[1:40] Good evening, everyone. I would like to call the order
[1:44] this public hearing meeting of City Council for Wednesday, August
[1:48] 26th as we gather on Tradey Six Territory and the
[1:52] traditional homeland of the May T People. In this commemorative
[1:55] month as we mark the 150th anniversary of the signing
[2:00] of Treaty 6. In Chambers tonight we have councillors, Jeffrey's
[2:05] Dubois Ford Kelleher Parker McDonald and Pierce. We have Councillor
[2:13] Donauer online, Councillor Donauer. Yes, you're from here. Can you
[2:19] hear me? Yes, we can, thank you. Councillor DePohn will
[2:23] not be joining us and we are still awaiting. Oh,
[2:28] Councillor Davies, you're online. Can I just want to make
[2:30] sure you can hear us. Councillor
[2:40] Davies. We'll make sure that we can get a communication
[2:48] to him and make sure that he can confirm that
[2:50] he is here for the beginning of any public hearing.
[2:54] As those gathered no, it's important that any Council member
[2:59] is in attendance for every part of a Public Carry
[3:02] in order to be able to vote. So it's important
[3:05] that we make sure that he has that communication. And
[3:08] if we have a technical issue, perhaps I would await
[3:13] a flag on that so that we don't miss out
[3:15] on a Council Member participating. Gotta get somebody to move
[3:24] confirmation of the agenda. Move by Councillor McDonald and seconded
[3:29] by Councillor Pierce. Is anyone opposed. I am seeing none,
[3:35] and that is inclusive of a number of requests to
[3:37] speak. And as it is a Public Hearing, anyone in
[3:40] the gallery is able to speak following the Speakers that
[3:44] are on the list. Does anyone have a conflict of
[3:47] interest to declare. I am seeing none. Could I get
[3:53] a mover for the adoption of the minutes moved by
[3:55] Councillor Dubois and seconded by Councillor Ford? Is anyone opposed.
[4:01] I see none. I'd like to try one more time.
[4:04] Councillor Davies, are you with us for this Public Hearing?
[4:09] Terrific. Fantastic. We shall proceed. We go now to 5.
[4:16] 1. 1 zoning bylaw Text Amendments, primary dwellings in established
[4:21] neighbourhoods, sidewall area, and dorsal height. If I could get
[4:26] a mover for first reading of Byla No. 102. So
[4:32] you might. Want to join. Okay. Thank you for flagging
[4:38] that City Clark Titamore. We have one Council member, Councillor
[4:43] T. Moan, who is able now is able to join
[4:45] us virtually. And so we are just going to take
[4:49] a quick moment to get him connected, and we will
[4:53] be on our way shortly.
[5:44] All right. Councillor Tmone, can you hear me.
[5:54] Yes, I can. Terrific. Okay, I think we have all
[5:59] members of Council participating in this Public Hearing. So we
[6:04] will move forward and ask, did I ask this already?
[6:09] A mover in secondary for first reading of the Byla.
[6:11] I'll ask again. Mover in second of her first reading,
[6:14] move by Councillor McDonald's, seconded by Councillor Kelleher. Is anyone
[6:17] opposed. Seeing none, the hearing is now open, and I
[6:22] will turn it over to our administration. Thank you, Madam
[6:27] Chair. Good evening, Mayor and Council. My name is Paula
[6:31] Catocic Toth, senior planner with a Planning and Development, Department.
[6:35] Tonight I will be presenting Zoning Byla Tax Amendment. This
[6:39] is an amendment to the text of the Zoning Byla,
[6:42] number 9990. The Zoning Bylaw regulates held Landon Buildings can
[6:47] be used within Municipality. Its purpose is to guide development,
[6:52] protect public interests, and ensure that different land uses are
[6:55] organised and compatible. This is different from MAP Amendment, which
[7:00] Council often sees as that is the specific rezoning of
[7:03] a site. The amendments are specific to primary dwellings in
[7:07] the established neighbourhoods, and we also have a housekeeping amendment
[7:10] for gardening garage suites. If approved, these changes will apply
[7:14] to all primary dwellings, both new and existing in the
[7:18] established neighbourhoods and to garden garage and garden suites throughwide.
[7:26] The amendments have been separated into two public hearings for
[7:29] each topic. The project background will be provided in the
[7:32] first presentation. Bylaw number 102. 03 provides the amendments for
[7:39] primary dwellings. After the agenda was published, we phoned an
[7:43] error on figure 5. 1, 19c on page 5 of
[7:48] the attached bylaw. The bottom of the picture. In the
[7:52] bottom picture, the larger portion of the dwelling should be
[7:55] 87 square metres, not 78 is shown. This has been
[7:59] corrected in the proposed bylaw. And just to note, this
[8:02] figure is an illustration of the regulations and does not
[8:06] provide a regulation as an example only. By all number
[8:10] 10204, provides the text amendment to the garden grass suite
[8:14] regulations. Next slide. In 2013, the neighbourhood
[8:24] level, infield development strategy, was undertaken to respond to concerns
[8:29] and established neighbourhoods for new development that was occurring specific
[8:33] to large infill houses. This report contained recommendations for the
[8:39] creation of garden and grass suites, primary dwellings, and for
[8:43] corner site development. This report was endorsed by City Council
[8:47] in December of 23. They're 2013, pardon me. The regulations
[8:52] for primary dwellings were drafted based on the recommendations in
[8:55] the report. At that time, a working group with staff,
[8:59] the development community and the public develop the regulations for
[9:03] sidewall among others, including the Dorsill height and front porches.
[9:08] This collaboration created a maiden Saskatoon solution by the creation
[9:12] of the sidewall area regulation. In 2022, as part of
[9:18] the Zoning Byla Review Planning and Development brought forward a
[9:22] report for amendments to the infill regulations, including the ones
[9:25] we're considering tonight. Sidewall area endorsal height. City Council did
[9:30] not approve the amendments and asked for clarification on these
[9:33] elements insidewall. This is covered in the bylaw in front
[9:37] of you tonight. Next slide. This slide provides the background
[9:46] for bringing the amendments forward at this time. Under the
[9:50] housing action plan and our agreement to receive funding under
[9:53] the housing accelerator fund, we committed to reviewing regulations for
[9:57] infill development. In regard to the half targets, we have
[10:01] met some of them. However, housing is still needed in
[10:04] our community. And the amendments tonight provide for additional housing
[10:07] units and improvements to our residential areas.
[10:19] Next slide, please. Based on our commitments to have, we
[10:25] hired consultant, middle, and small housing to complete a report
[10:29] with several recommendations, including the Garden of Garage Suite. Primary
[10:35] dwellings, which are one and two unit and semi -
[10:39] detouched wellings. And four unit dwellings in the established neighbourhood,
[10:44] and multiple unit dwellings on corner sites. This is the
[10:47] second report recommending Zoning Bylax Amendments. The previous amendments for
[10:53] Garden and Garage Suites and Swell Multiple Unit dwellings were
[10:56] adopted by City Council on May 27th of this year.
[11:00] Next slide, please. Enfield Development generally refers to the Development
[11:05] within the established neighbourhoods. Which includes those neighbourhoods with encircle
[11:10] drive plus Montgomery Place, Forest Grove and Sutherland. The map
[11:15] shows the two categories. The blue areas are the pre
[11:19] - World War II neighbourhoods and the pink are post
[11:21] - war. These categories were developed. Back in 2013 with
[11:26] a neighbourhood level infield development strategy. The regulations that exist
[11:31] for primary dwellings today were developed from that strategy, and
[11:35] there are some regulations that only apply to category one
[11:38] primary dwellings. Next slide, please. Bylan number 10203. The next
[11:46] few slides will walk you through the Proposed Byla change.
[11:50] Before I begin, I would like to provide the following.
[11:53] To note, I have worked on this file in various
[11:55] capacities since 2013. And I'd like to identify some ongoing
[12:02] themes. Neighbourhoods are changing. And being renewed through new construction.
[12:08] Some neighbourhoods more than others. And change is not easy
[12:11] for residents. Infill residential development is complex. There are one
[12:18] - off issues that arise can arise due to any
[12:21] unique issue or circumstance on our particular site. As example,
[12:25] City trees, water and sewer. Other technical issues that may
[12:32] occur. And lastly, the city has tried to balance and
[12:36] needs of the greater community. Local residents in the development
[12:39] industry. In 2015, when we brought Bylaws forward to implement
[12:44] these changes, we experience the same situation we have today.
[12:49] With speakers, both foreign against the amendments. Next slide, please.
[12:55] The current regulation for Dorsill Height requires that the DoriSill
[12:59] for permeate wellings and category one neighbourhoods be a maximum
[13:02] of one metres, pardon. This is proposed to be 1.
[13:06] 3 metres or approximately one foot greater than the current
[13:10] regulation. The current regulation can create challenges for basement design
[13:15] and livability, including window placement and size and access to
[13:19] natural light. These challenges can be more significant for dwellings
[13:24] with basement secondary suite, as well as infill housing forms
[13:28] were an efficient use of space is important. Through our
[13:31] consultation over the years, servicing constraints, including shallow, including shallow
[13:36] utilities, may also limit the feasible design options and substantially
[13:41] increased construction costs due to this regulation. Next slide, please.
[13:50] So sidewall area. Sidewall area regulations control the size and
[13:55] massing of the sidewalls of the dwelling. This regulation uses
[13:59] height, setbacks, and site depth to limit the visual bulk
[14:03] of infill development. The allowable sidewall area applies to primary
[14:07] dwellings and is intended to ensure that building proportions are
[14:10] made consistent with the surrounding development patterns. A sidewall is
[14:14] the exterior of a building wall that faces a side
[14:17] property line. We're a building has multiple wall planes or
[14:23] step backs only the portion of the wall that align
[14:27] in the same direction are included in the sidewall area
[14:30] calculation. Next slide. Please. So this slide explains the area
[14:38] sidewall calculation. It looks like a bit of a geometry
[14:42] problem, but I'll do my best to explain it. Step
[14:45] one. The wall height is determined by a 45 degree
[14:49] angular plane measured from a height of six metres, projecting
[14:53] vertically from the side property line. The allowable wall height
[14:57] is determined where building setback's intersect the 45 degree angular
[15:02] plate. The calculation of this is essentially six metres or
[15:07] six plus the side yard setback. So in most cases
[15:11] where the minimum side yard setback is. 75 metres, this
[15:14] number is 6. 75. Step two, determine wall length. The
[15:19] maximum allowable wall length depends on the site depth. For
[15:23] site's less than 40 metres in depth, the maximum wall
[15:27] height is 14 metres. For sites greater than 40 metres
[15:30] in depth, the wall length is determined by site depth.
[15:34] Times 50 percent minus the required front yard setback. Through
[15:38] the allowable sidewall area, these two numbers are multiplied. However,
[15:42] this doesn't limit designed to a box, but rather provides
[15:47] the maximum area of sidewall that can be utilised when
[15:51] designing the home. Next slide, please. The amendment tonight keeps
[15:59] the sidewal area sidewall area control in place. While reducing
[16:05] unduted consequences. The report from middle and small housing indicated
[16:10] that the side will regulation was an impediment to housing
[16:14] development. This, just, the report did not prescribe a method.
[16:19] And through our work with the development industry, we are
[16:21] proposing the following. I would like to note that we
[16:24] worked with developers and designers who both wanted to retain
[16:28] or strengthen this regulation. And those wishing to increase or
[16:32] remove the sidewall area regulation. Tonight, we have prepared a
[16:36] balanced approach and our proposing that to increase the allowable
[16:39] solidal area by 10 percent. Exempt portions of the sidewall
[16:43] set more back than 4. 5 metres from the side
[16:47] property line. Exempt facades along a flanking street and to
[16:52] clarify exemptions for features like covered patios and decks and
[16:57] three season rooms. Next slide, please. The proposed ink, it
[17:02] is proposed at sidewall increased by 10 percent. This calculation
[17:06] is explained on the previous slides and will be adjusted
[17:09] to increase the essentials rectangle by 10 percent. This is
[17:19] much simpler than exempting specific design features such as dormers,
[17:23] gables, or other things for interpretation. Any grey areas are
[17:28] perceived grey areas in the Zoning bylaw require additional work
[17:32] for planning, staff, and frustrate designers and builders. The intent
[17:37] of this is to bribe a modest amount for additional
[17:39] design flexibility while retaining the sidewall area regulations original purpose
[17:44] for managing building massing. The infrared review identified situations where
[17:50] the existing calculation can unnecessarily constrain building design, even when
[17:55] the Proposal continues to apply with the API applicable 8.
[17:59] 5 maximum building height. Side, rear, in front yard setbacks.
[18:07] Even on narrow sites, this allows for more interior space.
[18:11] Next slide, please. This is a corner site. Corner sites
[18:20] have access from both the flanking and front streets. And
[18:24] throughout our work on Enfil throughout the years have been
[18:26] identified for additional development and density. This slide illustrates the
[18:31] form of the Bing's former building that could be built
[18:34] on a quarter site. With a portion of the building
[18:36] setback 4. 5 metres from the adjacent site. The change
[18:41] would remove the regulation on the port on corner sites
[18:46] proposes that as the flanking street has a different relationship
[18:51] and does not create the same adjacent property mass and
[18:54] impact. It allows for design flexibility and for the ability
[18:58] to build an attached garage with an amendment to the
[19:01] flanking street. For the four - point metre setback exemption,
[19:09] just to note the minimum side yard setback is. 07
[19:12] metres. 075 metres. The purpose of, as the purpose of
[19:17] the sidewall area regulation is to primarily manage perceived massing
[19:21] of the billing in relation to adjacent property. We're a
[19:26] portion of the building is set back more than 4.
[19:28] 5 metres from the side property line. There's a greater
[19:31] separation from neighbouring property and the potential massing impact is
[19:35] reduced. Exempting this portion allows for greater flexibility in building
[19:39] design. Well portions of the building located closer to the
[19:42] neighbouring properties will continue to be regulated. This exemption only
[19:48] would apply to that portion set back greater than 4.
[19:52] 5 metres. And portions of the building closer to the
[19:56] cyprien line remain subject to the area of the sidewall
[20:00] regulation. Next slide, please. This is an example of corner
[20:06] site development in one of our older neighbourhoods. This form
[20:09] is very common in the established neighbourhoods. And when the
[20:13] sidewall restriction is removed off the flanking streets, a concentrates
[20:16] the massing away from the adjacent dwelling as the homeowner
[20:21] would have their yard behind the dwelling. Rather than additional
[20:26] space on a flanking street or in the front yard.
[20:30] Next slide, please. The last amendments are to clarify what
[20:35] is to determine clarification on what is included in sidewall,
[20:40] and that's the first bullet. And the second bullet proposes
[20:43] to exempt three season rooms. As they do not contribute
[20:48] to the massing as they are one story required to
[20:51] have open walls. And also are proposing a clarification. That
[20:57] sidewall is not counted for open areas, including their supporting
[21:01] structure. Next slide, please.
[21:13] This slide provides summary of the engage summary of engagement
[21:17] on this amendment. However, I'd like to like to note,
[21:22] middle and small housing did engagement as part of the
[21:25] infill project that they did. They conducted focus groups with
[21:29] community representatives. Builders, developers, architects, designers and city staff. This
[21:35] included two mixed panels and follow - up interviews. The
[21:38] City in the consulting team also hosted a Public Online
[21:41] Forum. Information session on October 23rd, 2015. The findings and
[21:47] recommendations were presented and participants were able to ask questions.
[21:52] A follow - up survey was sent to those who
[21:54] attended the information session. It was based on the work
[21:57] to date. We understand that the industry mostly wants the
[22:02] regulations removed. And that the community mostly wants them to
[22:07] stay or even be strengthened. We feel that our current
[22:10] approach reflects a balance between these consideration. For metechnical perspective,
[22:16] we feel that all the work is done and we
[22:18] do not need further technical review. This come down to
[22:23] balancing the perspectives of our community. This concludes my presentation
[22:28] on the enemy's departmentary dwelling regulation and administration is recommending
[22:33] that the Propose Amendments be approved. Thank you. Thank you
[22:39] for the presentation. The floor is open for questions. From
[22:43] Council.
[22:54] Uh, I'm sorry. We should go to the speakers before.
[22:56] I was just checking if you guys wanted to ask
[22:58] questions first. We used to go to Secrets. We'll do
[23:01] that first. Uh, that sounds like a better approach. And
[23:06] I'm going to go first to Margaret Thompson. And as
[23:10] you make your way, uh, just a reminder to everyone
[23:12] in the gallery that you are allowed five minutes for
[23:16] your presentation at four minutes, the Amber. Lights go on.
[23:23] I missed the NPC report too. Okay. It's been a
[23:26] long day. Excuse me, Ms. Thompson. Ms. Thompson. Ms. Thompson.
[23:37] If you don't mind, can I just ask you to
[23:40] step aside for a moment while I'm going to invite
[23:42] the Municipal Planning Commission to make their presentation? Uh, I
[23:46] have the notes right in front of me knowing that
[23:48] this is what I'm supposed to do. So this is
[23:49] all on me guys. Sorry.
[24:04] This? That's okay. Let's keep. Going. All right. Good evening,
[24:12] worship and members of council. My name is Craig Harley,
[24:14] chair of the Municipal Planning Commission. Thank you for having
[24:16] me this evening. The Municipal Plan and Commission at its
[24:19] regular meeting held on June 23rd, 2026, considered a report
[24:23] of the Community Services Division regarding Propose Zoning Biolatex Amendments
[24:27] for Sidewall Area Calculations and Dorsill Height Regulations for Primary
[24:31] Dwellings in Established Neighbourhoods. The Commission's report attached to the
[24:35] agenda and my comments this evening while I was a
[24:37] stand for the Propose owning Bylax Amendments for Garden and
[24:40] Garage Suites in item 5. 1. 2. During the meeting,
[24:45] the Commission members discussed the effectiveness and complexity of the
[24:48] sidewall area rule. Considered its impact on infill development. Alternatives
[24:56] such as setbacks and lot coverage, and the rationale for
[24:59] retaining and not simply removing the regulations. A letter submitting
[25:04] comments from Nicole Burgess from the Saskatoon Region Home Builders
[25:08] Association was provided. The Commission members reviewed points from the
[25:13] letter. Discussing the adequacy of the 10 percent sidewall area
[25:17] increase. And the 4. 5 metre setback exclusion. Particularly for
[25:23] smaller lots. The members also sought clarification on the use
[25:27] of terms like Gable in the Bylaw Language. And the
[25:32] specifics of the administration committing to clear language in the
[25:37] final Biola draft before Council today. After discussion, the Commission
[25:43] was satisfied with the responses to questions and is recommending
[25:45] that the Proposed Zoning Bylate text amendments for the primary
[25:48] dwellings. In established neighbourhoods sidewall area and door - sill
[25:53] height be approved. Thank you. Do we have questions for
[25:57] Mr. Harley? Councillor Dubois. Thank you Mayor Bloch. Thank you
[26:02] for the report and thanks for your work on the
[26:03] commission. Can you tell me, was it a unanimous vote
[26:07] at the Municipal Platinum Commission? Yes, it was. Okay, thank
[26:10] you. Are there any other questions? Seeing none. Thank you,
[26:16] Mr. Hurley. And Ms. Thompson, I apologise this time you
[26:21] are up. And I think you know the rules, but
[26:23] just for everyone else. You have five minutes. After four
[26:26] minutes, the Amberlite comes on five minutes, the red light
[26:30] goes on, it's a very loud noise, and your presentation
[26:33] will need to conclude. So with that, I will turn
[26:36] the podium over to Ms. Thompson and ask you to
[26:39] introduce yourself and you're ready. Thank you. My name is
[26:42] Margaret Thompson. Your worship mayor block and councillors. I appreciate
[26:48] this opportunity to have my voice heard as I suspect
[26:51] that most residents in established neighbourhoods are blissfully unaware of
[26:55] what council is considering accepting in this suggested by Lord
[26:59] Amendment. Until the spring, when the house on the Colonel
[27:04] Lauder Jason to my property was demolished, I too, naive
[27:08] about infills. However, when I attended my first meeting of
[27:13] the Development Appeal Board, I learned how the building industry
[27:16] promotes their interpretation of the City bylaws. Today's submission from
[27:21] this industry highlights their approach. They demand predictability. Surely a
[27:27] sidewall formula and by laws achieve this goal. Apparently not.
