city of st. albert september 4, 2012 regular council...

Council Meeting Agenda Tuesday, September 4, 2012 File 175-2-2012/ of 2

CITY OF ST. ALBERT SEPTEMBER 4, 2012 REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA

3:00 P.M. IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS

1.0 Adoption of Agenda

2.0 Adoption of Minutes

2.1 Regular Meeting Minutes of August 27, 2012

3.0 Presentations, Delegations and Public Appointments 3.1 Good Neighbour Recognition Presented by: Mayor Crouse

3.2 Darel Baker, St. Albert Chamber of Commerce 3.3 Charlene Zoltenko, Perron District Business Group

4.0 Business Arising from Presentations, Delegations and Public Appointments

5.0 Committee Business No Items

6.0 Business Items 6.1 Continuous Improvement Review Policy Presented by: Jennifer Jennax, G.M. Corporate Strategic Services* 6.2 Amendment to Town Hall Terms of Reference Presented by: Jennifer Jennax, G.M. Corporate Strategic Services

7.0 Bylaws

7.1 Bylaw 22/2012 - Being Amendment 1 to Bylaw 13/2009 - Rectification of Title to Community League Property

Presented by: Gene Klenke, City Solicitor

8.0 Public Hearing – 5:00 P.M. 8.1 Public Hearing for Bylaws 19/2012 and 20/2012, Amendments 91 and 92 respectively to Land Use Bylaw 9/2005 – adding new Downtown District and redistricting Consideration of First, Second and Third Readings Presented by: Carol Bergum, Manager, Planning Branch* 8.1.1 Public Presentations 8.1.2 Agenda Report

Council Meeting Agenda Tuesday, September 4, 2012 File 175-2-2012/ of 2

9.0 Information Items No items

10.0 Civic and External Agencies – Councillors’ Updates (Next Councillor’s Updates scheduled for September 24, 2012)

11.0 Council Motions 11.1 Council Motion – Maintain Council Representation on Alberta Capital Region

Wastewater Commission Presented by: Councillor Bracko

12.0 Information Requests/Notices of Motion

13.0 In Camera No items

14.0 Adjournment *Indicates PowerPoint presentation by staff

City Council August 27, 2012/Page 1

Minutes of a Regular Meeting of St. Albert City Council held in the Council Chambers, St. Albert Place on the above date at 3:00 p.m. Present Mayor Crouse Councillor Bracko Councillor Brodhead Councillor Heron Councillor Lemieux Councillor MacKay Councillor Parker Staff P. Draper, City Manager T. Allen, Acting General Manager, Planning & Engineering C. Jardine, General Manager, Community & Protective Services J. Jennax, General Manager, Corporate Strategic Services A. Ho, Chief Financial Officer C. Belke, Chief Legislative Officer B. Gaskarth, Legislative Officer ADOPTION OF AGENDA The Mayor declared the agenda adopted as presented. ADOPTION OF MINUTES The Mayor declared the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of Council of August 20, 2012 adopted as presented. PRESENTATIONS, DELEGATIONS AND PUBLIC APPOINTMENTS Library Non-Resident Membership Fee Review The Library Director reviewed his report on Library Membership Fees and answered questions for Council. WATER CONSERVATION, EFFICIENCY AND PRODUCTIVITY PLAN The Environmental Coordinator gave a presentation regarding the Plan, and along with the Environmental Manager, answered Council’s questions. (C408-2012) Moved by Councillor Parker That the Water Conservation, Efficiency and Productivity Plan be approved. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY For: Bracko, Brodhead, Crouse, Heron, Lemieux, MacKay, Parker

CITY COUNCIL UNADOPTED MINUTES August 27, 2012


Information Request Council asked if maintenance, which is estimated to be $2-$3M per year, is included in the utility model and built into the utility rates. Q2 CORPORATE QUARTERLY REPORT The City Manager presented the 2012 Q2 Report and answered Council’s questions. Council recessed from 4:30 - 5:00 p.m. ARTS & HERITAGE FOUNDATION STEWARDSHIP AGREEMENT OPTIONS Councillor Brodhead requested that he be able to present his motion prior to the speakers. The Mayor allowed this but indicated he would not accept it as a motion at this point. Councillor Brodhead: “That the City renew the existing AHF agreement with appropriate revisions for an additional 5 years; and That the City Manager inform Council on October 22, 2012, of the status of a new legal AHF – City Partnership Agreement” Frances Gagnon, resident and AHF Arts Director, indicated her support for the AHF and asked that the City extend the agreement for another five years. Colleen Hewitt, resident and an art teacher in St. Albert for 20 years, stated what a big role the art gallery has played and how important it is the schools. She would like it to see things remain as is. Alan Murdock, Chair of Board of Trustees, thanked the dedicated staff and volunteers for all their hard work through this process and indicated his appreciation to Council for their thoroughness in the review. Marilyn Wangler, Director on AHF Board, reiterated the value of the AHF to citizens of St. Albert The City Manager introduced the item and updated Council on events to date. Councillor Brodhead presented his motion: That the City renew the existing AHF agreement with appropriate revisions for an additional 5 years; and That the City Manager inform Council on October 22, 2012, of the status of a new legal AHF - City Partnership Agreement. Mayor Crouse requested that the motion be split. (C409-2012) Moved by Councillor Brodhead That the City renew the existing AHF agreement with appropriate revisions for an additional 5 years; CARRIED For: Brodhead, Crouse, Heron, Lemieux, MacKay, Parker Against: Bracko (C410-2012) Moved by Councillor Brodhead That the City Manager inform Council on October 22, 2012, of the status of a new legal AHF - City Partnership Agreement. CARRIED For: Bracko, Brodhead, Crouse, Heron, MacKay Against: Lemieux, Parker


(C411-2012) Moved by Councillor MacKay That a Special Council meeting be convened on August 30, 2012 at 3:00 p.m. in Council Chambers for the purposes of determining the next steps on the AHF matter by providing a negotiating mandate to the City Manager. DEFEATED For: Lemieux, MacKay, Parker Against: Bracko, Brodhead, Crouse, Heron (C412-2012) Moved by Councillor Parker That the City Manager engage a governance consultant to conduct a governance review and Board members coaching engagement of the AHF Board operations and to present a new Partnership Agreement to Council by October 22, 2012. DEFEATED For: Parker Against: Bracko, Brodhead, Crouse, Heron, Lemieux, MacKay Mayor Crouse relinquished the Chair to Deputy Mayor MacKay. (C413-2012) Moved by Mayor Crouse That the City Manager formally request Partnership input from Council members, City staff, AHF, interested individuals, stakeholders or groups. This 360-degree input, due to the City Manager by September 23, 2012, shall form the basis of the "mandate" that the City Manager shall use to prepare the proposed draft. CARRIED For: Bracko, Brodhead, Crouse, Heron, Parker Against: Lemieux, MacKay (C414-2012) Moved by Mayor Crouse That Council immediately disband the Ad Hoc Committee of Mayor Crouse, Councillor Brodhead and Councillor MacKay who worked on this matter. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY For: Bracko, Brodhead, Crouse, Heron, Lemieux, MacKay, Parker

(C415-2012) Moved by Mayor Crouse That at the Council Organizational Meeting in October, 2012, no Council representative be named to serve on the AHF Board of Directors and this provision be removed from the City of St. Albert Council appointees' listing. CARRIED For: Bracko, Brodhead, Crouse, Lemieux, MacKay Against: Heron, Parker (C416-2012) Moved by Mayor Crouse That the City Manager have the current AHF-City Agreement placed on the City website for public access subject to legal review. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY For: Bracko, Brodhead, Crouse, Heron, Lemieux, MacKay, Parker Mayor Crouse resumed the Chair. Council recessed from 7:25 p.m. to 7:30 p.m.


Q2 CORPORATE QUARTERLY REPORT (Continued) The Chief Financial Officer presented the Q2 Financial Report and responded to Council’s questions. (C417-2012) Moved by Councillor Heron That the City of St. Albert Quarterly Report 2012 - Second Quarter provided on August 27, 2012, be received as information. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY For: Bracko, Brodhead, Crouse, Heron, Lemieux, MacKay, Parker CIVIC & EXTERNAL AGENCIES UPDATES Members of Council provided updates on the activities of the committees on which they serve as Council's representatives. INFORMATION REQUESTS AND NOTICES OF MOTION Information Request Council requested that Administration provide an explanation as to why the city does not subscribe to e-post for processing utility bills electronically? IN CAMERA ITEM: Council Checkup - Self Evaluation (C418-2012) Moved by Councillor Parker That Council move in camera to conduct a self evaluation in accordance with the provisions of Section 19 - Confidential Evaluations of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FOIP) R.S.A. 2000, c. F-25, as amended. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY For: Bracko, Brodhead, Crouse, Heron, Lemieux, MacKay, Parker Council met in camera from 8:20 p.m. to 9:10 p.m. (C419-2012) Moved by Councillor Parker That Council reconvene in public. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY For: Bracko, Brodhead, Crouse, Heron, Lemieux, MacKay, Parker

(C420-2012) Moved by Councillor Lemieux That the details of the discussion remain confidential pursuant to Section 19 of FOIP. CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY For: Bracko, Brodhead, Crouse, Heron, Lemieux, MacKay, Parker


ADJOURNMENT The Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. MAYOR CHIEF LEGISLATIVE OFFICER

City Council Agenda September 4, 2012/Page 1

File No.: 330-20

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

Subject: CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT REVIEW PROGRAM – POLICY REVIEW Recommendation: That the report entitled “Continuous Improvement Review Program – Policy Review” dated September 4, 2012, be received as information. Report Summary: The report provides a review of Council Policy C-CAO-15 Continuous Improvement Review Program and a progress report of corporate continuous improvement projects selected for 2012. No amendments are recommended to the Council Policy; however, improvements to administrative procedures are planned to ensure that the policy continues to be implemented effectively and continuous improvement efforts continue to be embedded within the organization. To date, approximately $132,000 in recurring savings is expected to be realized as a result of various continuous improvement projects and initiatives. These savings will be reflected within departments’ proposed business plans and budgets for 2013-2015. In addition to these cost saving projects and initiatives, Administration completed more than 25 continuous improvement initiatives that resulted in improved efficiencies to City’s operations, service delivery, cost avoidance and re-deployment of financial and human resources. Legislative History: On September 6, 2011, Council approved Council Policy C-CAO-15 Continuous Improvement Review Program and on September 19, 2011, passed the following resolution:

(C588-2011) That the Continuous Improvement Review Policy return to Council prior to September 15, 2012 with recommendations for improvement. This review should include but not be limited to the following:

• goals • targets • rewards • recognition • training • results of the past year's work • priorities • measurement criteria; and • methodology


File No.:330-20

Report: Following the approval of Council Policy C-CAO-15 Continuous Improvement Review Program, Administration implemented a formal Continuous Improvement Program in November 2011 and designed detailed processes and tracking systems. This report provides a review of the policy and program including a progress report of corporate continuous improvement projects selected for 2012 and department initiatives completed to date. The report is organized to highlight all of the components identified in the Council resolution. Program Goals and Targets Administration’s commitment to continuous improvement was strengthened in 2012 with the selection of a few critical corporate projects led by Senior Leadership Team (SLT) and operational level projects lead by department Directors. The goals of the program are to:

• Build upon a culture of innovation and improvement with raised expectations for continuous improvement

• Improve efficiency and effectiveness • Show visible fiscal responsibility to residents with cost, benefits and risk visibility • Engage employees in the process

The program scope focuses on:

• City operations (internal reviews) • External organizations receiving ongoing municipal funding (external reviews)

The program considers:

• Processes • People • Technology enablers

Expected financial value:

• SLT established a financial target of $350,000 for the first year of the program that would be realized upon completion of all corporate level projects and department initiatives. This target was based on a benchmark against other municipalities and estimates of potential benefits that might be captured in the absence of complete business case information.


File No.:330-20

Program Methodology, Selection and Measurement Criteria The following process was developed for selecting and reporting on corporate continuous improvement projects and department initiatives:

The following measurement criteria were established for selecting corporate level projects and evaluating value, alignment and risk of each project:

Value

Business and Economic Value

The project expected business benefits, impact on City operations or quality of service delivered to residents or customers.

Financial Value

The project expected net cost/benefit to the City. Includes both one-time and recurring costs and savings.

Alignment

Strategic fit

How well the project supports the achievement of Council Goals and Priorities.

Operational Fit

The extent to which the project is aligned with other projects or initiatives considering linkages, interdependencies and timing.

Risk

Implementation Risk

The risk of implementation whereby not identifying the business or financial benefits, taking longer than planned, or resulting in issues or other risk to the City.

Constraints

Whether there will be significant constraints or challenges associated with implementing the project, considering resource requirements, time, commitment and complexity.


File No.:330-20

Priorities and Results of Past Year’s Work Administration used established processes and selection criteria to determine the priorities for continuous improvement for 2012 with a focus on corporate level projects which impact several departments/divisions in the organization. To ensure project success, a Project Sponsor and Project Manager was assigned to each corporate level project. The following projects were selected for 2012: Corporate wide focus: 1. Asset Management

Project Description: This project includes software upgrades and related process improvements for Public Works and Transit Services. Once implemented, the upgrades will result in efficiency gains, greater functionality and improved access to data. Project Sponsor: Guy Boston Project Manager: Brian Brost Progress Update: The licensing, service and support agreements were fully executed and Administration received the applicable software modules to commence preliminary data migration and testing. Through software demonstration, it was determined the Asset Management Software Hansen 8 will only be acceptable for Public Works. Transit will pursue an alternative software solution to manage their fleet assets. This project is considered complete at the corporate wide continuous improvement level; however, the project will continue in 2012 for Public Works.

2. Performance Management and Reporting

Project Description: The intent of this project is to develop a set of measures which will provide timely and accurate information on the state of the city and provide critical information required for efficient and effective decision making for elected officials and the City’s leadership. Project Sponsor: Jennifer Jennax Project Manager: Manager of Corporate Planning Progress Update: Work is in progress to develop a strategic corporate level score card for the City. Council was briefed during their priorities and planning session in June 2012 on the programs and the scorecards that will be developed.

3. Civic Office Space Optimization

Project Description: The purpose of this project was to address office space deficiencies in various civic facilities, including St. Albert Place. The project is intended to increase space for customer interaction, reception, and service delivery. Having appropriate space will ensure service delivery does not degrade. Adjustments will also add required facilities to improve collaboration, professionalism, ergonomics, and storage. Employee impacts include an overall healthier work environment which can impact attraction, retention and morale. Project Sponsor: Patrick Draper Project Manager: Travis Peter Progress Update: Administration presented a detailed report to Council in July detailing the options for civic space needs. Council approved a phased plan which will address current and future office space constraints faced by the City. The plan is designed to ensure that operations, client service-delivery and employee wellness are maintained over time.

4. Stakeholder Engagement

Project Description: The purpose of this project is to examine the City’s practice to identify opportunities for improvement and development of a consistent, most efficient and effective approach used by all departments within the City. Project Sponsor: Jennifer Jennax Project Manager: Manager of Corporate Planning Progress Update: Administration is planning to commence this project before the end of 2012.


File No.:330-20

5. Records and Information Management Review Project Description: The purpose of this project was to review and recommend improvements to processes and service delivery in order to improve efficiency and effectiveness of the City’s Records Management. Project Sponsor: Jennifer Jennax Project Manager: Chris Belke Progress Update: A consultant was hired to review the City’s Records Management operation and provide recommendations. A set of recommendations was provided for which an Implementation Plan was developed with initiatives scheduled to take place over the next three years. Recommendations include:

• Exploring opportunities to utilize information technology in order to improve efficiency of information management and access.

• Improving internal processes to ensure consistent implementation of records management practices.

