Future Study Areas Report by St. Albert Leader

CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA REPORT Subject:

Future Study Areas Report: Potential Industrial Land

Recommendation(s): That the future Study Areas Report: Potential Industrial Land, dated November 7, 2011, be received and referred to stakeholders and the public for feedback to be provided to Council on December 5, 2011. Report Summary: The Future Study Areas Report: Potential Industrial Land is provided to Council for their review and referral for feedback. It outlines potential locations for future industrial land. Legislative History: On July 4, 2011 Council received the updated Future Land Requirements Study (Final Version) as information and, on August 15, 2011, passed the following resolutions: (C436-2011) That Administration identify 260 – 300 gross hectares (642 – 741 acres) contiguous and noncontiguous for future industrial land use in the Future Study Area Review, with a report back to Council by December 31, 2011. Map 1 Areas for analysis only (C500-2011) That Administration provide as an option 150 – 175 ha (371 - 432 acres) contiguous and 150 – 175 hectares (371 – 432 acres) non-contiguous for consideration for future light industrial land use by December 31, 2011. Report: Council received the Future Industrial Land Requirements Study in July 2011. As part one of the overall Industrial Land Strategy, it outlined the amount of Industrial land required in St. Albert and identified some locational criteria for the land. Following Council’s direction of August 2011, the second part of the strategy is now complete and being presented to Council. The Future Study Areas Report: Potential Industrial Land (the Study) reviews and analyzes available land in the City of St. Albert to identify a potential site for future industrial development.

City Council Agenda November 7, 2011/Page 1 File No.: 137-02

All undeveloped land within the City boundaries not covered by an approved Area Structure Plan was considered in the review. This land was divided into seven study areas as illustrated in Map 1, as excerpted from the Study. A number of locational criteria were used to assess each of the seven potential areas: • Access to Anthony Henday Drive • Nearby workforce • Land size • Land features and amenities • Proximity to transportation, trucking and rail • Fully serviced land • Neighbourhood settings, privacy; adjacencies • Topography, no impediments e.g. Environmental, heritage • Statutory planning and zoning in place • Commitments since annexation Recommendation 1 – Initial five year supply There is sufficient land currently designated and/or zoned for industrial in the City to provide up to five years worth of industrial land, see Map 2. The first recommendation is that the City work with these landowners to pursue the development of this land. Map 2 Recommendation 1 • 5 years of land • Easily serviced • Either designated or zoned

City Council Agenda November 7, 2011/Page 2 File No.: 137-02

Recommendation 2 – Future 20 year supply For future industrial land, three options are provided. The first two show different contiguous areas that ranked the same, based on the various criteria, with one important difference. Once is more readily serviced but is subject to previous commitments for different land use, see Map 3. This option is the preferred one due to potential access to servicing. The other option has had no additional commitments made since the original annexation, but would be much more costly and difficult to service, see Map 4. Given commitments already made with regard to the area in Map 3, this may be a preferable choice despite the significant difference in servicing costs. Each of these options shows contiguous land that meets the land requirements as directed by Council, but not the full amount for 20 years as required in the Municipal Development Plan. Map 3 Option 2A • 14 years of land • Contiguous • Post-annexation commitments (MDP amendment) • Easier to service

Map 4 Option 2B • 17 years of land • Contiguous • No post-annexation commitments • Challenge to service

City Council Agenda November 7, 2011/Page 3 File No.: 137-02

A third option shows non-contiguous land, which is not preferred, and does not meet the full land requirements as directed by Council. This involves some land that can be serviced more easily, while other land would provide significant challenges to service. Map 5 Option 2C • 12 years of land • Non-contiguous • Minimal post-annexation commitments • Mix of servicing opportunities

Next Steps A letter will be sent to all landowners in the annexed lands requesting their feedback on the report, and notification will be provided in the local papers and through the City’s website and social media sites requesting feedback from others. This report and the results of the consultation will be brought back to Council on December 5, 2011. Link to Council or Corporate Objectives: Goal: Increased businesses, visitors and investment are achieved to strengthen and diversify St. Albert’s economy. Priority: Make a decision on the preferred location for a light industrial site. Goal: Priority:

Necessary decisions are made to support development of existing and Greenfield areas Expedite decision-making on commercial and light industrial development Expedite decision on the land areas designated as Future Study area to allow for development

Financial Implications: n/a Legal Implications: n/a Attachments: Attachment 1: Future Study Areas Report: Potential Industrial Land Report Date Originating Department

October 28, 2011 Planning and Development

City Manager Review

Chris Jardine, Acting

City Council Agenda November 7, 2011/Page 4 File No.: 137-02

Future Study Areas Report: Potential Industrial Lands

November 7, 2011

Table of Contents

Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 3 Policy Direction .................................................................................................................... 4 Statutory plans .................................................................................................................. 4 Council direction............................................................................................................... 7 Part 1 - Land Requirements ................................................................................................ 10 Amount ........................................................................................................................... 10 Potential Location(s) ....................................................................................................... 11 Suitability of Identified Future Study Areas ............................................................... 11 Locational Criteria from FILR Study ............................................................................. 15 Transportation, Distribution and Logistics ................................................................. 15 Green Focused Manufacturing and Engineering Sector ............................................. 16 Construction Services ................................................................................................. 17 Additional Locational criteria ..................................................................................... 17 Other Considerations .................................................................................................. 20 Site Selection .................................................................................................................. 23 Land availability ......................................................................................................... 23 Locational Criteria for Site Assessment ..................................................................... 28 Potential Site Assessment ........................................................................................... 29 Servicing and Roads ................................................................................................... 36 Recommendations – Site Location ................................................................................. 36 Recommendation 1 – Five years of serviced land ...................................................... 36 Recommendation 2 – 20 years unserviced land .......................................................... 37 Part 2 – Statutory documents .............................................................................................. 44 Land use districts ............................................................................................................ 45 Land Uses.................................................................................................................... 47 Building siting and design .......................................................................................... 48 Site by Site modifications ........................................................................................... 49 Parking ........................................................................................................................ 50 Multi-tenant office buildings ...................................................................................... 51

Page 1

Outdoor Storage .......................................................................................................... 52 Recommendations - Statutory documents ...................................................................... 52 Phase 1 ........................................................................................................................ 52 Phase 2 ........................................................................................................................ 52

Page 2

FUTURE STUDY AREAS REPORT: Potential Industrial Lands

Introduction In 2007 the City of St. Albert finalized the annexation of 1,337 ha (3,302 ac) on its north and west side from Sturgeon County. The basis of the annexation was that the City required additional land for residential and commercial uses only, in accordance with the land uses outlined in the Intermunicipal Development Plan. This area was determined in 2003 when the annexation process began. Once the annexation was complete, the City moved forward with amending its Municipal Development Plan to include the newly acquired land. During this process, the City found that changes in the absorption of industrial land, as well as changing market needs for industrial land, had occurred since these land requirements were first developed, and that there was a need for additional industrial land, potentially as much as 290 ha (716 ac). As the annexation had been submitted and approved by the Province based on no additional industrial land, designating land as industrial in the Municipal Development Plan at that stage would have meant reopening discussions with Sturgeon County regarding an amendment to the Intermunicipal Development Plan, as statutory plans must be consistent with each other in accordance with the Municipal Government Act. It would also have meant extending timelines to move forward. As a compromise, three Future Study Areas (FSAs) were identified in the Municipal Development Plan, with the intention that further work would be done to assess the need for Industrial lands, especially with regard to the FSAs, at a future date. The City’s priority was to then look at the direction for growth within the annexed lands. The initial Smart Growth approach was rejected. A Hybrid Smart Growth approach, developed at Council’s direction, included 290 ha (716 ac) of Industrial land in a manner that was supported by both Planning and Development and Business and Tourism Development. This was also rejected by Council, who proposed a series of motions that indicated there would be limited change in future development in the City. These motions resulted in a report entitled St. Albert Model for Future Growth that outlined the implications of Council’s motions and the potential workplan to move forward.