[27:32] As they are trying to remove the formula and are
[27:34] picking away at our effective infill bylaws. However, then they
[27:39] are complaining. They need flexibility. In addition, they want simple
[27:43] and easy to understand regulations. But then they try and
[27:47] put their own interpretation on simple phrases, like making reference
[27:52] to similar builds that are not at all similar. I
[27:56] have lived in Utana for 57 years. I am not
[28:01] against the demolition of old homes to be replaced with
[28:04] ones that have the capacity to be energy efficient and
[28:07] wired with the latest technology. What I am against is
[28:11] this move to replace existing moderately - sized homes with
[28:15] massive mansions more suited to an acreage than the landscapes
[28:20] of the established neighbourhoods like Nutana and Varsity Bu. I
[28:24] am retired and therefore have had the luxury of the
[28:28] time to ask questions of City staff about what is
[28:31] permitted and an infill. The CitySarf have been unfailingly helpful,
[28:36] but I have become increasingly concerned at the limited protection
[28:40] afforded by City bylaws to adjacent property owners and the
[28:45] campaign by developers and builders to weaken the current system.
[28:49] Which though it could be strengthened is working. I'd like
[28:53] to remind Council that the Bylaw relating to sidewalk restrictions
[28:57] was approved in 2015 because of the number of complaints
[29:01] that were being made about in fulls. It's been highly
[29:05] successful in cutting down these complaints. Now council is being
[29:08] encouraged by the Saskatoon home builders association to ease the
[29:13] sidewall restrictions for what they refer to as design, sensibilities.
[29:18] This is a ridiculous rationale. The development appealed board has
[29:22] the power to ground variances in special circumstances while still
[29:27] maintaining the intent of the bylaws to protect neighbouring properties
[29:31] from an infills excessive mass. These bylaws have been successful
[29:36] and should be left alone. Now, if this bylaw amendment
[29:41] goes through, it will mean, for example, homes which are
[29:45] alongside side lots will have no protection from the mass
[29:48] of the build next to them, as there'll be no
[29:51] constraints on the sidewall facing the road on that type
[29:54] of lot. Our neighbour,
[30:04] whose original plans for a building had almost. Referred to
[30:09] in the appeal board hearing as single story were actually
[30:13] almost as tall as my true story house. It has
[30:16] the amendment passes. All he needs to do is to
[30:19] apply for a revised building permit and another Munster house
[30:22] is born. The number of building designs was so caught
[30:26] three seasoned rooms will surely saw. These rooms were not
[30:30] counting the sidewalk calculations. They for the life of me
[30:34] I see no difference in the mass of a regular
[30:36] forces in room and a three - season room. In
[30:40] closing, I would suggest far more needs to be known
[30:44] about the impact of the current influx of infills in
[30:47] established neighbourhoods. What is the impact of these infills on
[30:51] adjacent properties? To what extent has the City's canopy of
[30:55] trees been affected. What about drainages use. So survey the
[31:00] property owners don't just rely on guidance from the Satin
[31:04] home builders association. And I respectfully ask counsel to stand
[31:08] firm. Don't change the infill bylaws. Defeat this bylaw amendment
[31:14] and protect our established neighbourhoods from being destroyed. And thank
[31:18] you for listening. Any questions. I will open up the
[31:23] floor of questions. I'm not seeing any, but thank you
[31:28] for being here. Next is Douglas Thompson. Hello.
[31:38] Hello, Mr. Thompson. We can hear you. Okay, I've submitted
[31:43] a video. In case the connection problem. Okay. Thank
[31:53] you. Good morning or good evening. Madam Mayor. City of
[31:59] Saskatoon Council. Thank you for allowing me to submit my
[32:02] video comments on the bylaw amendment discussion for maximum sidewall
[32:08] square footage. I live on Temperance Street in Varsity View.
[32:12] And my mother lives on University Drive in New Tana.
[32:17] It just so happens that my mother's home is second
[32:19] from the corner. So the bylaw amendments that are going
[32:22] to be discussed before city council are rather important to
[32:26] our family. It's important to understand that our family has
[32:30] been learning a lot more about maximum sidewall square footage
[32:34] over the past few months. It just so happens that
[32:37] the corner home next to my mother has been taken
[32:40] down and, uh, new infill is being constructed right now.
[32:46] Now when I saw the proposed design, I thought it
[32:50] looked good and it did look good. And it was
[32:52] a great design, but it's not suited for a residential
[32:56] street in Saskatoon. It'd be much more suited for an
[32:59] acreage. For example, the attached garage is 1100 square feet.
[33:05] And, uh, the walls were 13 foot 10 inches tall.
[33:09] Now granted, they were an attached garage. So, uh, as
[33:13] far as the height restrictions, they don't have the height
[33:15] restrictions. There's a detached garage. But nonetheless, the proposed design
[33:20] exceeded the current bylaws by 21 percent on one side
[33:25] and 39 percent on the other. City council understands the
[33:31] unintended consequences of these bylaws relating to corner lots. Because
[33:38] when I looked at it and I looked at the
[33:40] proposed design that was changed as a result of the
[33:45] refusal of the city to allow, uh, them to proceed.
[33:48] Anything more than 4. 5 metres from the property line
[33:51] will not count towards the maximum sidewall square footage. And
[33:55] anything basing a side street, like in the case of
[33:59] the corner lot next to my mom, it won't count
[34:02] as well. So now all of a sudden this 1100
[34:05] square foot, uh, garage potentially is back on the, on
[34:09] the table again. If City Council approves, uh, these amendments,
[34:14] uh, the builder and the developer and the homeowner can
[34:17] go down to City Hall and submit a permit revision
[34:21] and say, okay, we want to change our plans again
[34:25] because now as a right, we can build it. And
[34:27] in fact, instead of, uh, going with the, uh, the
[34:31] original plan, which was a seven metre, uh, tall, uh,
[34:36] attached garage. Why not just keep on going up? Because
[34:41] nothing counts anymore. If it's more than four and a
[34:44] half metres. So technically they can actually make the place
[34:48] even larger. So instead of going, where my mom is,
[34:52] uh, my mom is over here. Mom helmet is over
[34:56] up. My mom's property is over here. On the proposed
[34:58] design that was seven metres, uh, tall for the attached
[35:03] garage. They can just keep on going up and they
[35:05] can go right up to eight and a half metres.
[35:08] Because nothing counts anymore. And now all of a sudden
[35:11] when my mom goes out into our backyard or my
[35:13] mom's in her kitchen with a big window looking out
[35:16] in the backyard, there's not going to be any light.
[35:19] It's just going to be a wall of, uh, of
[35:22] building and shingles. You're going to be able to create
[35:26] an entire wall and that entire triple car garage, 1100
[35:30] square feet or whatever it was, I think 103 metres
[35:33] squared. It won't count at all. The only restriction will
[35:37] be site coverage. This, these bylaw amendments are going to
[35:44] create a lot of conflict amongst neighbours. And once it's
[35:48] been done, it can't just be undone. I won city
[35:52] council to understand how, how little four and a half
[35:55] metres is. Four and a half metres is only 14
[35:58] foot nine inches. That's less than the length of two
[36:01] sheet supply wood. I got my tape measure out. And
[36:08] I set it up on the corner here. And I
[36:11] went over to here. Just over to this chair to
[36:14] the midpoint of this chair. There we go. That's four
[36:19] and a half metres. That's not very much. That's not
[36:22] very much at all. And so now if you go
[36:25] with something like that, if you set up your, uh,
[36:28] your, uh, your corner lot, you can go all the
[36:31] way up to eight and a half metres and not
[36:33] one square inch will count towards the maximum sidewall square
[36:36] footage. This is going to create a lot of conflict.
[36:40] An urged city council to turn down this amendment. Thank
[36:44] you very much. Thank you, Mr. Thompson. Other questions for
[36:47] the speaker. I'm not seeing any, uh, thank you for
[36:54] your presentation. Nicole Burgess. Thank you. Nicole, are you online?
[37:02] Oh, sorry. You're in this, in the chambers. Awesome. Uh.
[37:07] Can begin the introduce yourself when you're ready. Okay. Good
[37:12] evening. Your worship and members of Council. And thank you
[37:14] so much for the opportunity to speak today. My name
[37:17] is Nicole Burgess and I'm the CEO of the SaaTonian
[37:19] Region Home Builders Association. And I'm here to speak in
[37:22] support of package two coming out of the city's infill
[37:25] review process. Before I begin, I want to recognise administration
[37:29] for the immense amount of work that went into getting
[37:31] this package here. This has been a lengthy process with
[37:35] significant engagement and many different perspectives to balance. And we
[37:39] truly appreciate all the work that has been done to
[37:41] move these changes forward. So tonight my ask is simple.
[37:46] Please approve package too. It is a positive, long overdue
[37:50] and important step forward. But I'm also hoping that this
[37:54] isn't the final step. Because the more work to be
[37:57] done if the city is serious about meeting its infill
[38:00] targets. And those targets matter because in film matters. Infill
[38:06] creates housing choice and opportunities for gentle density and affordability.
[38:11] It renews aging housing stock, provides a city with additional
[38:14] tax revenue and makes better use of the infrastructure we
[38:18] already have. So this is not simply an industry priority.
[38:22] It's a city priority. It's your priority. The official community
[38:26] plan calls for 50 percent of long - term growths
[38:33] in regulatory barriers. And I can tell you that in
[38:37] my time with the association and countless conversations with infill
[38:41] builders and designers and everything that I have learned through
[38:44] this review. I keep coming back to one conclusion. Saskatoon
[38:49] has some of the most restrictive. Very terrify. And complex
[38:52] is now joining. Then anywhere in Canada. And if Council
[38:58] is serious about increasing their infill targets, that should matter.
[39:03] For us, the clearest example of this is the sidewall
[39:05] calculation. The City's independent review found that Saskatoon layers this
[39:10] additional complex mass and control onto infill homes beyond height.
[39:16] Setbacks, and site coverage. The review also could not identify
[39:20] one other city currently using the same measure. So this
[39:23] regulation is very unique to Saskatoon. So the question then
[39:28] becomes, what is different about Saskatoon? That means the usual
[39:32] Zoning Controls used elsewhere are not sufficient here. Because sidewall
[39:37] is not just complicated math on paper. Right now a
[39:41] home can comply with all the requirements and still require
[39:45] costly redesigned because of it. And the review further found
[39:49] it can actually penalize thoughtful design choices that add to
[39:53] the neighbourhood character like Gables articulation and larger side setbacks.
[39:58] Well also encouraging at the same time more simple building
[40:00] forms just to make the calculation work. Now I do
[40:04] want to be fair to administration's concern around massing. Yes,
[40:08] sidewall adds another layer of control over to size. But
[40:11] height, setbacks and site coverage already limit how large a
[40:16] home can be and where it sits on the lot.
[40:18] So why then does Saskatoon need this additional layer? And
[40:23] could removing sidewall allow a larger build form in some
[40:27] circumstances? Yes, absolutely. And sometimes we need that. But just
[40:32] because zoning allows something does not mean that's what's going
[40:36] to get built. In practice, I can assure you that
[40:39] what actually gets built is rarely determined by the maximum
[40:42] size zoning weight might allow. Instead, it is driven by
[40:46] things like the buyer, the lot, design preferences, the market,
[40:51] and especially today what people can afford. And sometimes having
[40:55] that flexibility is exactly what allows the right housing solution
[40:59] to work on a particular site. For example, on an
[41:03] affordable or multifamily infill project, the amount of usable area
[41:08] can directly affect Project Viability. And in some cases determine
[41:12] whether an additional unit can be accommodated at all. So
[41:17] yes, sidewall can have a very real impact on how
[41:20] much housing gets built. So if Saskatoon truly needs this
[41:24] additional regulation, then let's identify why. And determine whether there's
[41:29] a simpler, more predictable way to achieve a similar outcome.
[41:33] Which brings me to my second ask. Please direct administration
[41:37] to continue working with industry and other stakeholders to further
[41:40] evaluate removal of the sidewall calculation. And whether it's objectives
[41:44] can be achieved through simpler, more conventional zoning controls. I'm
[41:49] not asking counsel to consider removing sidewall tonight. I am
[41:52] simply asking you to approve the amendments before you, and
[41:56] please keep the door open to going further. Thank you
[41:58] very much. Any questions? Uh, open up the floor for
[42:02] questions. Councillor Pierce. Thank you, worship. Thank you for being
[42:06] here. Uh, you made a comment about us having the
[42:09] most restrictive requirements in Canada. Like, can you quantify that
[42:13] for me? Because I know of some pretty restrictive places
[42:16] in Canada. So I'm trying to appreciate that comment. And
[42:20] it really comes down to that sidewall calculation and the
[42:22] complexity that it prevents to development. I am not saying
[42:26] we're the only one that is very restrictive. But my
[42:30] conclusion after all the discussions I've had with many different
[42:34] infill builders and designers and everything I learned, um, through
[42:37] this report, that the independent consultant produced leads me to
[42:42] believe we are among the most restrictive and complex, yes.
[42:46] Okay. Thank you. I don't see another, oh, Council Killer.
[42:52] Thank you. And through you, your worship, uh, Ms. Burgess.
[42:58] In your opinion, Dori, could you just comment on what
[43:01] utility you believe, you know, this sidewall requirement provides that
[43:08] isn't accomplished through setback requirements height restrictions. And, uh, the
[43:15] site footprint. Yeah, for sure. For sure. Like as administration
[43:19] noted, sidewall was created for a reason. And it was
[43:23] to prevent this overly massing of houses is what we
[43:28] say. So, um, does the sidewall accomplish that in these
[43:33] established neighbourhoods? Yeah. It does. It does keep a house
[43:36] small. Um, it's not the same rules that apply when
[43:39] you're in a newer development area. Um, it's very specific
[43:43] to, to infill. But it's also got regulations by height.
[43:49] Height is still much shorter. And this isn't being addressed
[43:51] in any way shape or form in this package. We're
[43:53] just talking sidewall here. Um, so there, even if you
[43:57] remove sidewall, you're still not going to be as big
[43:59] as a house. In Stonebridge, for example. Um, so we're
[44:05] not talking necessarily, you know, we're talking a lot about
[44:09] monster hoses and mansions. But in my frame of reference,
[44:12] I'm also considering four units and three units in other
[44:17] neighbourhoods like Sutherland and Confederation in other areas that are
[44:21] equally impacted by these regulations that are limited by what
[44:24] they can build. Okay. Thank you. Council Sarport. Thank you,
[44:32] your worship through you. To Ms. Burgess. I just had
[44:36] one question, especially in established neighbourhoods. Does infill development guaranteed
[44:45] density. And does it also guarantee affordability. Because it's all
[44:52] based on what type of the development happens, correct? Absolutely.
[44:56] Absolutely. Um, you know, when we were going through the
[44:59] housing accelerator fund, um, you know, the idea for units
[45:03] as of right, um, honestly, when we looked at, and
[45:07] there was a lot of analysis that was done, uh,
[45:09] the various lot sizes that would apply. And in most
[45:12] cases, um, we kept coming to the conclusion that it's
[45:15] just not buildable. Like it's just not feasible, which definitely
[45:19] would restrict what development would go in. So, you know,
[45:24] it's difficult to answer your point. No, I guess the,
[45:30] um, that you're going to get denser building forms. It's
[45:34] the opportunity to have them more than anything. Right. So
[45:39] basically this infill could just be just a big house
[45:42] for a fact kind of thing. Sure. Sure. It could
[45:44] be a house that, you know, and really we're talking
[45:46] more, you know, length into the backyard, right? Um, you
[45:51] know, I do myself with in Stonebird not in a
[45:53] monster house. And I, I don't have issues, you know,
[45:58] and the sidewall calculation there. Okay. Thank you. Councillor McDonald.
[46:07] Thank you, Madam Mayor, and through to Ms. Burgess. You
[46:10] spoke about, um, Saskatoon being pretty restrictive. What is the
[46:16] extra kind of layer complication with infill, this particularly in
[46:22] established neighbourhoods that you're hearing from your builders. Sidewall, full
[46:27] stop. Sidewall continues to be one of the biggest barriers.
[46:30] Um, and, and leading to redesign a lot, um, there
[46:35] was many examples that I can provide you, uh, I'm
[46:38] not a builder myself, but I hear all the stories.
[46:42] You know, in one case, they had to remove literally
[46:44] a closet in order to make the design work because
[46:47] of the sidewall rules. So sidewall is one of those
[46:51] complexities. And I think we got to remember that infill
[46:55] in itself is highly complex. You know, there is sometimes
[46:59] you're dealing like you're dealing with city trees. There's very
[47:01] strict regulations around that. So you're navigating around that. You're
[47:05] navigating around the community that you're building within. You know,
[47:10] the complexity. And so, you know, we're adding another layer
[47:13] of complexity to something that's already challenging. And something we
[47:17] desperately need as a city. So really what we want
[47:20] to see is just, you know, that flexibility. And yes,
[47:23] that certainty, um, in order to encourage more growth, the
[47:29] city that we've already built. Thank you. Councillor Parker. Yeah.
[47:38] Uh, to Councillor McDonald, you gave her one example of
[47:44] what the sidewall calculation has caused as far as redesign.
[47:50] I guess I'm looking for kind of more practical examples
[47:52] of how that's impacted design. And I think kind of
[47:56] what I'm trying to get at is, um. How will
[48:03] the 10 percent increase in the sidewalk calculation. Changed those
[48:07] issues? So, um, to me, if you need an extra
[48:11] 10 percent, why wouldn't you design to 90 percent and
[48:14] then use your 10 percent for flexibility rather than here's
[48:17] a hundred percent of what you used to have. And
[48:19] here's another 10 percent. So yeah, I'm just kind of
[48:22] looking for, for me, cause I was just looking at
[48:27] a picture, um, that kind of compared a home that
[48:31] was built a beautiful infill home. And it had kind
[48:33] of this, I need to show you the picture, but
[48:37] really it was kind of a square. It felt more
[48:40] like the neighbourhood. And they actually had to change it
[48:42] to like that style. Um, just to meet the sidewall
[48:45] calculation. Like it was just a tweak. It was, but
[48:48] it doesn't change anything about the overall size of the
[48:51] house. Do you know what I mean? It just created
[48:52] a design problem because of the calculation. Um, I do
[48:56] think that exemptions and considerations are going to be very
[49:04] helpful. I am in no way, um, ungrateful, uh, for,
[49:09] you know, the changes that are being made every little
[49:11] bit helps. I think where you're still going to encounter
[49:14] barriers is more when you're dealing with those, you know,
[49:17] say four units or three units. I think you're probably
[49:19] still going to butt up against a lot of challenges,
[49:22] even with the 10 percent increase. But yeah, that's, okay,
[49:29] has the home builders association advocated for exceptions specific to
[49:34] four or three unit structures rather than the primary dwellings?
[49:38] No, no. That's nothing that we've ever considered is, you
[49:42] know, having those, you know, kind of specific exemptions. I
[49:45] think sometimes when you start adding rules to rules, you
[49:48] can create a little bit more confusion and complexity. And
[49:52] really, I'm hoping that we're moving towards more simplicity. I
[49:55] look at Edmonton. I know that they recently did some
[49:58] changes where it pertains to their, their infill kind of
[50:03] regulations. And, um, at one point I was asked like,
[50:06] what cities doing it right? You know what I mean?
