Important note: this is my personal blog. Any mistakes or opinions expressed here belong to me and me alone, not to City Council or Administration.

Both housing and affordability have been huge topics of conversation around the Council table. People already in Grande Prairie are having trouble finding places to live. And employers are reporting challenges attracting needed employees to our region due to a lack of housing options.

A great deal of effort has gone into attracting apartment building investment. Council has also changed rules to make townhouse development easier. In my mind, these kinds of built forms are the most promising ways to add housing stock into our community.

However, all solutions should be explored. Council has also been talking about the current rules around Secondary Suites. There is openness to re-considering the rules around Secondary Suites, but I don’t think anyone wants a repeat of certain neighbourhoods where past lax rules made for very challenging places to live.

Eight potential amendments to the Land Use Bylaw are coming to Council on Monday. If all of these amendments pass, there would still be a maximum of 2 units allowed on a single lot. Additionally, a maximum of ~50% of lots would be able to have a second unit (in reality, this 50% ratio would be unachievable in most places). However, there would be more potential for Secondary Suites than exists today.

Personally, I can potentially support some of the proposed amendments, but I probably cannot support all of them. Especially concerning to me is the amendment that would loosen up parking requirements.

As I’m thinking through the options, I’d love to hear from you. Are there specific amendments you either support or strongly oppose? If so, why do you feel the way you do? And in terms of the way I’m personally approaching this: where do you strongly agree with me, and where do you think I’m completely out to lunch?

You’re welcome to share your thoughts with me online. But the best way to share your thoughts is with all of Council at the Public Hearing. It is at City Hall, 6pm, on Monday. Members of the public are welcome to come address Council before these amendments get debated.

Why this conversation?

When it comes to the Land Use Bylaw, there is a balancing act that is in place. We want people to have freedom to do what they want with their land. But, we also want to make sure that what they do doesn’t unduly impact people around them. As a matter of good governance, I think it is worth Council occasionally examining the question of “are we striking the right balance between freedom and regulation?”

Right now, this is especially important when it comes to housing. For rentals, we have an INCREDIBLY low vacancy rate. There are people unable to find suitable housing even if they can afford rent. And on both the rental and purchasing side, there are people unable to afford the options available to them. So loosening up housing regulations may be a good thing. It could create more options for people to choose from to match their budget and needs when building, renting, or buying housing units. If more units get built, that often helps drop price.

Additionally, taxes have been a HUGE concern to this Council. The average amount a Grande Prairie household pays in taxes is comparable to other Alberta cities. Over the past 7 years we have kept tax increases WAY below inflation despite provincial and federal governments downloading huge costs on us (see this infographic for a look at tax changes), but many residents want to see taxes lowered. Many also want to see some services increased. One important strategy to be able to do that: increasing density. Infrastructure is incredibly expensive to build and maintain. Having more people served by each kilometer of road, pipe, and gutter is a HUGE cost savings. So, if we can gently increase density in ways that don’t make large sacrifices to quality of life, that’s a good thing.

Both for people looking to get into homes and for other taxpayers, looking at our housing regulations is worthwhile work .

Council has spent a lot of time working on attracting single detached and apartment/condo style development. It has also loosened up regulations for townhomes. In my mind, these are the forms we should hope to see most new housing take, so I am glad they were prioritized.

However, at the same time: Secondary Suites are a valid option in some situations. They might be a worthwhile part of the solution, too.

the big concerns i hear

As we talk about Secondary Suite regulations, there are a few concerns I am frequently hearing. Most of them are VERY valid and need to be considered. As we do consider them, there is some information that should inform the conversation.

Following is a list of the big concerns I have heard and how I am personally thinking through them. As you read through these concerns: please let me know if I have missed any that are big to you. And I welcome any pushback or thoughts you might have.

“parking will be a big problem”

Parking is a big concern that I share with people. I want to make sure that our streets are safe and that municipal services such as snow removal, garbage trucks, and emergency crews have the access they need. These become concerns when adequate parking doesn’t exist in a neighbourhood.

I don’t see myself supporting the reduction the of parking stalls required for a Secondary Suite.

Additionally, whether we make changes to Secondary Suites or not, our enforcement of parking laws does continue to be a concern for me. I’ve seen it improve in recent years. But I still want to see us do better at enforcing the rules when people block driveways, get too close to corners, or don’t move their vehicles for snow removal operations.