• Developing and implementing classification system to ensure consistency throughout the City.

• Developing business continuity plan including records requirements.

The full benefits of this project will be realized once the recommendations are implemented. Progress will be reported through the Corporate Quarterly Reports.

Service delivery focus: 6. Photo Enforcement Program

Project Description: The purpose of this project is to review current service delivery of the Photo Enforcement Program and researching alternative approaches in order to provide a recommendation to develop a long-term service delivery model. Project Sponsor: Chris Jardine Project Manager: Anna Royer Progress Update: Administration is in the process of surveying municipalities with in-house operation and collecting data to determine the equipment requirements and costs. Once data collection is completed a comparative analysis will be done to determine the best option for the long-term service delivery of photo enforcement. This project will continue in 2012 with progress reported through the Corporate Quarterly Reports.

7. Overtime Analysis

Project Description: The purpose of the project is to confirm that the usage of overtime takes place only after careful consideration of all attributing factors and that it is approved in accordance with the current Overtime Policy. In addition, a summary of the percentage of overtime costs to total employment costs for 2007 to 2011 inclusive will be calculated for comparative purposes. Project Sponsor: Jennifer Jennax Project Manager: Doug Gairns Progress Update: A project plan was developed to clearly define the objective, scope, work steps and stakeholders for this project. Work on this project will continue in 2012 with progress reported through the Corporate Quarterly Reports.

8. Website Support Project Description: The purpose of this project is to examine provision of the website support, service delivery and other opportunities for improved efficiencies. Project Sponsor: Jennifer Jennax Project Manager: Maya Pungur-Buick Progress Update: Administration is planning to commence this project before the end of 2012.


File No.:330-20

9. Library – IT Review Project Description: The purpose of this project is to audit the Information Technology (IT) resources and the capabilities of the IT staff within the City and the Library. The project will also explore opportunities for collaboration while addressing the IT needs of both organizations. Recommendations will be provided on whether the two areas of service should be distinct and separate or whether some sharing of services and resources is feasible. Project Sponsor: Jennifer Jennax Project Manager: Art Krutz Progress Update: Work has commenced on this project with a survey of other municipalities to establish a benchmark for resources required to provide IT services.

Department Initiatives: Administration completed over 25 operational continuous improvement initiatives that resulted in improved efficiencies to City’s operations, service delivery, cost avoidance and re-deployment of financial and human resources. Examples of these initiatives include:

Initiative Benefits

Changes to Human Resources advertising strategy using Social Media.

This initiative resulted in cost avoidance due to increased use of social media instead of a major print paper for job advertisements.

Fire Services Turnout Gear Training and Central Store.

This initiative resulted in cost avoidance. Instead of increasing the budget the department will re-assign these dollars for other fire protection equipment that needs to be replaced.

Development of enhanced assessment and tax search tool via City website.

This initiative resulted in enhanced online access by residents to property assessments and tax searches including the ability to create interactive maps.

Recreation Program Guide. This initiative resulted in increased awareness of available programs and services with one stop shopping model.

Creation of online training videos for safety orientation, emergency procedures, Public Works department orientation, driving safe work procedure and arena ice replacement.

This initiative resulted in consistently trained staff that can provide higher standard of service. In addition, 310 instructor hours to teach these courses were saved and allocated to other department and corporate initiatives.

Streamlined reporting to Council on progress towards completing Council priorities from monthly to only quarterly reporting.

This initiative resulted in improved quality of quarterly reports providing more time for data analysis. This resulted in over 100 staff hours per month being allocated to other corporate initiatives.

Cross training of Public Works office employees.

This initiative resulted in more efficient and prompt service delivery to residents.


File No.:330-20

In addition to the above listed continuous improvement initiatives, Administration completed the following initiatives which resulted in approximately $132,000 in recurring savings.

Initiative Description Financial Value

Recurring Savings

Fountain Park Unit Reorganization

The organizational structure was changed to ensure stronger accountability and to support the staff retention program. These changes resulted in improved customer service, aligned job descriptions with responsibilities and more opportunity for succession planning was created. Cost savings are from salaries and casual wages.

$ 82,000

Changes to Janitorial structure at Servus Place

A janitorial company was contracted to clean overnight which reduced the casual staff complement and associated costs.

$ 40,000

Fire Services – Wellness Program A new medical services provider was selected resulting in lower rates for the medical services.

$ 10,000

Total $132,000 Rewards and Recognition Recognition is an important part of any corporate program. As such, several individuals were recognized by SLT during the City’s latest Employee Appreciation Event and Directors also acknowledge and recognize individuals on their respective teams in order to continue to promote a culture of continuous improvement. To more formally provide recognition for Continuous Improvement, Administration is currently developing a corporate level award, called the “Innovation Award”, to recognize outstanding efforts in this area. To be nominated, the employee will have to demonstrate creativity or innovation which has resulted in improvements or efficiencies to the organization. Examples include creating an improvement which provides cost savings or increased revenues or creating an improvement which provides efficiencies and/or increased productivity. This reward is expected to be in place for 2013. While the City does not have a formal performance incentive program for its employees, the City Manager has a small budget to recognize employees who make exceptional efforts in the area of innovation and continuous improvement. Training A formal training program was not developed as part of the Continuous Improvement Program; however, steps were taken to develop tools and resources which were provided to various departments undertaking continuous improvement projects and/or initiatives. In addition, to ensure corporate implementation of the Continuous Improvement Program, SLT approved creation of a cross-departmental Continuous Improvement Team (CI Team) with a mandate to:

• Coordinate and integrate continuous improvement initiatives • Identify risks and provide recommendations • Capture and summarize benefits and costs


File No.:330-20

• Provide support and subject matter expertise • Share best practices • Develop, refine and share methodologies • Track and report on the status of projects • Provide guidance in selecting operational level projects • Communicate to internal and external stakeholders as appropriate • Provide suggestions to enhance the Continuous Improvement Program within the City

The CI Team provides project management support for corporate level projects and resources, where appropriate, for the department level initiatives. Recommendations for Continuous Improvement Program The following are recommendations to further improve the City’s Continuous Improvement Program:

1. Council Policy Continuous Improvement Review C-CAO-15. No amendments to the Council Policy Continuous Improvement Review C-CAO-15 are recommended at this time.

2. Administrative Procedures

The following areas will be reviewed relative to the policy’s administrative procedures, to improve internal procedures and improve the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the Continuous Improvement Program:

a. Process to evaluate resources required for large scale corporate continuous

improvement projects and allocation of resources during the approval stages of the corporate continuous improvement projects.

b. Process to consider resources required for reviews of various external agencies that receive ongoing municipal operational funding in order to address this objective of the policy.

c. Process to identify corporate continuous improvement projects. d. Frequency of communications regarding the Continuous Improvement Program, to

ensure that the culture of continuous improvement in the organization is strengthened.

e. Review of tools available to assist with capturing costs and benefits of the continuous improvement projects and initiatives.

f. Review of the reporting systems to capture the costs and benefits of continuous improvement initiatives.

g. Update the current Continuous Improvement Project Plan and include it in Microsoft Office templates.


File No.:330-20

Continuous Improvement in 2013 The following table outlines what projects are completed in 2012 and what 2012 projects will continue in 2013.

2012 Projects Completed in 2012

Continue in 2013

1. Asset Management 2. Performance Management and Reporting 3. Civic Office Space Optimization 4. Stakeholder Engagement 5. Records and Information Management Review 6. Photo Enforcement 7. Overtime Analysis 8. Website Support 9. Library – IT Review

Senior Leadership Team will recommend approximately two new projects which will be added in 2013. Senior Leadership Team is reviewing various projects and will identify key areas to focus on in 2013 based on priorities and availability of resources. During this review Senior Leadership Team may determine that some of the current projects that plan on continuing in 2013 may need to be placed on hold for a future year. The City Manager will provide the list of planned corporate continuous improvement projects to Council as part of the Business Plan and Budget Presentation in October 2012. Link to Council or Corporate Objectives: Continuous Improvement is identified as one of Council’s priorities that fall under Governance – Fiscal Responsibility to “Practice fiscal restraint and report on the benefits and costs of continuous improvements that are made to the City’s governance and operations”. Financial Implications: N/A Legal Implications: N/A Attachments: 1. Council Policy C-CAO-15 Continuous Improvement Review Program 2. Updated Project Plan – Continuous Improvement Report Date August 7, 2012 Originating Department Corporate Strategy and Business Management (CSBM) Prepared by: Darija Slokar-Petrovic Approved by Jennifer Jennax City Manager Review Patrick Draper

Purpose To ensure that the City maximizes the value for money it expends on program and service delivery, through an ongoing ‘continuous improvement’ review program. Policy The City is committed to operating efficiently and effectively in order to maintain its sustainability and maximize the value it provides to its ratepayers. The City is also committed to ensuring that the financial support it offers to various community organizations that provide services on behalf of the City is appropriately administered and structured to achieve desired outcomes. To meet these objectives the City shall conduct ‘continuous improvement’ reviews of administrative departments that focus on ensuring an appropriate balance between cost minimization, revenue maximization, and quality enhancement in program and service delivery. The City may also require reviews of various external organizations that receive ongoing municipal operational funding. All continuous improvement reviews shall be conducted in a spirit of collaboration and shared value. Definitions “Administration” means the various municipal departments and personnel within the City of St. Albert. “City” means the municipal corporation of the City of St. Albert or, where the context so requires, the area contained within the boundaries of the city. “City Manager” means the Chief Administrative Officer of the City of St. Albert. “Continuous Improvement” means the process of systematically analyzing and reducing redundancies, raising productivity, and adjusting practices to complement the changing organizational environment (including the needs of customers and employees). “Council” means the municipal council of the City of St. Albert. “External Organization” means any community organization that receives or benefits from City of St. Albert financial support. “Review” means an analysis of the operations and/or performance of an organization, based on a chosen type and objective.

C-CAO-15

City of St. Albert

CITY COUNCIL POLICY

Continuous Improvement Review Program

AUTHORITY

City Council

APPROVED Res. No. mm dd

C564-2011 09 06 REVISED

Res. No. mm dd

Attachment 1

Standards

1. Eligibility

a. All internal departments, business units, or processes within Administration may be included within the City’s review schedule.

b. Any service or program provided by an external organization that receives funding from the City

on an ongoing basis may have that service or program included within the City’s review schedule.

2.

Objectives

a. Reviews of administrative departments or business units may focus on a variety of objectives, including minor operational reviews in response to legislative or personnel or technological changes, or significant operational or corporate reviews in response to changes in the organizational environment, strategic direction, client requirements, and/or organizational performance. Major service level or investigative reviews, potentially the result of real or perceived service level misalignments, may also be considered.

b. Reviews of external organizations may focus on a variety of objectives, including regular

compliance reviews to ensure funding and service delivery requirements have been met, and detailed compliance reviews that also consider continued alignment with municipal priorities. Major operational or investigative reviews, potentially the result of significant real or perceived issues, may also be considered.

3.

Timing and Resources

a. During the City’s business planning and budget process, the City Manager shall present a proposed list of planned internal and external reviews to Council, including a confirmed list of reviews for the following year and a tentative list for the following two (2) years.

b. If a review is expected to exceed Administration’s existing capacity or resources to complete, the City Manager shall prepare a business case for Council’s consideration during the City’s regular business planning and budget process.

4. Engagement and Culture

a. The City Manager shall ensure that internal employees, external boards, and/or other stakeholders are engaged to offer inputs into reviews, and to contribute ideas and solutions that may affect their work or the performance of the entity being reviewed.

b. The City Manager shall reinforce a culture of Continuous Improvement within the City. This shall include a commitment to research best practices and participate in knowledge networks, industry associations, professional associations, municipal advocacy groups, public sector research bodies, and so forth. These resources and others provide administrators with access to a vast knowledge bank and innovative tools to improve organizational systems and outcomes on an ongoing basis.

Attachment 1

c. Ongoing Continuous Improvement initiatives shall be encouraged within Administration or within external organizations, despite the potential for a future review.

5.

Reporting

The City Manager shall provide Council with an annual summary of continuous improvement efforts and / or review findings, for information.

6.

Policy Review

This policy shall be reviewed annually by Administration, with amendments to be recommended to

Council as necessary.

Cross References: Policy C-CAO-01, Global CAO Constraint

Attachment 1

Attachment 1

c. A proposed project plan shall be approved by the City Manager or delegate for each external review, prior to commencement. The project plan shall include references to the review's key objectives, scope, stakeholders, timeline, resources, constraints, deliverables, and other elements as necessary. Project plans for any review shall be developed in consultation with the relevant board, administration, or stakeholders of the external organization.

d. Where an external organization can provide information related to a recent and satisfactory completion of a similar review, the proposed review schedule may be amended by the City Manager.

3. Performance Measurement

a. To ensure that accurate and appropriate performance information is readily available for the City, reporting shall include performance measurement and benchmarking comparisons where possible. This includes tools such as client feedback mechanisms, comparator surveys, statistical analysis over time, and so forth.

b. External organizations which seek municipal funding shall be encouraged to provide the City with detailed performance information. This information may be used to assess the requirement for an external review.

4. Implementation

a. Implementation plans, describing timelines and other considerations related to implementation, shall be prepared by the relevant departmental director or external organization for all completed reviews.

b. Where an internal review may result in changes to current business practices or relationships, directors shall prepare appropriate change management processes.

City of St. Albert ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES C-CAO-15

Page 2 of 2 sl

Attachment 1

Project Name Project Plan

Date

PROJECT SUMMARY

Project Objective

Project Sponsor

Project Manager

Project Team

Project Support and Other Resources

Stakeholder Groups and Links to Other Initiatives

Timing

Deliverable(s)

Attachment 1

INTRODUCTION

Provide a brief introduction for the project/initiative.

PROJECT REQUIREMENTS

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this project is to:

SCOPE

The scope will include:

INPUTS

The following key documents will be used:

CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS

The following critical success factors must occur for the project to remain on time and to meet expectations:

PROJECT APPROACH

Provide description of the approach used to complete this project and if there is a phased approach.

Phase I: x Phase II: x Phase IV: xPhase III: x

Attachment 1

PROJECT TIMELINES

The project work steps, deliverables, anticipated completion dates and time requirements for this review are outlined in the table below.

Work Step Deliverable Date Due Time (hrs)

in Meetings

Phase 1: Project Initiation [typical phase I]

Objective: Clear project terms of reference and team sign off

Phase 2: x

Objective: x

Phase 3: x

Objective: x

Phase 4: Final Report [typical last phase]

Objective: Complete the Final Report

TEAM AND PROJECT REPORTING STRUCTURE

Provide information on team and project structure.

PROJECT TEAM COMMITMENT AGREEMENT

The Project Team Members agree to undertake the duties, responsibilities and directives necessary to successfully complete this project. The Project Team Members accept the responsibility for fulfilling any aspects of the project planning and development that applies to the Team, including attending project meetings, providing information, resources, actively participating, and effectively communicating with other team members.

Name: Signature Role

Attachment 1

Project Name Project Plan

Date

PROJECT SUMMARY

Project Objective

Project Sponsor

Project Manager

Project Team



Timing

Deliverable(s)

Attachment 1

INTRODUCTION



OBJECTIVES


SCOPE


INPUTS




PROJECT APPROACH


Phase I: x Phase II: x Phase IV: xPhase III: x

Attachment 1

PROJECT TIMELINES



in Meetings



Phase 2: x

Objective: x

Phase 3: x

Objective: x



TEAM AND PROJECT REPORTING STRUCTURE

Provide information on team and project structure.



Name: Signature Role

Attachment 1

____________________ Project Sponsor ____________________ Project Manager ____________________ Project Team Leader

____________________ Team Member ____________________ Team Member This Team Commitment Agreement was signed on ___________________.