[50:08] Like we all kind of have our challenges. We all
[50:10] have our nuances. And I would say Edmonton, I would
[50:13] say Edmonton's, you know, they removed what they called their
[50:16] mature neighbourhood overlay, um, which was highly restrictive. And they
[50:20] did so in the name of creating more consistency and
[50:25] simplicity. And so sometimes I think the more rules you
[50:28] create are the more rules you have to manage. And
[50:31] the more rules that are open to say interpretation. So
[50:35] if you're looking for more simplicity, um, I think perhaps
[50:40] other than the planners in the room, uh, I would,
[50:45] I would say the sidewalk calculation is not simple. Um,
[50:50] so how does adding 10 percent that lean towards simplicity
[50:55] as far as it doesn't. However, it does give, like
[51:00] say, designers that much more kind of leeway, if you
[51:03] will. I think every little bit helps. And this is
[51:07] going to help. I think the door sill height, very
[51:11] important thing, especially when we got to consider, we need
[51:14] those units that are, you know, in order to accommodate
[51:16] basement suites, that dorsal height had to move, right? So
[51:20] I think they, they hit the nail on the head.
[51:22] You know, do you even need a number? They're probably
[51:24] not no one's going to build that way. But again,
[51:26] that's a very important adjustment that speaks to how we're
[51:29] building housing now for today. I think the very interesting
[51:33] looking house on 11th that would tell you that people
[51:35] will build that way. Um, but I appreciate that. Thank
[51:38] you very much. I'll just add just a couple of
[51:42] quick questions on understanding sidewall and the cell height. We
[51:49] talked a lot about these massive houses and how that
[51:53] these bilade changes that are recommended could accelerate very, very
[51:59] large homes that ruin people's views and all of that.
[52:02] And that's always been a challenge with infeliz that I'm
[52:08] noticing in info neighbourhoods are those, uh, lots of been
[52:12] subdivided and trying to figure out how to fit a
[52:15] home on them and how do you even have a
[52:18] home if you don't have a bit of sidewall. And
[52:22] can you just speak to that? Because this is relatively
[52:23] new that we have these very narrow homes on those,
[52:28] say 50 or 60 foot lots. Yeah. No, I think
[52:31] that's a very good point. Um, and I think it's
[52:34] those narrow lots that really kind of are more challenged
[52:38] by these sidewall calculations, right? In terms of the actual
[52:41] home that you're able to put on them. Um, so
[52:44] I think that that's a very important consideration because we
[52:47] are seeing that. I know it's equally challenging in Greenfield
[52:50] Development, right? Where we're seeing smaller and smaller lots, right?
[52:53] So there is challenges to that. But fortunately in Greenfield,
[52:56] you don't, you don't have the sidewall calculation. You're still
[52:59] dictated on size by those basic rules of height and
[53:03] setback and percent site coverage. And, you know, have the
[53:07] opportunity to ask others hopefully, but I, uh, just, can
[53:11] you speak to that? Cause if that's the way that
[53:13] we provide rules around development outside of the infill, uh,
[53:20] is fair to say that this is character preservation and
[53:23] trying to keep things the same, uh, how do you
[53:26] understand how these rules are being applied? This is probably
[53:30] a better question for administration, but I'm just curious to
[53:32] review. Like in terms of the comparison to Greenfield or
[53:36] newer device? Right. You said in Greenfield, you don't have
[53:38] the same restrictions. And neighbours still, I guess that's where
[53:43] I'm personally challenged, right? Um, you know, like I said,
[53:46] I live in Stonebridge and I can tell you for
[53:49] certain, you know, if I look down my street very
[53:52] regular street, no one's maximizing that building envelope. You got
[53:56] bungalows, you got two stories. You got a diversity of
[53:59] housing that kind of goes into these, these neighbourhoods. You
[54:03] know, you have the backyard that you have, you know,
[54:06] based on however the length of your house, because you're
[54:08] not as limited by the sidewalk calculation. Um, and you
[54:12] still have to follow the same rules of, you know,
[54:14] no more than say 40 percent. So it will dictate
[54:17] the size of the home. So, you know, I struggle
[54:20] with that because I think of, you know, I couldn't
[54:23] take, you know, just, you know, say I had a
[54:25] maximized hosts, like I couldn't take that and put an
[54:28] info because info still has regulations on height, you know,
[54:31] to keep kind of that character, if you will, um,
[54:34] to the existing neighbourhoods. Okay. I think, um, most of
[54:40] my other questions are probably better left to administration, but
[54:42] thank you. And oh, online, we're going to go now
[54:46] to Councillor Donau. Thank you, worship, Ms. Burgess. Thank you
[54:50] for your comments tonight. I just want to clarify a
[54:54] few things. Can you hear me? Yes, I can. Great.
[54:58] Okay. The report indicates that the home builders is advocating
[55:04] for the complete removal of infill provisions. And that was
[55:08] said again tonight. I just want to clarify, is that
[55:11] what you're asking for. Um, I'm asking for approval of
[55:15] the package that's on the table. I think it's an
[55:17] important step forward. And further to that, I am asking,
[55:21] hopefully, uh, that Council will direct administration to further pursue
[55:26] consideration of removal of the sidewall. Yeah. But you understand
[55:33] and don't necessarily disagree to infel the guidelines as long
[55:36] as they're simple and reasonable or okay. Yes. Yeah. Okay.
[55:42] Um, how do other cities manage massing if they don't
[55:45] use this calculation? Um, there's, there's a diversity of ways.
[55:50] Um, that this can be be handled. I don't know
[55:52] that there's any as complex as our particular sidewall rule.
[55:57] Um, I believe that there's something called a floor area
[56:01] ratio that Regina. And who else does it? I forget
[56:06] Rejoin in another one uses. So again, that's more calculating
[56:10] that I believe the maximum kind of square footage of
[56:12] sorts. So it's still kind of controlling size. Um, I
[56:16] don't know that that's a better solution. Um, I believe
[56:19] Calgary does a stepped height or angular plane control, which
[56:23] again is considering similar to how administration was talking about
[56:26] the further they're out from the neighbouring property, the less
[56:29] potential impact there is to that neighbour. Right. So it's
[56:32] kind of more of consideration of that. But there's also,
[56:35] you know, I've talked to others like designers that work
[56:38] in municipalities that, you know, in order to create, because
[56:42] it's really about the visual, right? The massing and just
[56:46] like, you know, imagining a blank wall. But by using
[56:49] different materials, um, articulations, you can actually really break up
[56:53] that massing so it's not so, you know, abrupt, if
[56:57] you will. Um, so, so there's different ways that you
[57:00] can tackle it. I don't know that I have the
[57:02] perfect solution. And, you know, if Saskatoon, you know, still
[57:05] wants to retain some level of control, um, over mousing,
[57:10] there is probably a multitude of things that can be
[57:11] looked at that would make it more simple and certain
[57:16] and better encourage infill to happen. Thank you. Thank you,
[57:20] worship. Okay. I don't see any more lights on for
[57:25] questions. Thank you. Uh, next we have Odell Genoway.
[57:42] Good evening, worship mayor and councillors. I'm Rodelle Genoway, CEO
[57:46] of Hometown Homes. Um, a home builder here in Saskatoon.
[57:51] We've designed and built, um, eleven homes in the Varsity
[57:54] view in Newtown neighbourhood and also do acreages in other
[57:57] areas. But today I'm speaking on behalf of, um, some
[58:02] of our challenges with infill development. And speaking on behalf
[58:05] of Saskatoon and Region home builders association where I serve
[58:08] on the board. So firstly one thing of how our
[58:12] company works is we're design build. So I don't put
[58:16] my personal taste on our homes. We design any style.
[58:21] We design what our clients ask for. Obviously with our
[58:23] guidance. So when I speak about rules or having to
[58:28] take something off a drawing, it's not impacting me personally.
[58:31] It's impacting our clients who are paying for it at
[58:35] the end of the day. So I have a real
[58:38] example we have in our design phase right now that
[58:40] I think will be helpful to share. Um, it's being
[58:43] designed for a lot that our clients own in Varsity
[58:46] view. Um, they're a retired couple. They're in their 60s.
[58:51] This is the last house that they'll be building. Their
[58:54] style is traditional craftsman. And their goal is for this
[58:57] home to look like it's always been there. So the
[59:00] front of the house has, I have some photos, but
[59:03] it's not going to help from this far away, but
[59:05] the front of the house, um, has a really steep
[59:08] gable. So a gavel is like a triangle. Like how
[59:10] a kid draws a house. And rather than the whole
[59:13] house just looking like one big triangle. The gable is
[59:17] just a little feature on the right side of the
[59:19] house. So in order to give it that curb appeal,
[59:22] we need another roof line on the left, which requires
[59:26] a gable on the sidewall on the side of the
[59:28] house. So now that's the rule that creates the problem.
[59:33] The city gives every house a sidewall budget, if you
[59:36] will, in the bylaw. That's what the sidewall area is.
[59:40] So it only covers two sides of the house. It
[59:43] doesn't matter about the front or the back. So you
[59:47] measure from the ground up to the highest point of
[59:50] the roof. It has to fit within that budget. But
[59:53] when you have a gable on the side, that triangle
[59:56] counts towards that budget. So in this case, that gable
[1:00:00] on the side spent a chunk of their sidewall area
[1:00:03] budget and they went over. So a typical fix for
[1:00:07] that would be make the house shorter or push the
[1:00:13] whole house into the ground. So first we tried pushing
[1:00:16] the house into the ground. But on this street specifically
[1:00:19] the sewer depth is quite shallow. So we were, we
[1:00:23] were hitting the, hitting the sewer line, um, we had
[1:00:28] the lot surveyed. We had our sewer contractor involved and
[1:00:31] they confirmed the number, the footing counset, lower than 501.
[1:00:34] 85. We were one inch below that. So that meant
[1:00:38] the plumbing would be running uphill. And it ain't going
[1:00:41] to work if that's the case. So we couldn't push
[1:00:44] the house down, which left making the house shorter. So
[1:00:47] we took 12 inches out of the second floor ceiling.
[1:00:51] So it went from a nine foot ceiling to an
[1:00:53] eight foot ceiling. So that spends less budget for that
[1:00:56] sidewall area. And it led us lift the house back
[1:00:59] up away from the sewer. But this is where it
[1:01:03] gets tricky because the wall budget passes, but the sewer
[1:01:06] doesn't. It's still too shallow. And the house needed to
[1:01:10] come up four inches more. So two ways to find
[1:01:14] four more inches is either take another foot out of
[1:01:16] the ceiling height, which was the basement was our next
[1:01:20] plan. I'd imagine nobody building a brand new house wants
[1:01:24] to have an eight foot basement instead of a nine
[1:01:26] foot basement. So that was the trap. The sewer says
[1:01:30] lift the house. The front door rule says don't. The
[1:01:35] wall budget says don't. But our clients gave up 12
[1:01:40] inches of sealing upstairs. Their basement is next. And it's
[1:01:43] all ultimately because of the style of roof that's on
[1:01:46] this house. If it was a flat roof style house,
[1:01:49] this would all be working perfectly. Um, what gets me
[1:01:53] is that this house already passed on height on lot
[1:01:56] coverage on how far the wall sits from the property
[1:01:59] line. Those are all factored in how big this house
[1:02:02] can actually be. But it's ultimately the roof that we
[1:02:05] want to put on this house that will fit the
[1:02:08] most in the neighbourhood is the issue that we're having.
[1:02:15] So in the end, taking that gable off, the neighbour
[1:02:17] doesn't get less house. They just get a flatter blank
[1:02:21] or wall, um, which nobody wants to look at either.
[1:02:24] So our ultimate ask, um, from my company hometown homes
[1:02:29] and on behalf of the Saskatoon Region home builders association
[1:02:32] is to approve package two. And at the end of
[1:02:35] the day, nothing changes on ultimate massing. The height restrictions
[1:02:39] are there. The setbacks are there. Thank you. Are there
[1:02:46] questions for the speaker? I'm not seeing any, but I
[1:02:53] have one. If these are passed, how would that impact
[1:02:58] the project you just described. The roof line would get
[1:03:02] to stay with its little peak on the front and
[1:03:05] a nice, um, I don't know what you would call
[1:03:07] a gable from the side. Ultimately it's going to have
[1:03:11] the curb appeal that the neighbourhood wants. And so it
[1:03:15] would actually fit with some of the change, some of
[1:03:17] those changes that you had mentioned would still need to
[1:03:19] happen. Yeah. But the roof design could stay. And with
[1:03:23] the dorsal height, all we need is an extra four
[1:03:26] inches. So just because this passes and we can have
[1:03:29] 12 inches, we're not going to take it. It would
[1:03:31] make this house look weird. It's just that four inches
[1:03:33] that we need. To bring it up and pass that
[1:03:36] sewer. I don't want to get in the weeds on
[1:03:39] one project, but I'd probably raise the ceiling, but that's
[1:03:42] me. Anyways, thank you. Uh, I appreciate that. Uh, I
[1:03:46] don't see their lights on for questions. So thank you.
[1:03:47] We're going to move on now to Sherry Tarasoff. Hello.
[1:03:57] Hello, Ms. Tarastoff. We can hear you. Hey, I have
[1:04:02] a presentation that I'm hoping the clerk can display while
[1:04:06] I'm presenting. We can see your presentation. Okay. Thank you.
[1:04:16] Your worship and city councillors. My name is Sherry Tarasov.
[1:04:19] Thank you for this opportunity to speak. Existing infill regulations
[1:04:24] are working. The amendments before you are not necessary. Next
[1:04:29] slide, please. There are many items to consider on this
[1:04:32] agenda. Let's go through each of them. Next slide, please.
[1:04:38] City Council still waiting for report back. In 2022, City
[1:04:43] Council directed administration to track the impact of still height
[1:04:47] restriction over a year's time. No detail is provided on
[1:04:51] the time frame that was tracked and with the data
[1:04:53] revealed. The infill review project did not address this information
[1:04:57] before making recommendations. So his Council Direction now become optional.
[1:05:05] Next slide, please. A return to larger dwelling units. These
[1:05:10] proposed amendments will not address housing affordability. In fill targets
[1:05:15] growth objectives or supply challenges. They will, however, allow for
[1:05:20] larger dwelling units. Why should massive infill buildings be allowed
[1:05:24] to be built again? Next slide, please. Half initiative already
[1:05:31] complete. Admin highlights that these amendments form part of the
[1:05:36] housing action plan. In May, admin also reported that approval
[1:05:41] of the Zoning Bylaw Amendment for Development on Corner Lots
[1:05:45] in the transit development area corresponded to the final milestone
[1:05:49] and initiative three. It appears that this milestone has already
[1:05:53] been completed. Next slide, please. Engagement favored industry reps. In
[1:06:02] 2022, when amendments to infill regulations were last considered, and
[1:06:07] eight page engagement summary, detailed the workshops, meetings, surveys, and
[1:06:12] presentations that were undertaken. This time engagement was primarily one
[1:06:18] way. The exception being directed men engagement with industry reps.
[1:06:23] And the Saskatooning region home builders association. Why wasn't a
[1:06:27] focus group convened again. The mixed panel that the consultants
[1:06:32] formed only involved three Community members. And their report even
[1:06:37] stated further engagement will be required before any of the
[1:06:40] recommended amendments proceed for Council's consideration. Next slide, please. Don't
[1:06:49] fix what isn't broken. New primary dwellings in established neighbourhoods,
[1:06:55] Lake Mutana, continue to be built under the infill regulations
[1:06:59] that were implemented in 2015. Pictured is the 800 block
[1:07:03] of university drive with three new builds. Next slide, please.
[1:07:10] As provided by administration, the number of building permits for
[1:07:14] one unit dwellings and established neighbourhoods continues to increase since
[1:07:19] the infill regulations were adopted. Rising from 61 in 2014
[1:07:24] to 148 last year. Why amend regulations that are already
[1:07:30] working. Next slide, please. Appeals to push the boundaries. Few
[1:07:38] appeals have been heard by the development appeals board regarding
[1:07:41] sidewall deficiencies. All of these appeals were for massive single
[1:07:46] family homes, not affordable homes. Next slide, please. Uh. In
[1:07:55] summary in field regulations are in place to ensure new
[1:07:59] infill development does not detract from the character of the
[1:08:02] neighbourhood. And to balance demand for contemporary housing with the
[1:08:06] existing built form. The existing infill regulations are working as
[1:08:12] demonstrated by the growing number of building permits for primary
[1:08:15] dwellings and established neighbourhoods. The amendments before you are not
[1:08:19] necessary and are aimed to benefit massive infill housing, not
[1:08:24] affordable housing. And one final note. Comments have been made
[1:08:29] about the multi - unit dwellings or MUDs. And I
[1:08:33] believe the Byla already has an exemption for MUD's in
[1:08:36] certain areas regarding sidewall calculation. So perhaps admin to address
[1:08:41] that more clearly. Thank you for your time. Thank you,
[1:08:46] Mr. Tarasoff. Are there questions for the speaker. McDonald. Thank
[1:08:54] you Madam Mayor through you. Um, thank you for your
[1:08:56] presentation, Ms. Tarasoff. I was just wondering if you could
[1:08:59] clarify one of your statements or actually just maybe provide
[1:09:02] the background for me. I think I'm just missing it
[1:09:05] on slide four. You said we don't need to build
[1:09:10] large or infill doesn't need to have large hoses built
[1:09:14] again. Yes. Can you just give me the ground on
[1:09:18] that one. I'm just before the infill regulations came about
[1:09:25] in 2015. There was a lot of. Frustration with the
[1:09:29] size of buildings being built. And the infill regulations for
[1:09:33] sidewall seemed to temper that. And now we're kind of
[1:09:38] easing that. So we're going to increase them. Which perhaps
[1:09:42] is going to make things difficult again. No, thank you.
[1:09:46] Uh, very much for that clarification. Not seeing any of
[1:09:52] the lights on. Thank you, Mr. We'll go now to
[1:09:55] Carrie Tarasoff. Sherry Tarasoff is now exiting. I have
[1:10:05] a presentation. Thank you. Thank you worship. My name is
[1:10:10] Kerry Tarasoff and Council. I appreciate this opportunity. First slide
[1:10:15] that I'm showing you today is our rework of the
[1:10:17] city's own slide. And, uh, the yellow square at the
[1:10:21] top was the existing number for that size of lot.
[1:10:25] The green would be what the city's proposing. Minus the
[1:10:29] 4. 5 metre setback. Once you take that 4. 5
[1:10:33] metre setback, which is being deemed as not significant when
[1:10:38] it's very significant. When you get to the bottom, you
[1:10:41] see that big red rectangle. That's actually the size of
[1:10:43] building you can build. And I've got 39 years behind
[1:10:46] me. So I think I'm fairly close. So someone can
[1:10:49] call me out on it if they wish. Next slide,
[1:10:51] please. This is the larger lot size again. So the
[1:10:57] city wants to increase by 10 percent. What the real
[1:11:02] damaging application is for this, uh, 4. 5 metre setback.
[1:11:07] Next slide, please. So here is under the current regulations.
[1:11:14] A front view that is in an established area. And
[1:11:17] it shows the footprint and the plan view. So you
[1:11:20] could still have a detached scratch, but it wouldn't be
[1:11:24] attached. There'd be a break between the structures. And next
[1:11:28] slide. So this is an isometric view to give you
[1:11:33] an idea of the scale of a building. And this
[1:11:36] is to scale. Next slide. So here is what will
[1:11:41] be proposed if the city goes ahead tonight and you
[1:11:45] vote this serum. The front view looks the same. I
[1:11:48] agree. But if you look at the plan view, you
[1:11:50] see this building got exceptionally long. And there's great implication
[1:11:55] for that. Next slide, please. So here's what a side
[1:11:59] view from the street looks like in a side view
[1:12:01] from the neighbour. And you'll say, well, but they're going
[1:12:06] to try to make it look better. We don't have
[1:12:08] our architectural controls. This is the envelope that someone can
[1:12:12] build within. And when somebody has an envelope, they will
[1:12:14] take advantage of it. Next slide, please. So here's a
[1:12:19] niceometric of what that looks like. And when you see
[1:12:23] those four garage doors, that is the scale of a
[1:12:26] building. We're talking about. It's massive. And this is a
[1:12:31] 40 percent lock cover for the building, an extra 10
[1:12:34] percent added for the deck. And I've only used a
[1:12:38] 22 foot high wall, which is set up, uh, 0.