“WE SHOUld build houses, apartments and townhouses Instead”

Council has worked to attract single detached home builds. However, this is the most expensive form of housing. It is out of reach for many people, plus it is expensive to provide municipal services to. Additionally, some people don’t want to live in single detached homes (usually because of the work involved).

I think most folks recognize that we need more than single detached homes. Many think we should focus on apartment / condo builds and townhouses over Secondary Suites. I would agree with them. To me, these are the more desirable form of higher density development.

I will also note that these HAVE been the focus of Council. A lot of effort has gone into attracting investments in apartment style builds. Last year, Council changed the Land Use Bylaw to allow for townhouse style homes to be built up to four stories (previously they could only be two). Aquatera has also announced a two year pause on infrastructure charges for new multi-family builds.

Council rightly started conversations about attracting new housing with looking at single detached, apartment, and townhome investment. This is where the focus should remain. However, I don’t think this means all conversations about Secondary Suites should be off the table.

“I don’t want another westpointE”

With my sincere apologies to the people who live there, we all know Westpointe is at top of mind when people say, “I don’t want to see neighbourhoods like what got built during the last big housing boom.” There are a few places in the region where development was dense and not well done. We definitely want to learn from and not repeat those mistakes.

However, it is important to know that even if Council passes all potential amendments, there will still be much stricter regulations in place now than there were in the past. Some issues we see in Westpointe and a few other places that are not possible today:

Parking Requirements: Secondary Suites used to only require 1 parking spot, no matter how many bedrooms were in them. Currently, one parking space per bedroom is required. Personally, I think this requirement should be kept in place.
Road Width: Roads were built 9m wide. They are now required to be at least 10.5m wide. Nobody is proposing to change this. Wider roads make a huge difference in terms of getting large vehicles (like garbage trucks) through, and in terms of how a street feels.
Density Limits: There were no requirements on the number of Secondary Suites. Some streets built in the past have one in almost every house. That is no longer allowed. While Council is discussing changing current density limits, nobody is proposing allowing a Secondary Suite on every property. If passed, the proposed changes would not allow more than two Secondary Suites in a row and the maximum amount that could be in an areas would be 50% (and this 50% theoretical maximum would almost always be impossible to hit in reality).
Maximum Driveway Width: There was no limit on driveway widths, leading to driveways so big that street parking was eliminated. Now, front driveways can take up a maximum of 40% of the property width. Nobody is proposing to change this. This preserves street parking. It also means that many properties are unable to get a secondary suite because they can’t build driveways wide enough to meet parking requirements.
Lot Width and Bedroom Numbers: Minimum lot widths were 9m and there were no limits on bedrooms. This led to many three bedroom units being built on narrow lots. Now, only two bedrooms are allowed. Under the proposed regulations, three bedrooms would be allowed but a lot would need to be at least 12m.
Double Electric Meters: ATCO used to provide two electric meters to houses with Secondary Suites, one for each unit. This made it much more attractive to purchase a house with a Secondary Suite as an investment property and be completely hands off it. ATCO no longer provides double electric meters.
Back Parking Access: Many houses got built with parking in the back, but no easy access to that parking. This means that people end up parking on the front street, leaving their back parking empty. Now the City makes sure that rear parking stalls are connected to a door by a paved path.

There are definitely concerns with how Secondary Suites have impacted some neighbourhoods. Due to much tighter regulations today, I am confident that we won’t see the same types of streets getting built again.

“we shouldn’t do this just because the federal government is telling us to”

It’s important to note that the federal government has nothing to do with these changes.

Some other communities are changing their rules in order to receive Housing Accelerator Funding. However, Grande Prairie has not received any of this funding. There is no incentive, requirement, are even request from the federal government for us to change our Land Use Bylaw.

I’d also note that the changes being contemplated fall well short of the federal requirements for funding. To give funding, the federal government is requiring municipalities to allow up to four units on every single property. In Grande Prairie, we only allow up to two units per property. Under current density regulations, it is only theoretically possible to get a second unit on ~25% of properties. If the potential amendment to our density rule changes, it will theoretically be possible to get one Secondary Suite on ~50% of properties. In reality, these limits are rarely (if ever) hit: to get to them, properties need to be perfectly spread out, which rarely happens.