Attachment 1

Project Plan Template Page 1

Continuous Improvement Project Plan

Project Name

Date

PROJECT SUMMARY

Project Objective

Project Sponsor

Project Manager

Project Team



Timing

Deliverable(s)

Attachment 2


INTRODUCTION



OBJECTIVES


SCOPE


INPUTS




PROJECT APPROACH


Phase I: x Phase II: x Phase IV: x Phase III: x

Attachment 2


PROJECT TIMELINES



in Meetings



Phase 2: x

Objective: x

Phase 3: x

Objective: x



PROJECT GOVERNANCE

Provide information including:

What is the Governance Structure and Roles (Project Sponsor, Project Manager, Project Team, any Advisory Committee or Steering Committee?)

How are decisions made and by whom?

How often and how will the project report? To whom?

How are issues identified and resolved?

POTENTIAL RISKS AND MITIGATION STRATEGIES

List any known risks and mitigation strategies.

Attachment 2


CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT CRITERIA

Assess against balance of criteria from continuous improvement program:



Role Name Signature Date

Project Sponsor

Project Manager

Project Team Leader

Team Member

High o High o High o High o High o High o

Medium o Medium o Medium o Medium o Medium o Medium o

Low o Low o Low o Low o Low o Low o

H, M, L (ranked as per the positive impact on

residents, customer service, or impact on City

operations)

H, M, L (ranked according to how good a fit the

project is strategically or operationally)

H, M, L (ranked according to how well risks can be

managed or the extent to which there are few

constraints)

Business and Economic Value Alignment Risk Management

Impact on Residents or

Quality of Service

delivered to Customers

Impact on City

OperationsStrategic Fit Operational Fit Risk Constraints

The project’s expected business benefits to customers,

residents or to the City of St. Albert including quality

enhancement of services and impacts on economic

development. Considers immediate benefits (quick wins)

and longer term benefits.

How well the project

supports the achievement

of Council Goals and

Corporate Objectives.

Interdependencies or the

extent to which the project

fits with other projects or

initiatives. Considers

l inkages,

interdependencies, timing.

The extent to which the

risks associated with the

complexity, visibil ity and

profile of the project can be

successfully managed. The

extent to which the project

will address risks currently

faced by the City.

The extent to which the

project can be successfully

designed and

implementing, considering

resource requirements,

time committments, and

organizational capacity.

Attachment 2


APPENDIX 1: INITIAL COSTS AND BENEFITS (OPTIONAL)

List benefits and costs available at the project plan stage of this project/initiative:

One-time

savings

Recurring

savings

One-time

costs

Recurring

costs

Revenues

Fees

Grants

Reserves

Other

sub-total: -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Expensesreduction

in FTEs

Salaries, Wages,

Benefits

Other Operating

Capital

sub-total: -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ increase in

FTEs

Totals -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

Net Financial Value

The project’s expected net cost/benefit to the City as expressed through a Business Case. Includes both one-time

and recurring costs and savings (time and money) Includes cost minimization, cost avoidance, and revenue

maximization.

Financial ValueBenefits Costs

Source of

Funds

Impact on

staffing

levels

Attachment 2

30/08/2012

1

Continuous Improvement Review PProgramPolicy Review

Presented by:Jennifer JennaxGeneral Manager, Corporate Strategic Services

September 4, 2012

Overview

• Continuous Improvement Program• Continuous Improvement Program Review

• Update on Continuous Improvement projects

22

projects

30/08/2012

2

Continuous Improvement Goals

• Goals of the program:Build upon a culture of innovation and– Build upon a culture of innovation and improvement with raised expectations for continuous improvement

– Improve efficiency and effectiveness– Show visible fiscal responsibility to residents

with cost benefits and risk visibility

33

with cost, benefits and risk visibility– Engage employees in the process

Methodology - Selection

44

30/08/2012

3

Methodology – Measurement Criteria

55

Corporate Continuous Improvement ProjectsCorporate wide focus:• Asset Management• Asset Management• Performance Management and Reporting• Civic Office Space Optimization• Stakeholder Engagement

R d d I f ti M t

66

• Records and Information Management Review

30/08/2012

4

Corporate Continuous Improvement Projects cont. Service delivery focus:• Photo enforcement program• Photo enforcement program• Overtime analysis• Website support• Library – IT review

77

Benefits

• Cost avoidance• Re deployment of financial and human• Re-deployment of financial and human

resources• Improved operational efficiency• Improved service delivery • Savings of $132 000 to date

88

• Savings of $132,000 to date

30/08/2012

5

Recommended Changes to Program

• Update some procedures

• Updated Project Plan template

99

Moving forward

• Continue with corporate level projects for 20122012

• SLT to identify corporate level continuous improvement projects for 2013

• Department initiatives• Reporting

1010

Reporting

30/08/2012

6

Questions

1111


File No.: 170-10


Subject: AMENDMENT TO TOWN HALL TERMS OF REFERENCE Recommendation: That the Terms of Reference for Council Town Hall Meetings be amended by substituting the proposed Terms of Reference for Council Town Hall Meetings provided as Attachment 1 to the Agenda Report presented to Council on September 4, 2012. Report Summary: The Terms of Reference for Council’s approved Town Hall Meeting require that the Mayor in collaboration with Council proposes an agenda for each meeting which would be agreed to at a public meeting of Council. Administration recommends that the Deputy Mayor identify potential topic areas for each meeting and will be advertised to the public. In addition, the Terms of Reference will be in effect for the current Council term. Legislative History: On September 26, 2011 Council approved Terms of Reference for Town Hall Meetings, which were subsequently amended on February 6, 2012. Within the document under “Council Roles and Responsibilities” the following was approved:

• The Mayor in collaboration with Council will propose an agenda for the Town Hall meeting (i.e., determine whether the meeting is open or topical), which will be agreed to at a public meeting of Council.

Link to Council or Corporate Objectives:

Council Objective #7 – Council Governance o Connecting our Community and the Region: Consider recommended changes to

public communication and consultation processes Corporate Objective #4 – Ensure our customers are very satisfied

Financial Implications: The costs associated with holding each town hall are included in the approved 2012 Budget within the Council budget’s “Other Legislative” cost centre. These costs include advertising, hall rental, equipment rental and refreshments, as well as staff time to attend the event. Note that to ensure that rental costs are minimized, Administration pursues no or low cost locations (including those covered under the Reciprocal Use Agreement with the school boards).


File No.: 170-10

Legal Implications: Attended by members of Council, Administration and the public, Town Hall Meetings are informal gatherings that facilitate inclusive discussions about matters of local interest. These informal meetings are not intended to and cannot replace any formal public hearing or other mandated Council process as may be required by legislation or policy from time to time. Attachments: 1. Terms of Reference for Council Town Hall Meetings (proposed amendments incorporated) 2. Terms of Reference for Council Town Hall Meetings (proposed amendments highlighted) Report Date July 26, 2012 Originating Department Corporate Strategic Services Prepared by: Stephanie Yates Approved by Jennifer Jennax City Manager Review Patrick Draper

ATTACHMENT 1

1

CITY OF ST. ALBERT Council Town Hall Meetings

TERMS OF REFERENCE

(as amended September 4, 2012)

Purpose

A priority of Council is to review and enhance the City’s public engagement and consultation practices. The purpose of a Council Town Hall meeting is to provide St. Albert residents an unstructured opportunity to meet Council members to discuss any topic of interest to them; or to hold Town Hall sessions on specific topics with residents.

Scope

• Council will hold a minimum of three Town Hall events each year and they will most likely occur in October, February and May. Each Town Hall will be 1.5 hours in length.

• The Town Hall events are informal gatherings, with an open-house and/or round-table format.

• The Town Hall event may be open or topical, as determined by Council, in community facilities in different geographic locations across the city.

• The location of each Town Hall event will vary, unless particular locations are related to a specific topic.

• One Town Hall event will be held mid-day, one in an evening and one on a weekend.

• Meeting notes will be taken but not published as minutes.

• A sign-in sheet shall be provided.

Roles and Responsibilities

Council

• The Deputy Mayor will identify potential topic areas for the Town Hall meeting (i.e., determine whether the meeting is open or topical), and will be advertised to the public.

• Council will attempt to ensure attendance of a minimum of three Council members.

• Attendance by the Mayor is optional, depending on the Mayor’s availability.

• The Chair shall be the Deputy Mayor at the time.

Administration

• Administration recommends the dates in advance for the upcoming year for the three Town Hall events; agreed to during the annual organizational meeting.

• Administration coordinates the advertising and promotion two weeks in advance of each event.

• Administration coordinates the logistics for the event, including booking location, arranging for furniture and any equipment, resources, facility access and light refreshments.

• Attendance by one member of the Senior Leadership Team is required for a set topic in their area of expertise otherwise their attendance is not required.

ATTACHMENT 1

2

• A staff member will attend to provide on-site logistical assistance and to take notes.

Resources

The expenses associated with the Town Hall events will be included in the Other Legislative Cost Centre of the Council budget.

Resources will include staff time to attend the event.

Timelines

The Council Town Hall events will commence in 2012, as set at the organizational meeting annually and will be in effect for the current Council term.

ATTACHMENT 2

1 February 6, 2012

CITY OF ST. ALBERT Council Town Hall Meetings

TERMS OF REFERENCE

(approved as amended September 4, 2012)

Purpose

A priority of Council is to review and enhance the City’s public engagement and consultation practices. The purpose of a Council Town Hall meeting is to provide St. Albert residents an unstructured opportunity to meet Council members to discuss any topic of interest to them; or to hold Town Hall sessions on specific topics with residents.

Scope

• Council will hold a minimum of three Town Hall events each year and they will most likely occur in October, February and May. Each Town Hall will be 1.5 hours in length.

• The Town Hall events are informal gatherings, with an open-house and/or round-table format.

• The Town Hall event may be open or topical, as determined by Council, in community facilities in different geographic locations across the city.

• The location of each Town Hall event will vary, unless particular locations are related to a specific topic.

• One Town Hall event will be held mid-day, one in an evening and one on a weekend.

• Meeting notes will be taken but not published as minutes.

• A sign-in sheet shall be provided.

Roles and Responsibilities

Council

• The Deputy Mayor in collaboration with Council will identify potential topic areas propose an agenda for the Town Hall meeting (i.e., determine whether the meeting is open or topical), which will be agreed to at a public meeting of Counciland will be advertised to the public.

• Council will attempt to ensure attendance of a minimum of three Council members.

• Attendance by the Mayor is optional, depending on the Mayor’s availability.

• The Chair shall be the Deputy Mayor at the time.

Administration

• Administration recommends the dates in advance for the upcoming year for the three Town Hall events; agreed to during the annual organizational meeting.

• Administration coordinates the advertising and promotion two weeks in advance of each event.

• Administration coordinates the logistics for the event, including booking location, arranging for furniture and any equipment, resources, facility access and light refreshments.

ATTACHMENT 2

2 February 6, 2012

• Attendance by one member of the Senior Leadership Team is required for a set topic in their area of expertise otherwise their attendance is not required.

• A staff member will attend to provide on-site logistical assistance and to take notes.

Resources

The expenses associated with the Town Hall events will be included in the Other Legislative Cost Centre of the Council budget.

Resources will include staff time to attend the event.

Timelines

The Council Town Hall events will commence in 2012, as set at the organizational meeting annually and will be in effect for the current Council term.

City Council Agenda September 4, 2012 / Page 1

File No.: 135-1


Subject: RECTIFICATION OF TITLE TO COMMUNITY LEAGUE PROPERTY (BYLAW 22/2012, A BYLAW TO AMEND BYLAW 13/2009)

Recommendation(s): 1. That Bylaw 22/2012, being Amendment 1 to Bylaw 13/2009 (a Bylaw to designate the Banque

d’Hochelaga as a Municipal Historic Resource) be read a first time. 2. That Bylaw 22/2012 be read a second time. 3. That unanimous consent be given for consideration of third and final reading of Bylaw 22/2012.

4. That Bylaw 22/2012 be read a third and final time. Report Summary: This report brings forward recommendations that if accepted, would authorize the removal of the municipal historic designation from title to the St. Albert Community League property. Legislative History: On April 27, 2009 Council passed Bylaw 13/2009 (C253-2009). Report: Bylaw 13/2009 was passed by Council in an effort to designate the Banque d’Hochelaga (19 Perron Street) as a municipal historic resource. Subsequent to its approval, the Bylaw was forwarded to the Land Titles Office for endorsement on the affected property titles. It has recently come to Administration’s attention that the Community League’s adjacent property (17 Perron Street) was inadvertently noted on Schedule B of Bylaw 13/2009, thereby creating a historical designation notation on that title. It appears that the intent instead was to include in the designation the City’s property at 16 St. Anne Street rather than the Community League property (see the attached aerial plot for reference). On this point, Museum staff has recently commented that although it formed part of the original Banque land, 16 St. Anne Street is not the current site of any original structure and now exists only as a parking lot. Since the focus of the original designation was to preserve the Banque building, there is little need to include 16 St. Anne Street in that designation. Bylaw 22/2012, amends Bylaw 13/2009 by removing the reference to the Community League property, since there was no intent by Council or specific recommendation from Administration to designate the Community League property as a historic municipal resource. It has been noted that the Province does not look favourably upon the proposed removal of historic designations where Provincial recognition of a designation has occurred and funding has been granted on that basis in order to facilitate the construction of site improvements. In this case, the

City Council Agenda September 4, 2012 / Page 2

File No.135-1

designation was purely the result of clerical error, and there is no indication that the Community League property has received Provincial historical recognition or related funding. Under these circumstances, Administration does not expect the Province to take issue with the proposed amendment. Financial Implications: Since there is no indication that the Community League property has received Provincial related funding, there would be minimal financial implications. Legal Implications: Since a clerical error lead to the Community League property’s inclusion in the Bylaw, it appears that the Community League was not issued a 60-day notification, as required under the Historical Resources Act, of the intention to designate the Banque d’Hochelaga as a Municipal Historic Resource. Legal Services takes the position that it is not necessary to issue notice to the Community League in advance of this newly proposed amendment since the 2009 notification was not issued to the League and the designation was made on its property in error. Further, the Community League has not promoted this municipal designation to the Province and in fact, representatives have indicated that the outstanding issue needs to be rectified in the short term. Attachments:

1. Bylaw 22/2012, being Amendment 1 to Bylaw 13/2009 2. Bylaw 13/2009 (black-lined showing proposed changes to Schedule B) 3. Aerial map

Report Date August 15 , 2012 Originating Department Legal Services Prepared by: Gene Klenke Approved by Patrick Draper City Manager Review Patrick Draper

Attachment 1

BYLAW 22/2012

CITY OF ST. ALBERT

BYLAW 22/2012

Being Amendment 1 to Bylaw 13/2009 (a Bylaw to designate the Banque d’Hochelaga as a Municipal Historic Resource)

NOW THEREFORE the Municipal Council of the City of St. Albert hereby ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. That Schedule B of Bylaw 13/2009 be replaced by the document annexed to this Bylaw

22/2012 as Schedule A.

2. That the Chief Administrative Officer be authorized to consolidate Bylaw 22/2012.

READ a first time this READ a second time this READ a third time this SIGNED AND PASSED this MAYOR CHIEF LEGISLATIVE OFFICER

Attachment 1

BYLAW 22/2012

Schedule A

SCHEDULE “B”

TO BYLAW 13/2009 FIRSTLY: PLAN (G) BLOCK FIVE (5) THE NORTH WESTERLY FORTY FOUR (44) FEET IN PERPENDICULAR WIDTH THROUGHOUT OF LOT THIRTY FOUR (34) SECONDLY: PLAN (G) BLOCK FIVE (5) THE NORTH WESTERLY FORTY FOUR (44) FEET IN PERPENDICULAR WIDTH THROUGHOUT OF LOT THIRTY FIVE (35)

Attachment 2

BYLAW 13/2009(Page 1)

CITY OF ST. ALBERT

BYLAW 13/2009

Being a Bylaw to designate the Banque d’Hochelaga as a Municipal Historic Resource.