Page 3

As part of this workplan, approved by Council in October 2010, one of the first steps included undertaking a two-part study related to Industrial Lands and the Future Study Areas. Part One was to be undertaken by Business and Tourism Development and would determine the amount of Industrial land required and to identify locational criteria for such land. This report, City of St. Albert Future Industrial Land Requirements Study (FILR Study), was received by Council in July 2011. Further direction was provided by Council in August 2011. The Council motions included: That the updated Future Land Requirements Study (Final Version) be received as information. (C435-2011 July 4, 2011) That Administration identify 260–300 gross hectares (642-741 acres) contiguous and non-contiguous for future industrial land use in the Future Study Area Review, with a report back to Council by December 31, 2011. (C436-2011 August 15, 2011) That Administration provide as an option 150-175 hectares (371-432 acres) contiguous and 150-175 hectares (371-432 acres) non-contiguous for consideration for future light industrial land use by December 31, 2011. (C500-2011 August 15, 2011) The second part of this two-part study is this report, Future Study Areas Report (FSA Report), being undertaken by Planning and Development. The intent of this report is to identify potential locations for the land requirements, based on locational criteria identified in the FILR Study and the AECOM Study1 (2009), on good planning principles, as well as potential statutory document changes that would be needed to the Intermunicipal Development Plan, the Municipal Development Plan and the Land Use Bylaw to facilitate future Industrial development. Formal and/or informal commitments related to future land use that have already been made to landowners will also be considered.

Policy Direction Statutory plans Currently the Municipal Development Plan shows three Future Study Areas (FSAs) in St. Albert within the ‘annexed areas’ 2, as shown on MAP 1 comprising a total of 297 ha (733 ac). These FSAs were identified with the intention that they would likely be the most suitable areas for future Industrial development. The sites were selected:

AECOM. (2009) Evaluation of Future Study Areas. City of St. Albert: Business and Tourism Development. The ‘annexed lands’ refer to the lands to the north and west of St. Albert that became part of the City through annexation, effective January 1, 2007. 1 2

Page 4

 to ensure that land was available in both sanitary basins (as identified at that time),  close to roads  where servicing was likely to come sooner and  over existing landfills, where industrial development would be more feasible. A full review was not possible at the time of the Municipal Development Plan amendment and Section 8.8 was added to provide a full understanding of the expectations around the FSAs. Section 8.8 states: The City of St. Albert has identified as a corporate priority increasing the non-residential assessment split to 20%, thereby reducing the City’s reliance on residential assessment to 80%. The non-residential component is comprised of a) commercial (see Section 7.) and b) industrial which includes business park development. In order to ensure that industrial/business park development is accommodated within the City, the City of St. Albert should ensure that a minimum of a twenty (20) year supply of unserviced and undeveloped industrial/business park land is available and that a five (5) year supply of serviced industrial/business park land is available. The City of St. Albert recognizes that for land to be truly available for development of industrial/business parks – the land, utility servicing and the transportation network must be in place. Land alone does not facilitate development. Therefore, the City of St. Albert shall utilize a strategic approach to ensure that the necessary utility servicing, transportation network, as well as land, are available so that land can be developed. As well, the City of St. Albert shall adopt appropriate incentives and a targeted marketing plan to promote industrial development. This strategic approach shall include a biennial assessment report to Council of the following: 1.

The available unserviced and undeveloped industrial land/business park land within the City of St. Albert to ensure a twenty (20) year supply;

The available serviced and available industrial land/business park land within the City of St. Albert to ensure a five(5) year supply;

The absorption rate trends of serviced industrial land/business park land within the City of St. Albert to monitor demand;

Page 5

The transportation network available to serve the serviced industrial/business park land;

The financial cost, including funding sources and necessary debt policy, to ensure that the necessary infrastructure to support the servicing (the main trunk line) of a five (5) year supply of serviced industrial/business park land is available for private developers on a cost recovery basis through levies;

An examination of the city’s standards, policies and practices, including incentives and a marketing plan, that influence serviced industrial/business park lands’ availability and development;

Specific recommendations to ensure that utility servicing, land and the necessary transportation network is available including steps, costs and funding sources, and;

A report outlining the promotional and marketing activities relating to targeted industry sectors and the results of that marketing activity.

In addition to its efforts to ensure a twenty (20) year land supply of unserviced and undeveloped for industrial/business park uses, the City of St. Albert shall examine the potential future uses of the lands identified as Future Study Areas as shown on Map 2 – Future Land Use Policy in order to assess whether the Future Study Areas should be designated for future light industrial development. Depending upon the land use direction given by Council, following the detailed examination of the Future Study Areas, both this Plan and the Intermunicipal Development Plan may need to be amended to properly reflect in this Plan and the Intermunicipal Development Plan for future light industrial development. The Future Study Areas shall not be included in calculations to determine if a twenty (20) year supply of unserviced and undeveloped for industrial/business park uses exists within the City of St. Albert. The main premise of this FSA Report is to assess the Future Study Areas identified in the Municipal Development Plan to meet the requirements of Section 5 and 8 of the MDP which state: “These future study areas shall be the subject of further examination either by the landowners, the City of St. Albert or both to determine whether or not the land within the Future Study Areas will be designated for future light industrial development.” (Section 5.6)

Page 6

“In addition to its efforts to ensure a twenty year land supply of unserviced and undeveloped land for industrial/business park uses, the City of St. Albert shall examine the potential future uses of the lands identified as Future Study Areas . . . in order to assess whether the Future Study Areas should be designated for future light industrial development.” (Section 8.8) p. 34 The Intermunicipal Development Plan does not specifically identify the Future Study Areas, nor are those areas identified for future industrial development in that plan.

Council direction TABLE 1 summarizes Council’s direction related to the Future Study Areas. TABLE 1 – COUNCIL DECISIONS ON FUTURE STUDY AREAS Date

Council Decision

July 23, 2007

Council approved changes to the MDP that identified approximately 290 ha (716 ac) of land as Future Study Areas, with the intent that they would be considered for future Industrial development, see MAP 1, areas A, B and C.

January 18, 2010

Council motion that the Future Study Area (Mis property) designation be changed to residential at the time of the next Municipal Development Plan review, see MAP 1, area B.

July 11, 2011

Council approved amendments to both the Intermunicipal Development Plan and the Municipal Development Plan that removed the Future Study Areas designation from the majority of land so designated on the west side of the City, see MAP 2, areas 2 and 3.

This means that the majority of land within the annexed areas that was originally identified as potential Industrial land as part of the FSAs has now been removed from consideration. There are only 78 ha (192 ac) remaining as FSAs consisting of small, fragmented parcels. It should be noted that the final right-of-way of Ray Gibbon Drive resulted in an additional 18 ha (44 ac) being removed from the overall FSAs amount.

Page 7

MAP 1 – FUTURE STUDY AREAS

Page 8

MAP 2 – CHANGES TO FUTURE STUDY AREAS AS SHOWN IN THE MDP

Page 9

Part 1 - Land Requirements Amount The FILR Study identified land primarily from a net area perspective, which is an appropriate approach from a marketing perspective. From a land use perspective, the gross area must be considered. The Municipal Government Act indicates that a maximum of 30% of land can be used for roads and servicing, which includes stormwater management facilities. The Municipal Government Act and the Municipal Development Plan indicate that 10% of land shall be taken for Municipal Reserve. St. Albert’s practice has been to take land and not to accept cash-in-lieu in all areas, including Industrial, as it is challenging to achieve the city’s parks, open space and recreational requirements even with the full 10% allocation. This is in keeping with the broader principles and vision of the City as a green botanical city. From a practical point of view, larger scale recreational facilities, with all their associated parking requirements, also work more effectively in industrial areas where the predominantly after hours usage balances the predominantly daytime uses of the industrial park. Details of the total amount of land required to meet the net amount of land as outlined in the FILR Study are provided in TABLE 2. TABLE 2 – INDUSTRIAL LAND REQUIREMENTS Land requirements

Area required

(ha (ac)) 2036

(ha (ac)) 2051

226 (558)

335 (827)

-53 (-130 ac)

Plus 20% permanent unused net land

45 (111)

67 (165)

Sub-total

218 (539)

349 (862)

Roads and servicing (30% of total)

109 (269)

174.5 (431)

Municipal Reserve (10% of total)

36.3 (89)

58.2 (143)

363.3 (897)

581.7 (1,436)

Net Area required Less available land

Gross land required

In order to provide choice and options for potential Industrial uses, the FILR Study recommends that five years worth of fully serviced land be available at all times. TABLE 3 indicates the amount of land required to meet this.

Page 10

TABLE 3 – SHORT-TERM INDUSTRIAL LANDS REQUIREMENTS Land requirements

Area required

(ha (ac))

(ha (ac)) over five

annually

year period

9 (22)

45 (111)

2.25 (5.5)

11.25 (27)

11.25 (27.5)

56.25 (138)

Roads and servicing (30% of total)

5.63 (14)

28.15 (69)

Municipal Reserve (10% of total)

1.87 (4.5)

9.35 (23)

Gross land required

18.75 (46)

93.75 (230)

Net Area expected absorption Plus 20% permanent unused net land Sub-total

Potential Location(s) There are challenges for identifying appropriate locations for industrial land. The initial FSAs were identified with the intention they would be considered for future Industrial land uses. Council decisions since the original designation of the FSAs in the Municipal Development Plan have removed significant portions of them from consideration. In addition, significant development activity is underway or being initiated within the annexed lands, the majority of which is for residential development as discussed earlier. As mentioned earlier, the remaining amount of ‘undeclared’ FSAs land is 78 ha (194 ac), and is fragmented parcels throughout the annexed lands.. However, very few Area Structure Plans have yet to be approved. Therefore, while it is recognized that development activity is underway and some commitments have been made, the entire annexed lands not currently covered by an approved Area Structure Plan will be considered in this report when assessing a feasible location for future Industrial land and to allow a comprehensive review.