[1:12:43] 75 metres from the property line. So I believe there's
[1:12:47] actually even room for me to get a little bit
[1:12:48] bigger on some things, but I won't get into it.
[1:12:50] This is more than enough to prove the point, isn't
[1:12:53] it? So what we're really talking about is affordable versus
[1:12:58] affluent. And really, the big push for all of this,
[1:13:02] especially the 4. 5 emission and stuff is affluence, because
[1:13:06] it makes, instead of having these exteriors separated garages, they
[1:13:10] can all just be one big large structure. What would
[1:13:13] be the harm in that. But let's talk fire protection.
[1:13:17] I live in Westview and we had a massive fire
[1:13:19] this year. I went and looked at that structure and
[1:13:22] the cleanup crews that were working on it told me
[1:13:24] that 22 structures were affected. And across the street from
[1:13:29] where the fires took place is 24 metres away. And
[1:13:33] they're siding is melting off their houses. So the problem
[1:13:36] that we have is firefighters have a real problem fighting
[1:13:39] these huge fires. And we're just going to double the
[1:13:42] size. In fact, this is 110 percent increase of wall
[1:13:45] area. And we were not considering the fire implications of
[1:13:50] this. And we're putting firefighters lives at risk to try
[1:13:53] to fight even more and more unreasonable fires. And we're
[1:13:56] not putting any fire protection into the wall construction. So
[1:14:00] if you were going to increase the wall construction and
[1:14:02] say, well, we'll put extra fire rating in there, but
[1:14:04] we're not doing that, are we? Because we wouldn't want
[1:14:07] to add cost. So let me ask you a question
[1:14:12] here. Um, if we're going to care about the people
[1:14:15] that sleep in these homes at night and we're going
[1:14:18] to care about the firefighters and we're already showing how
[1:14:22] many infills, in fact, Ms. Genoway, they build a beautiful
[1:14:26] house by the way. And they've done 11 infills. So
[1:14:28] obviously they've been able to work within regulations. So do
[1:14:34] we really need to make a big change. There might
[1:14:36] be some small changes that are needed. But this 4.
[1:14:39] 5 metres is devastating change. And it was not even
[1:14:44] properly presented by administration for you to consider tonight. So
[1:14:49] one thing you need to realise as well is Edmonton
[1:14:52] is doubling back right now is just passed in Council
[1:14:55] and they will be going back to look at the
[1:14:56] implications of infill. Because as they quoted Edmonton, Epton's having
[1:15:01] a devastating effect for infill right now. And I don't
[1:15:05] want us to go the same place. Any questions. Opening
[1:15:11] the floor for questions. I'm not seeing any at this
[1:15:16] time. But thank you. Next we have Peggy Sargent.
[1:15:34] Good evening. Thank you for your time. My name is
[1:15:38] Peggy Sargent. And I'm speaking here as a resident of
[1:15:43] a neighbourhood which is under considerable development pressure. I'm concerned
[1:15:48] about the possible relaxation of regulations regarding the sidewall area
[1:15:54] of infill development. And the subsequent impact on adjacent residences.
[1:16:01] This is a complicated issue. Which is difficult for the
[1:16:05] lay person to understand without professional help. Certainly it is
[1:16:10] for me. However, residents able to register an opinion about
[1:16:15] the proposed bylaw when they are unable to determine the
[1:16:20] impact of an infill on their adjacent property. Would an
[1:16:24] increase of 10 percent inside wall area affect the light
[1:16:28] into a dwelling through additional shading. Would an exemption for
[1:16:34] the sidewall area of a development 4. 5 metres from
[1:16:38] the side property line increase the ability of the new
[1:16:43] infill to overlook its neighbor's property. I'm actually really concerned
[1:16:48] about that 4. 5 exemption. I just don't know. What
[1:16:53] this would actually look like. Over the years, the city
[1:16:58] has recognised the community's desire for infill of regulations to
[1:17:03] mitigate impacts on adjacent property. They also understand and have
[1:17:09] stated that removal of regulations can often result in large
[1:17:15] dwellings. Not more housing. And I can certainly attest to
[1:17:20] that. With regard to the proposed new zoning by law,
[1:17:26] however, I feel there has been little engagements with the
[1:17:29] public to explain the new proposals. The city has had
[1:17:35] multiple conversations with the development community, but residents, the people
[1:17:41] most affected by a new adjacent development of barely mentioned.
[1:17:46] I don't consider providing some information on the City's website
[1:17:50] and asking the reader to contact the planning department adequate
[1:17:54] engagement. It assumes that residents are following City Development Activities
[1:18:00] Online, leaving many members of the public out in the
[1:18:04] cold. There have been no public engagement sessions. And I
[1:18:10] would suggest that most members of the public have no
[1:18:13] idea, not a clue that this bylaw is being considered
[1:18:17] this evening. The City can do better than this. I
[1:18:22] know that. I'm asking the City to withdraw this proposed
[1:18:26] by law. And at this time to allow for more
[1:18:31] engagement with the public at large. This should include the
[1:18:36] provision of illustrated examples of how the proposals could have
[1:18:41] an impact on adjacent properties. The more pictures, the better
[1:18:46] so much more easily, her accessible for people like me.
[1:18:51] I believe this action will be appreciated by the many,
[1:18:55] many citizens who will be affected by future info development.
[1:19:01] Thank you. Thank you, Ms. Sargent. Are there questions, should
[1:19:06] speak her? Not seeing any. Uh, thank you so much
[1:19:09] for being here. Uh, we now come to the end
[1:19:14] of the list of speakers, but anyone in the gallery
[1:19:17] who, uh, wishes to speak may do so. Is there
[1:19:20] anyone who would like to speak to this item.
[1:19:30] Uh, whoever, I'm sorry, who? All right. Please go to
[1:19:36] the podium. Welcome. And, uh, I think you've heard the
[1:19:45] rules of engagement here. And so if you could just
[1:19:48] kind of introduce yourself when you're ready and begin. Sure.
[1:19:55] I just have an image that I could pass around
[1:19:58] of what a step actually, a step height, looks like
[1:20:01] at 1. 3 metres. So I'll just.
[1:20:13] And I'll just ask you to adjust the microphone so
[1:20:15] that you can, we can hear you a little better.
[1:20:18] Thanks. Perfect. Thank you. Um, your honour and council, thank
[1:20:24] you for the opportunity to speak this evening. Um, my
[1:20:27] name is Mark Robin and I'm a local architect. And
[1:20:31] a builder of Infill Homes with Design Build. And our
[1:20:35] longstanding member on various panels regarding SaaStoons infill regulations from
[1:20:39] their early inception. In 2010, 16 community associations came together
[1:20:45] through concern over scale and character of infill homes rising
[1:20:50] in existing neighbourhoods. A mass of amount of work was
[1:20:53] done over five years to balance current building practices with
[1:20:58] interests of character and scale. Together with council in 2015,
[1:21:02] we implemented these landmark regulations. These regulations are working well.
[1:21:10] Exterior scale and massing have drastically improved basement development is
[1:21:14] up over 60 percent has even made a comeback. Large
[1:21:20] scale wells and other innovations are becoming commonplace. The building
[1:21:26] industry is maturing. And now using previously underutilized parts of
[1:21:31] the home to find their extra square footage. The regulations
[1:21:35] have helped by the confidence of residents in established neighbourhoods.
[1:21:40] And the adverse reaction to infill has slowly declined over
[1:21:43] this period as a result. Two primary recommendations have been
[1:21:50] made this evening undermine the effectiveness of the regulations. The
[1:21:55] relaxing of sale height and the permitted psi wall area
[1:21:59] are not tied to any higher municipal goals of affordability
[1:22:03] or density. And we'll simply result in larger, more expensive
[1:22:07] homes. Neighbourhood residents are not asking for these changes. The
[1:22:12] development industry is. In 2014, consultant firm Brooke McElroy recommended
[1:22:22] a maximum seal height of 0. 9 metres. Development pressure
[1:22:27] later saw this increase to 1. 0 metres. A two
[1:22:32] bedroom basement suite is easily accommodated under the existing regulations
[1:22:36] on the very small list of lots. A 24 inch
[1:22:41] tall egress window can be accommodated without a window well.
[1:22:45] And much larger with the window well. Consulting with three
[1:22:49] different architecture firms, sewer depth arises in about three percent
[1:22:53] of cases. And in every single case, this has been
[1:22:57] resolved by going through an eight foot, sorry, going to
[1:23:00] an eight foot basement ceiling instead of a nine foot
[1:23:03] or a tent foot. In a situation, if a situation
[1:23:08] were to arise where a shallow utility could not be
[1:23:11] resolved through design, a pump or a variance application are
[1:23:16] both tools in place that could be available. Had the
[1:23:20] administration directly track and report back on data of non
[1:23:24] - standard utility connections as directed by Council on May
[1:23:28] 24th of 2022. They likely would have seen this very
[1:23:32] similar results. An image of a front step at 1.
[1:23:37] 3 metres is included that I've circulated. Um, a sill
[1:23:44] height increase from one metre to 1. 3 metre is
[1:23:48] unnecessary. Relaxing sidewall area bylaws, the very small
[1:23:58] list of lots, a 25 foot by 130 foot will
[1:24:02] yield up to 2, 000 square feet. As a two
[1:24:06] - story. And an additional 600 square feet with addict
[1:24:10] development and an additional 1, 000 square feet with basement
[1:24:14] development. Larger lots will yield much larger homes. Loopholes still
[1:24:22] remain in the bylaw as to propose this evening. However,
[1:24:25] well - intended, whenever an exemption is made in the
[1:24:28] bylaw, it exposes the byla up to gaming manipulation and
[1:24:32] exploitation. Originally in 2015, fascia soffits and all other elements
[1:24:38] were intended to be included as mass in the sidewall
[1:24:41] area calculation to simplify the bylaw. But we're not. And
[1:24:46] are still not remedied in this new proposal. A definition
[1:24:49] of steeply slope proofs versus walls is also not included
[1:24:53] in this proposal. Nor are roofs over occupied areas versus
[1:24:58] decorative roofs on sidewalls. This would have been the opportunity
[1:25:02] to clean up and simplify the bylaw. However, these loopholes
[1:25:06] remain. Interpretation will continue to be a problem for administrative
[1:25:10] staff. In summary, these proposed changes fail to meet four
[1:25:16] key benchmarks. They don't increase density. They don't produce affordable
[1:25:20] housing. They don't improve context - sensitive design and they
[1:25:24] don't address existing loopholes or problems in the bylaw. I'm
[1:25:28] sorry. That's it. Thank you. Thanks for being here. Do
[1:25:32] we have questions for the speaker. I'm not seeing any,
[1:25:37] but thank you for your presentation. Thank you. Are there
[1:25:40] any others who would like to speak. Go ahead.
[1:25:54] Your worship councillors. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. I'm
[1:25:59] Jonathan Naylor and I'm speaking on behalf of the vast
[1:26:03] if you community association, which is asking you not to
[1:26:08] pass. The sidewall variants, the set - pack exceptions, or
[1:26:14] the change in Silhite. To just sort of put this
[1:26:20] in personal terms, many of our residents remember the time
[1:26:26] when we did not have the sidewall rule. We had
[1:26:32] very large rectangular homes which pushed deep back into the
[1:26:37] lot. They only housed one family. Uh, and the neighbours
[1:26:43] suffered privacy and shading concerns. We also lost a lot
[1:26:47] of trees. Which is one of the features of our
[1:26:52] neighbourhood, which many residents treasure and certainly provide ecological benefits.
[1:27:02] There's a lot of infillin on neighbourhood. Sam Hc showed
[1:27:08] data that starts housing starts for up in Saskatoon. The
[1:27:14] current by - laws appear to be working just fine.
[1:27:19] If you pass by laws which allowed, or Bylow changes
[1:27:23] which allow bigger changes, but will the result of that
[1:27:27] be. What limits housing in Saskatoon. One of the things
[1:27:32] is labour. I'm trying to get, change it done by
[1:27:37] basement. I know. Um, so if you divert your labour
[1:27:42] into building very large homes, then you take it away
[1:27:47] from building more affordable homes. It's just pretty much that
[1:27:52] simple. What is the typical house that's built in vast
[1:27:56] if you on a 25 wide lot. Well, typically it's
[1:28:00] 2, 000 square feet. Typically it has a thousand square
[1:28:04] feet. Which could be a secondary suite. Um, as Marcus
[1:28:09] said, um, you could be creative about the attic and
[1:28:13] that even more space. A lot of the people who
[1:28:15] live in those homes are one or two people. Because
[1:28:19] typically their older people who actually have the money to
[1:28:22] afford to live in that neighbourhood. And they've typically often
[1:28:26] their kids have left. I mean, occasionally, hopefully. So there
[1:28:34] are losses to the neighbourhood when we have increased sight
[1:28:37] coverage. We do have less vegetation. We do have less
[1:28:41] shading. We do have less trees to soak up the
[1:28:44] water. So there are losses associated with these proposed changes.
[1:28:51] And as I've already said, I would urge you to
[1:28:53] reject them. Thank you for your time. Are the questions,
[1:28:57] Red Speaker. Not seeing any, but thank you. Uh, would
[1:29:03] you like to speak. Go ahead and take the microphone.
[1:29:17] So good evening. My name is Robert Clipperton. I'm speaking
[1:29:19] on behalf of the new town Community Association. And I
[1:29:23] urge Council to reject these proposed amendments. In my 12
[1:29:27] years with the NCAA, we've been part of a community
[1:29:30] - based effort to have infill protections put into place
[1:29:34] first in 2015. And again, to push back against proposals
[1:29:37] to relax these restrictions into 2022, these proposals were rejected
[1:29:42] by Council. And here we are only four years later
[1:29:46] with another initiative to once again make it easier to
[1:29:49] build larger homes in our neighbourhoods. What has changed? Our
[1:29:54] residents and homeowners pleading for these changes, which will allow
[1:29:57] for larger houses. Do we see empty lots where builders
[1:30:01] have found it impossible or even difficult to build new
[1:30:04] housing? I think not. The NCA does not see any
[1:30:08] benefit from these changes other than the more profit to
[1:30:11] be made from the sale of a larger host than
[1:30:15] a smaller one. So the proposals address two aspects of
[1:30:19] host design. One is increased cell height. The main argument
[1:30:22] for this is that there are lots where sewer services
[1:30:25] are so shallow that it hampers the depth of basements.
[1:30:30] And this has been referred to the admin report that
[1:30:32] was supposed to track the impact of sale height restrictions
[1:30:37] resulting from non - standard services connections. So where is
[1:30:41] that data? And I suspect it's like a previous speaker
[1:30:45] said. It is so small that, uh, the, uh, became
[1:30:49] not worth mentioning. I've been told there's only been a
[1:30:52] handful of instances like that in the past decade. Um,
[1:30:55] the sale height on my house is 60 centimeters. Most
[1:30:59] houses on my block are lower than that. I looked
[1:31:02] at the house across the street and said, well, it
[1:31:04] looks considerably higher. It's 80 centimeters. There's only one house
[1:31:08] on our block, an older infield that looks to be
[1:31:11] higher than the current one metre rule. And one third
[1:31:14] of a metre may not only look like a small
[1:31:17] amount, but it is a 30 percent increasescape. Those of
[1:31:23] us living in existing neighbourhoods want them to retain the
[1:31:26] character, which prompted us to take up residents there in
[1:31:29] the first place. And the other aspect is sidewall massing
[1:31:34] and other speakers have shown quite eloquently that this will
[1:31:36] lead to much larger homes on corner lots, which can
[1:31:39] affect quality of life and property values, not only on
[1:31:43] adjoining properties, but in the neighbourhood as a whole. Throughout
[1:31:46] these discussions, people refer to the constraints imposed by the
[1:31:50] half initiative, according to the federal website. This funding is
[1:31:54] meant to support the development of affordable inclusive, equitable and
[1:31:59] climate resilient communities. And I don't think anyone can argue
[1:32:02] that higher door sale height or increased wall massing will
[1:32:06] result in an increase in either the number or affordability
[1:32:10] of houses. Replacing a small three bedroom home with a
[1:32:14] larger three bedroom home does not increase either housing supply
[1:32:19] or population density and large houses are not more affordable
[1:32:23] than small ones. And finally, a few comments on the
[1:32:26] engagement process. And I must say that in recent years,
[1:32:29] I found Saskatoon's engagement team to be pretty effective. I
[1:32:34] suspect, however, they had very little to do with this
[1:32:36] attempt. Uh, the city says, are the report says the
[1:32:39] City Consulted with the home builders association through multiple meetings
[1:32:43] to obtain input on proposed amendments? Why were there no
[1:32:47] public meetings with residents of these affected neighbourhoods and the
[1:32:51] men made a reference to a meeting in 2015 on
[1:32:55] the internet? I was there. We called another one, uh,
[1:32:59] on our own of Community Associations. And I guess, uh,
[1:33:03] got the information that we wanted. So if you're really
[1:33:06] interested in engaging the public on an issue, you wouldn't
[1:33:09] do so during the sleeper months of July and August.
[1:33:13] Somebody already said that most of the residents have no
[1:33:15] idea this meeting's happening. Tonight far too complicated to have
[1:33:19] abbreviated explanations on the internet, what we needed where a
[1:33:23] public meeting are two where people could meet in person
[1:33:25] ask questions and interact both with each other and civic
[1:33:29] officials. And the materials posted on the City's Engage page
[1:33:32] were lacking in detail. At one point, viewers were referred
[1:33:35] to the infill review project report, which was not written
[1:33:39] for the general public. Here's a quote. OUD's TUDs. SDD
[1:33:45] S's MUS's in established neighbourhoods, except MUDs and CR1 and
[1:33:50] CR2 Zones, CGA corner lots in TDA. Did you understand
[1:33:54] that? I still don't. At one point, viewers were directed
[1:33:58] to click on a link for more detailed information, but
[1:34:01] when you did so, it just brought you back to
[1:34:03] where you clicked on the link in the first place.
[1:34:06] Um, tonight's meeting was initially advertised as being on Saturday,
[1:34:10] August 29th. So I wrote in to say, Hey, I
[1:34:14] think there's a mistake been made here. Both the ants
[1:34:16] and the means to accomplish some are flawed and should
[1:34:18] be put back on the shelf. Thank you. Thank you
[1:34:22] Mr. Clipperton. Are there any questions. I'm not seeing any.
[1:34:27] Thank you. Uh, I don't think there's anyone left in
[1:34:30] the gallery to speak to this. Oh, go right ahead.
[1:34:35] You were the only person who's not administration who has
[1:34:37] not yet spoken.
[1:34:50] Your Honour Council, my name is Brett Johnson. I'm an
[1:34:53] owner of a design company called Final Draft in the
[1:34:55] City. We cover, I would say probably, we're one of
[1:35:02] six companies within Saskatchewan that covers the majority of your
[1:35:05] residential design. So customers alike home builder. By the way,
[1:35:09] I'm a part of the homebrew association for the last
[1:35:12] 25 years. Um, we covered design companies. And for design
[1:35:17] for private individuals as well. So, um, me coming up
[1:35:22] and speaking isn't necessarily to support one thing or the
[1:35:25] other, but maybe give the council an opportunity to ask
[1:35:28] questions or give my insight about some of the points
[1:35:31] that weren't brought up. Um, the bigger thing is we're
[1:35:35] very close to something that might be a compromise from
[1:35:39] all courses. Um, in my office. I've said to Mark,
[1:35:45] to your staff, by the way, who have been doing
[1:35:47] a terrific job on bringing this forth, we're probably 10
[1:35:51] to 15 percent. If we could go 10 to 15
[1:35:55] percent, I could probably make our office could probably make
[1:35:58] most of the wishes from our customers'work. So whether it's
[1:36:05] a design related solution or city of Saskatoon solution or
[1:36:12] just, uh, a technical solution for being able to make
[1:36:15] the walls work, the roof heights work. Or it's a
[1:36:20] stuff in the matter where the city has, for example,
[1:36:23] the uplift station. Uh, we've worked in Alberta, worked in
[1:36:27] BC. And there's a lot of cities that regularly use
[1:36:32] uplift stations when the footing heights are lower than the
[1:36:35] utility connections. And that would point to another greater issue.