WHEREAS Section 26 of the Historic Resources Act R.S.A. 2000, c.H-8, as amended, provides that a municipality may by bylaw designate any historic resource within the municipality whose preservation it considers to be in the public interest, together with any land on which it is located, as a Municipal Historic Resource; and WHEREAS the Council of the City of St. Albert has determined that it is in the public interest to preserve the building known as the Banque d’Hochelaga and the land upon which the building is situated as a Municipal Historic Resource; NOW THEREFORE the Council of the City of St. Albert, having complied with the requirements of the Historical Resources Act, hereby ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The building known as the Banque d’Hochelaga, specifically described in Schedule “A”

and the lands on which the building is located, being the lands legally described in Schedule “B”, are hereby designated a Municipal Historic Resource (“Historic Resource”).

2. The Chief Administrative Officer is appointed by Council to administer the implementation

of any matters arising out of this designation and, in particular, for the purpose of determining whether a written approval shall be given under Section 3 of this Bylaw.

3. No person shall:

a. destroy, disturb, alter, restore, repair or in any way cause changes to the Historic Resource; or

b. remove any historic object from the Historic Resource,

without the written approval of the Chief Administrative Officer. 4. Except as provided herein, the Chief Administrative Officer, in the Chief Administrative

Officer’s absolute discretion, may refuse to grant an approval under Section 3 of this Bylaw or may make the approval subject to any conditions the Chief Administrative Officer considers appropriate.


5. In exercising the discretion under Section 3 of this Bylaw the Chief Administrative Officer

shall consider The Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada adopted for use in Alberta by the Province of Alberta.

Read a first time this 27th day of April, 2009. Read a second time this 27th day of April, 2009. Read a third and final time this 27th day of April, 2009. SIGNED AND PASSED THIS ____________ day of _____________, 2009 MAYOR CHIEF LEGISLATIVE OFFICER


SCHEDULE “A”

TO BYLAW 13/2009 Banque d’Hochelaga, 19 Perron St., St. Albert Description of Historic Place The Banque d’Hochelaga building is a 2-storey brick-clad commercial building situated on the prominent intersection of Perron and St. Anne Streets in downtown St. Albert. This 1920 structure was built in the late Edwardian Commercial Style. There were major additions and renovations in 1955 and 1966. Heritage Value The Banque d’Hochelaga building has heritage value as the only surviving commercial building in downtown St. Albert associated with the efforts of the early Chamber of Commerce to attract a banking institution, the Banque d’Hochelaga, to St. Albert and as a local landmark that continued to accommodate several businesses and for many years, the Bank of Montreal. The Banque d’Hochelaga building is significant for its association with the early commercial development of St. Albert and the Chamber of Commerce. A branch of the Banque d’Hochelaga was established in St. Albert in 1912 as a result of a conscientious effort by local businessmen to attract a major financial institution for the purpose of facilitating development of the town. The construction of the 1920 brick building cemented the role of this bank in the on-going commercial development of St. Albert until 1936. Subsequently, the reuse of this building as a financial institution between 1955 and 1987, and the only bank in St. Albert from 1955 to 1962, confirmed the Bank of Montreal as a significant player of St. Albert’s development in those years. The Banque d’Hochelaga building is associated with the historic Banque d’Hochelaga that was established in Montreal in 1873 by a group of prominent French Canadians. After 1900 the bank experienced rapid growth with branches outside the province of Quebec. In 1924, the Banque d’Hochelaga took over the Banque Nationale, which had been founded in Quebec in 1860. The bank changed its name to Banque Canadienne Nationale in 1925 and continues to this day. The Banque d’Hochelaga building is also associated with the historic Bank of Montreal, Canada’s first bank, established in 1817. The Banque d’Hochelaga building is an example of late Edwardian Classical Style of commercial architecture and is exemplified by symmetrical façade design, imposing brick construction and a pressed-metal perimeter cornice. The building is also significant for the 1955 renovations by architects Rule Wynn Rule and the 1966 International Style addition by the prominent Alberta architectural firm Rule Wynn Forbes Lord and Partners. The Banque d’Hochelaga building is a prominent local landmark on its corner lot in the heart of the historic St. Albert commercial district.


Character-Defining Elements Key elements that define the heritage character of the Banque d’Hochelaga building include its: • prominent location on a downtown corner lot; • form, scale and massing; • imposing Edwardian Classical Style two-storey composition of the original building; • International Style design and composition of the one-storey 1966 addition; • brick façades of the original building and the additions; • location and configuration of the original window openings; • upper pressed-metal cornice on the original building; • aluminum strip windows and ceramic tile spandrels of the 1966 addition; and • interior vaults with original locking mechanisms.


SCHEDULE “B”

TO BYLAW 13/2009 FIRSTLY: PLAN (G) BLOCK FIVE (5) THE NORTH WESTERLY FORTY FOUR (44) FEET IN PERPENDICULAR WIDTH THROUGHOUT OF LOT THIRTY FOUR (34) SECONDLY: PLAN (G) BLOCK FIVE (5) THE NORTH WESTERLY FORTY FOUR (44) FEET IN PERPENDICULAR WIDTH THROUGHOUT OF LOT THIRTY FIVE (35) THIRDLY: PLAN (G) BLOCK FIVE (5) LOTS THIRTY FOUR (34), THIRTY FIVE (35) AND THE MOST WESTERLY TEN (10) FEET OF THE MOST SOUTHERLY TWENTY FIVE (25) FEET OF LOT THIRTY SIX (36) EXCEPTING THEREOUT: THE MOST NORTHWESTERLY FORTY FOUR (44) FEET THROUGHOUT OF LOTS THIRTY FOUR (34) AND THIRTY FIVE (35) ST. ALBERT EXCEPTING THEREOUT ALL MINES AND MINERALS

Perron S

treet

St Anne Stre

et

19 Perron Street

LTO: 002110785001Plan: GBlock: 5Lot: 34, 35 (ET...)

17 Perron Street

LTO: 137D104Plan: GBlock: 5Lot: 34, 35, 36 (ET...)

16 St Anne Street

LTO: 002110785Plan: GBlock: 5Lot: 36 (ET...)

Attachment 3

THE ECONOMIC EFFECTS OFEFFECTS OF PEDESTRIANIZATION:

A CASE STUDY OF STE. CATHERINE STREET MONTREALPresented by Rebecca Lazarovic, April 2, 2009

Transportation seminar

Outline

Pedestrianization: overview Pedestrianization: overview

Ste Catherine Street Pilot Project: background Ste. Catherine Street Pilot Project: background

R h ti bj ti th d l Research question, objectives, methodology, respondents’ profiles

Conclusions and questions

Historyy

European context: URBAN QUALITY European context: URBAN QUALITY IMPROVEMENT to reduce traffic congestiong to deter environmental degradation

North American context: ECONOMIC REVITALIZATIONO to improve retail conditions to strengthen the urban core as a center for g

community activities

Other goalsg

to counter the suburbanization of retail to counter the suburbanization of retail to improve health and fitness to improve pedestrian safety to improve pedestrian safety to contribute to sustainable urban

developmentdevelopment

The many forms of pedestrianizationpedestrianization Full – elimination of motor vehicle traffic at all

times and on all days by means of formal traffic orders; (vehicle prohibited)

Part-Time – elimination of motor vehicle traffic for only certain hours of the day and/or certain daysonly certain hours of the day and/or certain days of the week; (vehicle restricted)

Partial – allow some motor vehicle traffic at low speeds; (vehicle discouraged); aka traffic calming

FULL PEDESTRIANIZATION :

Chinatown, Montreal

Part-time pedestrianization:p

KensingtonKensington Market, Toronto

Road share with trams

Freiburg, Germany

Pedestrianization as urban quality enhancement =

ECONOMIC BENEFITSECONOMIC BENEFITS

German study of 500 cities: German study of 500 cities: Increase in visitors Increase in sales from to 20-40% Increase in sales, from to 20-40%

Pedestrianization as tool for revitalization =revitalization =

MANY CHALLENGES:MANY CHALLENGES:

Slow business vacancies Slow business, vacancies

Serious risk involved Serious risk involved

Increase in footfall disproportionate to increase in Increase in footfall disproportionate to increase in sales

Not all streets are suitable

guidelines for successg

Fine-grained street fabricg Unified management committee Access to both public transit AND parking

C iti l f i it Critical mass of visitors Cleanliness Variety among businesses Variety among businesses Food-related commerce Street width ≤ 15 m Segment length ≤ 4 km East-west street orientation

Implications for transportp p

Most not be too interruptive for cars or public Most not be too interruptive for cars or public transit

Short-term: Increase transit ridership decrease congestion

L t Long-term: Affect land use planning and transportation

Case study: Ste. Catherine StreetStreet History of opposition to pedestrianization in History of opposition to pedestrianization in

Montreal

Why Sainte-Catherine St.?

Mini-pilot projects in 2006, 2007

Case study: Ste. Catherine StreetStreet

Pilot Pedestrianization Project: June 19 September 3 2008June 19 – September 3, 20081.4 km closed to traffic from Berri to Papineau

Survey y

Designed and conducted over summer 2008 Designed and conducted over summer 2008 by Ahmed El-Geneidy and researchers at TRAM:Lisa Kastelberger, Kevin Manaugh, and Paul Tétreault

Survey objectivesy j Evaluate businesses’ perceptions of the street closure before

d d i th il t j tand during the pilot project

Understand which benefits and drawbacks businesses i d d t d t iexperienced and expected to experience

Compare the different levels of appreciation expressed by (A) restaurants, bars, and clubs; (B) retail; (C) personal services

Evaluate the expectations of businesses with regard to future street closures

Methodologygy

50 initial surveys completed via door-to-door 50 initial surveys completed via door to door interviews with sales people; June, 2008

50 follow-up surveys completed via door-to-door interviews with sales people; August,door interviews with sales people; August, 2008

7-question survey form, fairly open-ended, completed in French or English, depending oncompleted in French or English, depending on the respondent’s preference.

Profile of respondentsp

70 businesses surveyed :70 businesses surveyed :

54% restaurants bars and clubs 54% restaurants, bars, and clubs 34% retail

12% l i 12% personal services

Findingsg

Follow-up survey: AugustInitial survey: June 2008 Follow-up survey: August 2008

Businesses in favor of street closure:Yes No Indifferent

Businesses that would like street closure to be repeated:

20%

Yes No Indifferent

12%

Yes No Indifferent

58%22%

14%

22%

74%

Findingsg


Businesses that expected to benefit:

Yes No

Businesses that benefitted:

Yes No

27%

Yes No Yes No

27%

62%

38%

73%

62%

Findingsg


Expected benefits Perceived benefits

7%

6%4% New, increased

clientele 7%4% 4% New, increased

clientele

64%

19%

7%Nicer atmosphere

More tourism

More visibilty

48%

37%

Nicer atmosphere

More tourism

More pedestrians

More security More security

Findingsg


Businesses that anticipated drawbacks:

Yes No

Businesses that experienced drawbacks:

Yes NoYes No Yes No

61%

39%

54%

46%

Findingsg


Expected drawbacks Experienced drawbacks

6%6%

Parking problems

Increase in noise, theft, litter, or vandalism

0%0% 6%

3%3%

Parking problems

Increase in noise, theft litter, and vandalism

31%

13%

9% Delivery difficulties

More vehicle congestion

43%

27%0%

0%0% 6% Delivery difficulties

More vehicle congestion

19%16%Less accessibility

Drop in business

12%

Less accessibility

Drop in business

Findingsg


Initial perception of street closure by business type

Businesses in favor of repeating street closure

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Indifferent

Not in favor

In favor 20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Indifferent

Not in favor

In favor

0%

10%

20%

Restaurants, bars, and

clubs

Retail Personal services

0%

10%

20%

Restaurants, bars, and

clubs

Retail Personal services

Conclusions

Ste Catherine St has a lot of potential for Ste. Catherine St. has a lot of potential for seasonal street closure as both an urban quality improvement and for economic q y previtalization;

Pedestrianization will most likely change the y gcharacter of the neighborhood;

City should use such survey results to improve y y pthe quality of the scheme.

Merci

Questions please Questions please

City Council Agenda September 4, 2012/ Page 1

File No.: E.1.151 Central File No.: 8450.14


Subject: LAND USE BYLAW AMENDMENT: ADDITION OF DOWNTOWN DISTRICT AND REDISTRICTING Recommendation(s): Bylaw 19/2012 – Land Use Bylaw – Text Amendment – Downtown District (New District)

1. That Bylaw 19/2012, being amendment 91 to Land Use Bylaw 9/2005, be read a first time.

2. That Bylaw 19/2012 be read a second time.

3. That unanimous consent be given for consideration of third reading of Bylaw 19/2012.

4. That Bylaw 19/2012 be read a third and final time.

Bylaw 20/2012 – Land Use Bylaw Redistricting (Schedule A - Map) 1. That Bylaw 20/2012, being amendment 92 to Land Use Bylaw 9/2005, be read a first time.

2. That Bylaw 20/2012 be read a second time.

3. That unanimous consent be given for consideration of third reading of Bylaw 20/2012.

4. That Bylaw 20/2012 be read a third and final time. Report Summary: Land Use Bylaw Text Amendment Addition of the Downtown District (DT) Bylaw 19/2012 This proposed Land Use Bylaw Amendment adds the new Downtown District to the existing Land Use Bylaw (LUB). The development of the Downtown District is the first step in the implementation process of the Downtown Area Redevelopment Plan (DARP) and bringing the LUB into conformance with the DARP. The new district incorporates the policies of DARP into the Land Use Bylaw and will allow development to proceed that meets the vision and policies of the DARP. Land Use Bylaw Redistricting Bylaw 20/2012 At this time, a redistricting is proposed that will apply to the Perron Street and Gateway on the Trail character areas. Legislative History: On September 26, 2011 Council passed the following resolution: (C608-2011) That the Downtown Area Redevelopment Plan (DARP) implementation Amendments - Terms of Reference, dated September 2011 be approved.


File No.:E.1.151 Central File No.: 8450.14

Report: The development of the Downtown District (DT) is the first step in the implementation of the DARP. A new district has been developed that will eventually apply to the entire downtown. The District is based on the policies of the DARP and the existing Mixed Commercial (MC) and Downtown Residential (DR) Districts. Many of the regulations in the new District are similar to the existing districts, but by combining them together with the DARP policies, a single district allows for greater flexibility and a cohesive approach to land use in downtown, and helps streamline the development process. There are two proposed amendments to the Land Use Bylaw 9/2005. The first amendment is to create a new land use district and to amend specific sections of text in the Land Use Bylaw related to that. The second amendment is to redistrict the Perron Street and Gateway on the Trail character areas to the Downtown (DT) District. These amendments are consistent with the Municipal Development Plan and bring the Land Use Bylaw into conformance with the DARP. Staging of the Downtown District The current scope of the DT is limited to the Perron Street and Gateway on the Trail character areas as outlined in DARP. The western areas, the Riverfront and Millennium Heights character areas, will be added to the Downtown District after the realignment of St. Anne Street is completed. The parcel configuration in these areas needs to be established, as part of the road realignment, before redistricting can occur. Amendment 1: Bylaw 19/2012 – Land Use Bylaw – Text Amendment – Downtown District (New District) The purpose of the proposed Downtown District is:

“to provide for a vibrant downtown that includes a mixture of employment opportunities, commercial, institutional, government and medium to high-density residential land uses with a focus on high-quality design of any development including the public realm. Development in the Downtown should be compact, attractive, pedestrian-friendly and compatible with surrounding areas, and be a unique, recognizable neighbourhood. Developments within this land use district should provide a variety of housing options, the provision of commercial and residential uses within the same structure, and an appropriate mix of uses to create a community where residents have the opportunity to live, work and play.”

