It's the "Name that Use" game...

[nerudite]

Okay, it's not really a game... I have just been writing way too many bylaws (10 hours a day for six days now) and I'm my mind is going to mush.

So here's the dilemma... St. Albert currently has a definition for cluster housing as follows:

"cluster housing" means a development of multiple dwellings other than apartment buildings and may include duplex and semi-detached dwellings located on a site or several such developments located on adjoining lots, which are designed to be architecturally integrated.

In reality, this isn't really clustered housing as we all know it (where you have smaller lots, higher common open space ratio in order to preserve natural areas, etc). And I don't like it being called "clustered housing"... but what the heck is it? I'm trying to clean up the bylaw a little, and I would like to include REAL cluster housing in the bylaw, but I have to think of what to call the definition above. This use (whatever we call it) is pretty prevalent in at least three zoning districts, so I don't want to toss the thing out entirely.

Any ideas? Or should I just bag it and chalk it up to semantics.

 

[gkmo62u]

It's not Cluster the way you and I understand.

It is more like mixed-unit type residential.

 

[el Guapo]

May I offer "a randomly sprinked housing blend"?

 

[Jeff]

That would be what planners in PA like to call "Village housing" where there is just a bunch of different types of housing units situated on small lots.

 

[Lee Nellis]

This is why some of like performance zoning … Don't want to think too hard about labels that turn out to arbitrary anyway._But setting that aside, I have encountered the pattern of development you describe under the very broad title of "planned residential development," which was, I think intended to distinguish it from planned unit developments that could include mixed uses …_I think I might like the suggestion of "village zoning" better, but the PRD label seemed to work for the community I saw it used in.

I should point out that most of us who work with open space protection have found that "cluster" is not a particularly helpful way to describe a development pattern that protects open space by focusing building in a small part of the site. There are two reasons (at least). One is that the general public tends to perceive a cluster a being very dense (in contrast to their existing large lots) and that's not a good way to start the discussion with them. The other is that what we are trying to accomplish is open space protection. So, the newer term of art tends to be "open space development" or, for some, "green space development." It may not make a difference where you are working, but I have found that avoiding the term "cluster" really does help keep peoples' minds open longer.

 

[donk]

Is the definition from a zoning by-law or from an official plan?

The definition might make sense in the context of the document, but outside the document the definition does not really define anything that needs definition.

My interpretation of the definition is that "cluster housing" can be pretty much any type of dwelling, on a single lot or multiple lots, so long as they all look somewhat similar. This sounds like just about any neighbourhood that develops in a single design era / trend.

 

[nerudite]

Thanks for your help so far... village and planned are good choices.

donk: This is currently in our land use bylaw, not in our municipal development plan. You are right, it doesn't really matter what type of development it is (except no detached or apartment style units), as long as there are multiple units and they have a planned theme.