[1:36:39] Council, you're going to have to make a decision eventually.
[1:36:41] And you make it street by street by street now.
[1:36:44] Your utility connections. And your utility sewer heights. If you
[1:36:48] went through and if you did a looked at all
[1:36:50] that, there's a huge amount of that that is just
[1:36:53] so outdated. That has to be upgraded and money needs
[1:36:57] to be spent there to accommodate nowadays technology, the amount
[1:37:03] of volume of water that we're using. And so that's
[1:37:07] one solution. The other few solutions that come up mark
[1:37:10] alluded to them, uh, we're coming back to using more,
[1:37:14] uh, bigger window wells, um, people don't like window wells.
[1:37:18] The reason why they don't like windows is because when
[1:37:20] we built up until the mid or early 2000s or
[1:37:25] early 1990s, no one would put a window well in
[1:37:29] because we didn't have to stand pipes that would be
[1:37:30] working with our sumps. So our sumps would then pick
[1:37:34] up the water and discharge it. The city doesn't allow
[1:37:38] us to take it into our own control. They ask
[1:37:41] us to discharge it out onto the street so that
[1:37:43] it can go in through down to the river and
[1:37:46] so on and be on take it that way, which
[1:37:48] was a simple thing that happened 20 years ago, gave
[1:37:52] or take, um, I tell you how long I've been
[1:37:54] doing this. But so the simple steps that have started
[1:37:58] to work for everyone. I guess the question that the
[1:38:01] council has to make a decision on all these little
[1:38:04] things can get worked out. I am in support. Of
[1:38:08] everything but the seal height. I think all of that
[1:38:12] stuff is very easily worked out. Um, but what I'm
[1:38:17] curious about is from council is you're not arguing about
[1:38:20] all of these little things. All of these small points
[1:38:24] you can hit there. You're actually talking about how much
[1:38:28] is it going to cost? You talk about affordability. When
[1:38:30] you say the word affordability, are you saying how much
[1:38:35] has construction rows to be able to build anything? Or
[1:38:38] are you talking about being able to build an affordable
[1:38:40] house for someone that's going to be buying something that's
[1:38:42] less than 500, 000 dollars. Our average, I don't have
[1:38:46] this off the top of my head, but our average
[1:38:47] house is rising up towards 400, 000 dollars now. So
[1:38:54] our average cost is growing, but the part that we're
[1:38:57] arguing about is not about a 4, 000 dollar house.
[1:39:00] This is a 800, 000 dollar house or higher. We're
[1:39:04] talking about the mansions. We're talking about houses that are
[1:39:07] over 2, 000 square feet. Or much larger than that.
[1:39:11] We're only hitting that on 30 feet or less lots
[1:39:14] that are 30 feet or smaller, most likely on the
[1:39:16] 25 foot split. And when you put all those in
[1:39:19] the sidewall starts to become an issue. And I guess
[1:39:23] the 10 percent is worth looking at. Um, and worth
[1:39:28] passing the sale height is a personal thing. I argue
[1:39:31] and go back and forth not based on obviously I'm
[1:39:34] speaking against some of the thing in the home builder
[1:39:36] association would want. I'm arguing for good design. Now what's
[1:39:40] good design. Everybody has an idea of what good design
[1:39:44] is. But good design takes into all of those stuff
[1:39:49] into account to what suits the neighbourhood, but also suits
[1:39:53] the customer. So that speaker Councillor Ford. Thank you.
[1:40:03] Your worship through you too. Is it Mr. Johnson? Yes.
[1:40:08] You mentioned something I just wrote it down. You said
[1:40:10] that the sewer utility lines are outdated. Can you speak
[1:40:14] on that? Or is that did you say that? Is
[1:40:16] that what I heard? Yeah. So five years ago, four
[1:40:19] years ago, you placed most of Avenue G South. We've
[1:40:24] done two houses. So if I could call off, uh,
[1:40:27] two blocks directly, uh, towards the river from the friendship
[1:40:31] in, I'm sure everyone knows that community relatively well. Cynthia,
[1:40:35] you should, you've supported that for a long time. Uh,
[1:40:38] that street was replaced. Any new house that goes on
[1:40:41] to that will not have a problem with supplying water
[1:40:45] or worse, the sewer. On that block, because that whole
[1:40:49] street resempla placed, uh, only a few years ago. There
[1:40:53] are multiple older neighbourhoods that house shallow, um, utilities. So,
[1:41:01] and I'm just calling it out saying that you're going
[1:41:03] to have an issue with that. If like something like
[1:41:05] a fire happened or if you had a massive amount
[1:41:08] of houses, that inventory that needed to be replaced. Because
[1:41:12] all of them will have to be done. So it's
[1:41:15] just old inventory. It's just like our, our housing requirements.
[1:41:19] We have a massive amount of old inventory out there.
[1:41:22] And it will still and get, get older and older
[1:41:24] and older. Unless you can come to a conclusion. With
[1:41:29] the association and my customers, because they're the ones that
[1:41:33] are going to buy those old band and lots. Those
[1:41:35] are the ones that are going to drop those houses
[1:41:37] and put new houses up in whatever state they end
[1:41:40] up designing it for. But it'll just sit there because
[1:41:42] it's not affordable enough. Or most customers. I've had customers
[1:41:47] come in, purchase a lot. And then sell it eight
[1:41:50] months later because we couldn't get what they wanted out
[1:41:52] of it. Okay. Thank you. Councillor McDonald. Thank you Madam
[1:41:58] Mayor through. Um, you said, but you are a builder
[1:42:01] in the city. Uh, I own final draft. So I
[1:42:05] know last year we did 175 projects within the city
[1:42:07] of Saskatoon. So in a lot of the pitchers that
[1:42:10] we've seen today on like infills and things, like I've
[1:42:13] noticed a lot of them have flatter roofs. Is that
[1:42:16] to allow for a larger sidewall? Nope. No. No. That's
[1:42:21] just for fun. Just practice this a little bit before
[1:42:25] in what was it 2015 or five or six years
[1:42:27] ago. I'm the one that put the physical form to
[1:42:31] the sidewall calculation. Darryl and Mark and I put it
[1:42:35] together mathematically. So it is sort of a Tetris version
[1:42:40] of it, but it's about sidewall and shifting and making
[1:42:44] as much sidewall or as little sidewall as you can
[1:42:46] within a calculation that someone could understand. If you can
[1:42:50] understand that hats off to you. But, um, most of
[1:42:54] the sidewall stuff that comes up in our office, um,
[1:43:00] it's exactly what everyone was saying. How high we have
[1:43:02] to get it out of the water to get it
[1:43:06] to float. And get away from the, uh, uplift station.
[1:43:11] But everyone wants a nine foot basement. They want a
[1:43:13] nine foot main floor and then one a nine foot
[1:43:16] second floor. And we are literally 10 percent away from
[1:43:22] that change from making that work. Cause the average house
[1:43:25] that comes in that doesn't then feel is 18 to
[1:43:28] 2, 100 square feet. I will try to follow that.
[1:43:33] Thank you. I think that's the end of the questions,
[1:43:37] but thanks very much for being here. We've come to
[1:43:44] the end of our speakers. So the next, uh, the
[1:43:47] next opportunity is for Council to ask questions of administration.
[1:43:50] So the floor is now open for that. Councillor Ford.
[1:43:57] Thank you, your worship. And through you to administration, I
[1:44:00] just had some questions. And I guess it's from some
[1:44:04] of the comments that were made today. Counts Council considered
[1:44:10] a similar sidewall changes in 2022 and did not approve
[1:44:14] that bylaw at the time. What is different today. Thank
[1:44:18] you for the question. Through the chair. So back in
[1:44:21] 2022, um, we had proposed the same change to store
[1:44:27] cell height. Which we still support. Primarily based on the
[1:44:31] sewer connections. Um, and that it's, it's minor. With sidewall,
[1:44:36] we proposed, um, to exempt the distance from the flanking
[1:44:43] street of three or flanking other property, the neighbouring property,
[1:44:50] three metres. And now we're proposing that that setback be
[1:44:54] greater, um, up to four and a half. So we're
[1:44:57] increasing the setback for the exemption from three to four
[1:45:02] and a half. And then also we had proposed to
[1:45:05] exempt gable ends. That one was, although it would have
[1:45:12] helped, um, certain designs, perhaps some that our speakers did.
[1:45:17] It also left the potential for some very odd building
[1:45:22] designs that could be accommodated with a very, with one
[1:45:25] story and then a huge, a huge gable end that
[1:45:30] again, um, really doesn't, doesn't gain anything. And it would
[1:45:35] really contravene or not contravene. It wouldn't meet the goals
[1:45:38] of the sidewall area. So for those reasons, council didn't
[1:45:42] approve it. And we also had, um, the same opposition
[1:45:46] from the same essentially from the same groups at that
[1:45:50] meeting. Okay. So it went from 3. 5 to 4.
[1:45:54] 5. Is that what we're three to 4. 5. So,
[1:45:58] so what new evidence data experiences administration obtained since 22
[1:46:02] that supports approving these sidewall changes now. That's a very
[1:46:08] good question. And through the chair. So instead of exempting
[1:46:12] gay balance or specific architectural features like dormers or little
[1:46:18] roof areas through our consultation and through the work we
[1:46:23] did, we felt that the 10 percent increase would address
[1:46:27] those, um, small, small design changes. So instead of exempting
[1:46:31] specific architecture features like gay BLen's and getting for lack
[1:46:35] of a better word goofy, potentially goofy designs, increase across
[1:46:38] the board by 10 percent. So it provides for a
[1:46:41] design flexibility. So this 10 percent, um, to most lots
[1:46:48] on a 25 foot lot, this would increase the floor
[1:46:51] area by about 100 square feet. So that would mean
[1:46:54] the ability to have a second bathroom. In a house.
[1:46:58] Um, on a, on a larger house, it could be
[1:47:01] two to 300 square feet. On the floor plate. In
[1:47:07] regard to the three to four and a half, that
[1:47:11] increased distance, we felt it was adequate. To mitigate the
[1:47:15] massing. And that four and a half would only really
[1:47:17] be applicable on very wide lots. And on corners. And
[1:47:21] I know we've heard tonight, you know, that it's the
[1:47:24] term monster house mansion. Well, in neighbourhoods in particular, Varsity
[1:47:29] view and new town. And we have mansions. So we
[1:47:34] have them. They exist in the neighbourhood. Everyone accept, you
[1:47:39] know, accepts them. But this exemption for coroner lots on
[1:47:44] the flanking street and the SEPAC of four and a
[1:47:46] half would really only provide those opportunities for the larger
[1:47:49] houses on corner lots. For the average lot or the
[1:47:52] interior lot, it won't provide that much extra. But when
[1:48:01] I read this report, I actually thought it was just
[1:48:03] corner lots we were talking about. No, all lots. It
[1:48:08] is all oxygen. It is all lots. Okay. Okay. Just
[1:48:14] again, so in 2022, counsel last administration to do further
[1:48:19] work. And you sort of, I think you answered this
[1:48:22] question for me. So I, but I just wanted to
[1:48:24] ask it again. Can administrators tell us what work was
[1:48:27] completed and what we learned, what was learned. And where
[1:48:31] council can see those results. Great. Thank you. And through
[1:48:36] you mayor block to the councillor. Leslie understand director of
[1:48:38] Planning and Development. Uh, so, you know, reflecting on your
[1:48:42] question and going back to 2022, we had been doing
[1:48:45] our Zoning Byla review project at that time. So we
[1:48:47] were going through a comprehensive update of the bylaw. We
[1:48:51] were asked to do further work at that time. There
[1:48:54] was the one specific one about the sewer heights at
[1:48:58] that time we indicated we wouldn't be able to do
[1:49:00] that with the current resources because that product was ending.
[1:49:03] We were at the end of that project. However, subsequent
[1:49:06] to that, um, we did have the housing accelerator fund
[1:49:10] come in that prompted wide scale changes to our zoning
[1:49:14] bylaw. Um, massive changes to our regulatory regime in Saskatoon,
[1:49:20] particularly affecting our older neighbourhoods, uh, through those discussions there
[1:49:25] was quite a bit of, um, very challenging discussions and
[1:49:30] good discussions about what does our community want to see
[1:49:33] in these areas. And there was also that pushback against,
[1:49:37] we're going to lose our character in our older neighbourhoods
[1:49:40] by making those changes. Now a wide variety of those
[1:49:43] changes did go into place. So we did have the
[1:49:46] opening up of our Zoning Bylaw throughout the city, uh,
[1:49:50] to allow more building forms such as the four units
[1:49:52] on every site. Uh, so that change has occurred. And
[1:49:57] as part of our housing accelerator fund initiatives, we also
[1:50:01] had a commitment to review our infill regulations. So that's
[1:50:05] led to the work here today. Um, including other packages
[1:50:09] that have already been before council. So I hope that
[1:50:12] answers your question. It does. It does. Thank you. And
[1:50:16] I know that in the conversations that we heard from
[1:50:18] some of the presenters today that the, it sounds like
[1:50:23] the engagement was in very well done. And I just
[1:50:26] wanted to, can you speak on that? Like or the
[1:50:31] information wasn't easily accessible. There was a hope variety of
[1:50:35] things that was brought forward by some of the speakers
[1:50:39] today. Yeah. Thank you for the question. So, um, we
[1:50:43] felt the broader Public Engagement, public meetings, um, in -
[1:50:50] person meetings. Because these changes could be, um, articulated on
[1:50:55] our website. We felt that it wasn't needed. And we
[1:50:57] have gone out and consulted with the community several times
[1:51:03] from 2015. And we typically get, and I'm being frank
[1:51:09] about this and I apologise. We get the same result.
[1:51:13] We get the existing, a few existing residents against any
[1:51:16] change. And we, you know, get the developers trying to
[1:51:20] push the envelope. So we're trying again to balance this.
[1:51:24] In terms of the engagement, um, yes, we could have
[1:51:26] done a better job. We recently implemented a brand new
[1:51:29] design or engagement platform. And that was just done in
[1:51:32] August. Um, we could have certainly done a more robust,
[1:51:39] more robust information. But we honestly felt that, um, changes
[1:51:43] of this magnitude didn't warrant broader public engagement. And just
[1:51:51] exactly what engagement was done again. I sort of was
[1:51:54] confused. So we have through the half project, we collected,
[1:52:00] um, I believe it was, um. Oh, 500, 500, um,
[1:52:08] 500 emails of interested people. And we did eBlasts to
[1:52:12] them. Indicating what we were doing. We had social media,
[1:52:19] um, the city social media, our communications team, um, pushed
[1:52:23] them out that way. Uh. Dedicated engage page. And the
[1:52:32] Public Notice was posted as per requirement on August 7th.
[1:52:39] Thank you. I know that, uh, we saw a lot
[1:52:43] of different drawings up here in the presentations. And I
[1:52:46] was curious, like the one that it was interesting to
[1:52:50] me was the example that Mr. Tarazoff showed. And I
[1:52:54] just wanted to ask, based on these, the new bylaw,
[1:53:01] and what he's shown, is that accurate? Is that what
[1:53:04] is a possibility built with this new bylaw? You saw
[1:53:10] his drawing in his presentation too. I was just curious
[1:53:13] on that. Because I'm trying to figure this out myself.
[1:53:18] That's a good question. What the drawings do to pick
[1:53:21] is a very simple box. Built to the absolute maximum.
[1:53:26] Height, sight coverage set box. So, you know, the more
[1:53:33] useful drawings and part of that package where the site,
[1:53:37] like the actual site plans, not necessarily elevations. Because in
[1:53:40] my opinion, the elevations. They look a bit misleading just
[1:53:45] the way they're done and how the, you know, how
[1:53:49] the roof is oriented and it is just a big
[1:53:53] blank wall. Towards the neighbouring properties. Like on a development
[1:53:58] such as this with an attached garage. We would highly
[1:54:03] unlikely see it look like this. Yeah. So, so there's
[1:54:07] the one gentleman's video presentation said that they're, you know,
[1:54:11] with the sidewalls, is there a height restriction? Like how
[1:54:15] high can a person build those? Like it looked like
[1:54:17] you could go quite high. So the maximum building height,
[1:54:19] the established neighbourhoods to the midpoint of a peak roof
[1:54:21] is eight and a half metres. So it has to
[1:54:24] be below eight and a half metres. That contrast to
[1:54:26] in the new neighbourhoods of 10 metres. So, um, dwellings
[1:54:32] are that, you know, essentially a metre and a half
[1:54:35] shorter. Or less high in the older neighbourhoods. So the
[1:54:39] maximum height build is eight and a half metres or
[1:54:41] 10 metres. Eight and a half. Sorry. Okay. Thank you.
[1:54:47] Those are my questions. Councillor Dubois. Thank you Mayor Bloch.
[1:54:55] And through you two administration. So I've got a few
[1:54:58] questions here. So first of all, I still need clarification.
[1:55:03] On the timeline of these meetings. So we, this was
[1:55:07] approved in 2015. And then what precipitated us having another
[1:55:14] report in 2022. If things seem to be okay in
[1:55:20] 2025, we seem to not have having any issues. The
[1:55:24] building was happening to high density homes are being built,
[1:55:28] et cetera, et cetera. Through Siria, the chair, respond to
[1:55:32] your question. So in 2022, the city undertook a comprehensive
[1:55:36] zoning Bioware review. We identified a number of issues and
[1:55:40] provided a number of reports this City Council, one of
[1:55:43] the reviews that was identified was review of the city's
[1:55:47] infill regulations, including sidewall, dorsill height, among others. So some
[1:55:54] changes were made. So it was identified to look at
[1:56:00] sidewall. Because. Often, and it's a lot of what we
[1:56:08] heard tonight. Is it the regulation is hard to understand.
[1:56:14] And it's sometimes hard to apply. So we looked at
[1:56:17] it and recommended that we build in some flexibility. So
[1:56:22] this change with the Zoning Bylar View, we did surveys.
[1:56:28] We did a lot of Public Engagement. It was identified
[1:56:30] as an issue. To look at. So at that time
[1:56:33] we brought forward the proposal in 2022. That was denied,
[1:56:39] um, so then move forward through the housing accelerator fund
[1:56:42] amendments. And now we're in 2025. We had the consultant
[1:56:47] prepare report. And through their research and their municipal scans,
[1:56:52] and they did a plethora of work for us. They
[1:56:55] identified that our sidewall regulations, which we are the only
[1:56:58] city in Canada that have them are really unimpediment to
[1:57:03] housing development. So I know we've talked about three and
[1:57:07] four unit dwellings. Um, CMH, CH did their design catalogue.
[1:57:14] I'm not sure. I hope I don't spur any more
[1:57:15] questions. When they did their design catalogue, um, multiple smaller
[1:57:21] multiple unit dwellings that could form to regulations across Western
[1:57:23] Canada could not fit in Saskatoon because of the sidewall
[1:57:27] area. And that is for three and four unit dwellings.