Suitability of Identified Future Study Areas Information from the Evaluation of Future Study Areas prepared by AECOM for Business and Tourism Development in 2009 is also relevant to the discussion in this report. The purpose of this study was to provide a high-level evaluation of the three FSAs to provide direction about the appropriateness of these areas for Industrial development and whether future industrial development should be consolidated in one of these areas, or located in an undesignated area. The scope of the study was “to determine whether the three areas identified as Future Study Areas are viable ‘stand-alone’ light industrial and business park areas. The actual evaluation of

Page 11

the suitability of the Future Study Areas for light industrial development is left to further work.” (p. 5) AECOM’s study looked at a number of factors including:

 Location, land characteristics, suitability for industrial development,      

topography, size, shape, degree of land fragmentation, constraints due to existing development and amenity value of the land Policy and regulatory factors Current and future road and rail access On-site environmental factors, effect on developability Land use fit and compatibility with surrounding areas for industrial development, suitability and desirability for alternate uses Serviceability, the technical feasibility, timing, costs Proximity to other industrial areas

A ranking system was used by AECOM to assess each of the three Future Study Areas and the resulting recommendation was that the Central FSA, see location ‘A’ on MAP 1, was significantly more suitable for industrial development than the other two. It has a number of favourable attributes:

 Adjacency to Ray Gibbon Drive and Highway 633 (Villeneuve Road)  Link to Riel  Good visibility, but limited access due to limited interchanges on Ray Gibbon Drive  The landfill is more suitable for Industrial development  The site is larger, and can allow for a critical mass of development However, there are some other considerations

 The site’s proximity to Carrot Creek make it viable for residential development and the 50m (164 ft) buffer along the Creek would require carefully planning  Costs of servicing will be considerable. In fact, the report suggests that “future analysis would show whether the land can be brought on-stream at a price point that is competitive with regional industrial land supply”  The possibility of rail access is there if the southern boundary was relocated farther south of Old McKenney/Giroux to include the CN line. The other two FSAs were far less suitable. Neither had direct access from a major road, and they would form isolated and small pockets of industrial. The Northeast

Page 12

FSA (‘B on MAP 1) would have significant residential development adjacent to it, and would be preferable for additional residential development. The Southwest FSA (‘C’ on MAP 1) was too small and its proximity to Big Lake makes industrial development less compatible. AECOM suggested three other potential locations, shown on MAP 3, two of which would be suitable for consolidation with Area ‘A’ on MAP 1.

Page 13

MAP 3 – ALTERNATE SITES TO SUPPORT FUTURE STUDY AREAS

Page 14

Locational Criteria from FILR Study Two target industry sectors were identified for St. Albert in the FILR Study: Transportation, Distribution and Logistics, as well as Green Focused Engineering and Manufacturing. Each has somewhat different location requirements.

Transportation, Distribution and Logistics In the FILR Study, a number of locational criteria for a site for Transportation, Distribution and Logistics type industries were identified. They are each further discussed here with regard to their relevance for this report. Access to Anthony Henday Drive The FILR Study suggests access to Anthony Henday Drive would allow for roadbased good movement and access to multi-modal locations such as the Intermodal yards in Edmonton along the Yellowhead Trail or the Villeneuve Airport. Regional connections such as this support the concept of Port Alberta, seeing the entire region, not just one identifiable location within the region, as a well-connected hub for multimodal transportation of goods. In addition, this enhances connections with areas of growth in the region such as manufacturing and processing or upgrader activity. Access to labour force The jobs created in these industries tend to be at the lower end of the pay scale. While technology advances place a greater importance on a skilled workforce, it is likely the majority of work would require unskilled, or lower skilled, workers. Sufficient land It appears there is currently insufficient zoned and serviced land, and no existing parcels large enough to accommodate these types of industrial developments. A site would need to be large enough to accommodate the larger sites of two or more hectares (five or more acres) that would be required. Land prices To keep St. Albert’s new industrial area competitive, land prices need to be at the lower end of the spectrum. Location of the site may have an impact on this, especially with regard to servicing requirements. City brand There is a trend towards automation and ‘greening’ of transportation and distribution operations. With the City’s new botanical arts brand there may be opportunities through the selection of a location to enhance or highlight this.

Page 15

Other criteria Other criteria were included on the list, but do not have an impact on actually identifying a suitable location for potential Transportation, Distribution and Logistics industries. A limited flexibility for outdoor storage is not a locational issue, but rather a regulatory one that will be addressed through a review of current regulations later in this report. The contribution of increased tax assessment is a separate issue from the selection of a siteâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s location. However, there may be financial implications related to the development of the site that could influence the land prices, which will be discussed later in this report.

Green Focused Manufacturing and Engineering Sector In the FILR Study, a number of locational criteria for a site for Green-focused manufacturing and engineering type industries were identified. They are each further discussed here with regard to their relevance for this report. Access to Anthony Henday Drive Access to Anthony Henday Drive would allow access to the sites and to the Villeneuve and Edmonton International Airports. Access to Labour Force and presence of college or university These jobs are not as likely to rely on lower wages as in the Transportation, Distribution and Logistics sector. The FILR Study implies that higher skill levels are required for jobs in this sector, and that a positive reputation of the City would attract employees, which would in turn attract business. While not really a factor to influence locational choice, the lack of a significant university or college is a factor that may influence the presence of the type of workers sought. The FILR Study speculates current residents may wish to reduce commuting times and may be a potential market. Land Prices This industry is less concerned with low prices for land as the Transportation, Distribution and Logistics sector. They are willing to look at higher land prices if the amenities are right. City Brand The green-based sector is a logical fit with the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s new brand, and the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s reputation is positive and therefore likely to attract these types of employees. The

Page 16

notion of prestige locations offering visibility and affordability could also be enhanced by site location. Proximity to supports For the Green Manufacturing sector the FILR Study indicates that availability of third party trucking and warehousing is critical and there are plenty of options available in nearby Northwest Edmonton and the nearby Yellowhead Corridor. They suggest this may result in St. Albert being viewed less competitively compared to these areas. However, the concurrent development of the Transportation, Distribution and Logistics sector proposed for St. Albert may result in some synergies to benefit St. Albert. But for the earlier stages, proximity and easy access to such services in Edmonton and the Yellowhead corridor will need to be considered. In addition, the Green Manufacturing sector requires telecommunication utility as a critical component. The FILR Study suggests this infrastructure appears to be in place in St. Albert. The various providers do continually look at improving the existing system and this is not a critical factor to location selection. Other criteria Other criteria were included on the list, but do not have an impact on actually identifying a suitable location for potential Green Manufacturing and Engineering industries. The availability and provision of incentives from various government levels is not related to actual site selection and would be part of any marketing or business attraction program that was developed after a site was selected. This will not be addressed in this report.

Construction Services While the FILR Study refers to Construction Services as a target group, the study does not provide any locational criteria or discussion specific to this target industry. Therefore, this report assumes that a combination of the types of sites required for both the Transportation, Distribution and Logistics as well as the Green Manufacturing would be suitable for Construction Services which would likely require both larger industrial sites as well as more business and professional services type developments.

Additional Locational criteria While not included in the tables in the FILR Study specifically identifying the locational criteria, the FILR Study identified some other requirements or characteristics that are actually related to site location.