A maximum of two units on less than half of lots is well short of what other municipalities are doing to receive federal funding.

“you shouldn’t do what calgary just did”

That’s right, we shouldn’t! But, no one is considering doing that.

Calgary is now allowing up to 8 units (4 townhouses each with a Secondary Suite) on every property. Nobody is proposing that in Grande Prairie. Please see the previous section.

“nobody wants to live in a basement suite”

I strongly disagree with this based on my own experience. When we first got married, my wife and I spent six years in a basement suite. It was a more affordable option than an apartment, which allowed us to save up for our future. It was also in a neighbourhood that we wanted to live in but which didn’t have apartments. I’m so glad the basement suite option was available to us.

I want Secondary Suites to be a good option for people. I don’t want folks ending up in them just because it is the only place they can find and afford. But for some: it is a great option to have available.

“We should prioritize ownership over investment”

I agree with this. I want as many people as possible to be able to own a home if they want to own a home.

However, not everyone wants to own a home or own a home right now. They still need a place to live, which does make investment in rentals an important part of housing in our community. Personally, I have a lot more comfort with local people owning a few rentals than I do with large, non-local companies owning a ton of them. Secondary Suites can be one way for local and relatively small investors to be able to compete with large corporations.

Additionally, Secondary Suites are a valid strategy some families use as part of ownership. This is especially useful if they know they will be caring for relatives or are just starting as a family. With a Secondary Suite, they can grow into it when space is needed and generate revenue when it isn’t needed. Secondary Suites are a great way for families to be able to change their housing space without having to move. And in some cases, a Secondary Suite is a great way to keep family “close but not too close.”

I don’t think Secondary Suites should be the primary form of housing in Grande Prairie. But there are families they make a lot of sense for.

what other communities are doing

Every community is unique. Grande Prairie should make decisions that work best for Grande Prairie. We don’t have to be like everyone else.

At the same time, we’d be foolish to not learn from others. It is worth looking at what other communities are doing to see what is working and what is not working. Here are what a few comparable communities to Grande Prairie look like when it comes to Secondary Suite regulations:

Source: this file at https://engage.cityofgp.com/secondarysuites.

I’ll note that in most categories, these other communities have much less restrictions than we have today. Even if all proposed amendments pass, Grande Prairie will still be more restrictive than these other municipalities.

changes being considered and my take on them

There are very few people who think that all Secondary Suites should be outright banned. At the same time, I have yet to talk to someone that thinks all the rules should be completely blown open so anything goes. Everyone seems to acknowledge that there is some sort of balance that needs to be struck.

There is currently a lot more balance and regulation in place than there was in the past when some neighbourhoods got built. I regularly hear concerns about Secondary Suites that got built in previous decades. I’m not hearing or seeing the same concerns about Secondary Suites as they get built today. So, I don’t have a lot of appetite to explore getting MORE strict with Secondary Suites.

However, I have had people show me a property where they want to add a Secondary Suite and are not allowed. This includes some folks who currently live in a home they want to stay in, but would also like to add a Suite to. In some cases, I’ve thought to myself “that isn’t a terrible plan and you shouldn’t be allowed.” But there have also been cases where I haven’t seen big issues with a Secondary Suite being added. So, I am open to conversation about changing a few of the rules that are currently in place.

However, when we are looking to balance things, doing “too much too fast” is a big concern. Even if those are the right things.

On Monday, I might support a change to the Land Use Bylaw to amend rules to Secondary Suites. I have troubles seeing myself support it if all of the changes being proposed remain in it.

Before I dive into specific changes, three things worth noting:

They are very inter-connected: We can’t consider each change independently. There are some changes I can’t support as part of the total package being suggested, but may be able to support if other changes get taken out.
New development is different than infill: There is a big difference between someone choosing to move into a neighbourhood and a neighbourhood changing around where someone already lives. I get this completely. There are some changes that might be worth considering for new neighbourhoods or blocks that haven’t been built yet, but not blanket wide across the City.
My ears are open: I definitely have early thoughts, but I work hard to listen to both residents and my colleagues. I always go into Public Hearings with an open mind.

Following are the eight big changes being proposed and my take on them.

The graphics are taken from this presentation which can be found on the City’s engagement page.