[1:57:30] And Saskatoon We Group, everything together, one unit dwellings, two
[1:57:34] uni dwelling semi - detached dwellings and multiple unit dwellings
[1:57:38] with more than with up to four units. So that's,
[1:57:42] that's why we did it this time. We met with
[1:57:44] the home builders and designers on both sides of the
[1:57:47] issue and came today with this compromise that really, in
[1:57:51] our opinion, has less impact than the proposal did in
[1:57:54] 2022. Okay. Thank you. So that zoning bylaw review in
[1:57:58] the U undertook in 2022. Why did you undertake that
[1:58:02] review at that time. Like what, what precipitated you to
[1:58:05] do a zoning bylaw review. Um, are the Zoning bylaw
[1:58:09] hadn't been reviewed since 1997. It was in need of
[1:58:12] an update. There was, we had a long laundry list
[1:58:16] of amendments that needed to be made to bring it
[1:58:20] up to, you know, accommodate new uses, look at some
[1:58:24] increased regulations. Well, you might recall, we remove parking regulations
[1:58:29] at the time through that project. We looked at infill,
[1:58:33] just a large number of amendments. Okay. Thank you. So
[1:58:37] I want to talk about the infrastructure again. These are
[1:58:41] older neighbourhoods primarily that the, these, uh, these changes would
[1:58:45] affect. And so the infrastructure is old and some of
[1:58:49] it is outdated. And so how do we know that
[1:58:53] if this goes through and we do have large homes,
[1:58:57] for example, on, on corner lots, that that will, the
[1:59:01] infrastructure will sustain what is being built there. And thank
[1:59:05] you for the question. I believe we have the same
[1:59:07] question when we talked about Garden of Grao Suites. And
[1:59:11] our, um, our water and sewer engineers have modelled it
[1:59:15] and replacement of housing and incremental increases in density can
[1:59:20] be accommodated within our existing. Water and sewer connections. Like
[1:59:26] we can accommodate the density. But oftentimes with info, we're
[1:59:29] talking about replacing one home with another home. So there
[1:59:34] is somewhat of an increase in density over time, but
[1:59:36] in these low density neighbourhoods is typically a one -
[1:59:40] to - one replacement or a one to two. Okay.
[1:59:43] So you're telling me that a review is done and
[1:59:45] that the infrastructure in these areas that would pertain to
[1:59:48] these, uh, bilaw changes today, that they're all, um, the
[1:59:53] infrastructure's all fine. There would not be any issues, not
[1:59:56] any extra cost to the city in years to come.
[2:00:00] Well, through the chair, that's infrastructure upgrades are, I think,
[2:00:07] always on the horizon for the city, about misunderstand that.
[2:00:15] Thank you. So, um, you know, this, we've talked about
[2:00:18] this. I know here a few times where with our
[2:00:21] infrastructure modelling that occurs in the city, our team, uh,
[2:00:25] Saa's tune water and others, they do this on a
[2:00:28] comprehensive basis regularly looking at what our system is able
[2:00:32] to accommodate, um, what trends we are seeing coming through
[2:00:37] and what that will mean for our system. And so
[2:00:40] they're doing that on an iterative basis all the time
[2:00:43] to understand what, what is needed. So these typical situations,
[2:00:48] uh, Ms. Catholic to mentioned where it's basically a one
[2:00:52] - to - one replacement. We know our system can
[2:00:55] accommodate that. Some sites may have unique challenges. Mr. Johnson
[2:00:58] addressed that as well. Um, that they will have to
[2:01:01] respond to. And when we do see increased density coming
[2:01:05] in to some of these areas, they may also face
[2:01:08] a different challenge. But Council will also know you have
[2:01:12] approved some Brers projects over the years where there are
[2:01:15] larger infrastructure packages that are needed to address some of
[2:01:19] our infrastructure in the community. So in particular, I can
[2:01:22] think of the large flood projects that have been done
[2:01:26] to address the storm events that we have and those
[2:01:29] kinds of things. So there are things that are done
[2:01:31] at the Citywide level. And there are things that are
[2:01:34] needed at the site level, but we look at that
[2:01:38] as a comprehensive package for infrastructure modelling at the city,
[2:01:42] um, to accommodate it. Okay. Thank you. And so I'm
[2:01:49] trying to wrap my head around. These bylaw changes. And
[2:01:55] then half has been always thrown in there. And so
[2:01:59] half is affordable housing increased density housing. It's not large
[2:02:06] houses. And so I'm trying to figure out how this
[2:02:12] goes together with what we're doing today. Great. Thank you
[2:02:16] for the question. So, um, the housing accelerator fund is
[2:02:20] really the newest prompt for these changes. We had talked
[2:02:25] about the Zoning Byla review that we had done because
[2:02:27] our Zoning Byla needed a real refresh. And so we
[2:02:30] now have a new bylaw that we adopted or that
[2:02:33] you adopted. So with the housing accelerator fund, that was
[2:02:37] really an initiative, um, of the federal government to prompt
[2:02:40] municipalities to look at the tools that we have in
[2:02:43] our toolbox that can affect housing supply, uh, in our
[2:02:47] communities. So with the housing crisis across the country, they
[2:02:52] identified a package of work that could be done for
[2:02:55] municipalities to look at our bylaws. Um, so part of
[2:02:58] that was, um, things that could look at how we
[2:03:02] develop affordable housing, um, I would say half was not
[2:03:06] specific to affordable housing. It was looking at overall supply,
[2:03:10] um, approaches in terms of municipal regulations in various ways.
[2:03:15] So different tools, municipalities can use. But it did give
[2:03:19] us an opportunity to look at how we could do
[2:03:21] affordable housing. It gave us that, prompt to really look
[2:03:25] at our regulations and the zoning bylaw throughout the city,
[2:03:29] not specific to infill development alone. But look at all
[2:03:32] of those things, um, in terms of what we can
[2:03:34] do to increase the possibility for more housing supply in
[2:03:38] our communities. It was really a call for municipalities to
[2:03:41] look at our tools to respond to that issue. Uh,
[2:03:45] so that, then one of our pieces was a specific
[2:03:48] piece around infill regulations in the review of our infill
[2:03:51] regulations. That gets us today. Thank you for that overview
[2:03:55] of half, Ms. Anderson. So then, but I don't see
[2:03:59] what we're working or discussing today how that is going
[2:04:02] to increase the housing supply. Because more than likely, these
[2:04:06] are going to be, um, one unit dwelling, so to
[2:04:10] speak. They're not going to be, it's not going to
[2:04:12] be high density housing. So it won't be, um, dealing
[2:04:15] with the housing crisis that we have. So am I,
[2:04:18] is that accurate what I'm, what I just said. Well,
[2:04:20] I can't, I definitely see that. There is, I think
[2:04:23] limited impact that will come from these changes to the
[2:04:27] numbers of units that we will get overall. But this
[2:04:30] is about considering our, our regulatory tools more complex than
[2:04:35] they need to be for all types of housing. Um,
[2:04:38] and so what we have here before you is what
[2:04:41] we're trying to do is balance a demand from industry
[2:04:45] for increased design flexibility increased options to respond to their
[2:04:50] customers as well as try to maximize the way that
[2:04:54] we can fit with our community character, because that has
[2:04:58] been a long - term goal of council as well
[2:05:00] as to try to maintain the character of her infill
[2:05:03] neighbourhood. So we are trying to bring forward a balance
[2:05:06] in this approach, but I think you're correct in that
[2:05:08] this won't have a large effect on overall supply. And
[2:05:13] thank you. And my last question. One of the speakers
[2:05:16] mentioned that this meeting, this public hearing was advertised for
[2:05:19] August 29th. Can someone an administration speak to that? Because
[2:05:24] it is August 26th today. There was an error on
[2:05:28] the engage page for the project that was fixed as
[2:05:31] soon as Mr. Clipperton emailed us a week and a
[2:05:34] half ago. But the official Public Notice that's required by
[2:05:38] the city of Saskatoon, the day was correct. So the
[2:05:42] engage page for the project. We speak closer to the
[2:05:44] microphone. Oh, sorry. That's okay. Sorry. The engage page for
[2:05:48] the project had an error on it. And we fix
[2:05:50] that as soon as Mr. Clipperton let us know. But
[2:05:53] the official Public Notice that's required by our Public's Notice
[2:05:57] Policy was correct. Thank you for that clarification. Those are
[2:06:01] my questions at this time. Thank. You. All right. We
[2:06:06] still have questions from City Council. And I think we're
[2:06:10] going to take a break and we will resume at
[2:06:12] 8 15. Thanks.
[2:06:43] I don't care.
[2:16:40] Councillor Pierce, the floor is yours. All right, thank you
[2:16:44] your worship.
[2:16:55] Thank you. So I just have got questions. You know
[2:16:59] what, just one second. Good point. We need all members
[2:17:02] of Council in attendance for every minute this Public Hearing.
[2:17:06] So we're just gonna make sure everybody is present and
[2:17:08] accounted for, I think, in Chambers. We are good, but
[2:17:11] I'm just gonna double check Councillor Davies. Are you on
[2:17:14] the line? I am, yep. And Councillor Donauer. Sam, yep.
[2:17:20] All right, all members, Cimon. Yes. Okay. All are President
[2:17:30] and accounted for. Now Councillor Pierce, four is yours. Thank
[2:17:34] you. Point of order, hang on Councillor Pierce. We'll go
[2:17:39] to Councillor Dubois. Thank you Mayor Bloch. Can you remind
[2:17:42] counsel and the public on the timing? It's already quarter
[2:17:45] after age, and I know we've got timing regulations where
[2:17:48] the meeting ends and what happens if we don't finish
[2:17:50] and all that. Could we remind every one of that,
[2:17:53] please? Let's get a more to just update us. Yep,
[2:17:57] so our procedural biolog dictates that we would stop the
[2:17:59] meeting at nine o'clock p. m. However, with a two
[2:18:03] - third majority vote of those present, we can extend
[2:18:06] the meeting to a set time, to finish a set
[2:18:09] item or whatever set. Time that council wants. It's a
[2:18:17] long day. Yeah, thank you. And if they do not,
[2:18:22] that means we have to return tomorrow at 1 p.
[2:18:24] m., is that correct? And if we aren't done, we
[2:18:27] would return at 1 p. m. Interval was the word
[2:18:29] I was looking for. Okay. Am I free to resume
[2:18:35] the Public Hearing now? Okay. Councillor Pierce of Floor is,
[2:18:39] I think yours. All right, no pressure. My understanding is,
[2:18:44] and from what I've heard tonight, the last consultation or
[2:18:47] Public Engagement was 2015. That's not correct.
[2:18:57] This project to review infill regulations started in 2013. With
[2:19:04] the preparation of the neighbourhood level and - filled strategy.
[2:19:09] Extensive consultation was done at that time. When we brought
[2:19:13] the regulations forward for primary dwellings in 2015, again, extensive
[2:19:19] consultation was done. When we brought forward the amendments in
[2:19:25] 2022 as a part of the Zoning Bylaw Review Project,
[2:19:30] we also did consultation. It was online at that time
[2:19:36] due to COVID. So we have been engaging on these
[2:19:39] issues since 2015. The report that was done by Medal
[2:19:45] and Small Housing last year, they did consultation, which is,
[2:19:54] I mentioned it in my presentation. They had a steering
[2:19:59] committee, they did focus groups. They did a full -
[2:20:03] up survey of those people who attended. So we've been
[2:20:06] consulting on that since then. With these amendments, the engagement
[2:20:11] we did, or consultation. We consulted with developers and designers
[2:20:17] on how we could perhaps meet in the middle to
[2:20:20] bring a proposal forward on balanced to council. So we
[2:20:24] met with. Several developers and builders on both sides of
[2:20:28] the issue, as you have heard tonight. Okay, I'm just
[2:20:31] making sure I had the fact street, because I was
[2:20:34] hearing something different, obviously. My apologies. And with these amendments,
[2:20:40] the engagement we did was have a dedicated engage page.
[2:20:43] We did eBlasts out to half newsletter subscription, which was
[2:20:48] over 500 people. We had our communications. People do social
[2:20:55] media blasts. Those sorts of things. And our Public Notice
[2:20:59] was on the City's Public Notice page as required by
[2:21:06] the Public Notice Policy. Okay, so everything we've done is
[2:21:10] basically has been basically, or mostly electronic. In nature. On
[2:21:17] these specific amendments, yes. I have a concern about that,
[2:21:22] but I'll leave that for later. Secondly, I wanted to
[2:21:25] ask is, you know, with our stated strategy of wanting
[2:21:28] more affordable housing and that sort of thing. And this
[2:21:32] change is effectively, basically, looks like it's gonna be used
[2:21:37] for single family - dwelling units. Does that really match
[2:21:40] our strategy? Or is there a reason why we wouldn't
[2:21:43] consider this for anything that is at least a two
[2:21:46] or four or six unit dwelling, as opposed to a
[2:21:48] single family dwelling? So that's a very good question through
[2:21:51] the chair. So these changes would apply to the whole
[2:21:55] gambit of primary dwellings. So those are one and two
[2:21:58] unit dwellings. With a secondary suite. Two unit dwellings that
[2:22:06] semi - detached. Two units and semi - detached. They
[2:22:09] can also have secondary suites. And small multiple unit dwellings.
[2:22:14] On sites 50 feet or greater. So this change would
[2:22:18] make that whole gambit of what we consider primary dwellings
[2:22:22] larger. So where this fits in. Is really in the
[2:22:27] housing continuum, and I'll just, if you'll let me embellish,
[2:22:31] I'll use an example. Family A. Family A lives in
[2:22:35] an apartment. They want to buy a house. They buy
[2:22:39] family bees house that's maybe a smaller house in an
[2:22:44] older, more peripheral neighbourhood. Family B wants to build a
[2:22:49] new house. They want to be close to the university.
[2:22:51] They want to be close to downtown. So they buy
[2:22:54] a lot and they build an infill house. So anytime
[2:22:57] there's new housing, you know, it continues with that housing
[2:23:02] continuum. That house that they're building knew that could have
[2:23:05] a secondary suite to support them and provide additional units.
[2:23:09] Perhaps the unit with the house that was demalished did
[2:23:12] not have a secondary suite or a garden and garage
[2:23:14] suite, because we do permit up to three units on
[2:23:18] a site right now with the primary dwelling. Well, the
[2:23:22] one unit dwelling with a secondary sleep plus a garden
[2:23:24] in garage suite. Okay, so if we use it for
[2:23:28] just a single family dwelling unit, would we consider that
[2:23:32] an abuse or an abusive use of the bylaw? Because
[2:23:36] I want a super mega house. And instead, it's not
[2:23:40] housing more people. It's housing the same amount of people.
[2:23:43] We're just living in more square footage. That's a good
[2:23:48] question. But you have to look at the one unit
[2:23:52] dwelling, one unit could be two people. It could be
[2:23:55] 12 for a multi - generational family. We don't regulate
[2:23:58] those sorts of things. The change that we're asking for
[2:24:03] average lots, not on coroners and not 50 feet wide,
[2:24:07] will only allow for an extra 10 percent. Increase, which
[2:24:11] on a 25 foot lot, an average house of about
[2:24:14] 800 to 800 to 9 underscore feet. That's only an
[2:24:18] additional, um, 100 square foot of floor space on both
[2:24:24] stories of a two - story house. That's really the
[2:24:27] lion's share of infills that are going to be built.
[2:24:31] That's the bonus they're going to get. Okay, so, um,
[2:24:35] I'm thinking about the recent issue with the Carl Miller
[2:24:38] host, and I don't know the new family owner. I
[2:24:40] apologise. Would that house actually now qualify as a legitimate
[2:24:47] build. Under these regulations, under this bylaw change, the chair
[2:24:52] recognising that that development is under the development under the
[2:24:56] appeal process. But no, that house would not comply under
[2:25:00] these regulations. Okay. We have done the analysis. Okay, thank
[2:25:05] you. Councillor Parker. Great, thanks. Most of my questions have
[2:25:15] been answered. I think I want to. Kind of zoom
[2:25:20] out here a little bit. We've kind of heard the
[2:25:23] issues with the sidewall calculation. And I think this was
[2:25:26] a part of your presentation, but I really want to
[2:25:28] kind of come back to it. Um, what are the,
[2:25:35] what are the issues caused by the sidewall calculation and
[2:25:38] how is increasing it by 10 percent. Helping. Does.
[2:25:48] Is it gives you a box. That's, I'll say this
[2:25:52] big, sorry. When you build your house, you can allocate
[2:25:59] that area, all the, all the wall that faces the
[2:26:05] certain, um, the same direction. Has to not exceed your
[2:26:09] maximum allowed. So, and sorry, what was the second part
[2:26:14] of your question? Um, I, I want to know what
[2:26:17] the issue is with the sidewall calculation. So what is
[2:26:20] the problem that we're solving. By adding 10 percent to
[2:26:26] the sidewall calculation. So like one of the designers spoke
[2:26:30] is being able to provide a different roof line. Or
[2:26:34] you get out on the site, you discover that your
[2:26:36] sewer line is higher than you expected. You're able to
[2:26:38] raise the house without completely redrawing the drawings. And because
[2:26:45] all of these things add up. For home builders, you
[2:26:48] could raise it to accommodate where the sewer actually is
[2:26:50] without having to redesign the house. Okay. So how can
[2:26:54] we not making exceptions for these sewer issues or how
[2:27:01] come we're not. I guess changing how we calculate the
[2:27:06] sidewall based on the roof. Like if it's, if a
[2:27:09] flat roof would work, but a peaked roof doesn't, then
[2:27:12] why aren't we just changing the sidewall calculation to make
[2:27:15] it not matter what the roof looks like. Thank you
[2:27:19] for the question through the chair. What the sidewall tool
[2:27:23] does. Provides that design flexibility. When you get into, okay,
[2:27:31] well X, Y, and Z are exempt. Well, Y or
[2:27:34] X, Y, and Z exact. Or, you know, the client,
[2:27:41] for example, doesn't want a flat roof because there's certain
[2:27:45] issues with it. What the sidal areas is, it's a
[2:27:48] tool that can be applied. To all the thousands of
[2:27:52] infill sites within the city. Without having our, without having
[2:27:59] that room for interpretation. Well, this is included in, that's
[2:28:02] included. Or you have to build flat roof houses on
[2:28:05] this street or those sorts of things, I hope. I'm
[2:28:09] explaining this properly, but it's the accepted tool within the
[2:28:13] development community by which to design the houses. So we
[2:28:17] could change the way we, sure we could use another
[2:28:20] tool or change the way we do it. But this
[2:28:21] is what we've been doing. It has been successful, but
[2:28:25] the extra 10 percent we're proposing today is for that
[2:28:28] flexibility. Because there's two sides. There's the residents that want
[2:28:34] to new house. They want to build. They're spending substantial
[2:28:38] money. And they want to build something that's nice in
[2:28:41] most cases. Like we can't regulate. Ugly houses. And we
[2:28:45] all don't agree with an ugly houses. But by using
[2:28:48] this tool, we're not starting from scratch. Because through my
[2:28:53] experience, when we start from scratch and the speakers can
[2:28:58] attest to that it's what about this, what about that?
[2:29:01] Then we draw it up. This doesn't work. That doesn't
[2:29:03] work. We know this tool works, but we just want
[2:29:06] to add that flexibility. I appreciate that answer. Um. Uh,
[2:29:13] there's been a bit of discussion about kind of when
[2:29:15] these infill regulations, uh, were created or are kind of
[2:29:19] came in. It was based on a lot of Public
[2:29:21] Engagement. Was the sidewall calculation, the only kind of thing
[2:29:26] was that was added to these infill regulations and whether
[2:29:29] it was 2013 or 2015, I'm not sure what the
[2:29:31] actual date was. But was the sidewall calculation, the only
[2:29:34] addition that was added that would restrict the massing of
[2:29:39] infill housing. Um, through the chair, yes. I believe, yeah,
[2:29:47] that, that was the one that dealt with the massing.
[2:29:49] And in the report that the architects at that time
[2:29:52] prepared, they proposed something different. And then when, when the
[2:30:01] administration and the working group got a hold of it,
[2:30:03] that's when the sidewall was calculated. We did a number
[2:30:07] of things though back to 2015. We removed the restriction
[2:30:11] on Lot width and category one neighbourhoods so that houses
[2:30:14] could be built on 25 foot lots. We introduced porch
[2:30:18] encroachment into the required front yard so that people could
[2:30:21] build porches. There was, there was a number of things
[2:30:25] that were done. It just, yeah, you don't have to
[2:30:27] list off everything. But it was, yeah, it was to
[2:30:29] address the massing. Okay. That report was about character and
[2:30:32] massing was one component of it. Okay. Um. I guess
[2:30:39] what are, and I think this has been spoken about
[2:30:43] kind of in bits and pieces. How do we kind
[2:30:45] of restrict or what are the other tools that we
[2:30:50] have that restrict massing, um, or restrict the size of
[2:30:55] houses, buildings that can go on. Thank you for the
[2:30:58] question. So, um, on a site, we have setbacks. So
[2:31:02] front yard setback, rare yards that back. An interior lot,
[2:31:06] you need six metres in the front. Seven and a
[2:31:09] half metres in the back. On each side. You need
[2:31:12] a minimum of 0. 75 metres, but that is the
[2:31:15] minimum and oftentimes houses are built. Sometimes with wider setbacks.