Page 17

Fully serviced land with no constraints The FILR Study suggests that the industrial land needs to be fully serviced with roads and utilities in place). In addition, there should be no environmental, heritage or contamination issues for the properties available. Servicing of land will be one of the greatest challenges for the City in providing shovel-ready industrial land, especially in the annexed lands. The land there is currently not serviced and the lack of capacity within the existing system means there are significant costs required before any development can take place. Lot size There is a need to be able to accommodate a wide range of lot sizes, but in particular lots greater than two hectares (five acres). Business and Tourism Development have requested that larger sites more appropriate for warehouse type developments be available. The FILR Study outlines the following approximate sizes for lots, which are summarized in TABLE 5. TABLE 5 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; INDUSTRIAL LOT SIZES Lot Size

Area (ha (ac))

Small lots

0.4 - 1.2 (1-3)

Medium lots

1.2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 2 (3-5)

Large lots

2+ (5+)

This criterion is more specifically determined at the Area Structure Plan and subdivision stages. Consideration of the overall size of the industrial park will take into consideration the potential for different lot sizes. Land cost Lower land prices are a consideration for Transportation, Distribution and Logistics, while Green Manufacturing is not as dependent on lower land costs. However, the availability of amenities is a factor when considering costs. Land costs for some regional communities was provided in the FILR Study and have been converted to cost per hectare in TABLE 6. The significantly lower costs in Sturgeon County could be due to the availability of dry industrial sites, those that do not have typical servicing and utilities but rather allow on-site water and wastewater management. Land cost is a reflection of a number of locational criteria such as availability of land, land designation and zoning, and, in particular, zoning. While land cost is a determining factor for potential purchasers, it is not in and of itself a key criterion for

Page 18

selecting the site. The other criteria will be assessed with consideration for the potential impact on the future price of the land. TABLE 6 Community

Average land cost per ha (per ac)

Edmonton

$1,857,440 ($752,000)

Parkland County

$807,690 ($327,000)

Sturgeon County

$437,190 ($177,000)

St. Albert

$988,000 ($400,000)

Note: Sturgeon County sites likely include a number of ‘dry’ serviced sites

Others The FILR Study further lists a number of criteria that have implications for locations. Many of these have locational implications, but they are not defined or discussed. Therefore, some assumptions are being made to allow these factors to be considered, as summarized in TABLE 7. TABLE 7 – OTHER LOCATIONAL CRITERIA AND ASSUMPTIONS Criterion

Assumptions for this Report

Neighbourhood and setting

Assume different settings are required ie. Business park vs industrial area. Or what’s adjacent to it ie residential

Space requirements

Assume a variety of parcel sizes, this is addressed elsewhere.

Visibility

Assume that some would like highway visibility and others would not.

Privacy

Assume some sites would like privacy from adjacent sites. This would most likely be dealt with as part of development regulations. This may be considered as part of the regulatory review.

Topography

Assume flatter topography is required.

Tenure (lease vs design build vs own)

This is not a locational criterion, it is dealt with at the marketing stage. It will not be addressed in this report.

Soil conditions

Soil conditions are fairly consistent throughout the annexed lands, other than the former landfill areas. This is not a significant criterion.

Site proportioning (frontage to depth)

This is determined at the ASP/subdivision stage. Current land use districts do not specify lot widths or depths. This may be considered as part of the regulatory review in this report.

Site Expandability

This is dependent on site availability and market if

Page 19

a landowner wishes to expand to adjacent parcel. Otherwise larger sites, addressed elsewhere, could accommodate on-site expansion opportunities.

Other items on the list in the FILR Study are addressed elsewhere in this report. They include: land costs, availability and cost of servicing, zoning, highway access and environmental considerations.

Other Considerations There are a number of other elements that should be taken into consideration when siting Industrial lands in St. Albert. Landowner intent The agreement of landowners for the annexation was based on the proposed land requirements put forward at that time. This included no industrial land uses. The intention of landowners was to see future residential development, and to some degree commercial development, on their land in the future. The future use of land is an important consideration that can affect the choices landowners make as it can affect potential prices of land as well as the return on investment as well. Residential development tends to have a faster return on investment in St. Albert based on St. Albertâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s reputation for high quality residential development. In addition, changing the statutory plans and the land use bylaw only facilitates the development of industrial lands. The landowner is the one who decides whether or not to proceed with such development. If a landowner is not motivated to either proceed with development, or allow another party to proceed, then development will not happen. Within the annexed lands, there is already a significant amount of work proceeding regarding future development in keeping with the original direction from the annexation for expected future development. MAP 4 shows the areas that already have Area Structure Plans in place, underway or for which the owners have already indicated to Planning and Development their intended development direction. Most interest expressed is in keeping with current Intermunicipal Development Plan and Municipal Development Plan direction, and no interest has been expressed by current landowners for industrial development.

Page 20

MAP 4 – AREAS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Page 21

Housing affordability – availability and location vs access The jobs created in the Transportation, Distribution and Logistics sector, as mentioned in the FILR Study, attract workers at the lower end of the wage scale. An issue already found in St. Albert is the lack of housing for workers in this wage bracket. Workers earning less than $50,000 can afford to rent an apartment or may be eligible for subsidized home ownership, such as through Habitat for Humanity. St. Albert has been working towards increasing the availability of affordable housing in the community, but there is still a limited amount of such housing available. The majority of rental units are found in Grandin and Akinsdale, while the lowest average assessed values for homes are found in Mission and Sturgeon, so it could be assumed these are areas from which such workers would more likely come. The other issue strongly connected to housing affordability is access to frequent public transit, as the savings from not having a car can be significant and facilitate access to housing. So the proximity of these neighbourhoods to potential industrial sites is a locational factor to consider. It is interesting to note in the FILR Study that in the City’s current industrial areas, Riel and Campbell, only 41% and 38% of employees there live in St. Albert. The majority come from elsewhere. Employment density The current employment density figures, the number of jobs per net hectare, are 30 for Riel and 23 for Campbell. The average of the two is 25.3. According to FILR, the expected future employment density would be 22. IThe 2007 Employment and Labour Market Survey prepared for Business and Tourism Development surveyed local businesses and found approximately 11,000 full-time jobs and 7,400 part-time jobs within the City. 3 At the proposed job density for future industrial (22 jobs/ha) and using the expected absorption rate of industrial land of 9 net hectares (22 net acres) per year, St. Albert could expect to see an additional 81 new jobs annually. This would be approximately 1,944 new jobs by 2036. The Capital Region Board projects an additional 5,448 jobs in St. Albert by 2044. Using the Capital Region Board’s rate of job growth, the City would achieve approximately 4,086 new jobs by 2036.

3 The survey got a 52% response rate identifying 5,664 full-time and 3,797 part-time jobs. Extrapolation for this report, assuming non-responding businesses (48%) had similar levels of employment would suggest 11,101 fulltime and 7,442 part-time jobs for the entire City business community. The BTD survey did not take into account if identified jobs were physically located within the City or if they worked elsewhere while being employed by a local company, eg. contracting companies.

Page 22

The City may need to consider alternative job creation measures beyond the development of new industrial land when looking at future new job targets. Transit/access â&#x20AC;&#x201C; timing and costs Industrial parks, by their nature, present significant challenges to transit service. The low densities associated with industrial development, together with an abundance of free parking and convenient access to major arterial roadways combine to lessen the appeal of transit to these areas. Research indicates that car usage significantly increases when densities are around 30-40 people and jobs per hectare 4. This suggests that effective transit use is most suitable for areas where there are a minimum of 30 people/jobs per hectare. The FILR Study suggests St. Albert can expect an average employment density of 22 jobs per hectare. Lower densities of businesses and employees means the route must travel greater distances and wind through the area in a circuitous fashion in order to effectively serve a reasonably sized ridership base. Such travel patterns bring routes closer to businesses but add travel time to the trip. Additional travel time reduces the competitiveness of the route. If the route is too short, then it does not effectively reach the intended target businesses, and walking distances become excessive. In addition, varying shift hours make it necessary to operate the route midday and evening in order to effectively serve the area â&#x20AC;&#x201C; peak period operation is not sufficient. These challenges can often lead to the conclusion that an industrial route is too expensive to operate in relation to potential ridership demand. But each industrial park has to be evaluated individually as there may be circumstances or conditions that would indeed indicate that transit demand could sustain the service and would significantly enhance the economic viability of the area. Further research suggests that very large, high-density job centers are the best approach to achieve substantial increases in transit use 5.

Site Selection Land availability The intent of the annexation was to accommodate expected growth of the City to 2027. The amount of land annexed was determined based on this and is summarized

4 Newman, P. & Kenworthy, J. (2006). Urban Design to Reduce Automobile Dependence. Opolis: An International Journal of Suburban and Metropolitan Studies, 2:1 (35-52). 5 Barnes, Gary. (2005). The Importance of Trip Destination in Determining Transit Share. Journal of Public Transportation, 8:2.