Worth Noting: You cannot have more than two Secondary Suites in a row, and no one is proposing to change that. So, if one set of duplexes had Secondary Suites, the set next door could not do the same thing. These would also be hard if not impossible to do on an infill property because they would require subdividing and adding an additional waterline.

My Take: This is one I am REALLY struggling with. I honestly have no clue where I will land on it, so would love to hear from you.

On one hand: duplexes are legally separate pieces of property. I have troubles justifying to their owners why they should have less rights than someone in a single detached home.

At the same time, this change has residents I’ve heard from worried, and I get why. There definitely is a different feel here than compared to a Secondary Suite in a detached home.

I’m likely comfortable with this in new developments. I have a lot less comfort with this as infill.

I need to learn more about what say the City would have if someone chose to subdivide an infill property to do a duplex with Secondary Suites. If the City has the ability to regulate this subdivision, I potentially support this change. Otherwise, I struggle to see myself supporting Secondary Suites in duplexes City wide. If this change does get rejected by Council, I would like to see us explore opportunities to allow this type of development in new builds.

Worth Noting: The current density limits theoretically allow for Secondary Suites in ~25% of properties. The proposed new limits would theoretically allow for Secondary Suites in ~50% of properties. However, these densities can only be hit if all suites in a neighbourhood are perfectly spread out, which never happens in reality. In practice, densities would almost always be much lower than theoretically possible.

My Take: My view on this one is VERY dependent on if other potential changes go through. For me, what each Secondary Suite looks like is a lot more important than how dense they are. It is far less disruptive to have three well done Secondary Suites on your block than it is to have two poorly done Secondary Suites. I have troubles seeing myself supporting this if we open up all the other rules being considered, especially the ones that impact parking. If some other changes are rejected, I can see myself supporting a bit more density. That being said, going from “3 in 50m” to “8 in 30m” is a big jump. If Council wants change, then it might be wise to adopt a middle ground between those two, let things play out a little, then re-evaluate.

My Take: Whether a Secondary Suite has a large living room or a tiny living room has zero impact on the neighbours. But whether it has 1 to 3 bedrooms can impact the neighbours because it can impact how many people live in the Suite. I’m open to this change, but only if I’m comfortable with where we land in terms of lot width, number of bedrooms, site coverage, and parking.

My Take: I do like aligning the total number of bedrooms with lot width, but I do struggle with allowing one more bedroom in Secondary Suites and with decreasing lot width for a single bedroom unit. This is almost certainly a “no” for me if we reduce parking requirements. It is a “maybe, I need to think about it still” if we keep parking requirements as-is.

My Take: As-is, I don’t see myself supporting this change. Parking is the number one concern raised by residents when we talk about changing Secondary Suite rules. Municipal services such as snow and garbage removal can be difficult when parking is strained. In my mind, allowing no parking if there is only one bedroom in a Suite is not reasonable. I also think there should be two spots for a two bedroom Suite. However, if Council does allow three bedroom Suites, I’m open (but far from committed to) the idea of only allowing two parking spaces for them.

Worth Noting: Alberta Building Code has much stronger requirements for a stand alone Backyard Suite than it does for a Secondary Suite inside the main residence. Additionally, standalone suites require new utility hookups. This makes them VERY expensive to build. Suites above garages have been allowed for many years. My understanding is that, to date, only three have been built.

My Take: We already allow Backyard Suites above garages. This means that they are usually a two story building. As long as the footprint is the same, a one story suite is less impactful to the neighbours than a two story construction. Since it would actually be LESS disruptive than what is currently allowed, I’m likely to support this change. However, I can only support this if Council also supports limiting the size of a Backyard Suite to make sure that they remain less impactful than a Garage Suite would currently be.

My Take: If they are allowed top be built, limiting the size of Backyard Suites makes sense to me. I do support this amendment. However, I also wonder if it goes far enough. In my mind, Backyard Suites should be smaller than the main dwelling. I don’t want to see situations where it is two basically identical dwelling units put on the same lot. I need to learn more about if this is a possibility under the Bylaw as proposed.

That’s my current thinking on what is coming before Council. As always, I’d love to hear from you! Leave me a comment. Or give me a call or text to 780-402-4166. Better yet, come to the Public Hearing on Monday to share your thoughts with all of Council.

Thanks for taking the time to read!

-Dylan

Secondary Suite Regulations