[2:31:20] We do have a building height of eight and a
[2:31:23] half metres to the peak of a peak droof. Um,
[2:31:29] flat roofs, we have a regulation that's in the zoning
[2:31:32] bylaw. And you can ask me online how that works
[2:31:34] because it's in a similar vein of sidewall area. Um,
[2:31:39] and then we allow for 40 percent site coverage. As
[2:31:44] a maximum, but just, just to let you know, like
[2:31:47] oftentimes it's very few cases where houses are actually built
[2:31:51] to that 40 percent maximum. Usually, you know, I've done
[2:31:56] a lot of analysis on infills. And, you know, typically
[2:31:59] even on a large house year 30, 35. Okay. Um.
[2:32:11] One question I think I have about the flanking street
[2:32:14] exemption. I think most of the images that were shown
[2:32:19] in most of the images that I can kind of
[2:32:20] like draw to mind quite quickly, most of the. Area
[2:32:29] that's being used just for, um, it's for street facing,
[2:32:33] uh, garages. Have we. Had any concern or addressed any
[2:32:40] concerns that this will lead to more vehicle pedestrian conflicts.
[2:32:47] Along like sidewalks? Like every time that we put a
[2:32:50] garage or we put a driveway that crosses the sidewalk,
[2:32:53] we're increasing the chance of pedestrian vehicle conflict. That's a
[2:33:01] good, that's a good question. Um, I know the construction.
[2:33:07] And, sorry. What's that department? Sorry. Construction and design. Okay.
[2:33:14] Construction is designed is currently reviewing the driveway crossing bylaw.
[2:33:21] Right now. So, um, every time the driveway crossing, um,
[2:33:27] the homeowner developer has to get a permit for a
[2:33:31] new crossing that wasn't. Wasn't there. So they're reviewing that
[2:33:34] process. Okay. So that concern would be addressed outside of
[2:33:37] this. That's correct. Okay. Um, yeah, I think that's my
[2:33:43] questions. Thanks very much. Councillor McDonald. Thank you Madam Mayor
[2:33:48] and through you. So for the sidewall attached garages would
[2:33:54] count towards a sidewall if they're on the side. That's
[2:33:57] correct. But detached garages don't have their own cybal calculations.
[2:34:04] Detached garages aren't subject to sidewall calculations. The maximum size
[2:34:08] of a garage in the Citywide is 87 square metres.
[2:34:14] And the maximum height is five metres to the peak.
[2:34:20] And so detached garage is not part of the site
[2:34:25] coverage percentage. They are in addition to that Zycover percentage.
[2:34:30] Correct. Um, the psychoberge percentage for the house is one
[2:34:33] number and garages along with the maximum square footage or
[2:34:36] subject to a rear yard coverage. Regulation as well. Okay.
[2:34:42] Um, and then what is the average lot size in
[2:34:44] the established neighbourhoods. That's a really good question. Um, common
[2:34:52] lot sizes is probably an easier way to answer that.
[2:34:55] Um, and the category one neighbourhood so your older neighbourhood
[2:34:58] city park, New town, um. Smallest again would be 7.
[2:35:03] 5 metres or 25 feet. 37 and a half feet.
[2:35:08] So which is a lot in a half and 50
[2:35:10] foot. In the category two neighbourhoods, um, they're predominantly 50
[2:35:15] foot lots. So in the category one, um, areas where
[2:35:21] they're about, you said seven metres, seven and a half
[2:35:23] metres. Yeah. The narrow ones, yeah. Side set back exemption
[2:35:28] really doesn't apply to these lots. Because you would be
[2:35:32] building a host that would be like three metres wide.
[2:35:36] Yeah. That's correct. Okay. So the sidewall in those areas.
[2:35:41] Yeah. Like that exemption doesn't do anything for the majority,
[2:35:45] I would say probably of our established neighbourhood laws. Well,
[2:35:48] anything for generally speaking 40 metres or less you could,
[2:35:55] you could have an exemption. Oftentimes the way the house
[2:35:59] is designed at the front you would have like a,
[2:36:02] an attached porch or a vestibule at the front. That
[2:36:05] might be set back four and a half metres from
[2:36:07] what the property line. And then the back you might
[2:36:09] put a back porch. So on like not a large
[2:36:13] lot, but kind of a medium size lot. You could
[2:36:15] do those articulations to take advantage of that. Yeah. But
[2:36:19] yeah, you'd be happy to shift to only allow one
[2:36:23] side. Yeah. This exemption. And I don't design wise. Does
[2:36:27] that actually work. It can work. Yeah. Okay. Um, you
[2:36:34] said, uh, establish neighbourhood infill heights are 8. 5 metres
[2:36:39] and a new areas are 10 metres. That's correct. Is
[2:36:41] this common amongst other jurisdictions that newer areas have different
[2:36:46] high restrictions than establish neighbourhoods. Uh, yeah, it is quite
[2:36:50] common across Western Canada. I mean, I know in Calgary,
[2:36:54] the new neighbourhoods, the maximum height is 11 metres, which
[2:36:57] is step substantially taller than us. And I just ask
[2:37:01] that you get a little closer to your microphone. Thank
[2:37:03] you. An older neighborhood's like Winnipeg. They also have a
[2:37:07] height limit that's lower than their new neighbourhoods. Is that
[2:37:12] for aesthetic reasons only. Yeah, for the, for the character,
[2:37:18] um, so although there are taller, older three - story
[2:37:25] houses in the older neighbourhoods that are above that, you
[2:37:28] know, generally speaking, eight and a half metres can accommodate
[2:37:32] a very nice two - story house. Um, and even
[2:37:35] in the areas that are predominantly bungalows, like, um, Adelaide
[2:37:40] Churchill and those sorts of things, the bungalows are so
[2:37:42] low. So, um, the eight and a half isn't as
[2:37:46] substantial as it is. It is, it would be till
[2:37:48] 10. Um, can you just talk a little bit about
[2:37:54] who middle is. And where like what they do. That's
[2:38:01] a good question. I'm going to ask Ms. Gotman to
[2:38:03] come up and answer. That.
[2:38:15] Put on the spot. Christine Gettman planning in development. Middle
[2:38:18] and small housing where the partnership of firms that were
[2:38:21] hired to do our infill review study. Middle is a
[2:38:24] firm out of Calgary. They primarily work in middle housing,
[2:38:29] which is essentially townhome style, um, two unit dwellings, that
[2:38:34] type of development. They do a lot of development themselves,
[2:38:37] but they're also now supporting a lot of municipalities and
[2:38:39] looking at this kind of work. Small housing is a
[2:38:42] firm out of BC, and they do similar work. So
[2:38:44] they partnered up to help us. So these two companies
[2:38:48] have quite a bit of background with other municipalities and
[2:38:51] what other places are doing with their restrictions and things
[2:38:54] like that. Yep, absolutely. Middle in particular has done a
[2:38:57] lot of work with Calgary. Regina, Edmonton, Winnipeg. They've done
[2:39:01] a lot of work with other municipalities. So that was
[2:39:03] one of the reasons we also focused on them as
[2:39:06] well to help us with us. And for the site,
[2:39:08] we'll coverage their recommendation was to remove it completely. They
[2:39:12] did go down that road of that recommendation. They didn't
[2:39:15] recommend, um, a replacement in particular, but they did recommend
[2:39:18] that it was an impediment as Ms. Kutosic Toth has
[2:39:22] mentioned to development. Did they recommend any alternatives. They brought
[2:39:30] forward a number of, um, approaches that other municipalities use,
[2:39:34] but they didn't recommend for us a specific approach that
[2:39:37] we should look at. Did they. Within those suggestions where
[2:39:43] they're rationales as to why they work better as like
[2:39:46] a layered restriction on top of already having setbacks high
[2:39:50] restriction site coverage. Just to clarify your question. Are you,
[2:39:57] are you saying were they suggesting these other approaches? Because
[2:40:00] they'd be more suited than our approach. I think one
[2:40:04] of the cons, sorry, like one of the comments earlier,
[2:40:06] I think, um, referenced square footage over a site wall,
[2:40:11] um, as another kind of layer of regulation. So I
[2:40:16] was just wondering if they had recommendations like that, um,
[2:40:19] over the sidewall. Where we already have site coverage. We
[2:40:24] already have high restrictions. We already have setbacks. Was another
[2:40:28] layer, like we're, any of the other recommendations that would
[2:40:31] be layered on this. Um, in their view. More straightforward
[2:40:38] or easy or just like less cumbersome. They didn't give
[2:40:45] us a specific recommendation. They did suggest that other municipalities
[2:40:48] have these other approaches. Um, some of them have been
[2:40:51] mentioned here tonight. Um, they would be layered on top
[2:40:54] of things like site coverage, setbacks, height, all of them
[2:40:59] seem to have those in common as well. Um, but
[2:41:02] they didn't necessarily say one approach was better than the
[2:41:04] other. They just listed these are some of the other
[2:41:06] options you can explore. And that sidewald was really quite
[2:41:11] complex. And again, as you've heard many times in impediment
[2:41:15] to development. So. So what those recommendations we decided to
[2:41:19] stay with sidewall and just give it an extra 10
[2:41:24] percent. Or did we actually explore any of the other
[2:41:27] recommendations? We did through that work with middle, explore those
[2:41:30] other options. And as Ms. Catosic Tothos mentioned, it was
[2:41:34] a matter of starting from scratch. Having to work through
[2:41:38] what that could look like versus sidewall is something that
[2:41:41] our building community is familiar with. And we can make
[2:41:45] amendments to that which provided that flexibility to allow us
[2:41:48] to move forward. So that's why we decided to stick
[2:41:50] with a sidewall approach. Okay, thank you. I think those
[2:41:54] are all my questions. I don't see any of the
[2:41:58] lights on. I'm just going to check online. Is the
[2:42:00] one online that has any questions. I'm not hearing
[2:42:10] any, I still have just a couple just to make
[2:42:13] sure I understand the piece that I heard about the
[2:42:16] four and a half metre setback. I just want to
[2:42:18] understand, cause I was going to ask the question, but
[2:42:20] what happens once that four and a half metres is
[2:42:24] met. And it's allowed to go further back into the
[2:42:27] lot. And I think massing rules. Yes. You understand it
[2:42:35] correctly. So, um, that portion four and a half percent
[2:42:40] wouldn't count insidewall, but the size of the dwelling would
[2:42:43] be limited to 40 percent site coverage. And it would
[2:42:47] be inclusive of the amount that would happen. After the
[2:42:51] four and a half metre setback. The whole building. The
[2:42:54] whole building, no matter where it is. Okay. That, that,
[2:42:57] that's good. Um, this sidewall issue is still, I think
[2:43:01] perplexing to some of us because, uh, you know, I
[2:43:05] read that we don't, uh, typically see this in Canada.
[2:43:08] Did I hear it correctly that we may be the
[2:43:10] only jurisdiction that has sidewall calculation. Um, through the chair.
[2:43:14] Yes. That's correct. We're the only city that we know
[2:43:16] of that uses it. And we've done an extensive municipal
[2:43:20] scout. Why do you think sidewall is important. Thank you
[2:43:27] for the question. Sidewall does mitigate the massing and ensures
[2:43:30] that it houses are. You know, compatible in terms of
[2:43:35] size with the existing built form. But again, character built
[2:43:41] form size of dwellings. It's all block specific. Right? So,
[2:43:46] you know, we, this, this is a tool. That, you
[2:43:50] know, we failed as a very important to the community.
[2:43:52] We want to retain it, but we just wanted to
[2:43:54] add flexibility in certain circumstances like corner sites and to
[2:43:59] allow that bonus overall. And one, I think I just
[2:44:04] have one final question. It might be from a Sanderson.
[2:44:08] I heard tonight that we are in consideration of some
[2:44:15] change here to support design, to support some of the
[2:44:19] infill for single family homes. And often homes that are
[2:44:23] quite large. Is that, and yet I've heard you, uh,
[2:44:28] also speak to, you know, the single family homes with
[2:44:31] a suite in the basement, uh, the larger homes with
[2:44:34] two suites that have a garage suite and the rest
[2:44:36] of it. Who is this for. In your view, what
[2:44:42] is the primary reason that we are having this in
[2:44:45] front of us tonight. In my opinion. This is for
[2:44:50] anybody that wants to build a house. In our existing
[2:44:53] neighbourhoods. To be able to have some flexibility to get
[2:45:00] the house they want in the neighbourhood they want. And
[2:45:04] so. And also to provide that flexibility on larger sites
[2:45:09] on the corner where perhaps people want to build larger
[2:45:14] homes. And we can drive through many neighbourhoods through town,
[2:45:18] a Varsity view we have representatives tonight City Park. We
[2:45:22] do have larger. We do have sites for larger homes.
[2:45:25] We accommodate them throughout the city. This will just potentially
[2:45:31] allow a larger home on a corner site in our
[2:45:34] older neighbourhoods. I guess when you say a larger home,
[2:45:41] could it be homes plural. Absolutely. It could be for
[2:45:46] units as of right. Uh, I think that everything we've
[2:45:49] talked about tonight makes us seem to be mostly, you
[2:45:52] know, talking about areas that are building very large single
[2:45:55] family homes and not necessarily advancing the overall housing objectives
[2:46:01] that we pass through the housing accelerator fund. So certainly
[2:46:05] on a corner site, we could get a one, one
[2:46:09] or two unit dwelling with sweets in them. You know,
[2:46:13] two that would house. Two families or four families. Okay.
[2:46:18] And then just one quick question. The home builders are
[2:46:22] requesting, I guess, regardless of what happens, the conversation continue
[2:46:28] about sidewalls. What's your view on that? Are we potentially
[2:46:32] done talking about this for a while or is there
[2:46:34] more to be done? Um. I think I'm going to
[2:46:38] let Ms. Anderson talk a lot, last one. Sorry. That
[2:46:42] was a rough question. Thank you. Um, you know, I
[2:46:49] think that's a, you know, an interesting question to deal
[2:46:52] with. So we can continue talking about sidewall, um, as
[2:46:56] you've just heard, sidewall has been around for a while.
[2:46:59] We've been using it. These adjustments will help make some
[2:47:03] flexibility in the options for people. Um, you know, so
[2:47:08] what I heard from, um, Ms. Burgess was a desire
[2:47:11] to look at whether there are other options than sidewall.
[2:47:15] And maybe I got that wrong. I'm not sure. But
[2:47:19] that was kind of how I interpreted it. So we
[2:47:21] can look at other options. You know, we can do
[2:47:24] that just through the regular meetings that we have with
[2:47:27] the home builders. Um, but I think from a perspective
[2:47:30] of the work that's been done today and the direction
[2:47:33] that we've had, we're kind of at the end of
[2:47:36] possibilities in this realm here. Um, so, you know, we
[2:47:41] could go out and do more engagement, for example, we're
[2:47:44] likely not going to hear drastically different responses from either
[2:47:47] side. This has been very consistent over the years. So,
[2:47:52] you know, we're not, we're not suggesting that there would
[2:47:55] be additional new information gained through further engagement. And we
[2:48:00] could spend as much money or in as much time
[2:48:02] as we want to do that engagement. And we're likely
[2:48:04] to hear the same things again. There will be ongoing
[2:48:07] discussions about development trends, development patterns, need for zoning bylaw
[2:48:11] amendments over the years as a natural course of business
[2:48:14] as well. Thank you very much. We've concluded questions. It's
[2:48:21] time for, com, I think this is the time for
[2:48:23] comments. I think we have to pass a few other
[2:48:29] things first. Can I get someone to move a resolution
[2:48:33] to receive the reports moved by Councillor McDonald and seconded
[2:48:37] by Councillor Jeffries? Does anyone opposed. That carries. And a
[2:48:42] resolution to close the hearing, uh, move by Council Keller
[2:48:45] and seconded by Councillor Dubois. Is anyone opposed. That carries?
[2:48:50] This is our opportunity prior to second reading. To provide
[2:48:56] comments on. This hearing.
[2:49:06] Who's ready to go first? Councillor Ford. Thank you
[2:49:16] Mayor Bloch. Um, yeah, I'm not going to support this
[2:49:20] motion. I think that they're, but I do want to
[2:49:24] thank everybody for their presentations today. Um, I feel that
[2:49:29] this does change the character in an established neighbourhood. I
[2:49:35] don't necessarily think that in fill this type of infill
[2:49:41] doesn't increase density and probably or affordability. Then with the
[2:49:48] regards to the developments, I think that there would be
[2:49:50] shadowing, reduced sunlight, privacy. I think the larger footprint also
[2:49:58] does take away trees as one of the residents brought
[2:50:00] forward and that possibly there could be some drainage issues.
[2:50:04] And then other people have talked about fire and safety
[2:50:06] issues when you have these big buildings and how they
[2:50:11] could result in a problem with our fire protection services
[2:50:15] and dealing with them. Um, but primarily my residents don't
[2:50:20] want it. And, um, and, you know, and the data
[2:50:25] that was presented shows, it's not needed. The existing bylaw
[2:50:30] seems to be working fine. So I will not be
[2:50:32] supporting this motion. We'll go now to Councillor Donauer online.
[2:50:42] Thank you, your worship. Uh, I am going to support
[2:50:46] the recommendations before us. And to be honest, I wish
[2:50:49] they were going further. I think this is a compromise.
[2:50:56] I, I look at the report and it admits that
[2:50:59] Sill Height is not a common practice, but it's happening
[2:51:02] in Saskatoon. It admits that side well calculation is not
[2:51:06] typical. So in fact, we're the only say that we
[2:51:10] can find that even does it. It's confusing. I heard
[2:51:12] three speakers tonight on both sides of the issues, including
[2:51:16] a builder who supports it. Say this is a confusing
[2:51:20] issue. And good luck to you if you can understand
[2:51:22] it. I don't think it's right for us to have
[2:51:25] regulations. That the average homeowner when they're building doesn't have
[2:51:29] a hope of understanding. Um, so, you know, I think
[2:51:35] we've got some work to do to make our infill
[2:51:39] regulations clearer. But I see this as, as a step
[2:51:44] forward and a compromise. I think if we, uh, the
[2:51:51] city of Saskatoon, what I've seen in the years that
[2:51:53] I'm here is the more we get into people's lives
[2:51:58] and get involved in what they're going to build the
[2:52:01] less we see built. Heard a lot talk about affordable
[2:52:04] housing ten. I'm not sure how this pertains to affordable
[2:52:07] housing. I, well, we've heard very clearly from everybody in
[2:52:10] the past few years is we need housing all across
[2:52:12] the housing spectrum. Um, including infill. And we also heard
[2:52:18] that if we can help with some of these changes,
[2:52:21] um, it might make basements possible, which means basement suites
[2:52:26] are more possible, which means people that can't afford to
[2:52:28] build a house right now might be able to, because
[2:52:30] that's what we're seeing in green field is that, uh,
[2:52:33] more and more, what we're hearing from builders who aren't
[2:52:35] evil people. They're actually representing home, homeowners. But more and
[2:52:40] more, what we're hearing from builders in Greenfield is that
[2:52:44] to afford to build in Saskatoon, people are putting sweets
[2:52:47] in right away. And I think we're going to see
[2:52:49] that. More and more for infill as well. Um, you
[2:52:54] know, our own administration said tonight that sidewall rigs are
[2:52:57] an impediment to development. Um, so I don't think this
[2:53:00] is the highest and best, but I do think that
[2:53:03] it's a step in the right direction. Um, and I
[2:53:06] think it's something that we should do to ease restrictions
[2:53:10] and make things a little bit clearer so that it's
[2:53:15] a little bit more reasonable. You know, a few years
[2:53:17] ago, half brought in broad sweeping changes right across the
[2:53:21] city. That not everybody liked. And I think, um, sometimes,
[2:53:29] um, neighbours should have a say over what they want
[2:53:33] to build. They don't think it should have zero restrictions,
[2:53:36] but I think that what's being put in front of
[2:53:38] us today are reasonable guidelines for what somebody can build.