The Downtown District (DT) proposes 47 permitted and discretionary uses, the majority of which have been carried over from the existing Mixed Commercial (MC) District. In addition, urban design review requirements and performance standards for development have been incorporated. The key changes in this new district from current zoning regulations include:



Category Proposed changes Uses • New permitted and discretionary uses introduced to the district:

Mixed Use Building, Parking Structure, Bicycle Parking Station, Communal Amenity Space, Public Market, Park, Plaza, Supportive Housing; and

• Clarifies which uses are permitted or discretionary on ground floor street frontages and in which Character Area.

Views and Vistas • Designated building heights will preserve the views and vistas. Building Height and Lot Coverage

• Simplifies permitted floor areas and building heights as per DARP.

Building Frontage and Streetscape

• No changes in setbacks; • Encourages storefront retail along key commercial streets (‘A’

streets); • Ensures continuity of the streetscape and pedestrian orientation

is the priority. Building Design and Architectural Standards

• Greater clarity of design and architectural standards for: windows; building projections; doors and entries; and finishes and amenity areas.

Residential Development • Residential development along ‘A’ streets permitted above grade only; and

• There will be additional provisions for residential development in the Riverfront and Millennium Heights character areas in the future.

On-site and Surface Parking • No changes in parking requirements; • Some locations will be guided by design guidelines; and • Surface parking lots will not be permitted along ‘A’ streets.

Signage • Must be pedestrian oriented along streetscapes. Urban Design Review

• Requirements are provided for an external Urban Design Review

for selected development applications (coordinated by the City); • All applicants may request an Urban Design Review by the City;

and • Recommendations of the design review will be considered

during the review process. Application Requirements

• Additional studies may be required by the Development Officer such as: • A Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design

(CPTED) review; • A sun/shadow/wind study for taller buildings; and/or • Design drawings including various details and phasing,

transportation routes, amenity areas, and colour scheme and finishing of the building.

Performance Standards

• Performance Standards help ensure consistent, high-quality design in keeping with the overall vision in the DARP. These include: • A mixed use, lively, vibrant and balanced downtown; • A safe environment; • High quality architectural features and finishing; and • Diversity in the streetscape.

Design Guidelines To guide developers in downtown development and those conducting Urban Design Reviews, Urban Design Guidelines for Downtown St. Albert (Attachment 3) have been developed. As guidelines, they do not require Council approval but are provided here, for information only.



Amendment 2: Bylaw 20/2012 – Land Use Bylaw Redistricting (LUB) (Schedule A - Map) Schedule A - Map The existing land use is Mixed Commercial (MC), Downtown Residential (DR) and Public and Private Service (PS). Administration is requesting that the new land use district of Downtown District (DT) be applied to the lands identified in the Perron Street and Gateway on the Trail areas of downtown. This requires that Schedule A of the Land Use Bylaw be amended to show the change in land use. The map designation would be shown as DT. Public Comments from Circulation The draft Downtown District and Design Guidelines were circulated internally, to relevant external stakeholders and by mail to the impacted land and business owners located within the DT boundary affected by the Redistricting. All recipients were provided with a letter and a summary of the District and invited to meet with staff if they had any questions. Comments from thirteen community members were received by phone, e-mail, postal letter, and in person. In general, feedback was favourable to the proposed district; most inquirers sought further clarification on the district and its impacts. Planning staff met with the Perron Street committee of the Chamber of Commerce. In general they indicated support for moving forward with implementing the DARP and expressed concern for the restriction of office space from ground story spaces. No formal comments were received from either the Chamber or SAEDAC. A summary of all public consultation comments is included in Attachment 4. Key issues that were raised included: Key issue Planning and Development response Prohibiting office uses on the ground-storey along ‘A’ streets

DT has been amended to make professional offices a discretionary use.

Concerns of financial viability DT has been amended to make professional offices a discretionary use. This will broaden the lease market for building owners.

Parking No reductions have been made to existing parking regulations.

Link to Council or Corporate Objectives: Economic Development:

• Further revitalize the City’s downtown area by exploring opportunities with developers and examining options to improve parking and the Farmers’ Market Park and Ride.

Land Use Planning: • Necessary decisions are made to support progress of undeveloped and infill areas.

Financial Implications: There are no financial implications of note at this time. Legal Implications: There are no legal implications of note at this time.



Attachments: 1. Bylaw 19/2012 Being Amendment 91 to Land Use Bylaw 9/2005 – Downtown District 2. Bylaw 20/2012 Being Amendment 92 to Land Use Bylaw 9/2005 3. Draft Urban Design Guidelines: Downtown St. Albert 4. Public Comments – Proposed Downtown District Consultation

Report Date August 8, 2012 Originating Department Planning & Development Prepared by: Carol Bergum & Karen Oxley Approved by Tracy Allen, Acting GM City Manager Review Patrick Draper

Attachment 1

BYLAW 19/2012 (Page 1)

CITY OF ST. ALBERT

BYLAW 19/2012

Being Amendment 91 to Land Use Bylaw 9/2005

Downtown District NOW THEREFORE the Council of the City of St. Albert, duly assembled, hereby ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. Land Use Bylaw 9/2005 is amended by this Bylaw. 2. Land Use Bylaw 9/2005 is amended by inserting a new Part 11 - Mixed Use Districts,

“Section 11.1 Downtown (DT) Land Use District” being Schedule A to this bylaw. 3. Part 1, Section 1.5 Interpretation is amended by inserting as a new subsection (f) the

words “DT is a mixed use district” and realphabetizing the remaining subsections accordingly.

4. Part 1, Section 1.6 Definitions is amended by deleting the definitions for “bicycle parking

station” and “building frontage” and replacing them with new definitions, as follows: ““bicycle parking station” means the public or private provision of space and facilities to temporarily park bicycles that does not impede pedestrian or vehicle traffic;

“building frontage” means a wall or façade on the exterior of a building which faces a public roadway;”

5. Part 1, Section 1.6 Definitions is amended by inserting the following definitions, in

alphabetical sequence: “build-to line” means the line at which construction of a building frontage is to occur on a lot. A build-to-line runs parallel to, and is measured from, the front property line and is established to create an even building façade on a street; “common amenity space” means any portion of a development that is designed for the common usage of the owners and residents within a development. These areas may include plazas, private parks and open spaces, and in some cases parking lots and pedestrian walkways. Maintenance of such areas is the responsibility of a private entity, and is normally set forth in the form of private restrictive covenants, which guarantee the private maintenance of these areas;

“CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design)” means the broad study and design of environments to encourage desirable behaviour and functionality, and decrease antisocial behaviour;

“external urban design review” means a contracted expert third party or appointed committee review of building design and architecture; “fenestration” means the design and disposition of doors, windows and other exterior openings of a building; “ground storey” means the bottom storey of a building located at the street level;

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disposition

Attachment 1


“internal urban design review” means a preliminary review of a development’s design and architecture conducted by City staff prior to a formal application being submitted; “mixed use building” means the development of a building or structure with a variety of complementary and integrated uses, including, but not limited to, residential, office, manufacturing, retail, public, or entertainment in a compact urban form; “park” means a tract of land designated and used by the public for active and passive recreation; “pedestal” means the bottom three to five storeys of a mid- or high-rise building upon which higher storeys are stepped back; “plaza” means an open space that may be improved and landscaped, usually surrounded by streets and buildings; “public market” means a temporary market set up indoors or outdoors comprising a variety of small scale and local vendors; “service lane” means a building access route for motor vehicles found in the rear of a building; “streetscape” means the area that lies between the street curb and the building frontage of the adjacent buildings, the role of which is to define the pedestrian corridor and the distinguishing character of a particular street, including landscaping, trees, lawns, sidewalks and other surfacing, lighting, street furniture and signage; “street wall” means the wall or fence of a building that is visible from the street; “tower component” means the high-rise portions of buildings on top of the pedestal; “uplighting” means outdoor lighting that angles upwards to the sky;

6. Part 1, Section 1.7 Designation of Districts (1) is amended by adding “Downtown (DT)”. 7. Part 6, Section 6.6 Corner Lots – Traffic Sight Lines, subsection (c) is amended by

inserting “, DT” after “MC”. 8. Part 6, Section 6.19 Prohibited Uses (1) is amended by inserting “drive-through business”

as subsection (k), and realphabetizing the rest of the section accordingly. 9. Part 6, Section 6.24 Telecommunication Towers (2) is amended by inserting “, DT” after

“DCNUV”. 10. Part 6, Section 6.24 Telecommunication Towers (3) is amended by inserting “, DT” after

“DCNUV”. 11. Part 7, Section 7.3 On-Site Parking Requirements, subsection (2) Non-residential use is

amended in subsections (g) and (n) by inserting “, DT”’ after “MC”. 12. Part 7, Section 7.3 On-Site Parking Requirements, subsection (3) Shopping Centre and

Multi-Tenant Buildings is amended in subsection (c) by inserting “, DT”’ after “MC”. 13. Part 7, Section 7.4 On-Site Parking Waiver Mixed Commercial is deleted in its entirety

and replaced with new Section 7.4, as follows:

”7.4 On-Site Parking Waiver Mixed Commercial

Attachment 1


(1) Any additional parking requirements necessitated by a change in use of

an existing building located within the MC or DT District may be waived by the Development Officer.

(2) Where an existing building is being enlarged within the MC or DT District,

additional parking requirements shall be provided only for that portion of the building being enlarged.

(3) On-site parking is not required for a building located in an MC or DT

District if the building is directly adjacent to the public parking lot located at 6 St. Anne Street.

(4) Parking requirements for new developments in the DT may be relaxed

subject to the limitations and other considerations as outlined in Section 3.14 at the discretion of the Development Officer if the proposed building is located within close proximity of a public parking lot or public parking structure.”

14. Part 7, Section 7.9 Off-Site Parking, subsection (2) is deleted in its entirety and replaced

with new subsection (2), as follows:

“(2) Off-Site Parking Levy – Mixed Commercial or Downtown Land Use District

In an MC or DT District, the Development Officer (a) may authorize the use of an Off-Site Parking Levy in place of on-site

parking required under Section 7.3 except in the case of a residential development; and

(b) shall determine the percentage of required parking spaces that may be

eliminated through the Off-Site Parking Levy.”

15. Part 9, Section 9.11 Satellite Dishes and Radio Antennas, subsection (a) is amended by inserting “, DT” after “DCMU”.

16. Schedule C, Section C.6 Regulations For Specific Types of Signs, is amended as follows:

(i) Subsection (4) Banner Sign, subsection (a) is amended by inserting “, DT” after “DCNUV”.

(ii) Subsection (10) Electronic Message Sign, subsection (b)(ii) is amended by

inserting “, DT” after “DCNUV”. (iii) Subsection (16) Projecting Sign, subsection (a) is amended by inserting “, DT”

after “DCNUV”.

Attachment 1


17. The Chief Administrative Officer is authorized to consolidate Bylaw 9/2005. READ a first time this ________ day of ______________ 2012. READ a second time this ________ day of ______________ 2012. READ a third time this ________ day of ______________ 2012. SIGNED AND PASSED this ________ day of _______________ 2012.

MAYOR

CHIEF LEGISLATIVE OFFICER

Part 11 Downtown District


11.1 Downtown (1) Application

This section applies to the areas designated as Downtown District (DT) as identified in Schedule A of this Bylaw, and Figure 23(a).

Figure 23 (a): Downtown District Perron Street and Gateway on the Trail Character Areas Identified.

Schedule A to BYLAW 19/2012



(2) Purpose The purpose is to provide for a vibrant downtown that includes a mixture of employment opportunities, commercial, institutional, government and medium to high-density residential land uses with a focus on high-quality design of any development including the public realm. Development in the Downtown should be compact, attractive, pedestrian-friendly and compatible with surrounding areas, and be a unique, recognizable neighbourhood. Developments within this land use district should provide a variety of housing options, the provision of commercial and residential uses within the same structure, and an appropriate mix of uses to create a community where residents have the opportunity to live, work and play.

To facilitate this, character areas are defined in accordance with the Downtown Area Redevelopment Plan (DARP) as shown on Figure 23(a). The transition between these character areas is expected to be seamless, and not a defined hard line. The character areas include:

(a) Perron Street

The Perron Street character area will provide the primary area for active street level commercial retail uses with moderately scaled buildings characterized by continuous storefront retail and pedestrian-oriented development.

(b) Gateway on the Trail

The Gateway on the Trail character area will provide an area for active street level uses and a wide array of uses including residential, professional office, and commercial uses that are of a scale and density appropriate to its prominent location along, or adjacent to, St. Albert Trail and its role as the primary entry point and gateway to Downtown.

(3) Permitted and Discretionary Land Uses For a use to be considered either a permitted or discretionary use in the DT, it must conform with all subsections of Section 11.1 (3). In addition the general regulations of Part 6, Sections 8.1 through 8.19, and Sections 9.1 through 9.11 will apply to the Downtown District unless otherwise specified in this District.

(a) Ground Storey

(i) on ‘A’ streets as shown on Figure 23(a), ground storeys shall house non-residential uses, with active retail uses preferred adjacent to the street.

(ii) the ground storey of buildings that have building frontages facing the river shall house non-residential uses, with active retail uses preferred.

(iii) for discretionary uses on the ground storey along ‘A’ streets, the Development Officer will consider: (A) interface and interaction of the proposed use with the streetscape; and

(B) generation of and attraction for pedestrians.

(b) Upper Storeys

(i) no non-residential use is permitted above a residential use.

(c) Uses, whether permitted (p) or discretionary (d), shall be in accordance with the following tables:

(i) Non-Residential Uses Use Categories Perron character area Gateway character area

a. art gallery (p) (p)



b. artist studio (d) (d) c. business support service (d) for ground storey on ‘A’

streets, otherwise (p) (d) for ground storey on ‘A’

streets, otherwise (p) d. cinema (p) (p) e. community hall (d) (d) f. convenience store (d) (p) g. day care facility (d) (d) h. drinking establishment (d) (d) i. financial institution (d) for ground storey on ‘A’


streets, otherwise (p) j. general retail store with a

gross floor area up to 400 sq.m

(p) (p)

k. general retail store with a gross floor area over 400 sq.m

(d) (d)

l. general service; (d) for ground storey on ‘A’ streets, otherwise (p)

(d) for ground storey on ‘A’ streets, otherwise (p)

m. government service (d) for ground storey on ‘A’ streets, otherwise (p)

(d) for ground storey on ‘A’ streets, otherwise (p)

n. grocery store (d) (d) o. health service (d) for ground storey on ‘A’


streets, otherwise (p) p. hotel (d) (p) q. household repair service (d) (d) r. indoor recreation service (d) for ground storey on ‘A’


streets, otherwise (p) s. liquor store (d) (d) t. pool hall (d) ground storey,

otherwise (p) (d) ground storey,

otherwise (p) u. professional office (d) for ground storey on ‘A’


streets, otherwise (p) v. public utility building (d) (d) w. residential sales centre (d) for ground storey on ‘A’

streets, otherwise (p) (p)

x. religious assembly (d) (d) y. restaurant (p) (p) z. school, commercial (d) for ground storey on ‘A’


streets, otherwise (p) aa. shopping centre (d) (d) bb. specialty store (p) (p) cc. take-out restaurant (p) (p) dd. theatre (p) (p) ee. veterinary clinics without

outdoor kennels, pens, runs, or other similar enclosures

(d) (d)

(ii) Residential Uses

Use Categories Perron character area Gateway character area

a. apartment building - (d) b. dwelling unit (p) above ground storey (p) above ground storey c. family day home (p) except on ground storey (d) on ground storey,



on ‘A’ streets otherwise (p) d. home occupation (p) except on ground storey

on ‘A’ streets (d) on ground storey,

otherwise (p) e. live / work unit (BL

14/2008) (d) (d)

f. townhousing (d) (d) g. mixed use building, all

uses with in the building must meet requirements of 11.1(3).

