Expanded Article About the St. Albert Area Structure Plan for the east side of Big Lake

The proposed St Albert West Area Structure Plan (ASP) was an important item on the agenda for the December 12th meeting of the City’s Committee of the Whole. Tracy Tsui from the City’s planning department gave an update on the ASP that included a revised version of their main plan for the area.

To date neither this version of the plan (or the revised version that was presented to the Councillors in February 2023) has been posted on the City’s ASP website. However, you can find this revised version of the plan on the agenda for the Dec. 12th meeting. Tracy’s presentation can be viewed on the video of the meeting that has been posted on the City’s website. Basically, she just went through a list of some of the topics and information that will be included in the text of the proposed document.

The meeting was attended by four members of the BLESS Board of Directors. Kevin Aschim and Tony Druett gave a 10 minute presentation at the start of the meeting (prior to the City giving their presentation). In the first part of our presentation, we outlined some of the meetings and correspondence that we have recently had with various parties who are potentially affected by what is proposed in this ASP. The City councillors had previously suggested that we engage with these parties and facilitate ongoing dialogue with them. The following are the meetings and engagements that we outlined to the councillors at the meeting.

The City of Edmonton – We have exchanged emails with Councillor Knack, and also two planners and an engineer who have worked on the Starling Neighborhood. Our conversations with them have mainly revolved around the proposed realignment of 137 Ave and our suggestions for minimizing the environmental impact of this proposed project which may be implemented in 2024/5. An overview of our concerns and suggestions was provided in BLESS’s September newsletter.

The Planners in the Province’s Parks Dept. – We have recently had a very helpful meeting 6 of the Province’s staff who are involved in the planning for LHCPP. An overview of that meeting is provided in the next article of this newsletter.

The Counties of Parkland and Sturgeon – On November 21st we gave a presentation at a meeting of the Parkland County Council. We have also been in communication with some residents who are concerned about pollution getting into the Sturgeon River upstream of Big Lake. An outline of these meetings is provided below.

Adjacent Landowners and Developers – We have had several exchanges with Wind Dancer Properties in St Albert and Rohit in Edmonton. These discussions are mainly focused on minimizing the negative effects of the proposed 137 Avenue Realignment.

In the latter part of our presentation to the Committee of the Whole, we outlined our ongoing concerns regarding the proposed ASP. We started by listing some positive information that we have received from Tracy Tsui in the last few weeks. She has confirmed that there will be an appropriate setback of Environmental Reserve (ER) along the top of bank of Carrot Creek, as is specified in the City’s Municipal Development Plan (MDP). She has also stated that if the City of Edmonton make the revision to their 137 Ave realignment that we have requested, then the ASP and the future NSP can be revised accordingly. She has confirmed that there will be appropriate Stormwater Management lakes and/or wetlands installed on the south side of Meadowview Drive.

Lastly, she has confirmed that the City still intends to install the trail system that was outlined 5 years ago in the City’s Red Willow Park West (RWPW) plans for the area south of Meadowview Drive. BLESS is particularly pleased to hear this. Over the last four years we have been lobbying the City council and planning personnel to implement these plans. We believe that the RWPW plans provide an ideal framework for the area, which will really enhance the environment rather than destroying it. The following plans show the revisions that the City has made to their plans for this area over the last five years. On the left is what was shown on the City’s RWPW plans in 2018, and on the right is what is shown on the ASP plan that was presented at the December 12th 2023 meeting.

2018 RWPW Figure 2.3                  Dec. 2023 St Albert West ASP

We concluded our presentation by outlining our ongoing concerns with the proposed ASP. All along we have been questioning why the ASP has included a significant area of Major Open Spaces on the City owned parcels in the very furthest NW corner of the Lakeview Business District. In fact, we have wondered why there would be any need for there to be Muncipal Reserve (MR) along the west boundary of the area. The dedicated strip of Environmental Reserve specified in the MGB should adequately meet the environmental requirements. Municipal Reserve is mainly used for school sites and recreational park uses, such as sports fields and playgrounds. The MR parcels should be located where they are most likely to be used by the residents or employees, rather than along the periphery of the neighborhood. 

In industrial neighborhoods there is little need for school sites, so most of the developers usually provide their 10% MR dedication by making “cash in lieu” payments to the overseeing municipality. That money is then intended to be used for park facilities elsewhere in, or adjacent to, the neighborhood. In the case of the Lakeview District we feel that the area south of Meadowview Drive is the most obvious location for the cash-in-lieu funds to be used.

Tracy Tsui has informed us that the parcel in the NW corner of the Lakeview District will be a “Community Park” and that it will provide a “gateway to the area”.  We would suggest that if the City wants to use some of the 10% MR dedication (either land or cash-in-lieu) to create a “gateway to the area” and a transition between the Red Willow Trail System and the Lakeview Business District, the land south of Meadowview Drive would be a much more obvious location for it. At that location it would be a real “gateway” – not just into the neighbourhood, but also for visitors entering the City on Meadowview Drive. It would emphasize the incredible LAKE VIEW that is provided at this entrance into the LAKEVIEW Neighborhood. In fact, the 2018 RWPW plans already specify two raised viewing platforms overlooking Big Lake and at an appropriate distance from the lake shoreline. We particularly like the RWPW plans because they don’t show any trails or development in the floodplain on the south half of this area.

The latest revised version of the ASP (shown above) includes some additional details that would not usually be outlined until the planning for a Neighborhood Structure Plan (NSP). These additional details include the two areas of Major Open Space that are now specified on the parcels of land that are already owned by the City. We understand that the City planners are planning to submit an NSP for this property in 2024. In fact, they made in-camera presentations to the councillors regarding this proposed NSP in the latter stages of the meeting that we attended on December 12th. We would question the legitimacy of adding these details at this stage of the planning process – after the formal public review process for this Statutory Plan has been terminated.

We concluded our presentation by stating that we feel there is a pressing need for more dialogue regarding what is now shown on the ASP. Our conversations with all the various stakeholders have confirmed this. None of the people that we have talked with have had knowledge of the major changes that have been made to the ASP - until we have brought them to their attention. We feel it is essential that there now be a new round of public meetings prior to the revised ASP being submitted for first reading by Council. The revisions that the City staff have made to this ASP in January 2023 and now in December 2023 are not just minor adjustments. The changes back in January, in particular, revised the whole underlying basis of the plan. The reports supporting what is in the ASP document have still not been revealed to the public. If it was a private developer that was making these sorts of revisions, they would almost certainly be asked to carry out a whole new public review and comment process. There should be an in-person open house where the public and the other stakeholders can review the entire document, and its accompanying reports, and then formally submit their comments on the revised ASP document.