Page 23

in TABLE 8. Since the annexation, adjustments have been made to reflect a potential need for Industrial land as well as some other impediments to development. TABLE 8 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; LAND AREAS AND USES IN ANNEXED LANDS Area required (ha (ac)) as per Annexation

Adjusted Area 2011 (ha (ac))

Residential

994 (2,455)

428 (1,136)

Commercial

130 (321)

Mixed use (commercial/residential)

64 (179)

Industrial

363 (897)

Environmental Reserve

83 (205)

213 (526)

Additional land (boundary adjustment, land ownership)

130 (321)

139 (343)

1,337 (3,302)

Land Use

Ray Gibbon Drive Totals

Residential and Commercial growth requirements Originally, the annexed land was expected to accommodate an additional population of 29,806 by 2027. This would translate into 10,385 dwelling units. Using the Capital Region Board density targets, which are double that previously seen in St. Albert, and assuming a fully developed high-density Transit-oriented development node is developed within the annexed area, the reduced amount of land should be able to accommodate 13,434 dwelling units or an additional 32,957 people. The challenge is that the same number of units are expected to be developed on half as much land, which would seriously impact design features and traffic. Even with one TOD, it would be a challenge to develop neighbourhoods similar to what the City has today and achieve the required density targets without seriously impacting design features and traffic. Capital Region Board population projections show a total population of 107,131 for St. Albert by 2044. Expected build-out population is 74,730, plus 32,957 cited above would result in a total population of approximately the same, but using much less land. The amount of commercial land actually required could potentially be reduced as it was initially calculated based on the anticipated population used for the annexation. However, there is no information currently available that addresses the amount or need for commercial land, so the same amount is included in both scenarios.

Page 24

Existing Industrial Land Since the completion of the FILR Study, decisions have been made that have affected the amount of available industrial land that is either designated in the Municipal Development Plan as future industrial land, or is actually zoned as CIS or BP in the Land Use Bylaw. There are currently 61 ha (150 ac) zoned either CIS or BP, which is either serviced or easily connected to existing services. An additional 88 ha (217 ac) are designated for industrial development in the MDP, but are not yet zoned. About half of that is close to existing services. This is shown on MAP 5. Based on the expected absorption rates in the FILR Study, these lands would provide St. Albert with approximately five years worth of Industrial land. If servicing was extended where feasible, this would easily meet the requirements of the Municipal Development Plan to have five years of serviced land available. This land, in particular in the southwest corner, would form part of a larger industrial area in conjunction with Edmonton and Parkland County with close connections via the Anthony Henday. It is noted in the FILR Study that there is a significant amount of industrial land available in the region. Parkland County and Edmonton have the most, then Leduc County/City. MAP 6 shows the existing industrial land near St. Albert. The City of Edmonton has approximately 1,500 gross hectares (3,705 ac) of industrial land in the northwest quadrant adjacent to St. Albert. The City is currently undertaking a review and future planning study of this land. The County of Parkland has the Acheson Industrial area just to the west. It encompasses about 1,000 gross ha (2,470 ac)of land.

Page 25

MAP 5 – AVAILABLE INDUSTRIAL LAND IN ST. ALBERT

Page 26

MAP 6 – INDUSTRIAL LAND ADJACENT TO ST. ALBERT

Page 27

Locational Criteria for Site Assessment Based on the information from the FILR Study reviewed in this report, a number of locational criteria specific to land location and configuration for industrial uses can be identified. Access to Anthony Henday Drive Access to either Anthony Henday Drive, or to routes easily connected to it will be a primary factor in assessing the suitability of a potential site. Ray Gibbon Drive is a key connecting route, St. Albert Trail is not as desirable due to the higher degree of traffic and intersections. Nearby Workforce There are two very different workforce groups being targeted. The Transportation, Distribution and Logistics Sector generally requires a lower skilled workforce, while the Green Manufacturing Sector requires a workforce with a higher skill level. For analysis purposes, the challenges for workers in lower skilled sectors to access work is more challenging. It could be assumed that those in higher paying jobs are more likely to be able to afford a vehicle and to drive to work regardless of the location. So the focus is on the proximity of the site to areas more likely to be affordable to those in lower paying positions. This would include adjacencies to neighbourhoods with higher numbers of multi-family dwellings and lower assessment values. Land size The overall site needs to accommodate larger sized lots. Contiguous land is preferable to create a â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;nodeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; of development of sufficient size to support various amenities such as park areas and commercial areas. It is considered that 20-40 ha is a good minimum size for an overall industrial area to allow flexibility for parcels, landscaping and internal transportation 6. (Urban Planning Standards) It would be preferable for the site to be large enough to accommodate at least 10-20 years of development, in keeping with current Municipal Development Plan policy. Land features and amenities This would include opportunities for natural amenity areas for employees or supportive commercial development for employees such as restaurants or banks. This criteria is more important for the Green Manufacturing sector. However, all employees would benefit from such amenities. Ensuring such amenities, especially natural features such as a park or trail system would also reflect the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s brand. 6 Steiner, Fredierick R. And Butler, Kent. (2006). Planning and Urban Design Standards. American Planning Association/Wiley.

Page 28

Proximity to transportation/trucking This criterion is a bit contradictory as the Green Manufacturing sector requires proximity to such services which exist in nearby Edmonton and Parkland County. However, the Transportation, Distribution and Logistics sector will provide such services. This criterion includes proximity or ease of access to existing transportation and trucking services in Edmonton and Parkland County, as well as access to rail or to the airports. Fully serviced land In order for development to take place, the required infrastructure must be in place. This includes all roads, water, waste water and storm utility services. The proximity to connections, and the ease of servicing are considered in this criterion. Neighbourhood settings This criterion looks at the potential of incorporating different requirements for both Green Manufacturing and Transportation, Distribution and Logistics into the area such as a mix of lot sizes and incorporating both industrialized type development and a more professional type. In addition, it looks at the adjacencies of the site to existing and/or proposed development such as residential development and any potential barriers that could provide separation from more incompatible development. Topography, no impediments ie environmental, heritage While most of the land in the annexed areas is flat and suitable for any type of development, this criterion will also look at any other constraints such as environmental or heritage issues. Statutory plan designation or zoning To facilitate development the land requires designation as industrial land in the Municipal and Intermunicipal Development Plans. As well, it requires the further steps of an approved Area Structure Plan identifying the land as industrial and finally the appropriate zoning in the Land Use Bylaw. Additional time and effort is required if these are not in place.

Potential Site Assessment A review of available land was undertaken to identify a potential location(s) for industrial land. Land covered by an approved ASP, unless designated for industrial land, was not included.

Page 29

Seven different areas were identified, as shown on MAP 7. These sites are identified for analysis purposes only and because they are either designated or zoned as industrial already or are not yet covered by an approved Area Structure Plan. The challenge is whether to look at all the available land (this would be any of the land not yet covered by an approved Area Structure Plan), or to look only at the land that has not had commitments made, whether firm or tentative, to the landowner since the annexation. Each site was ranked from 1 to 3 for each of the identified criteria, with 1 indicating the site does not meet the criterion and 3 meaning it does. A total of 30 points could be allocated to each site. Four of the sites ranked higher than 20, while three ranked 12 or lower. A summary of the rankings in seen in TABLE 9.

Page 30

MAP 7 – POTENTIAL INDUSTRIAL SITES FOR ANALYSIS

Page 31

TABLE 9 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; SUMMARY OF SITE ANALYSIS Area 1 (S. Campbell)

Area 2 (S. Riel)

Area 3 (SW)

Area 4 (West)

Area 5 (NW)

Area 6 (Trail W)

Area 7 (Trail E)

Access to Anthony Henday Drive

Nearby workforce

31 ha (76 ac) (1.7 yrs)

59 ha (146 ac) (3.1 yrs)

250 ha (617 ac) (13.3 yrs)

227 ha (560 ac) (12.1 yrs)

130 ha (321 ac) (6.9 yrs)

143 ha 7 (353) (7.6 yrs)

121 ha (298 ac) (6.4 yrs)

Land features and amenities

Proximity to transportation/trucking/ rail

Fully serviced land

Neighbourhood settings, privacy; adjacencies

Topography, no impediments ie environmental, heritage

Stat Plan/zoning in place

Commitments since annexation

TOTAL

Criteria

Land size

7 The 143 ha (353 ac) is that portion of Area 6 that is not designated for commercial development. The total area is actually 222 ha (548 ac).

