-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
I’m sure many of the members of the Calgary Regional Partnership (CRP) have been waiting nervously to see how Mayor Naheed Nenshi is going to proceed with implementation of the Calgary Metropolitan Plan. I was following His Worship on Twitter on Friday, June 17 as he attended the Alberta Urban Municipalities Association’s Mayor’s Caucus in Calgary and tweeted about regional planning. Here’s the conversation that resulted via Twitter:
[View the story “Mayor Nenshi: Regional Planning” on Storify]
It’s disappointing that the Mayor declared my tweet about the density targets as a misrepresentation. The numbers I quoted were correct. The densities for the compact urban nodes in areas like DeWinton, Balzac and Bearspaw are set at a minimum of 8-10 units/per acre (with a preference for higher densities). I had tweeted 10-12, which is a minor discrepancy. These are the numbers that were originally proposed–I forgot that they had dropped it down to 8-10. But no matter how you look at it, these are at least five times (and in some cases more than 10 times) the densities that are currently found in some of the rural areas that have been singled out to be transformed into “compact urban nodes” or as the locals like to call them, “the blue blobs” (referring to the original blue areas presented to the public during the “consultation” phase). See this map for the exact location of the these clusters of high density housing that the CRP wants to build just outside the City’s boundaries . The bottom line is, these blue blobs are on the outskirts of the city and are based on transit lines coming out to the communities.
The money for those transit lines has to come at least partially from the provincial government. I haven’t seen much funding coming from the provincial government recently for regional transit services. There has been a trickle of dollars to some communities, but the problem is that the houses will be built first and those homeowners will be commuting into Calgary on city roads and at great cost to the infrastructure, not to mention the environment. The sprawl will continue with transit service promised to offset the strain on City of Calgary roads (and on the City’s taxpayers) but the blame laid on the provincial government for not coming through with the dollars. Even if they do fund major transit lines to the urban nodes in areas like Okotoks and Airdrie, the jury is still out in the planning community as to whether this is good practice.
According to Mayor Nenshi, the density requirements apply to only some of the blue blobs. If this is the case, it is certainly not what was communicated during the public consultation. The message was clear–these densities apply to all of the compact urban nodes and have already taken effect in most of the communities that signed on. Even though the plan looks out over the next 60 years, municipalities must immediately begin aligning with the Calgary Metropolitan Plan, which is part of the regional planning and Land Use Framework. The penalties for non-compliance are quite significant and discussed in the Alberta Land Stewardship Act. This is the same Act that has raised the ire of many Albertans for its heavy-handedness and which was only slightly amended under extreme pressure from the Wildrose Alliance Party recently. The reality is that any new municipal development plans have to conform to the new regional plans or the municipality faces financial penalties.
Truper McBride, the chair of the Calgary Regional Partnership (CRP), says the organization is hoping to entice estranged rural municipalities to rejoin the alliance.
He said the organization is seeking dialogue and cooperation with several municipalities, including Rocky View County.
“The task is to re-engage with the rural communities with a dialogue,” said McBride. “There are some things that we would like to talk about. We hope we can bring the family back together.”
The statement came after a Jan. 20-21 CRP retreat, during which representatives of the 15 member municipalities discussed the Province’s recent response to the organization’s planning document, the Calgary Metropolitan Plan (CMP).
McBride reiterated that residential developments densities of between eight and 10 units per acre are non-negotiable.
“We are committed to the densities,” said McBride. “We can have conversation on how we phase-in over time, we don’t expect everyone to get to eight to 10 overnight.”
Rocky View County Reeve Rolly Ashdown said the County is willing to sit down and talk, as it does see advantages to regional planning. However, he said the CRP’s targets for residential densities are not compatible with development in the county, nor is the current voting structure, which gives Calgary a veto.
“We wouldn’t be able to join,” said Ashdown. “Rocky View wants to maintain its autonomy.”
According to Ashdown, the County will continue to work with neighbouring municipalities.
“We would still look forward to cooperating on a friendly basis,” he said.
In its response to the CMP, the Province directed the CRP to reach out to neighbouring non-member municipalities. McBride said he didn’t sense that the Province was looking to force the non-member rural municipalities into the Partnership, but it could happen.
Crossfield Mayor Nathan Anderson, who represents his community within the CRP, said he wouldn’t support the partnership if it became mandatory, such as happened in northern Alberta’s Capital Region.
“I don’t think (membership) should be forced on anybody,” said Anderson. “I think we should work together as opposed to having the Provincial government try to tell us what to do. If the CRP starts going in a direction, as far as morphing into another layer of government, I won’t be supporting it.”
However, Anderson said his original pessimism about his community being part of the CRP was unwarranted after attending the retreat.
