Um, it's not lost on me that, um, a
few years ago when the new tannic community association argued
against these regulations, uh, I was the president of the
Community Association. Certainly developed a different viewpoint. I've had to
develop a different viewpoint sitting in this chair. Um, and
I've also had the opportunity to learn a lot more
about, um, the impact of some of these things. Um,
I think the goal of infill regulations is to these
infelic regulations that we're talking about is to limit massing
and not necessarily make affordable housing the only thing being
built. The increase of affordable housing in Saskatoon will be
the result of compounding incremental changes, uh, it's not necessarily
the only metric we can use to make decisions when
we're talking about housing or when we're talking about zoning
changes. These changes that are being proposed, um, certainly will
result in larger houses. But it also allow for larger
and more creative envelopes, which may also lead to multi
- unit housing. We heard that this can be two
units. This can be three units. This can be four
units. And it's the decision of the folks that are
building these houses. To do, to do with what they
want, with the property that they own. Um, I think
about her missing middle a lot. Certainly as somebody who's
experiencing it, I can't afford a house. I don't live
in a single unit property. I don't have a backyard.
Um, the missing middle impacts my generation significantly. And I
think this administration has done a sufficient job limiting the
sizing and masking issues. Um, certainly limiting what we see
in other jurisdictions. I know there was comments about Edmonton
and our zoning, our infill zoning is more restrictive. We
can't build as tall. We can't build as many units
in the middle of the block. Um, these are things
that administration has continued to, I guess, restrict as best
they can while trying to move forward. Um, and I
think limiting at 10 percent is them trying to respond
to the community while moving forward. Um, I think even
in relation to the mayor's comments, um, these changes are
being proposed in a different context than what they were
10 years ago. Um, we have different, we have more
bylaws. We have, um. We have different zoning. You know,
these are things that we're working on all the time.
Um, and I think it's something that we need to
continue to work. We need to continue to work with
our community. Um, we need to, uh, include our neighbours
who are moving into and building in the neighbourhood. And
we need to continue to work on, on these bilats
that do protect the things that are important to us.
Um. But we need to make the space, um, for
growth in the best way that we can. And I
think this is, uh, reflective of that. So we'll be
voting in favor. Okay. I don't see any of their
Councillor Keller. Thank you through you Mayor Block. You know,
it's the commons I would have been, have been made.
But would like to thank administration and everyone who came
out tonight around who wrote in. I think that this,
this recommendation really does its best and seeks to. And
I think achieve striking a balance between the needs of
the community. What people are asking for resident concerns and
a desire to have infil and to work with the
building community as well. I think it could go further
on sidewall. I just decide, well, um, peace is, I
think, overly complex. I think it and a bit redundant.
It would seem to me that there, you know, there
are setbacks. There's building height. There's site coverage. You know,
pieces that are in place. And I don't know how
much more sidewall really adds. Other than complexity into the
equation. And so I'm curious about that and that we're
the only jurisdiction. That uses it. So that's something I
would like to revisit at some point, I think more
work needs to be done there. I think it needs
to be brought down into a more pedestrian type of,
um, description. But I wouldn't want that to hold up
this recommendation that I think does, um, does move the
needle a little bit in ways that it needs to
be moved. And so, uh, I'll be supporting this recommendation.
Thank you. I don't see any other lights on. I
think we can move on now to, uh, Murr plays
for second reading of the Bylaw Mud by Council McDonald
and seconded by Councillor Kellerher. Is anyone opposed. That carries
permission for third reading of the bylaw move by Councillor
Duan seconded by Councillor Ford? Is anyone opposed. Seeing none.
And a mover for third, reading of the bylaw, moved
by Councillor McDonald and seconded by Councillor Jeffries. Is anyone
opposed. And that carries unanimously. Thank you everyone. We will
move now. Two 5. 1. 2 zoning by Lyde Text
Amendments, Garden and Garage Suite. Mayor Block. I had sent
it. Uh, motion arising. Okay. My apologies, uh, go ahead,
Councillor Donauer. I'm sorry. Um, I did send the wording
to the City clerk and I would like to move,
uh, that the administration continue to work with Assession Regional
home builders association and other stateholders. To simplify and feel
guidelines and adopt best practices across Canada. And a secondary.
There's a second there on speak to it. Second and
by Councillor Dubois, go ahead Council Donauer. Thank you. Um,
Mayor, Mayor Block. I don't want to split the end
result should be, but I do think that one thing
that was unanimous, well, I shouldn't say unanimous. One thing
was common from a lot of the speakers tonight was
that our parts of our info guidelines are unduly complex
and not easily understood. Um, and I think that's something
that maybe we can investigate and see what other municipalities
cross country are doing. I do understand Ms. Anderson said,
um, they probably reached the end of making changes to
the sidewall regulations. I'd like us to maybe look and
see what other cities are doing. Um, if there's a
simpler way that we can have inpo guidelines that both
protect the nature of a neighbourhood, um, but also provide
clarity on what residents can build so that it's easily
understood by builders and residents. So that's the nature of
my motion. And it's assumed that they were being engagement.
As well. Are there camps? I should, if it can't
be assumed, I'll add it. Are there any questions or
comments about Councillor Donova's motion. I'll call the question, is
anyone opposed. That passes unanimously. Thank you, Councillor. Now 5.
1. 2 Garden of Garage Suites. Got to get a
Muber for first reading of Byla 10204 move by Councillor
McDonald and seconded by Councillor Ford. Is anyone opposed. The
hearing is open and I'll turn it over to our
administration. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let the City clerk bring
up this life for Byla Number 10204. There we go.
So next slide, please. Council City Council approved amendments to
the regulations regarding garage suites in May of this year.
An important regulation was inadvertently deleted that requires that the
upper story of upper story of a Garnagra Suite B
80 percent of the size of the main floor. Again,
this reduces the massing of the building. The administration is
recommending that the Prospe Amendments be approved to just add
this provision back into the bylaw. That's it. And I
believe NPC has already spoken to this. So there's not
another report there. Uh, are there any members of the
public wishing to speak to this. I'm not seeing any.
I could get a mover to receive the reports Muay
Council McDonald and Second Abed Councillor Parker. Certainly want to
post. A carries and a resolution to close the hearing
moved by Councillor Dubois and seconded by Councillor Ford. Does
anyone opposed. That carries. Are there any comments. Seeing none?
I need a mover for second reading. Mut by Councillor
Kelleher and seconded by Councillor Dubois. Does anyone opposed. That
carries a permission for third week by Councillor Jeffries and
seconded by Councillor Pierce? Is anyone opposed. That carries. And
third reading of the Byla moved by Councillor Parker and
seconded by Councillor Ford. Is anyone opposed? That carries. We
go now to Proclamations, Illuminations and Flag Raisings. Could I
get a mover move by Councillor Dubois and seconded by
Councillor Pierce? Is there any discussion on the matter. Seeing
none, I'll call the question is anyone opposed. In that
carries. No urgent business. We are. Yes.