(p) (p)

h. supportive housing (p) except on ground storey on ‘A’ streets

(p) except on ground storey on ‘A’ streets

i. long term care housing (p) except on ground storey on ‘A’ streets

(p) except on ground storey on ‘A’ streets

(iii) Other

Use Categories Perron character area Gateway character area

a. parking lot at finished grade

Not permitted on ‘A’ Streets, otherwise (d)

(d)

b. parking structure (d), if on ‘A’ street, must have ground storey non-

residential uses in accordance with Section

11.15 (3)

(d)

c. bicycle parking (p) (p) d. park (p) (p) e. plaza (p) (p) f. wall mural (d) (d) g. accessory development

to a use listed in (i), (ii) or (iii)

(d) (d)



(4) Pre-Application Requirements In addition to the application requirements of Section 3.3 of this Bylaw, an applicant for development permit within the DT Land Use District must submit to the satisfaction of the Development Officer:

(a) A conceptual site development plan showing the subject area and adjacent areas within the DT district as well as the proposed building types and locations, development phasing, vehicular and pedestrian routes and connectivity with the rest of Downtown, and amenity areas in accordance with the purpose of this District;

(b) Design drawings illustrating the colour scheme and building materials in accordance with Section 11.1 (8);

(c) Elevation drawings demonstrating how the building contributes to the streetscape;

(d) Urban Design Recommendations Report as per Section 11.1 (5); and

(e) Any other studies that may be requested by the Development Officer including but not limited to:

(i) Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) study to be submitted at the time of a development permit application;

(ii) sun/shadow and/or wind study for buildings greater than eight (8) storeys in height; or

(iii) geotechnical report.

(5) Urban Design Review There are two types of reviews:

(a) External Urban Design Review

An External Urban Design Review is required for any development that:

(i) has a total building footprint greater than 2,500 sq. m; (ii) is located on a Landmark Site identified in Figure 23(a); (iii) is located on a corner; (iv) is greater than eight (8) storeys in height; or (v) in the opinion of the Development Officer is deemed to have significant impact on

the subject Character Area’s urban design. This review will result in an Urban Design Recommendations Report from a City-designated reviewer. This Urban Design Recommendations Report is a requirement of the development permit application and will include recommendations from the reviewer that may range from acknowledgement of positive design qualities of the proposal to suggestions for a design that better complies with the City’s policies and plans related to downtown.

Applicants are expected to consider and implement, wherever possible, any recommendations of the Urban Design Recommendations Report into the final application.

(b) Internal Urban Design Review

If a development does not require an External Urban Design Review, but an applicant wishes to receive recommendations related to urban design, they may request an Internal Urban Design Review by Planning and Development staff prior to submission of


BYLAW 19/2012 (Page 10)

an application. This review will result in an Urban Design Recommendations Report from staff designated by the Development Authority and will include recommendations that may range from acknowledgement of positive design qualities of the proposal, to suggestions for design that better complies with the City’s policies and plans related to downtown.

Applicants are expected to consider and implement, wherever possible, any recommendations of the Urban Design Recommendations Report into the final application.

(c) Performance Standards

In addition to the Urban Design Review Recommendations Report all applications shall be considered with regard to the following Performance Standards:

(i) site design contributes to streetscape and the character area; (ii) appropriate location of uses to support active streetscapes and fit within the

character areas; (iii) high quality building design integrated with streetscape and surrounding

buildings; (iv) pedestrian orientation; and (v) well-designed amenity areas.

(6) Development Regulations

(a) Building Height

Notwithstanding Section 1.8, the height of any principal building in this District is measured in storeys.

(i) notwithstanding Section 3.14, building height regulations differing from those outlined in Figure 23(a) may be considered by the Development Officer with consideration for the transitions between adjacent building designs and heights fitting with the street interaction, adjacent uses, streetscape and design methodology;

(ii) buildings shall have a minimum of three (3) storeys from grade before front stepbacks are introduced. Front stepbacks shall be a minimum of 3 m measured from the building frontage of the lower storeys. Additional front stepbacks may be required at higher storeys if, in the opinion of the Development Officer, it is necessary to enhance the pedestrian scale of the streetscape or to mitigate wind, sun or shadow impacts;

(iii) any pedestal portion of the building shall be three (3) storeys. If in the opinion of the Development Officer, the building design addresses the Performance Standards of Section 11.1 (5)(c), that may be increased to five (5) storeys;

(iv) a minimum separation distance of 25 m is required between tower components of buildings above three storeys on adjacent lots, measured from building frontage as measured at the first storey above the pedestal;

(v) antennas installed on the roof of buildings will be counted as a part of the total building or structure height; and

(vi) telecommunications installations shall be in compliance with Section 6.24.

Figure 23(b): Building heights and stepbacks.


BYLAW 19/2012 (Page 11)

(b) Ground Storey Height: Commercial Uses

The ground storey height shall be a minimum of 4 m floor-to-floor height.

(7) Site Design Standards

(a) Building Frontage

(i) buildings located on a corner shall comply with Section 6.6 (c); (ii) the build-to line shall be the front property line. The build-to line may be

adjusted, up to 3 m back from the front property line, to accommodate a recessed entrance, rest area, courtyard, outdoor cafe, communal amenity space, building recess or similar amenity if, in the opinion of the Development Officer: (A) the design of the building frontage and build-to line maintains the

continuity of the streetscape;

(B) pedestrian amenity is maintained; and

(C) recessed entrances comply with Section 11.1 (8)(b). (iii) on each lot, the first three (3) storeys of a building frontage shall be built to a

consistent build-to line for at least 80% of the required building frontage width. This may be reduced if, in the opinion of the Development Officer, the proposed development of the building frontage: (A) accommodates a courtyard

or plaza that is pedestrian oriented;

(B) is designed in such a way as to enhance and maintain the continuity of the streetscape and adjacent development;

(C) is landscaped in accordance with Section 6.13 and enhances and maintains the continuity of the streetscape to the satisfaction of the Development Officer; and

(D) site plan is designed and buildings are sited to maximize streetscape and pedestrian continuity and vehicle flow.

(iv) a street wall or fence, (not less than 1 m or more than 2 m in height), or landscaping to the satisfaction of the Development Officer, is required along the build-to line for any lot that is not occupied by a principal building. The height of the wall or fence shall be measured from the lowest point of the adjacent public sidewalk. The location of any build-to line will be determined by existing adjacent buildings.

(b) Building Frontage Variation

(i) ground floor frontages on ‘A’ streets shall be divided into horizontal units to a maximum width of 15 m; and

Figure 23(c): Sample site plan showing building setbacks.


BYLAW 19/2012 (Page 12)

(ii) ground floor commercial uses greater than 400 sq. m shall: (A) have a building frontage designed to resemble smaller retail units; or (B) have actual smaller retail units along the building frontage with separate

functioning entrances from the street; or (C) have a building frontage design that, in the opinion of the Development

Officer, enhances and maintains the continuity of the streetscape and supports pedestrian activity.

(c) Side Yard Setbacks

The first three (3) storeys of all buildings shall be developed to the side property lines except where, in the opinion of the Developer Officer, a setback of no less than 3 m may be permitted if:

(i) it is to accommodate a rest area, courtyard, shopping court, outdoor cafe or similar amenity;

(ii) pedestrian amenity and safety is maintained; (iii) the variance does not create a visual gap or discontinuity of the architectural form

or rhythm of the streetscape; and/or (iv) to accommodate a pedestrian walkway or service lane.

(d) Rear Lot Setbacks

The rear yard building setback, to a maximum of 50% of the lot depth from the rear property line, shall be determined by the Development Officer taking into account:

(i) adjacent and on-site uses; (ii) access to service lanes; and (iii) on-site parking requirements.

(e) Lot Coverage

Buildings may occupy the portion of the lot according to the following:

(i) development shall be restricted to a maximum of 95% lot coverage to allow for door openings and access;

(ii) for tower developments above eight (8) storeys, floor plates for storeys above the podium shall be no greater than 750 sq. m for residential and hotel uses; and generally no greater than 2,000 sq. m for all other uses.

(iii) the Development Officer may impose a lot coverage limitation on a specific site to minimize any negative impacts of the development on: (A) visual appearance of the streetscape and/or adjacent developments;

(B) appearance and function of pedestrian amenity areas; and

(C) rear setback requirements as per Section 11.1(8)(c).

(e) Parking

(i) there shall be no surface parking between buildings and a public street including St. Albert Trail;

(ii) parking access from a public street shall only be permitted if, in the opinion of the Development Officer, the proposed access: (A) is in compliance with City of St. Albert’s current Municipal Engineering

Standards and The Transportation Association of Canada;

(B) is necessary because access from a service lane is not feasible;


BYLAW 19/2012 (Page 13)

(C) does not front on to an ‘A’ street as identified on Figure 23(a); and

(D) will not interfere with the continuity of the streetscape, pedestrian movement or safety along a public street.

(iii) parking lots, on-site parking and parking structures shall have pedestrian access to nearby pedestrian areas to the satisfaction of the Development Officer; and

(iv) vehicle and pedestrian accesses shall be designed to reduce vehicle and pedestrian conflicts.

(f) On-Site and Surface Parking

Notwithstanding Part 7, Parking Regulations and Section 3.14 of this Bylaw:

(i) on-site parking shall be located behind the primary building and accessed from a service lane;

(ii) where a surface parking lot is adjacent to any public street or public open space, the lot must be screened to the satisfaction of the Development Officer.

(iii) parking for residential uses shall be provided in below grade or structured parking facilities within the development site; and

(iv) surface parking lots shall not exceed 2,000 sq. m in size.

(g) Parking Structures

(i) the design of parking structures shall be vertically oriented and integrated with the streetscape;

(ii) the ground storeys of parking structures facing ‘A streets must incorporate compatible non-residential uses in accordance with Section 11.1 (3);

(iii) residential uses will not be permitted below parking levels; (iv) both internal and external design of the parking structure shall have regard to

CPTED principles; (v) in order to reduce impacts, buildings frontage, including those visible from

adjoining properties and/or public streets, shall incorporate a high degree of visual interest through the use of: (A) color change;

(B) texture change;

(C) material module change;

(D) expression of architectural or structural bays through change in place no less than 30 cm in width, such as an offset, reveal or projecting rib; or

(E) any other feature that, in the opinion of the Development Officer, creates and identifiable pattern and sense of human scale.

(vi) no uninterrupted length of building frontage shall exceed 30 m including any building frontage visible from adjoining properties and/or public street.

(h) Roof Top Mechanical

In addition to the requirements of Section 9.10 of this Bylaw, roof top mechanical equipment or elevator housing equipment shall be enclosed on the front, top and sides or be incorporated into the overall building design if necessary to the satisfaction of the Development Officer.


BYLAW 19/2012 (Page 14)

(i) Service Lanes

(i) future service lanes shall be permitted in accordance with Figure 23(d);

(ii) service lanes may be designed as multi-use, hard landscaped environments for safe and comfortable use by pedestrians and service vehicles;

(iii) access to service lanes may be controlled through the installation of removable bollards; and

(iv) waste and recycling pick up, delivery and other building functions shall be located to the rear of buildings adjacent to service lanes, or internal to blocks to ensure that servicing functions do not interfere with movements on public streets.

(j) Location of Utilities

(i) the visibility of utility boxes shall be minimized by placing boxes in inconspicuous places, and/or by screening them with plantings. Screening should not interfere with access to the utility or traffic visibility.

(ii) services and utilities shall be buried, where practical. Where utility poles are necessary, their joint use shall be maximized to minimize their visual impact.

(k) Outdoor Lighting

In addition to the requirements of Section 6.16 of this bylaw, the following will be considered:

(i) excessive illumination and uplighting should be avoided;

(ii) timing of illumination should coincide with anticipated activities;

(iii) exterior lighting fixtures shall be in keeping with good design practice, and complement building design;

(iv) development proposals shall clearly indicate exterior lighting fixture locations and types; and

(v) all outdoor lighting within the Downtown District shall be of a design and style that are consistent with the purpose of this District to the satisfaction of the Development Officer in consultation with Public Works, and shall provide safety and security and, for fixtures in highly visible locations, add visual interest.

Figure 23(d): Downtown District Service Lanes.


BYLAW 19/2012 (Page 15)

(l) Other

(i) if development is adjacent to the Sturgeon River and Red Willow Park system environmental issues shall be considered , including water quality and quantity, and flooding in the overall site and building design; and

(ii) buildings must be named, have a visible address number and include an exterior date stamp easily visible from a public street.

(8) Building Design and Architectural Standards In addition to the requirements of Section 6.7 (1) of this Bylaw, the exterior of buildings located in the Downtown District must be designed in accordance with the following:

(a) Windows

(i) the fenestration area is the area on the ground storey building frontages facing a public street that is a minimum of 0.6 m above the sidewalk and extending up to 2.4 m above the sidewalk;

(ii) for ground storey building frontages facing ‘A’ streets, at least 70% of the fenestration area shall be transparent glazing that is not covered (either internally or externally) and that allows interior activity to be seen from the street. In addition, windows: (A) should have proportions of 2:3

(width: height) or narrower;

(B) should use multiple-paned windows;

(C) should have window frame members of substantial depth and recessed from the building frontage to provide architectural interest in the streetscape;

(D) for any building frontage facing any street other than an ‘A’ street, shall have transparent glazing for a minimum of 40% and a maximum of 70% of the fenestration area; and

(E) shall have, at minimum, one transparent window on each of the ground storey and second storey of a building frontage that faces a surface parking lot, service lane, or pedestrian walkway that allows full viewing of the area.

(b) Doors and Entries

(i) all non-residential ground storey units facing a public street shall have, at minimum, one direct functioning public entrance from that public street;

(ii) all pedestrian entrances shall be encouraged to provide overhead weather protection;

(iii) all commercial entrances along ‘A’ streets as identified in Figure 23(a) must have barrier-free access; and

(iv) any development on a corner lot, shall be encouraged to have its main entrance angled on the corner. Otherwise, one entrance is required on each public street it faces.

Figure 23(e): Building Frontage Design.


BYLAW 19/2012 (Page 16)

(c) Building Projections

Building projections must be designed to the satisfaction of the Development Officer and have regard for the requirements of Section 11.1 (6)(c) in addition to the following: (i) balconies shall be designed as integral components of the building and shall not

project over or into amenity spaces or City property; (ii) An awning or canopy or other architectural feature to protect pedestrians from

the elements must: (A) project a distance that, in the

opinion of the Development Officer, provides ample protection for pedestrians;

(B) shall maintain a minimum 0.6 m setback from the outside edge of the curb line in keeping with the adjacent streetscape;

(C) have a vertical clearance of at least 2.5 m and at most 4 m above the sidewalk;

(D) have a sloping profile, or be designed so as to provide effective shedding of rain, be self-cleaning by rain and wind, and to minimize snow-loading;

(E) be constructed of durable, colourfast material which minimizes the effects of dirt and discolouration (such as striped, patterned, dark-coloured and plasticized fabric);

(F) if glazing is incorporated into a canopy, it must be safety-glass, or fire-resistant and ultra-violet resistant plastic;

(G) awnings and canopies may be illuminated;

(H) if the frontage occurs on an inclined grade, the design of awnings, canopies, building recesses, or recessed arcades must be stepped or inclined to follow the incline to minimize differences in finished grades between the public sidewalk and the development;

(iii) An awning or canopy or other architectural feature shall have regard for the following:

(A) if awnings or canopies or their supporting structures encroach on City

property, a written encroachment agreement is required;

(B) awnings and canopies may be illuminated;

(C) the design of awnings, canopies, building recesses, and recessed arcades must provide continuity and harmony between adjoining developments with respect to materials, colour and pitch; and

(D) signage on awnings and canopies must comply with the regulation of Schedule C Section C.6(2).