“I am optimistic that the counties will rejoin the CRP,” he said. “Everyone is so close to seeing more or less eye-to-eye. I was very impressed with the way Mayor Truper McBride led the conversation, it was about building bridges with the rurals as opposed to any kind of strategy to get them back in.”
View original article here:
By Don Patterson
Staff Reporter
Okotoks town council stood up in opposition to the Mike Holmes-led Wind Walk development on Monday evening.
Councillors spoke out against the proposal at a special meeting held to discuss concerns over the impacts it could have on the town’s water supply, its roads and parks.
“My main concern all along has been that large a growth there of approximately 1,100 people right next to the border just creates all kinds of issues,” said Mayor Bill McAlpine.
The plan for the area includes residential housing, a commercial development and park spaces. More than 400 housing units and 80,000 square feet of retail space are proposed for the area.
The MD will be holding a public hearing for the proposal Thursday at 1:30 p.m. in High River at the Highwood Memorial Centre.
The Town of Okotoks contends the development should not be permitted under the intermunicipal development plan (IDP) between the Town and the MD. The IDP calls for low-density country residential development in rural areas around Okotoks.
At the top of McAlpine’s list of concerns is water. He said if the wells on the site do not provide enough water, the Town would end up having to supply the development.
McAlpine also said it will place significant pressures on roads and other amenities in the community, such as schools and recreation facilities.
The Town is also concerned about runoff from the community ending up in the town’s sewer system.
If push comes to shove, McAlpine said the matter could end up in front of the municipal governance board, but he would rather see the Town and MD go to mediation first.
Coun. Stephen Clark said the plans don’t take into account the cumulative effects it will have on water and traffic in Okotoks.
He is also concerned about safety for pedestrians crossing Highway 7 from the development in to town.
Clark said it would be difficult to build a pedestrian overpass over the highway in the area.
“Look at the grade there. You’re looking at the roof of Walmart from that highway. To do a pedestrian crossing would have to be quite high,” he said.
Clark said he wouldn’t be opposed to the MD approving a low-density development in the area.
“There needs to be a transition from urban to rural. We can give that to the MD, but it’s low density. It’s not 1,100 people going to our library, it’s not 1,100 people going to our recreation centre,” he said.
As for the development’s celebrity backer, Clark said Holmes doesn’t fully grasp the unique challenges facing the development or the position it would put the Town in.
“Certainly Mike Holmes is using his celebrity and certainly Okotoks has an international reputation as being a sustainable community. What Mike Holmes is in essence asking us to do is throw out the very thing that made us successful,” he said.
By Enrique Massot
The MD of Rocky View will push for last minute changes to the Calgary Regional Partnership’s (CRP) proposed land-use plan, before it is presented to its members for approval on June 19.
“We want to know: can we have a water allocation from the Province of Alberta?” said Rocky View Reeve Lois Habberfield. “If we have three per cent growth, we want three per cent (water) allocation.”
A draft plan was presented to the CRP’s general assembly in June 2008, giving municipalities nearly a year to suggest changes. The fact that the MD waited so long to offer changes doesn’t sit well with CRP chair Linda Bruce.
“We extended the time to give councils time to work with the citizens,” said Bruce, who is the mayor of Airdrie. “At this point, we are ready to go.”
The first-ever land-use plan for the Calgary region will require municipalities to develop to urban densities as high as eight to 10 units per acre as a condition to be connected to servicing. However, Habberfield said the plan does not detail water provision for lower density areas of the MD.
“Elbow Valley for example — we should be servicing that area,” she said.
The MD has received several other concerns regarding the CRP’s plan.
At a May 19 special council meeting, several developers encouraged council not to endorse the draft plan, and to lobby for changes. Murray Fox, executive vice-president of Jayman MasterBuilt, asked Rocky View council to demand the CRP include the Big Hill Springs conceptual scheme in the regional plan. The development, slated to house as many as 10,000 people on 1,100 acres in northwest Rocky View, was approved by council in 2007, but has not been included in the metropolitan plan.
MD residents, on the other hand, have asked council to oppose the plan, but for different reasons. “We do not want sprawl,” said Kim Magnuson, who lives in Springbank. “We depend on you (council) now to say no to the Calgary Metropolitan Plan.” Bearspaw resident Al Sacuta said the plan’s urban nodes, once serviced, would inevitably spread out into the country. “These nodes will blow out like metastasizing tumors, allowing for urban sprawl in rural areas,” he said.
The three rural municipal members of the CRP have also expressed concern regarding the partnership’s decision making system. Under the super-majority vote system, all motions require the support of Calgary as well 12 of the 17 members municipalities.
