Agenda highlights
The Ville Giroux item will likely take up the lion’s share of our meeting, with the flood line coming in a close second - These are probably the most complex bylaws Council has seen since the Riverbank Landing proposal, which failed in its first iteration and narrowly passed in its second.
Ville Giroux - ASP, MDP, LUB amendments
These motions are a request from a developer who would like to build two 65 metre towers (~20 stories) within the Ville Giroux community that are not currently permitted by St. Albert’s various planning documents. If approved, this change would have the neighbourhood increase from 746 units to 1,218 units, “with a corresponding population increase from 1,405 to 2,311 people. This sees an overall density increase for the whole of Ville Giroux from 52 dwelling units per net residential hectare (du/nrha) to 86.6 du/nrha.” Administration is recommending that Council not support this application for a number of reasons, including:
It’s not close to a transit node/our planning documents specify that higher density should be developed around these nodes.
It’s not downtown or along the corridor where we’ve decided to focus on increasing density/it doesn’t follow our growth strategy.
Our MDP was developed using a comprehensive process, including extensive consultation with residents and studies looking at a range of considerations, so I’m hesitant to throw our strategies out the window because of our current needs. I’m particularly concerned that if we approve developments like this, our goals for a vibrant downtown will fail - it’s tempting to support near-term opportunities, but at what cost? That said, we are in dire need of more housing in St. Albert, and this proposal supports this need.
Only one member of the public attending an open house about this project, and only two comments were received through our online engagement tool, so I’m concerned that most residents aren’t familiar with the proposal.
I was contacted by the developer a few weeks ago to introduce this plan and give me an opportunity to ask questions, but I declined because my preference in these situations is to ask questions in a public setting after I’ve seen the administrative backgrounder. I’m sure I’ll have many questions of both administration and the proponent during our meeting, and some of the questions I’ve flagged include:
Whether the intent is to not develop any commercial & get rid of the urban village concept if the new proposal is approved. (Section 1.1 & 1.5 of the ASP)
Why the reduction from four to three park areas, and the end to the retail/commercial strip park?
If we approve changes, it is possible that the new/larger low-density areas would be developed sooner than the higher density sites? (3.3.1 of the ASP) Could we approve the the high density amendment without approving the increases to the low density area?
A request for side-by-side maps in the future so I don’t have to scroll back & forth to compare!
LAND USE BYLAW (LUB) - FLOOD LINE UPDATES + OTHERS
This is a continuation of our public hearing/discussion from June 20 & August 15, relating to updates to developable areas in response to updated information about the changing flood plains. Admin has suggested an amendment to allow developers to construct a stormwater wetland as long as it is “to the satisfaction of the City Engineer”. At first glance, I don’t have any concerns about this proposal, but I will ask questions about the application fees for this type of facility and whether they are currently adequate for this kind of request in this particular higher-risk area. I will also ask about a public comment that suggests more specificity in the approval process for a stormwater wetland is warranted.
Women Building Future ($2,500)
Like the motions from last meeting to fund the Snowflake Festival and sponsor a tree for a nonprofit fundraiser, this is a motion from an individual member of council to provide $2,500 to Women Building Futures. Since Council just approved our updated sponsorship policy, and since our grant policies were updated to allow appropriate non-St. Albert organizations to apply for funding, I’m a bit surprised that this motion hasn’t been withdrawn. These kinds of one-offs are costly to hear in a formal council context, and they can now be accommodated within existing sponsorship processes or grant requests. We’ve been getting into the weeds a lot lately, and the costs of all these one-offs in terms of staff time particularly are getting out of hand.
This is a brief and incomplete overview of our meetings, with my personal comments sprinkled in - In no way are my opinions representative of the official direction of council or the City of St. Albert. Please let me know of any typos or errors. Members of the public can register to speak if they have information to present to council. Full agenda packages can be found on the stalbert.ca website.