Figure 23(f): Awning and building projection requirements.


BYLAW 19/2012 (Page 17)

(d) Appearance of Building

The exterior finishes of buildings shall have regard for section 11.1 (6)(c), be of high quality materials and shall be finished to the satisfaction of the Development Officer in accordance with the following:

(i) be of high quality design and include durable and attractive building finishing materials such as, but not limited to: brick, brick veneer, stone, marble, tile, glass, stamped concrete or a combination of any material mentioned;

(ii) the use of vinyl siding on building frontages shall be prohibited; (iii) provide a variation in building materials and design treatments on the lower floors

of buildings on a block to reduce perceived mass; (iv) appropriate materials for walls and fencing include wrought iron for fences, brick,

or brick veneer for walls; or a combination of brick or brick veneer base wall and wrought iron fencing; and

(v) for building frontages facing ‘A’ streets, a minimum of 70% of the non-glazed area of the ground and second storey building frontage that faces a public street, an exposed side façade or a residential district shall be finished in brick or other high quality finish to the satisfaction of the Development Officer.

(e) Amenity Areas

(i) For all non-residential amenity areas, landscaping and site design shall provide a clear distinction between the private and public realm. High quality landscaping and design shall be used to denote changes in exterior elevation or the use of materials to the satisfaction of the Development Officer;

(ii) all residential developments shall provide at least one of the following forms of common amenity areas: (A) an indoor / outdoor courtyard;

(B) a rooftop garden;

(C) an outdoor patio;

(D) a community room;

(E) a pool; or

(F) any other common amenity deemed appropriate by the Development Officer.

(iii) residential common amenity areas must: (A) if at ground level, be screened with a fence or wall with a minimum

height of 1.2 m;

(B) have a landscape buffer, to the satisfaction of the Development Officer, at least 1 m wide if adjacent to a public area; or

(C) have some other means that, in the opinion of the Development Officer, clearly delineates the public and private space.

(iv) underground garage vents should be integrated into hard surface areas with limited impact on pedestrian amenity or landscaped areas.

(9) Signage In addition to the requirements of Schedule C of this Bylaw, the Development Officer shall consider the following with regard to signage:


BYLAW 19/2012 (Page 18)

(a) Pedestrian Scale

Signs in this district should be designed and built at a scale suitable for pedestrian interaction.

(b) Reflection of Building Image

Signs should enhance and complement the building’s image. Materials, content and colours suggesting the building’s use and occupancy, shall be of an appearance and a quality complementary to the building.

(c) Reflection of the Streetscape

Signage in the DT must be complementary to the streetscape and adjacent buildings.

Attachment 2


CITY OF ST. ALBERT

BYLAW 20/2012

Being Amendment 92 to Land Use Bylaw 9/2005

(Perron Street & Gateway on the Trail) NOW THEREFORE the Council of the City of St. Albert, duly assembled, hereby ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. Schedule “A”, being the Land Use District Map to Land Use Bylaw 9/2005, is amended by

this Bylaw. 2. The lands legally described as:

Lots 78-82 incl.; Block 4; Plan 002-2499 Plan 012-0542 Plan 012-2546 Plan 032-4015, 042-1876, 042-4195 Lot 77; Block 4; 032-5961 Lot 56,57; Block 3; 042-2500 Plan 082-5516 Plan 102-4050 Lots 57,60; Plan 243KS Lots 18A,19 &19A; Block 5; 3654KS Lot 61; Block 5; Plan 782-2207 Lot 29A; Block 5; Plan 792-0200 Lot 1; Block 5; Plan 792-1723 Lot 63; Block 5; Plan 802-0382 Lot 65; Block 5; Plan 822-2311 Lot 65; Block 4; Plan 832-0658 Lot 66; Block 5; Plan 912-3681 Plan 922-1626 Lot 67; Block 4; Plan 932-0551 Lots 68, 69 & 70; Block 4; Plan 952-3186 Lot 76; Block 4; Plan 952-5385 Lot 77; Block 4; Plan 992-2518 Lots 17,18,23,24,25, 31-44 incl.,56; Block 5; Plan G Lots 73; Block 4; Plan G Lot A; Plan 772-0845 known municipally as the Perron Street and Gateway on the Trail character areas, shall be redistricted from Mixed Commercial (MC), Public and Private Service (PS) and Downtown Residential (DR) Land Use Districts to Downtown (DT) Land Use District, as shown on the map below.

Attachment 2


3. The Chief Administrative Officer is authorized to consolidate Bylaw 9/2005. READ a first time this ________ day of ________________ 2012. READ a second time this ________ day of ________________ 2012. READ a third time this ________ day of ________________ 2012. SIGNED AND PASSED this ________ day of ________________ 2012.

MAYOR

CHIEF LEGISLATIVE OFFICER

Attachment 3

Draft

Urban Design Guidelines Downtown St. Albert

SEPTEMBER 2012

P a g e | 1

City of St. Albert Urban Design Guidelines

Intent The goal of the downtown Urban Design Review process and these guidelines is to ensure the thoughtful integration of development proposals into their local context, and consistency with standards articulated in City Plan, St. Albert Municipal Development Plan Bylaw 15/2007 as well as the Downtown Redevelopment Plan Bylaw (DARP) 5/2010 as amended. All new development should enhance the liveability of St. Albert’s urban environment and create high quality and innovative design.

The principles and guidelines outlined in this document should be taken as the minimum standard to support design excellence in St. Albert. It will be left to the skill and creativity of design professionals and builders to determine and demonstrate how these principles and guidelines are to be achieved or exceeded. This design guideline document is designed to compliment section 9.15 of the Land Use Bylaw and Downtown Area Redevelopment Plan Bylaw 5/2010 as amended.

The design review process will offer recommendations based on local knowledge, experience and expertise regarding design excellence for new developments.

The area of the City affected by these guidelines is within the boundaries established by the DARP.

P a g e | 2


Application, Design Review and Approval Process

Step 1–Pre-Application Consultation In order to facilitate the processing of applications, any applications must schedule a pre-application meeting. This will allow staff to review the plans for development or redevelopment and provide feedback and direction in preparing the formal application for submission. It will also enable staff to initiate the Urban Design Review process prior to submission, which will allow the applicant to address and incorporate any urban design recommendations into the application prior to submission. As well as discuss other matters such as servicing, public consultation and council updates.

Redistricting, Area Redevelopment Plan Amendment and Subdivision Application An application requiring redistricting, an Area Redevelopment Plan Amendment or a subdivision requires a Pre-application meeting with Planning staff.

Step 2 – Design Review There are two types of Urban Design Review, Internal and External Reviews, of which both reviews are included in the application fees and will be co-ordinated by City staff prior to an application being formally submitted. This review and the guidelines provided here do not pre-empt the regulations in the Land Use Bylaw but are intended to assist applicants in bringing forward developments in accordance with the DARP principles and Land Use Bylaw regulations.

External Urban Design Review An External Design Review prior to submission of the application is required for any proposed development that:

Is greater than 1,500 sq m; Is located on a Special Overlay Site as identified on Map 1; Is located on a corner; Is greater than 3 storeys (15 m) in height; or In the opinion of the Development Officer is deemed to have significant impact on the

character area’s urban design. The City contracts a third-party urban design specialist to review the proposal with regard to the principles of the DARP and the regulations of the Land Use Bylaw. The reviewer will then provide an Urban Design Recommendations Report. This Report must be included with the development permit application and will include comments from the reviewer that may range from acknowledgement of positive design qualities of the proposal to suggestions that encourage a design that better complies with the City’s policies and plans related to downtown.

Internal Urban Design Review Applicants that do not require an External Urban Design Review may request an Internal Urban Design Review by Planning and Development Staff prior to submission of an application. An Urban Design Recommendations Report described above will be provided and recommendations are intended to provide the applicant with direction that may range from acknowledgement of positive design qualities of the proposal, to suggestions that encourage a design that better complies with the City’s policies and plans related to downtown.

Urban Design Review submission If an Urban Design Review is required or requested, the applicant shall submit to the Development Branch:

P a g e | 3


Urban design review application form; and Design drawings, elevations, or any other materials as required by the Development

Officer.

Upon completion, the Urban Design Recommendations Report will be forwarded to the City.

Step 3 – Public consultation As per City of St. Albert City Council Policy: Public Consultation requirements for Planning and Development processes.

Step 4 – Application Submission The applicant may then submit a formal application for a Development Permit to the Planning and Development (P&D) Branch, in accordance with Section 3.3 of the Land Use Bylaw, and will include a rationale for any design recommendations that have not been incorporated into the application if they choose to go forward with the application.

The Development Branch will formally review the development permit application and circulate the application to relevant city departments and external stakeholders. If the Development Officer finds issues with the application, they will notify the applicant, and work with the applicant to address them. The Development Officer has 40 days, in accordance with provincial legislation, in which to make a decision.

Step 5 – Recommendation and Approval The Urban Design Recommendations Report will outline the proposed design and its compliance with City design policy and guidelines, and will recommend improvements that can be made to the building design and architecture. Based on the recommendations, City staff will work with the applicant on how the recommendations could be incorporated into the final building design and architecture. The Development Officer will then complete the processing of the Development Permit Application.

For further information on application requirements and the design review process please contact Planning and Development at 780-459-1642.

P a g e | 4


Design Review Guidelines Urban design considers the physical characteristics of the city and the impact of design and planning decisions on the public realm. Urban design helps to smoothly integrate components of the built environment including architecture, landscape design, engineering and land use planning. This integrated approach helps create visually attractive and functional neighbourhoods and communities.

These urban design guidelines address how various public and private developments affect people’s experience of downtown focusing on the public realm of the city including such things as the public faces of buildings, streets, sidewalks, parks or plazas. It is these elements that provide the backdrop to people’s experiences and activities, and ensure a thriving, vibrant, and welcoming downtown. All designs must have regard for safety and CPTED (Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) principles. These guidelines help establish coordination of the built environment on both public and private land to support the overall vision for the neighbourhood. The focus for the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines and design review process includes:

Downtown Character Areas; Mobility, circulation and connectivity; The Public Realm; Land Use and Site Development Building and Architectural Design; and

Specialized Guidelines are provided for two elements that can have a significant impact on downtown:

High-Rise Buildings; and Parking and Parking Structures.

P a g e | 5


St. Albert’s Context and Character The Setting St. Albert is located 15 km northwest of Downtown Edmonton and is a member municipality of the Capital Region Board. Established in 1861, St. Albert is steeped in history and is the oldest non-fortified community in Alberta. It was the largest agricultural settlement west of Winnipeg. Today, St. Albert is a city with more than 60,000 residents; boasting more than 70 kilometres of trails and 400 hectares of green space, the Arden Theatre, visual arts studios, the Musée Héritage Museum, and numerous special events including the International Children’s Festival. In recent years, St. Albert has ranked high in a number of national surveys in regards to quality of life and sense of community.

All projects built in the downtown must recognize and celebrate the following principles of Downtown Area Redevelopment Plan (DARP) as approved by Council:

embrace the Sturgeon River and Red Willow Park System with new development and enhanced open spaces;

expand downtown to the west by creating a mixed-use urban neighbourhood straddling Sir Winston Churchill Avenue;

ensure convenient access to the downtown by facilitating all modes of movement and providing new parking facilities;

realign and extend St. Anne Street to provide more mobility options, better frontage for new development and a better relationship to the riverfront;

develop a new Civic Space on St. Anne Street – a gathering place that will accommodate a range of activities and events and enhance the identity of downtown;

design and program Millennium Park to provide a spectacular public open space for a range of cultural facilities, activities and events and passive enjoyment;

reinforce and extend the downtown retail environment along pedestrian-oriented streets; plan for a critical mass of people in high density dwelling units, well-designed

development to ensure vitality and a strong local market; and establish a gateway on St. Albert Trail ensuring development creates landmarks and an

attractive entrance to downtown.

Character Areas The DARP identifies four distinct character areas within St. Albert’s downtown:

Gateway on the Trail Character Area The Gateway on the Trail Character Area will be downtown’s face on St. Albert Trial. It will accommodate a wide array of uses including residential, office, institutional and retail. Buildings will be of a larger scale and higher density to emphasize and support higher order transit. They will give the area a higher profile within the city and signal to people that they have entered a distinctly urban place. The building massing and form of development in this area must be configured so as to not impact surrounding neighbourhoods.

Perron Character Area The Perron Character Area will continue to be the retail core of downtown. Gaps will be filled and shops and restaurants will extend along St. Thomas Street and into the proposed Civic Square to create a lively and continuous shopping experience. This district will feature active street level commercial-retail uses in moderately-scaled buildings to maintain a main street character. The streetscapes of Perron, St. Anne and St. Thomas Streets will be improved to give more space to the pedestrian and reduce automobile speeds. This will create an environment where businesses can thrive as shoppers are encouraged to linger and stroll. The Perron District will remain primarily commercial, but residential and other uses above retail will be strongly encouraged.

P a g e | 6


Riverfront Character Area The Riverfront Character Area will be an area for municipal government, civic gatherings, cultural activities and recreation. Two new significant public spaces, the Civic Square and Millennium Park will provide settings for festivals, performances, the farmer’s market, recreational activities and passive enjoyment. Millennium Park should include a destination for youth such as a skateboard park and winter activities such as skating. New buildings containing civic, cultural, residential and retail uses will front St. Anne Street and the new open spaces, fully engaging the riverfront and linking it to the rest of downtown.

Millennium Heights Character Area The Millennium Heights Character Area will consist primarily of residential uses in buildings of varying heights. It will be a new urban neighbourhood for downtown featuring street-oriented buildings and mix of housing types. Offices and complementary neighbourhood-oriented retail uses will enliven Sir Winston Churchill Avenue. The concentration of residents in Millennium Heights will create a real sense of community in downtown. Tache Street will provide a green corridor featuring wide landscaped sidewalks and a dedicated recreational trail between Grenadier Park and a rejuvenated Millennium Park.

Approaches and Gateways There are three (3) primary approaches to downtown identified in the DARP: Green Grove Drive, St. Albert Trail and Sir Winston Churchill Avenue adjacent to the Riel Industrial Area. Redevelopment in these areas over time, will play an important role in reinforcing the identity and vitality of the downtown. The Gateway on the Trail Character Area defines the one along St. Albert Trail.

An Approaches Study is planned, to identify appropriate land uses and built form parameters for each of these approach areas, while being sensitive to adjacent areas. Future change in these approach areas should be planned holistically to support not only downtown, but also current plans for higher order transit facilities along St. Albert Trail and improvements of the Red Willow Park System.

P a g e | 7


Land Use and Site Development The location of a building on a site and how it relates to the street and adjacent buildings or sites reinforces the streetscape, defines the public realm and contributes to the pedestrian experience.

Guideline: Site Context

Create visually continuous streetscapes and comfortably enclosed open spaces through building alignment and frontage;

Integrate amenities such as public transit stop, benches, shade and shelters; Consider views and sightlines within and to the Downtown; Complement the Red Willow Park System and the Sturgeon River Valley; and Ensure clear and seamless transitions between public and private realms.

Guideline: Appropriate Location of Uses

Locate active uses to enhance, animate and support the streetscape and public spaces;

Encourage visual surveillance from apartments and offices to the streets , open spaces and parking areas; and

Support character areas.

Building and Architectural Design A building and its features reinforce the public realm and the pedestrian experience.

Guideline: Integrated High Quality Design

Design buildings that are rich in architectural detail and respect the rhythm and pattern of the streetscape;

Avoid blank or featureless facades; Highlight buildings on corner sites; and Ensure seamless transitions between building heights and types.