[2:53:43] And then we should let them build. Thank you. Uh,
[2:53:48] thank you. I guess I'll go next. Council Jeffries.
[2:53:58] Thank you Mayor Bloch and appreciate everyone who is here
[2:54:03] today to speak and share their thoughts and opinions and
[2:54:07] contribute to the debate here today. And, um, I was
[2:54:12] around the table, not only when we originally brought in
[2:54:16] the infill guidelines and the sidewall calculation. But I remember
[2:54:21] being in groups of people prior to serving on council,
[2:54:24] uh, as we were having those discussions and know the
[2:54:27] importance of the tool and certainly I'm not in favor
[2:54:31] of some of the suggestions that have said that we
[2:54:35] should be getting rid of the sidewall calculation and getting
[2:54:37] rid of some of these pieces here. Uh, I think
[2:54:40] it's been well demonstrated that these tools are helping our
[2:54:44] infill to work well. And, uh, and I don't have
[2:54:47] an interest in throwing that out. Um, but at the
[2:54:51] same time, having been here through this entire process, I've
[2:54:54] had the opportunity to see how sometimes there have been
[2:54:59] unintended impacts. Um, uh, from what we have in place
[2:55:04] right now. And what's in front of us here today,
[2:55:10] by my estimation, our small changes, uh, that can have
[2:55:14] big positive impacts. And I've seen it before. I've spoken
[2:55:17] with people in doing in fills who are dealing with,
[2:55:22] as has been noted, the sewer issue and the ability
[2:55:25] then to actually create a livable below grade space, um,
[2:55:30] and having that constrained in some cases, uh, with the
[2:55:32] one metre. And, you know, this is not going to
[2:55:35] make everyone happy at 1. 3, but I think provides
[2:55:39] a fix to a problem that we've identified without throwing
[2:55:43] out the intent of what is there by having that
[2:55:46] cell height in fact in place. And on the sidewall
[2:55:49] calculation, I mean, the, the thing that I've also seen,
[2:55:53] and it's, it's well noted right in the document here
[2:55:55] that's in front of us is that the current sidewall
[2:55:58] area regulations can create unintended design constraints penalizing certain roof
[2:56:04] forms of building designs even when the overall building scale
[2:56:07] remains appropriate. And that's my conclusion here is what's in
[2:56:12] front of us is, is a small change. Um, about,
[2:56:17] you know, just about those typical, uh, that typical infill,
[2:56:26] design flexibility. And I think I would actually argue, because
[2:56:30] I've seen some of the renderings of what changes have
[2:56:33] to be made to fit the sidewall calculation versus what,
[2:56:36] uh, someone wanted to do. And the massing is very
[2:56:39] similar on each. But you actually end up with a
[2:56:42] less aesthetically pleasing house that I would argue just. Is
[2:56:48] actually less nice to look at as a neighbour. Um,
[2:56:53] then if we were to allow a little more design
[2:56:55] flexibility, which isn't drastically changing, uh, any sense of massing.
[2:56:59] So I think we've identified issues over time. Um, that's
[2:57:03] a good thing. That means we're listening. It means we're
[2:57:06] having conversations. And we've got very small, um, changes that
[2:57:11] we can make to make things better without throwing the
[2:57:13] baby out with the bath water. So I'm in favor
[2:57:15] of these changes. Thank you, Your Block. Okay. Now I
[2:57:18] think I'm next. Uh, I too, I guess it's really
[2:57:23] want to thank everybody for their work on this and
[2:57:25] for preparing your remarks and taking the time to come
[2:57:28] down here and be with us. We are very lucky
[2:57:32] to have so many people who care so much about
[2:57:35] our community and especially our info neighbourhoods where we know
[2:57:39] they are changing. And we want to make sure that
[2:57:42] we are preserving as much as we possibly can. And
[2:57:45] I think it's one of the reasons I've been really
[2:57:47] grateful in my time on council to be able to
[2:57:49] be a part of a new tree bylaw, uh, to
[2:57:52] protect urban canopy and to be a part of it
[2:57:56] finally, our very first drainage bylaw. All of the pieces
[2:58:00] that I know are really important to make sure that
[2:58:03] we are going forward with our infill in a way
[2:58:07] that's not only respectful, but protects the neighbours. And I
[2:58:11] wasn't around for the initial changes that happened after the
[2:58:16] original infill guidelines were causing concerns. But I know how
[2:58:19] much, uh, residents appreciated that some of those, you know,
[2:58:23] rules were tightened to make it, um, better for their
[2:58:26] neighbours. And that will always matter to me. I think
[2:58:29] that based on what I've heard today, there has been
[2:58:32] a good compromise. I really appreciate our administration's work on
[2:58:36] this and the, uh, many tough questions that you had
[2:58:40] to answer this evening. One of the things throughout the
[2:58:46] evening that I couldn't stop thinking about is, why is
[2:58:50] this only about people who are building really big homes?
[2:58:53] Why is that the only thing we're thinking about is
[2:58:56] that really what this, uh, change is about. And I
[2:58:59] don't think it is. I think based on what we've
[2:59:02] approved through the housing accelerator fund and a host of
[2:59:06] other, um, you know, infill guidelines and incentives that we
[2:59:10] are putting into our community for creating more types of
[2:59:14] housing, more affordable housing, uh, more opportunities for people to
[2:59:17] have more dwellings on a site that disenhances our ability
[2:59:23] to do that. And I also heard tonight about the
[2:59:25] difficulty and our infill neighbourhoods to be able to do
[2:59:28] four stories as of right. These are all concerns that
[2:59:31] we should want to address. And I'm, um, grateful that
[2:59:36] we have the opportunity to make what I also consider,
[2:59:39] um, relatively minimal change for an opportunity to see, you
[2:59:44] know, better opportunities for info. And I agree that there's
[2:59:49] also, the part about design matters to us. I think
[2:59:53] it matters to us all. We'll all have an opinion
[2:59:55] about what good design looks like. But I think having
[2:59:58] the opportunity to ensure that those resonance that have those
[3:00:02] visions and they're working with their builders should have. Better
[3:00:06] options is maybe not quite the right word, but they
[3:00:09] should have an expanded opportunity to make sure that that
[3:00:13] design work can, can be fulfilled. So I will be
[3:00:17] supporting this Councillor Dubois. Thank you, Mayor Bloch. And thank
[3:00:24] you to administration. Thank you for all it spoke. And
[3:00:27] thank you for all of the letters that came in.
[3:00:31] This stuff is complicated stuff. We were even just talking
[3:00:34] in the break. It's not clear, you know, it's not
[3:00:37] ultra clear things that we're dealing with when we're talking
[3:00:40] about these bylaw changes and whatnot. And. I was here
[3:00:46] in 2022 when we, when we discussed that. And that's
[3:00:50] why I need a clarification exactly as to why we're,
[3:00:53] why we're here again. And there are things that I
[3:01:01] don't like about this. And some of the, some of
[3:01:04] them I asked the questions about. But I have to
[3:01:09] make a vote here tonight. And I. We have to
[3:01:14] keep moving forward. We can't stall and stand still. And
[3:01:19] I've heard that the place else to go after this.
[3:01:23] Although that I could even argue, there's always a place
[3:01:26] to go. Uh, but we've been dealing with this for
[3:01:28] so many years that, you know, how any more years
[3:01:31] are we going to deal with it? Um, and. So
[3:01:37] for me. For me, I think that we still have,
[3:01:40] we still do have work to do. But I also
[3:01:45] feel that we do have to move forward. We have
[3:01:50] to make progress. And we need to have reasonable guidelines
[3:01:56] that help infill. And I too at the beginning Mayor
[3:02:03] Block, I felt this was a big houses mansions on
[3:02:07] corners. Or on, maybe on corners is what I came
[3:02:11] out of the report about actually. But I don't totally
[3:02:14] feel that way anymore. And, um, I think that we
[3:02:18] have, we have work to do. We have to take
[3:02:22] small steps as we are to make sure that we
[3:02:24] are doing the right things to improve in fill. And
[3:02:31] I think this is a good step. So I'm going
[3:02:33] to be supporting it today. I don't see any other.
[3:02:39] Just a second. Before we go any further, uh, it's
[3:02:42] 9 p. m. We are, uh, in need of a
[3:02:45] motion to extend if we are to continue this meaning
[3:02:48] tonight. And we'll need two thirds vote. In order to
[3:02:54] extend. What is the wish of council? Do we wish
[3:02:57] to finish the agenda tonight. Or do we want to.
[3:03:03] Councillor Dubois. Thank you Mayor Bloch. I mean, I asked
[3:03:08] a question first of the administration in regards to item
[3:03:11] 5. 12. Is that an item that we could defer
[3:03:14] to public hearings in September? Or is that, would that
[3:03:19] cause a problem. For. Me?
[3:03:34] Uh, through you, Mayor Bloch, we could defer it, but
[3:03:37] it is also a very short item. Famous last words.
[3:03:42] We said, well. It is just a correction from a
[3:03:46] previous amendment. Okay. Well, I would move that we defer
[3:03:50] the meeting to finish the agenda. As everyone okay with
[3:03:54] that. I don't think we need to vote. I think
[3:03:56] I just need a bit of a straw point. We
[3:03:58] need a second. We're deferring. Did you say we're deferred?
[3:04:01] No, we're going to finish the agenda tonight. We are
[3:04:04] anticipating a very short next report. And then we should
[3:04:07] be hopefully clear. Are you okay with that council down.
[3:04:16] Yeah. I'd like to finish. Thank you. Uh, any opposition
[3:04:20] online. But we need to move her in a second
[3:04:23] report. I do need to move her in second or
[3:04:25] okay. Okay. Move by Councillor Dubois and seconded by Councillor
[3:04:27] Pierce. I'll call the question as anyone opposed. Hearing none,
[3:04:35] we shall proceed Councillor Parker. Thanks. Um, I will try
[3:04:41] to keep my comments unusually concise. Um, I, um, I
[3:04:47] certainly appreciate that many of the speakers tonight are, uh,
[3:04:52] from my ward. In fact, my neighbours, uh, in many
[3:04:55] cases. A lot of this report addressed information that we
[3:05:03] received from consultants from folks that we were asking for
[3:05:09] their expertise, including NPC and including admin who has certainly
[3:05:14] a lot more experience, uh, in this realm than I
[3:05:16] do. Um, it's not lost on me that, um, a
[3:05:22] few years ago when the new tannic community association argued
[3:05:26] against these regulations, uh, I was the president of the
[3:05:29] Community Association. Certainly developed a different viewpoint. I've had to
[3:05:34] develop a different viewpoint sitting in this chair. Um, and
[3:05:38] I've also had the opportunity to learn a lot more
[3:05:40] about, um, the impact of some of these things. Um,
[3:05:44] I think the goal of infill regulations is to these
[3:05:49] infelic regulations that we're talking about is to limit massing
[3:05:51] and not necessarily make affordable housing the only thing being
[3:05:55] built. The increase of affordable housing in Saskatoon will be
[3:06:02] the result of compounding incremental changes, uh, it's not necessarily
[3:06:07] the only metric we can use to make decisions when
[3:06:10] we're talking about housing or when we're talking about zoning
[3:06:13] changes. These changes that are being proposed, um, certainly will
[3:06:20] result in larger houses. But it also allow for larger
[3:06:24] and more creative envelopes, which may also lead to multi
[3:06:30] - unit housing. We heard that this can be two
[3:06:33] units. This can be three units. This can be four
[3:06:35] units. And it's the decision of the folks that are
[3:06:42] building these houses. To do, to do with what they
[3:06:46] want, with the property that they own. Um, I think
[3:06:50] about her missing middle a lot. Certainly as somebody who's
[3:06:53] experiencing it, I can't afford a house. I don't live
[3:06:57] in a single unit property. I don't have a backyard.
[3:07:01] Um, the missing middle impacts my generation significantly. And I
[3:07:07] think this administration has done a sufficient job limiting the
[3:07:13] sizing and masking issues. Um, certainly limiting what we see
[3:07:18] in other jurisdictions. I know there was comments about Edmonton
[3:07:21] and our zoning, our infill zoning is more restrictive. We
[3:07:25] can't build as tall. We can't build as many units
[3:07:28] in the middle of the block. Um, these are things
[3:07:31] that administration has continued to, I guess, restrict as best
[3:07:38] they can while trying to move forward. Um, and I
[3:07:41] think limiting at 10 percent is them trying to respond
[3:07:48] to the community while moving forward. Um, I think even
[3:07:54] in relation to the mayor's comments, um, these changes are
[3:07:58] being proposed in a different context than what they were
[3:08:01] 10 years ago. Um, we have different, we have more
[3:08:05] bylaws. We have, um. We have different zoning. You know,
[3:08:12] these are things that we're working on all the time.
[3:08:15] Um, and I think it's something that we need to
[3:08:17] continue to work. We need to continue to work with
[3:08:19] our community. Um, we need to, uh, include our neighbours
[3:08:22] who are moving into and building in the neighbourhood. And
[3:08:27] we need to continue to work on, on these bilats
[3:08:30] that do protect the things that are important to us.
[3:08:35] Um. But we need to make the space, um, for
[3:08:39] growth in the best way that we can. And I
[3:08:41] think this is, uh, reflective of that. So we'll be
[3:08:45] voting in favor. Okay. I don't see any of their
[3:08:50] Councillor Keller. Thank you through you Mayor Block. You know,
[3:08:58] it's the commons I would have been, have been made.
[3:09:01] But would like to thank administration and everyone who came
[3:09:04] out tonight around who wrote in. I think that this,
[3:09:08] this recommendation really does its best and seeks to. And
[3:09:12] I think achieve striking a balance between the needs of
[3:09:15] the community. What people are asking for resident concerns and
[3:09:19] a desire to have infil and to work with the
[3:09:22] building community as well. I think it could go further
[3:09:25] on sidewall. I just decide, well, um, peace is, I
[3:09:30] think, overly complex. I think it and a bit redundant.
[3:09:35] It would seem to me that there, you know, there
[3:09:37] are setbacks. There's building height. There's site coverage. You know,
[3:09:41] pieces that are in place. And I don't know how
[3:09:42] much more sidewall really adds. Other than complexity into the
[3:09:47] equation. And so I'm curious about that and that we're
[3:09:50] the only jurisdiction. That uses it. So that's something I
[3:09:56] would like to revisit at some point, I think more
[3:10:00] work needs to be done there. I think it needs
[3:10:02] to be brought down into a more pedestrian type of,
[3:10:06] um, description. But I wouldn't want that to hold up
[3:10:10] this recommendation that I think does, um, does move the
[3:10:14] needle a little bit in ways that it needs to
[3:10:15] be moved. And so, uh, I'll be supporting this recommendation.
[3:10:21] Thank you. I don't see any other lights on. I
[3:10:26] think we can move on now to, uh, Murr plays
[3:10:30] for second reading of the Bylaw Mud by Council McDonald
[3:10:33] and seconded by Councillor Kellerher. Is anyone opposed. That carries
[3:10:39] permission for third reading of the bylaw move by Councillor
[3:10:42] Duan seconded by Councillor Ford? Is anyone opposed. Seeing none.
[3:10:50] And a mover for third, reading of the bylaw, moved
[3:10:52] by Councillor McDonald and seconded by Councillor Jeffries. Is anyone
[3:10:58] opposed. And that carries unanimously. Thank you everyone. We will
[3:11:07] move now. Two 5. 1. 2 zoning by Lyde Text
[3:11:12] Amendments, Garden and Garage Suite. Mayor Block. I had sent
[3:11:16] it. Uh, motion arising. Okay. My apologies, uh, go ahead,
[3:11:21] Councillor Donauer. I'm sorry. Um, I did send the wording
[3:11:27] to the City clerk and I would like to move,
[3:11:31] uh, that the administration continue to work with Assession Regional
[3:11:35] home builders association and other stateholders. To simplify and feel
[3:11:40] guidelines and adopt best practices across Canada. And a secondary.
[3:11:45] There's a second there on speak to it. Second and
[3:11:48] by Councillor Dubois, go ahead Council Donauer. Thank you. Um,
[3:11:53] Mayor, Mayor Block. I don't want to split the end
[3:11:58] result should be, but I do think that one thing
[3:12:01] that was unanimous, well, I shouldn't say unanimous. One thing
[3:12:03] was common from a lot of the speakers tonight was
[3:12:06] that our parts of our info guidelines are unduly complex
[3:12:10] and not easily understood. Um, and I think that's something
[3:12:14] that maybe we can investigate and see what other municipalities
[3:12:18] cross country are doing. I do understand Ms. Anderson said,
[3:12:22] um, they probably reached the end of making changes to
[3:12:26] the sidewall regulations. I'd like us to maybe look and
[3:12:28] see what other cities are doing. Um, if there's a
[3:12:32] simpler way that we can have inpo guidelines that both
[3:12:34] protect the nature of a neighbourhood, um, but also provide
[3:12:39] clarity on what residents can build so that it's easily
[3:12:42] understood by builders and residents. So that's the nature of
[3:12:45] my motion. And it's assumed that they were being engagement.
[3:12:49] As well. Are there camps? I should, if it can't
[3:12:54] be assumed, I'll add it. Are there any questions or
[3:12:59] comments about Councillor Donova's motion. I'll call the question, is
[3:13:09] anyone opposed. That passes unanimously. Thank you, Councillor. Now 5.
[3:13:17] 1. 2 Garden of Garage Suites. Got to get a
[3:13:19] Muber for first reading of Byla 10204 move by Councillor
[3:13:23] McDonald and seconded by Councillor Ford. Is anyone opposed. The
[3:13:28] hearing is open and I'll turn it over to our
[3:13:30] administration. Thank you, Madam Chair. Let the City clerk bring
[3:13:36] up this life for Byla Number 10204. There we go.
[3:13:44] So next slide, please. Council City Council approved amendments to
[3:13:49] the regulations regarding garage suites in May of this year.
[3:13:54] An important regulation was inadvertently deleted that requires that the
[3:13:58] upper story of upper story of a Garnagra Suite B
[3:14:03] 80 percent of the size of the main floor. Again,
[3:14:05] this reduces the massing of the building. The administration is
[3:14:09] recommending that the Prospe Amendments be approved to just add
[3:14:12] this provision back into the bylaw. That's it. And I
[3:14:21] believe NPC has already spoken to this. So there's not
[3:14:25] another report there. Uh, are there any members of the
[3:14:31] public wishing to speak to this. I'm not seeing any.
[3:14:38] I could get a mover to receive the reports Muay
[3:14:41] Council McDonald and Second Abed Councillor Parker. Certainly want to
[3:14:44] post. A carries and a resolution to close the hearing
[3:14:49] moved by Councillor Dubois and seconded by Councillor Ford. Does
[3:14:52] anyone opposed. That carries. Are there any comments. Seeing none?
[3:15:01] I need a mover for second reading. Mut by Councillor
[3:15:03] Kelleher and seconded by Councillor Dubois. Does anyone opposed. That
[3:15:09] carries a permission for third week by Councillor Jeffries and
[3:15:13] seconded by Councillor Pierce? Is anyone opposed. That carries. And
[3:15:18] third reading of the Byla moved by Councillor Parker and
[3:15:20] seconded by Councillor Ford. Is anyone opposed? That carries. We
[3:15:28] go now to Proclamations, Illuminations and Flag Raisings. Could I
[3:15:32] get a mover move by Councillor Dubois and seconded by
[3:15:35] Councillor Pierce? Is there any discussion on the matter. Seeing
[3:15:40] none, I'll call the question is anyone opposed. In that
[3:15:45] carries. No urgent business. We are. Yes.