Habberfield said there are deep differences between the MD and the CRP.
http://rockyviewweekly.awna.com/story1.html
MD of Rocky View residents had only eight days to respond to the Growth Management Strategy that was put into place to align municipal plans with the Calgary Regional/Metropolitan Plan. When residents requested an extension, their request was denied. Gordon Branson of the MD of Rocky View responded to a request via email on May 8 saying, “I have spoken to Councillor Solberg, Chair of the GMS (Growth Management Strategy) Committee, and wish to advise that a possible extension to the time line for receipt of residents’ responses has been discussed by the committee. It has been determined that it is not possible to do so.”
The GMS will be considered by Council on Tuesday, June 9, 2009.
Read more in the Cochrane Times:
Rocky View residents voiced their concern about proposed long-term development in the municipality at open houses in Indus, Balzac, Bearspaw and Springbank between April 23 and 30.
While most people were pleased the municipality has developed the Growth Management Strategy, a guiding document for future planning in the municipality over the next 50 years, some are worried it encourages high density growth at the expense of maintaining the rural character of Rocky View.
“I don’t think nodal development is the way to go,” said Bearspaw resident Al Sacuta. “I think they act as little tumors on the environment, that once a community is hooked up to water and sewer (development) just explodes in the region. I think it will just turn us into a mass of a sprawl.”
The strategy proposes a 10,000 or more population increase in Cochrane Lake, Harmony, Balzac, Conrich and Langdon with a potential increase along Hwy. 8.
While community cores of 5,000 residents or more are slated for Bragg Creek, Springbank, Bearspaw, Kathyrn and Delacour.
Sacuta attended the open house in Bearspaw on April 29 from 6 to 8 p.m. and was disappointed with the number of people that turned out while he was there.
“I’m kind of thinking the people in Bearspaw are getting warn down. There are so many of these things to go to,” said Sacuta, who has been actively involved in the Bearspaw Community Development Strategy and CRP open houses.
“I think the Springbank people are still gung-ho about all of this. I’m thinking they can row the boat while we catch our breath here in Bearspaw,” he said.
The Springbank open house did draw a larger crowd the next evening on April 30. Richard Wilson, who chairs the Central Springbank Task Force community group, was one of the residents who attended. He thinks the GMS is not a community-based plan, but rather a top-down plan.
“I think it’s a wolf in sheep’s clothes. It pretends to protect land and prevent urban sprawl, but it will do exactly the opposite,” said Wilson.
He said acreages in the west of the municipality have protected it from the urban development that’s taken place in the east. He wants to see sprawl restricted and believes designating the area around the 10,000 plus urban nodes as acreage land will help contain development.
If the strategy goes through as planned Wilson said rather than protecting Springbank’s identity, it will get gobbled up by Calgary.
“I think in a very short order Springbank will become an urban environment and will sprawl toward the city and be annexed,” he said.
Councillor Earl Solberg, who is overseeing the strategy, said it doesn’t outline a specific boundary today for what is going to actually occur in the future, but rather it’s a guide to develop a new municipal development policy.
“That’s where the teeth are going to be. It’s the first step in a longer process that gets more definitive as you go,” he said, adding creating a new municipal development policy involves a public consultation process.
Springbank resident Kim Magnuson said growth needs to be managed and is happy the municipality is trying to do that, but she didn’t think there was enough community consultation.
“I don’t know what the rush is with this. This is the community involvement right here,” said Magnuson, pointing to the crowd of people at the open house.
Solberg said the public had been made aware of GMS. It was mentioned in the Rocky View Weekly and referred to during council discussions.
“I think people out there who had interest in it could have offered opinions to their local councilor and they still can. I don’t know how much time is enough, but I think that two years is sufficient,” he said.
Reeve Lois Habberfield added while staff and council have worked on the strategy for two years and are comfortable with it, she can appreciate the public need some time to process it and give their feedback since they have only been privy to the final draft as of April 21.
“We do want to get it right so if the working committee thinks people need some more time we can look at that,” she said.
The final date for public feedback is May 8. Residents should email their comments to Stuart Jewison or Jared Kassel at 2060@rockyview.ca.
On May 7, 2009, the following letter was sent to media and government representatives:
David Suzuki Foundation speaks out against urban nodes in rural Alberta communities
Joint response from MD-wide grassroot community planning groups to the Calgary Regional Partnership Plan and local municipal development plan
We applaud the province, the region and local municipalities for planning for the future. The idea of coordinating planning processes among the three levels of government is commendable, but the current direction must be modified to avoid an environmental and economic disaster.
Before considering a plan for growth, planners and councillors must first determine the size of growth that can be supported. Analysis suggests that Southern Alberta does not have sufficient water to sustain the population growth on which the Calgary Regional Partnership and the MD Rocky View draft Growth Management Strategy 2060 are based. We estimate that the currently available water can sustain a further 0.8 million inhabitants, half the growth projected (1.6 million) in the recently released plans.
Once we (governments AND residents of Southern Alberta) have agreed on the level of growth that can be supported, next we need a sensible sustainable plan.