Page 32

Areas 1 and 2 These two sites, while separated by location, ranked the highest as potential locations for industrial development. They each had the highest scores with 24 for the site in Campbell and 23 for the site in Riel. The only low scoring criterion was in land size. Area 1 (Campbell) has 31 ha (76 ac), which would allow for about 1.7 years worth of development. It could accommodate 15 small or medium sized lots, or 9 large lots 8. The Riel site (Area 2) is slightly larger at 59 ha (146 ac) and could accommodate about three years of development. It could accommodate 29 small and medium lots or 17 large lots. The Riel site scored slightly lower as its location is adjacent to Lois Hole Provincial Park which could hold some potential impediments to development, as well as the residential proposed south of the site in Edmonton. Part of the land is designated industrial in the MDP, but is not yet covered by an ASP or zoned for industrial. The remainder of the land, plus the land in Campbell (Area 1) is already zoned in the Land Use Bylaw as CIS. The advantages of both these sites are the proximity to the Anthony Henday, the proximity to a potential workforce as well as transportation options. In addition, both sites are adjacent to servicing with sufficient capacity. This is a real benefit that would allow the City to access up to five years worth of industrial land in fairly short order, meeting the policy requirement of the Municipal Development Plan. Area 3 The next highest ranking area is tied between Area 3 and Area 4. Area 3 is located in the southwest corner just north of Meadowview Drive and Big Lake. This area comprises 250 ha (617 ac) and would provide industrial land for approximately 13 years. It would provide 125 small or medium lots or 75 large lots. It ranked particularly high for its proximity to Anthony Henday Drive, the size of the land, the potential for features and amenities with its proximity to Carrot Creek and Big Lake, its proximity to transportation services and the setting which is nicely bounded by roads and Carrot Creek so that it could be a nicely defined Industrial area with separation from adjacent uses with which it could compete. Ray Gibbon Drive provides a suitable barrier from residential development to the east. However, it scored low on topography and potential impediments to development as no studies have been done to assess those, and the proximity to the creek and Big Lake would need to be considered. The lack of designation, other than a part of the

8 For purposes of this discussion, small/medium sized lots are considered to be 1.2 ha (2 ac) while large lots are 2 ha (5 ac).

Page 33

site as Future Study Areas, would require additional time and effort to bring the site to a shovel-ready status. Overall servicing for this site would be expensive and challenging as the main trunk lines for waster water as well as a full loop for water would come primarily through the Timberlea neighbourhood, which is as yet undeveloped. The existing connections are at the far east end of Timberlea, so the distance to Area 3 is significant and the timing of this would be much longer than other areas. The northeast corner of Area 3, north of the railway tracks would be serviced from the Northwest Urban Village Centre, and connections there are much closer and would allow development sooner, however, this portion of the area would provide less than two years worth of land. No additional commitments have been made to landowners in this area since the annexation, which designated this area for future residential, other than the one FSA which was not preferred in the AECOM Study. Area 4 Area 4 tied with Area 3. It ranked high for the amount of land available. The 227 ha (560 ac) would allow nearly 12 years of development. It would provide 111 small or medium lots or 66 large lots. As well, its adjacency to Carrot Creek and to Transportation Services add to the areaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s appeal. Ray Gibbon Drive provides a suitable barrier from residential development to the east. The topography is fair but two landfills on the site require consideration. Such an area would be more suitable for industrial development than for residential. Waste water servicing for this area would start at the south end and come from the Northwest Urban Village Centre, so the distance to existing connections is fairly close. This site was originally identified predominantly as a Future Study Area. Amendments to the Municipal Development Plan and Intermunicipal Development Plan have already been approved that designate the majority of this area for residential and commercial development. A portion of it (33 ha (81 ac)) has been designated industrial. The designated industrial portion would be the last to be serviced, as it is at the north end of the site and wastewater servicing would come from the south. While the rankings are the same for Areas 3 and 4, the differences are that Area 4 has had previous commitments regarding land use made since the annexation but there is the ability to service Area 4 much sooner, and at lower costs, than Area 3. It is better positioned to provide access both to the south as well as north west toward the Villeneuve Airport. Page 34

Area 5 Area 5 lies across the north of the Cityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s west side adjacent to Villeneuve Road. It is considered a lower potential for industrial development. Its area of 130 ha (321 ac) would provide almost 7 years worth of development. It would accommodate approximately 65 small or medium lots, or 39 large lots. While it has access to Ray Gibbon Drive at the west, the horizontal shape of this area puts much of it farther away from direct access to Anthony Henday, although it is closer to an available workforce. This area may have better connection potential to the Villeneuve Airport to the west. Any of the other criteria rank low on the scale. There are limited natural features or amenities, although the power centre at the east end could act as a service centre for the area. It borders a residential area to the south and potential future development to the north could also become residential, which makes for a poor location. While uses and development could have greater controls on areas adjacent to residential areas, the narrow configuration of this site would make it challenging to accommodate larger lots in the middle of the site. A minimal amount of servicing capacity is available for about 32 ha (80 acres) in the west end, but the remainder of servicing would need to come from the far northeast of St. Albert via Erin Ridge North. The City owns the western 32 ha (80 ac), which could be an advantage for moving forward with industrial development sooner if the City were to act as a motivated landowner. Other landowners have primarily indicated a preference for residential development in this area, and earlier discussions about such future development did take place although only a small portion of the site is currently subject to development of a potential Area Structure Plan. In addition, future annexation north of Area 5 could result in a pocket of industrial development that is isolated and surrounded by residential development. Areas 6 & 7 Area 6 on the west side of St. Albert Trail and Area 7 on the west side of the Trail ranked the lowest. They did not rank high for any of the criteria. Area 6, excluding commercial land along the Trail, would provide 143 ha (353 ac) of land, which would provide about 7.5 years of growth, while Area 7 provides 120 ha (296 ac) and about six years of growth. Both areas would likely receive servicing sooner than Area 5, as it must come via Erin Ridge North. The advantage of Area 6 is the proximity to a potential Transit Oriented development node which would provide good transit access and housing options for workers.

Page 35

However, the connections to Anthony Henday Drive from here are the least feasible of all the areas. The land configurations are both narrow which create the same potential constraints outlined in Area 5 to accommodate a variety of lot configurations and the inclusion of larger lots. Landowners in this area have indicated a preference for residential development with commercial along St. Albert Trail. About one-third of Area 6 is currently subject to the development of an Area Structure Plan consisting of residential and commercial development. A recent MDP amendment also identified a Transit-oriented development node in Area 6 which would comprise a minimum of 32 ha (79 ac). In addition, a Council motion removed the Future Study Areas designation from a portion of Area 7 suggesting the owner would be able to proceed with a proposed residential development in the future

Servicing and Roads Once land is zoned and ready for development, there is still a need to install roads and all services to make it fully shovel-ready as articulated in the Municipal Development Plan. St. Albert has always encouraged contiguous development in the City as this is the most cost-effective way to provide services. Extending servicing directly from a developed area to an undeveloped area adjacent to it is much easier and far less expensive than building a long main line through undeveloped land to service a site farther away. While much of the land in the annexed areas is adjacent to existing development, the challenge is the lack of capacity in the system, in particular with the capacity of the wastewater systems to extend to the next parcel over. A significant amount of new infrastructure is required to be able to fully service these new areas and as a result the off-site levies, through which servicing is paid for, are higher than in other municipalities where capacity is still available. This is a challenge for any kind of development in the annexed lands, not only industrial, as it makes the development costs higher.

Recommendations â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Site Location Recommendation 1 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Five years of serviced land It is recommended that Council actively pursue, with the landowners, development of the existing designated and districted industrial land in the city to accommodate industrial growth for the next five years, as shown in MAP 8. All parcels could be easily serviced.

Page 36

Recommendation 2 – 20 years unserviced land Three options are provided for potential future Industrial land. Each option incorporates both smaller and larger areas of land in an effort to meet the land areas specified by Council. The first two options show contiguous land parcels. It is preferable to choose one larger contiguous site for a number of reasons:

 Synergies can be gained within the industrial park  There would be sufficient development to support a small service centre for the park as well as amenities or transit.  Servicing to one area can be more cost-effective  Potential conflicts with adjacent land uses are minimized with only one industrial location. Greater flexibility in site choice and design can be provided in a larger, single area. The two recommended contiguous areas ranked the same with two key differing elements. One is subject to prior commitments made to the landowners through amendments to the Municipal Development Plan and Intermunicipal Development Plan, but would be easier to service. The other has not been the subject of any postannexation commitments or discussions but would be much more challenging and costly to service. The third option suggests a non-contiguous configuration of land. While portions of it could be more readily serviced, others would pose considerable challenge and cost. Option 2A – Contiguous Land (ease of servicing) The area recommended as most suitable for industrial development is Area 4, as shown in Option 2A on MAP 9. This area could work for both the smaller and larger areas requested by Council, although the total area would only provide 260 ha (642 ac), the lower of Council’s range. While the rankings for this Area were tied with Area 3, Area 4 is preferable for a number of reasons:

 relative ease of servicing  two major intersections with Ray Gibbon Drive provide equivalent access to Henday as Area 3, but inclusion of Villeneuve Road provides more ready access to the northwest and the Villeneuve Airport.  the site lends itself to further expansion to the north in a logical manner without unduly impacting future residential development should a boundary adjustment be considered in the future