Guideline: Pedestrian Orientation at-grade Create an enclosure ratio of building height to road corridor (generally between

1:1 to 1:3); Ensure active pedestrian-oriented uses predominate at grade; Use setbacks and other design features with taller buildings to achieve a human

scale; Provide pedestrian weather protection at building entrances and along walkways;

and Minimize visual clutter and scale signage to pedestrians.

Guideline: Amenity Spaces

Provide convenient and secure amenity areas, both public and private; and Consider informal ‘bumping places’ such as transit stops, public art or seating.

P a g e | 8


High-Rise Buildings The following guidelines shall be considered for all buildings greater than eight (8) storeys:

Guideline: Well-designed and Integrated High-Rise Buildings Minimize impacts of high-rise development on neighbouring streets, buildings and open

spaces; Concentrate height and mass at nodes, key intersections and gateways; and Consider communal outdoor amenity space or environmental innovations such as green

roofs, rainwater recovery or solar panels on roof-tops or podiums.

Guideline: Integrate three building components: The Podium is the primary interface with the city context and its street, people and

services. It should: ▫ define the lower portion of the building with a podium that is similar in height,

proportions and rhythm to the neighbouring building to visually unify the street; ▫ contribute to a quality pedestrian environment; ▫ provide pedestrian entrances at-grade that are directly accessible, clear, prominent,

weather-protected and directly linked to the sidewalk. The Tower connects the podium and the top and has an impact on the pedestrian

environment and skyline. It should: ▫ contribute to the physical and visual quality of the building; ▫ ensure the penetration of sunlight to the ground level, but minimize effects of wind

and shadow; The roof top is the most defining portion of the building for the broader area. It should:

▫ integrate mechanical equipment; ▫ contribute to the city’s skyline.

Guideline: Distinguish between Landmark and Background Buildings Landmark Buildings should:

▫ be distinctive in form and detail when viewed close-up or from a distance; ▫ have major destination(s) such as; public transit station, public square or memorial

nearby; ▫ incorporate extra richness and quality in architectural design, materials, detail and

colour; ▫ be located in high profile locations such as the identified landmark building sites or,

secondarily, on corner sites.; ▫ be the subject of design competitions; and ▫ stand-out by possessing unique, statement-making architecture, yet be complementary

to the downtown and its’ skyline. Background Buildings should:

▫ maintain a similar form and design detailing as surrounding building; ▫ enhance and frame the context of significant places, public open spaces, streets and

landmark or historic buildings; ▫ consider transition between high-rise buildings and adjacent lower profile areas; and ▫ distribute building form and massing in a manner appropriate to the scale and

proportion of the building surroundings.

P a g e | 9


Specialized Guidelines: Parking While ample parking is critical for downtown, it should be unobtrusive, within close proximity and fit within the character of downtown. Expansive surface parking lots are not appropriate.

Vehicle Access Vehicle access is from service lanes or secondary (not ‘A’) streets; Minimize obstruction of the free flow of traffic on adjoining public streets; Avoid pedestrian/vehicle conflicts; Provide loading areas within the structure for carpooling or passengers.

Parking Structures Parking structures and lots should adhere to the design guidelines for land use & site development and building & architectural design and:

provide a supporting secondary role to the pedestrian focus of Downtown; reduce pedestrian/vehicular conflict; and maintain the character of the public realm. Integrate seamlessly with the fabric of the downtown

Guideline: Integrate structure facade with streetscape Incorporate active ground-storey uses whenever possible; Design facades to create a building frontage that is compatible with the streetscape

considering: Maintain a horizontal line that does not reflect the sloping interior; Public art, Landscaping, Design features such as repeating color, texture and material changes; vertical

elements such as reveals, projecting ribs or offsets, or Using elevator and stair shafts as design elements;

Guideline: Ensure pedestrian safety Provide uniform, high light levels (10 footcandles) throughout all areas with extra light in

pedestrian areas such as stairs, elevator lobbies, entrances, exits, and ramps.; Minimize contrasts in light levels between the outside and inside of the structure; Locate elevator shafts and stairs to be visible from the street at each level; Use glass or transparent material for visibility of elevator cabs, shafts, stairways, lobbies

and entrances and exits; Pedestrian access should:

Be channelled through one or two points, Have surveillance by a cashier, ground-storey retail or remote television camera;

Use tamper-proof sound detection equipment and cameras to monitor pedestrian activity; especially in remote sections, and at entrances and exits; and

Use drop safes and silent alarms in the cashier’s booth if on-site cashiers are to be considered.

Surface Parking Lots Clearly define pedestrian access within and to and from the parking lot, with connections

to nearby pedestrian facilities; Use landscaping, low or see-through fences, or public art to screen vehicles and create a

building frontage that is compatible with the streetscape; Ensure lighting and clear visibility both within and from outside the parking lot; and Finish lots with asphalt or concrete, not gravel.

PUBLIC COMMENTS Proposed Downtown District Consultation

External Comments Concern Response • Concern with limiting office uses on ground floors.

(9) • DT amended to make all office-type uses a

discretionary use on the ground storey of ‘A’ streets (the main retail area), but a permitted use along all other streets.

• Concern with the loss of financial viability if ground storey uses are limited. (5)

• As above, all office-type uses are now a discretionary use for ground storey locations on ‘A’ streets, and permitted on all other streets.

• Will existing office uses be allowed to continue if ownership changes or if they wish to expand? What is the extent of grandfathering? (3)

• Grandfathering or the continuance of uses is protected under the Municipal Government Act.

• What are the timelines for when the DT district comes into effect? (1)

• If Council approves the district and redistricting on September 4, the DT district comes into effect the next day.

• What is the future of 2 St. Anne Street? • Comment on the screening requirement for

mechanical equipment, when SAP is not screened on surface or on the roof. Comment this was a double standard. (1)

• The City is limited on the modifications that can be made to St. Albert Place based on the agreement with the architect, as well as the building’s historical designation.

• The St. Albert and District Community League and the community hall sees these proposed changes as compromising their not-for-profit independence, future operations and severely limiting capitalization of assets for promotion of community activities. (1)

• The proposed DT allows the community hall to continue it current use and undertake routine maintenance. It does not impact their independence. However any significant renovations or redevelopment must comply with the new land use district, which creates greater development potential and thus greater opportunities to capitalize on assets. (Eg. due to increased heights they could increase square footage for own use or revenue potential)

• What is the special overlay district? (1) • The special overlay districts have been renamed Landmark Sites in the DT which is more self explanatory. They are key sites where development is expected to be of a very high design standard and to create notable landmarks for downtown.

• Concerns re: parking waivers and off-site parking in city lots

• The proposed change with respect to on-site parking; namely “service parking lots will not be permitted along ‘A Streets’ (including Perron Street)” will adversely affect our business. (1)

• Parking waivers are noted in Section 7 (Parking Regulations) of the Land Use Bylaw and have not been changed.

• In regards to on-site parking along A streets, the bylaw does not eliminate parking on these lots, it regulates that parking must be located behind the building, such as is already found on 10 through 20 Perron Street. The objective of this clause is to restrict parking in front of buildings like that currently

Attachment 4

in front of the Professional Building. • There is a very high level of water table which we

are aware of with respect to Perron Street and probably in a much wider area in Downtown St. Albert. All of these buildings are built without basements and no underground development due to the high water table. Therefore underground parking, if this was proposed, would probably not be feasible.

• Soil Conditions: Numerous buildings including St. Albert Place, the Professional Building and #20 Perron St. are built on piles due to the very poor soil conditions; this combined with the high water table will probably severely restrict what type of building can be built even if the bylaws permit a higher structure (1)

• All development and redevelopment will be required to undertake geotechnical studies of the site to ensure the proposed building can be accommodated by the soils and water table. This is the developer’s responsibility.

• With regard to parking, allowances have been included in the district to allow above grade parking within buildings.

Internal Comments Recreation • As the downtown becomes more dense, parking

is always an issue, especially for public events. Any public parking must be clearly identified. Any change to public parking quantity or access needs to be clearly articulated to all.

• Parking requirements have not been changed. The

DARP also makes provisions for public parking structures to alleviate the parking pressures.

• Maintain CPTED principles

• The DT includes a clause where the Development Officer may require a CPTED study to be submitted to support the application.

• Maintain handicapped accessibility (it’s not referenced in the design guidelines)

• Universal access is cited in the DT.

• Streetscape standards (benches, garbage cans, etc) need to be the same for Gateway District and Perron District

• DARP includes cross sections for streetscaping, street furniture will be uniform across the district.

• What is the special overlay? • See above, now landmark sites. St. Albert Transit

• In support, would like to have transit included in the design review process.

• No comment

Business and Tourism Development • Buildings with a gross area greater than 1,500

sq. m requires design review. We would suggest that a building with 2 or 3 stories with 1500 sq. m. or 16,000 square feet is not a very substantive building and would question whether an external review is needed (i.e. the Mission NABI building is 16,000 square feet).

• External & Internal Urban Design Review when we look to utilizing an external or even an internal review, we would hope that if and when such a review is needed that it will be expedited in a timely manner.

• Ground Storey Height: Commercial Uses “The ground storey height shall be a minimum of 4m floor-to-floor height.” Does this match the

From BTD’s comments a number of changes were made to the DT District • an external design review is now required for buildings

with a minimum footprint of 2,500 sq. m or a height of greater than 8 stories.

• The timeframe for design review completion has been reviewed and is felt to be readily accomplished in a timely manner.

• The Downtown District Service Lanes Map has been amended to reflect registered road plans and private laneways.

• The 4 m height for commercial spaces is standard. • The 750 sq.m floor plate restrictions for residential

and hotel uses are in keeping with the policies of DARP.

industry standard be for ground floor commercial development?

• Under the proposed guidelines for tower development above 8 storeys, the proposal will restrict residential and hotel uses only to a floor plate of 750 sq. m., why might only these two uses be restricted?

• Downtown District Service Lanes (Figure) Might I suggest that the mapping note existing and proposed service lanes?

• The DARP makes provisions for public parking structures to alleviate the parking pressures.

• Building Design and Architecture Standards this section could be the most problematic in the process of downtown development. As building quality fit and finish increases, so does the building costs and thereby passed along to the purchaser or lessee. Our hope is for the design guidelines to enhance the Downtown and not be perceived as a development impediment.

• The design finish standards are the same as the existing MC district.

• The Design Guidelines speak to actual design features such as placement of windows or doors or building orientation that would be considered as part of the site plan and design and the building design anyway.

• We believe that Downtown parking requirement will continue to grow, and with enhanced development additional parking/parking structures will be required.

• Parking standards have not been reduced. • All new development will be required to meet parking

requirements.

• Overall Business & Tourism Development is encouraged with the Downtown plans.


File No.: 608-5


Subject: COUNCIL MOTION – MAINTAIN REPRESENTATION ON ALBERTA CAPITAL REGION WASTEWATER

COMMISSION Recommendation(s): On August 20, 2012 Councillor Bracko provided notice, in accordance with Section 22 of Procedure Bylaw 35/2009, that he intended to bring forward the following motion. In order for Council to debate the motion it must be formally moved. (Councillor Bracko) “That St. Albert City Council support maintaining a member and an alternate on the Alberta Capital Region Wastewater Commission (ACRWC)." Attachments: 1. Administrative Backgrounder Report Date August 22, 2012 Originating Department Legislative Services Prepared by: Rachel Vincent Approved by Tracy Allen City Manager Review Patrick Draper

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 1

Administrative Backgrounder Maintain Council Representation on ACRWC

On August 20, 2012 Councillor Bracko provided notice, in accordance with Section 22 of Procedure Bylaw 35/2009, that he intended to bring forward the following motion. In order for Council to debate the motion it must be formally moved. (Councillor Bracko) “That St. Albert City Council support maintaining a member and an alternate on the Alberta Capital Region Wastewater Commission (ACRWC)." BACKGROUND: At the July meeting of the ACRWC Board meeting the following motion was passed: Board Alternates CM42-12 MOVED BY Ald. Mishio that Board members seek

input from their respective Councils to guide the decision of the Board as to the need for Alternates. CARRIED

The Commission Bylaws (Attachment 1) Section 5 states that each of the municipalities may appoint one or more members of Council as alternate Board members. Councillor Bracko’s motion, if passed, would support to maintain the appointment of alternates. Since there was no consensus on Board alternates, the Board has asked the respective member municipalities to move a motion. The Board Report and Background (Attachments 2 & 3) have been attached for further information. Attachments 1. Bylaw No. 5 2. 2012-07-20 Board Alternates 3. Backgrounder – Board Alternates Report Date August 28, 2012 Committee/Department Growth Initiative Team General Manager Review Tracy Allen (Acting) City Manager Review Patrick Draper

Attachment 1

Board Report

Date: July 20, 2012

Subject: Board Alternates

Recommendation

THAT Board members seek input from their respective Councils to guide the decision of the Board as to the

need for Alternates.

Discussion

Bylaw #5 (attached) sets out the appointment and role of alternates on the Board of Directors. When an

alternate attends a Board meeting they do so as a duly appointed member of the Board who must vote with

the best interests of the Commission in mind.

The history of alternates dates back to the formation of the Commission. At the time it was important to the

members that they have representation at each Board meeting. That tradition continues; however, recently the

use of alternates has been called into question.

The concerns stem primarily around two issues:

the inconsistency in Board members using their alternates

the ability of the alternate to effectively make decisions on behalf of the Commission given their

infrequent attendance and potential lack of knowledge and understanding of issues.

At the annual workshop, the prevailing opinion was that perhaps the need for alternates has run its course.

This opinion is not unanimous and Board member consultation with their respective Councils was proposed.

Attached is a backgrounder which spells out the issues as well as the pros and cons. It can be used as a

discussion document for Board members to engage their Councils.

Alternately, the Board may wish to consider a more formal approach whereby a letter from the Commission

to the municipality be sent to each member municipality with an aim to have it placed on an upcoming

agenda for a formal response. The Board members could then speak to matter at their Council meetings.

If the Board chooses to continue to use alternates, development of more formal orientation and knowledge

transfer is necessary. Clear expectations of Board members relative to engaging their alternates is also

recommended.

Justification

Reviewing the need for alternates is consistent with the Board’s governance model in terms of how the Board

effectively governs the Commission. Referring the matter to member Councils is consistent with

understanding the needs and interests of stakeholders.

Prepared by: Mike Darbyshire, General Manager

Attachment 2

Backgrounder – Board Alternates

July 2012

Context:

The Commission’s Bylaw #5 defines the appointment and role of alternates on the Board of

Directors.

When an alternate attends a Board meeting they do so as a duly appointed member of the Board who

must vote with the best interests of the Commission in mind.

The history of alternates dates back to the formation of the Commission.

Benefits of alternates:

Alternates offer member Councils the ability to plan for succession of representation on the Board.

The Board member and the alternate create a more effective voice when advocating on behalf of the

Commission with their Councils.

Alternates can bring a new perspective to a decision process.

Alternates ensure full representation in Board decisions.

The use of alternates ensures transparency between the Commission and its members.

Concerns with alternates:

Use of alternates by Board members is inconsistent.

Alternates do not have the benefit of the appointed Board member’s orientation, training, education

and insight when making decisions.

Transfer of knowledge and insight from the Board member to the alternate is challenging.

Given their infrequent attendance, the commitment of the alternate to the mandate and goals of the

Commission cannot realistically be expected.

Providing adequate orientation and keeping alternates adequately informed is a challenge if not an

unrealistic expectation.

The Board invests time and energy into team-building to increase its effectiveness. Alternates are at a

disadvantage when attending meetings without the benefit of that team-building experience.

Attachment 3

city of st. albert september 4, 2012 regular council...

Documents