Page 37

 the presence of landfills in the subject area limit the types of development that could be placed there, making it more suitable for industrial development The presence of Carrot Creek could be used as a significant amenity for the area and development immediately adjacent to the Creek could be regulated in such a way as to minimize negative impacts on the creek. However, this area was subject to statutory plan amendments earlier this year to designate much of the site for residential development, where it had previously been designated Future Study Area. The larger area does not meet the requirement in the Municipal Development Plan nor the FILR Study (375 ha (926 ac)) to ensure 20 years worth of unserviced and undeveloped industrial land are available. Option 2B – Contiguous land (no post annexation formal/informal land use commitments) Area 3 received the same ranking as Area 4. If Council wishes to pursue future industrial development based predominantly on land for which commitments have not yet been made, this could be a preferred option, as shown on MAP 10 as Option 2B. Area 3 provides slightly less land than Area 4, but with the inclusion of the area to the north that is already designated for industrial in the MDP, the total amount is slightly higher than in Option 2A. This option could be considered to meet Council’s request for 150-175 contiguous ha, or expanded upon to meet their request for 260-300 contiguous hectares of land. The larger does not meet the requirement in the Municipal Development Plan nor the FILR (375 ha (926 ac)) to ensure 20 years worth of unserviced and undeveloped industrial land are available. Option 2C – Non-contiguous land (no post-annexation formal/informal land use commitments) It would be more challenging to meet Council’s request for non-contiguous industrial lands. To meet the amounts outlined by Council in a truly non-contiguous manner, land would be needed from Areas 5 and 6, which are really not conducive to industrial development due to land configuration and adjacent development, as discussed earlier. Separate parcels have been grouped around key intersections of Ray Gibbon Drive as the basis for the non-contiguous development. Potential sites are shown on MAP 10. However, non-contiguous development is not as beneficial for a number of reasons:

 Higher servicing costs Page 38

 More challenging to develop incrementally and build on existing development, each development must be brand new  Confusion over multiple sites, and less opportunity for synergies  Less opportunity for a variety of site types and sizes  Smaller sites are less conducive to supporting commercial services or amenities The City-owned Badger lands, because of the ownership, adjacency to Ray Gibbon Drive and to its potential for part of the site to receive earlier servicing could be a potential for earlier development. This complements the industrial land already designated in Area 4 on the southwest corner of the intersection. The lands around Ray Gibbon and north of Villeneuve could be considered for industrial development with the intention that future industrial development could continue north along Carrot Creek and Ray Gibbon Drive, should a boundary adjustment be made for the City. However, the lands in Area 5 are not recommended for any industrial development. This option could be considered to meet Council’s request for 150-175 noncontiguous hectares (371-432 ac) of land, but would not quite meet the request for 260-300 non-contiguous hectares (642-741 ac) of land. This would only be the case if land that was not as suitable for industrial development, from Areas 5 and 6, was included. The larger amount does not meet the requirement in the Municipal Development Plan nor the FILR Study (375 ha (926 ha)) to ensure 20 years worth of unserviced and undeveloped industrial land are available.

Page 39

MAP 8 – OPTION 1 – POTENTIAL INDUSTRIAL LAND FOR SHORT-TERM DEVELOPMENT

Page 40

MAP 9 - OPTION 2A – CONTIGUOUS LAND FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES (EASE OF SERVICING)

Page 41

MAP 10 – OPTION 2B – CONTIGUOUS LAND FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES (NO POST-ANNEXATION FORMAL/INFORMAL LAND USE COMMITMENTS)

Page 42

MAP 11 – OPTION 2C – NON-CONTIGUOUS LAND FOR INDUSTRIAL PURPOSES

Page 43

Part 2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Statutory documents Any specific changes to be made to any of the statutory documents and the land use bylaw require that Council first provide direction on the location of future industrial land. This report outlines the process required and some of the issues that would be considered in such a review but does not provide actual recommended changes to any of these statutory documents at this time. There are four separate steps required for land to become zoned as industrial. Step one involves designating the land as future industrial in the Municipal Development Plan. The second step is the preparation of an Area Structure Plan which further designates the land in the area more specifically. Third, the lands need to be districted appropriately in the Land Use Bylaw. Finally, the land would need to be subdivided and registered. Currently the City has the lands designated or districted as outlined in TABLE 10. TABLE 10 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; DESIGNATED AND ZONED INDUSTRIAL LAND Review Area

Land area (ha (ac))

Status

Area 1

31.7 (78)

MDP designation ASP Land Use District (zoned)

Area 2

20 (49)

MDP designation ASP Land Use District (zoned)

39 (96)

MDP designation

Area 3

41 (101)

MDP designation (Future Study Area)

Area 4

33 (81)

MDP designation

38 (93)

MDP designation (Future Study Area)

The timing required to move land through these various processes varies and is dependent on a combination of primarily provincial legislation and, to a lesser extent, City policy. TABLE 11 outlines the requirements.

Page 44

TABLE 11 – LAND DESIGNATION AND ZONING Process

Time required

Notes

MDP designation

5-6 months

CRB approval required

ASP development

6-12 months

May require consultant

ASP approval

4-5 months

Could be done concurrently with redistricting

Redistricting (LUB)

4-5 months

Could be done concurrently with ASP approval

Subdivision and registration

3-14 months

Applicants have one year after conditional approval of a subdivision to submit it for endorsement, which is required prior to registration.

Land use districts The City’s Land Use Bylaw currently has two primary zones that accommodate industrial type developments.

 Commercial/Industrial Services (CIS) – the intent is to provide an area for light industrial and commercial service uses.  Business Park (BP) District – the intent to provide an aesthetically attractive working environment exclusively for and conducive to the development and protection of offices, research and development institutions, and certain specialized light manufacturing establishments. Achieve development in a parklike setting that is an economic asset to the owners, neighbours and the community. This district encourages attractively designed buildings, provides for an abundance of landscaping and establishes land uses that do not create air, ground, noise and water pollution. The FILR Study (p. 71) pointed out that “the existing BP and CIS zones seem to offer provisions that would allow for the development of businesses with the target industries outlined in the Business Attraction Strategy.” They further pointed out that consultations “generally noted few problems with zoning requirements or the restriction of uses, with the exception of parking requirements for more commercial uses.” (p. 73) However, the study did highlight some key elements related to the existing land use districts that could present challenges to further industrial development. TABLE 12 outlines these challenges.

Page 45

TABLE 12 – LAND USE DISTRICT ISSUES Issue

CIS District

BP District

Commercial uses

Provision of commercial is wider than typically allowed on light industrial (p. 73-74) Attracts too many visitors to district “Similarly, limiting commercial uses in CIS or BP zones may not be the answer as the remaining vacant lands are only generating moderate interest from industrial developments. However, modification like this may limit existing traffic and parking issues at these sites.” Should be accessory uses.

More restrictive on commercial services and non-industrial (p.47-48) Attracts too many visitors to district “Similarly, limiting commercial uses in CIS or BP zones may not be the answer as the remaining vacant lands are only generating moderate interest from industrial developments. However, modification like this may limit existing traffic and parking issues at these sites.”

Design standards

Maintain developments to higher standard and higher quality than many other areas, may preclude oil and gas related light/medium industrial opportunities.

Site by site modifications

Do not currently allow site by site modifications

Parking

Parking for commercial uses insufficient Too many visitors to district for commercial

Multi-tenant office building

Outdoor storage

n/a

Multi-tenant office/warehouse – requires 20% of gfa as office, showroom, lab, research area. Says good for high-tech and integrated office/warehouse facilities “Eliminating the requirements is not preferable, as it does maintain some space for integrated industrial facilities. But perhaps there is an opportunity to reduce the require percentage of space dedicated to these uses, in order to further open up the market for these buildings in Campbell Business Park. Limited outdoor storage

Page 46

Land Uses To determine the most appropriate changes that may be required to existing land use districts, it is important to look at the types of uses proposed. As discussed earlier, the requirements for the two key target sectors are quite different. The FILR Study made a few general suggestions about industrial land uses. They include:

 limit commercial uses from the start  stress industrial developments  keep commercial as an accessory to the industrial uses The FILR Study did indicate that the land uses in the current districts, in particular the CIS district, do fit what is required by the target industry areas. Much of the challenge for the City really appears to have come from interest in CIS type uses coupled with the availability of serviced land and lots only in the more restrictive BP District which has a more design-oriented, business park focus. For purposes of this report, a thorough review was undertaken of the land uses permitted in both Edmonton and Parkland County for the Industrial areas with which St. Albert would be competing. Along with the suggestions from the FILR Study, these were considered in light of the proposed Target industrial sectors. The FILR Study suggests the IL or Light Industrial District available in Edmonton might be a useful basis for consideration in St. Albert. This is a newer district, and review of the various districts in Edmonton show that this district is fairly limited in uses and is only minimally seen throughout the Edmonton industrial area. Rather, the IM and IB Districts are predominant and seem to provide a more appropriate comparison. The two Target sectors appear to require a slightly different approach to land use requirements. The Transportation, Distribution and Logistics sector would be better suited for warehouse, “rougher” industrial-oriented sites. The Green Manufacturing would probably benefit from the addition of office and commercial uses. Uses found in the Edmonton and Parkland districts that are not found in St. Albert’s could be considered in any review of land uses. These include:

     

Heavy vehicle/equipment sales and rental Bulk Fuel Depot Funeral home and crematorium Waste management facilities Warehouse sales Truck/mobile home rental/sales

Page 47

 Residential sales centre  Recycling drop-off The following uses currently in the CIS district in St. Albert, and are either not generally found in the industrial districts in Edmonton and Parkland or have different restrictions than in St. Albert. These could be considered in a review of St. Albert’s land use districts.

 Warehouse store  Convenience stores, liquor stores, drinking establishments and restaurants have       

additional restrictions in Edmonton that they cannot be in stand-alone buildings, but only part of a primary building warehouse/outdoor is a use in St. Albert, no other jurisdiction has it separate Automotive sales and service Business support service Financial institution General service Health service Professional office

Building siting and design Lot size St. Albert provides a minimum lot size, whereas both other jurisdictions provide a minimum lot width. Both provide flexibility in terms of lot depth. For St. Albert, different minimum lot sizes may be considered in different areas, for instance larger lots along certain streets and smaller in others. Building Height Both St. Albert and Edmonton set a maximum height for a building, whereas Parkland County has no regulations for height. Edmonton does allow a specific increase in allowance for height for General Industrial uses if necessary to accommodate the industrial use itself. However, the variance permitted by the City of St. Albert actually provides comparable flexibility. As an urban municipality, it would be preferable to limit the height. In a central area for the Green Manufacturing sector where an office building may be preferable, higher heights may be considered, perhaps in a more central area to create a hub but this would be very specific to location and expected use.

Page 48

Setbacks Setbacks between Edmonton and St. Albert are similar, with St. Albert having slightly smaller side and rear setbacks, thus allowing greater coverage and use of the site, but slightly less area for protective landscaping and/or screening from adjacent uses. Both Edmonton and Parkland require greater setbacks and screening from adjacent residential areas, which would be beneficial for St. Albert. Parkland’s setbacks are considerably larger, which is more appropriate for a rural setting. St. Albert addresses interface with adjacent residential through a specific provision applying to all commercial and industrial districts. Design criteria The Business Park District in St. Albert is the only one requiring significant design criteria. The CIS district has none other than some requirements for cladding type. The Business Industrial district in Parkland County has a considerable section providing guidance for the Development Authority, in determining a level of satisfaction for a building’s design, character and appearance prior to issuing a development permit. Given the higher standards expected throughout St. Albert, as well as the two relatively different land use requirements proposed, some degree of consistency in design and appearance should be considered. It could be more so in certain areas and less so in others. Lot Coverage Parkland County is the only jurisdiction that sets maximum lot coverage for its industrial districts. Implications for St. Albert Given these comparisons, the City’s CIS district is suitable for future industrial development. A few additional considerations would include:

 Varying minimum lot sizes in the industrial area  Slightly larger setbacks on large lots for creating greater privacy between adjacent uses and screening more industrial activity  Regulation related to greater setbacks and screening from adjacent residential areas.

Site by Site modifications The purpose of land use zoning is to provide a single district for a particular area throughout which similar compatible standards for use and development are maintained. This is important for both the landowner and the City to ensure all uses Page 49

continue to be compatible in the future. There are existing regulations in the Land Use Bylaw that allow for some variances to existing regulations resulting in a fairly significant degree of flexibility on a site by site basis. The suggestion in the FILR Study about allowing for site by site modifications in zoning may come from Edmonton’s approach to zoning of its industrial land. Edmonton’s northwest industrial area appears to be a hodge podge of different zoning from lot to lot or area to area. This the result of a significant rewrite of the City’s Land Use Bylaw many years ago that significantly changed the City’s industrial land use districts. What were previously similar zones ended up being changed to different zones, and many older uses were grandfathered in. Edmonton also makes greater use of Direct Control zoning throughout the city. This district allows for site specific regulations, however, the processing and administration of these districts is greatly increased. As Council must act as the Development Authority, every detail and potential change is subject to Council approval making the development process much longer and more cumbersome. A well-written Land Use District should alleviate the need for such changes, especially in a city the size of St. Albert. In addition, the district could be prepared in such a way that there are certain site to site variations. For instance, one sub-area may permit larger lots with associated regulations while another street may require more consideration to design for buildings located there. It can be done in a logical and geographically appropriate way. Parkland County has only two districts in most of its industrial area and makes use of an overlay for part of it to provide additional regulations there. Ideally one or two districts in St. Albert should be sufficient to provide all the requirements for the proposed target industry areas. Site by site flexibility within the Land Use Bylaw currently exists through the use of variances, but which are subject to appeal. Additional considerations could include altering requirements based on specific sub-areas within a single industrial area to accommodate a variety of needs, but ensuring compatibility within sub-areas and effective transitions between them.

Parking The challenge of parking has come about more often as a result of commercial condo developments than from a deficiency in the land use bylaw. Parking is required based upon floor area. With condos, often additional parking is granted to earlier condo purchasers so that by the time the final purchaser comes on board, the parking that was allocated to their floor area has been reallocated and they claim there wasn’t enough parking required. Allocation by the condo association is where the challenge lies.

Page 50

In addition, if a tenant adds a mezzanine or second floor to their space, the area of the building increases and therefore additional parking is required to conform to the Land Use Bylaw and qualify for a development permit. If all the parking has been allocated on the site, no additional parking is available to meet this requirement and a development permit would need to be refused. That being said, for commercial, business type developments, St. Albert does require less parking than either Edmonton or Parkland County. St. Albert requires 1 stall per 45 m2 for many such uses, while Edmonton requires 1.125 per 45m2 and Parkland requires 1.53 per 45 m2 for floor area. For industrial uses, the parking requirements are similar. All use two options, requiring the one providing the greater number of stalls. They are summarized in TABLE 13. TABLE 13 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; INDUSTRIAL PARKING REQUIREMENTS Community

Option 1

Option 2

Option 3 -

1 stall/3 employees during maximum working shift

St. Albert

5 stalls

Edmonton

3 stalls/tenant or establishment

1 stall/100 m2 of FA

Parkland

3 stalls/tenant or establishment

1 stall/100 m2 of FA

It may be beneficial to look at how parking stalls are allocated on a site, in particular for condo developments that would provide greater restrictions on a per unit basis earlier on.

Multi-tenant office buildings In St. Albertâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s BP District, the requirement for this was put in place to allow for some multi-tenant/warehouse buildings but to ensure the intent of the district as a businessoriented district was maintained while allowing a small degree of light industrial development if it was related to business park type uses. The desire of some landowners in the existing Business Park has led to complaints about this requirement. However, this is not a requirement in the CIS district of St. Albert, or any of the industrial districts reviewed in Edmonton or Parkland County.

Page 51

Outdoor Storage Outdoor Storage limitations are also found in St. Albert’s Business Park District for the same reasons as the Multi-tenant office buildings to ensure the intent of the development meets the primary purpose of the district while allowing some flexibility for more industrial aspects. Again, this is not a requirement in the CIS district. The only general provision in that district is that screening may be required at the discretion of the Development Officer.

Recommendations - Statutory documents The city should pursue two key Phases for industrial land development. The first phase will encompass lands currently designated or zoned to accommodate industrial land for the next five years. The second phase will involve the designation and preparation of additional land for future industrial development.

Phase 1 1. Review potential changes to existing CIS district for existing industrial lands. 2. Work with landowners of currently designated and zoned land to move forward with servicing and development. 3. Work with landowners west of Ray Gibbon Drive to amend South Riel Area Structure Plan and Land Use Bylaw to include these lands as industrial.

Phase 2 In accordance with Council’s decision on a site(s) for future industrial land, the following will be required: 1. Intermunicipal Development Plan Amendment – change selected industrial location to future industrial uses 2. Municipal Development Plan Amendment – change selected industrial location to future industrial and remove any Future Study areas. A modification to Section 8.8 and 5.6 to remove reference to the Future Study areas would also be required. 3. The landowner/developer would need to develop an Area Structure Plan for the selected industrial area. The development of an Area Structure Plan is a critical element and will be the most challenging. Prepare and adopt changes to the Land Use Bylaw to reflect the requirements of the Area Structure Plan.Critical

Page 52