Calgary is already the 5th most sprawling city in the world and has been identified as a model of how NOT to build cities. Calgary’s urban sprawl has made it infamous, expensive to service and increasingly unliveable. To improve the region’s plight, it would be sensible for all future population growth to be accommodated in the city where services can be provided, while preserving as much of the remaining agricultural land and green space in Southern Alberta as possible. This seems to be the gist of the Land Use Framework, which has the support of many Albertans, and Calgary’s Plan It to “Build up, not out”.
The Calgary Regional Partnership and municipal plans like the MD of Rocky View’s draft Growth Management Strategy 2060 sing different tunes by encouraging growth outside the city limits. While we believe that the community supports long-term planning and the principle of using plans to guide development, we believe these draft plans mostly have the support of developers and land speculators who will likely reap huge profits. These plans pinpoint areas for high-density development outside the city limits without any meaningful community consultation (community workshops, discussion papers, open-minded questionnaires, etc.) about whether high density should be allowed or how it should be handled, or what residents would like to see.
If municipal governments and the region impose high density, they need to ensure that high density remains confined to specified areas. The draft plan locates areas of growth (“urban nodes” and “community cores”), but does nothing to restrict growth outside those areas. This will be a disaster from a planning perspective and will exaggerate and accelerate sprawl (for movies demonstrating the historical growth effects of urban nodes outside city limits go to http://www.ourspringbank.ca). The cost of servicing the sprawl will first bankrupt the municipal governments and then the region, will gobble up agricultural land and result in environmental disaster.
The David Suzuki Foundation agrees. In response to developments now planned for Springbank, Panos Grames, Outreach Coordinator for the Foundation had this to say: “Density is often used as an excuse for more development. Increasing density within city areas that already have development can work to minimize a city’s footprint. Developing areas where there is little or no existing development is nothing more than sprawl.”
So how do we stop sprawl?
Calgary has sprawled North, South, East and West, but the western march of high density is rapidly reaching a barrier that may yet prove to be impenetrable: a belt of small acreages. While not everyone can live on acreages, which themselves bite into agricultural land, they serve an environmental and economic purpose by stopping urban sprawl. Acreages are water neutral: the majority of water taken from the ground is returned. Economically, they are almost revenue neutral (unlike urban sprawl, which represents a huge burden on tax revenue). But most important of all, acreages stop high density sprawl by making it uneconomic and slow to develop rural land. Acreages provide a buffer zone.
Our groups would like to see a green belt around Calgary with a moratorium on any further development of agricultural land, simply to protect the environment and improve sustainability of Calgary and the Region. However, we feel that the political resistance from councillors, land speculators, large land owners and developers to such a plan would be too great. Therefore, we suggest a compromise, a win-win solution that restricts high density developments outside the city limits. Our solution encourages the development of an acreage and green space buffer zone around Calgary and protects farm land further out, while compensating landowners who choose not to develop.
Our plan is quite simple: all land is assigned land credits that are part of the property’s deeds. Land owners can sell the credits, but once sold, the credits are removed from the deeds permanently and the land can never be developed. Developers must accumulate (buy) credits to build any new developments. These are not new ideas, however, we would like to add two very important refinements to prevent sprawl: (a) only acreages or green spaces are allowed and (b) fewer credits are needed to build acreages closer to the city than further away. This will encourage acreage development around the city limits, forming a barrier to the city’s sprawl and will stop acreages from spreading across viable agricultural land to the horizon.
According to this model, planners, the community and politicians could determine the width of the acreage ring by (a) adjusting the number of credits required to begin a new development in relation to the number of credits assigned to undeveloped land and (b) how the credits for undeveloped land are distributed with respect to its distance from the city.
In summary, while we congratulate the future-looking efforts of our local, regional and provincial planners and politicians, we believe that these draft plans need to be refined to deal with population limits imposed by water availability and the number one threat to the region: another 60 years of urban sprawl.
Sincerely,
Chairs of the Central Springbank Task Force for Sensible Development, Highway 8 Sensible Development Group, Citizens for a Sustainable Okotoks, “No Calgary Veto” – Foothills Residents for Accountability in Development, Sensible Development Bearspaw Group, and Springbank Community Planning Association.
For further information, please contact:
Kim: 403-240-1965 or Al: 403.239.4089.
Emails sent to ourspringbank@gmail.ca with a subject heading “MD-wide Sensible Planning Groups response to the GMS” will be circulated to all groups.
As reported in the Cochrane Times: http://www.cochranetimes.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1515872&auth=Sara%20Loftson
Springbank residents got to view the Calgary Regional Partnership land use draft plan April 2 at the Springbank Park For All Seasons.
The plan is an attempt to manage population growth in the Calgary area region into the next 60 years, when the population is expected to increase by 1.6 million people.
Councilor Mitch Yurchak started the presentation by urging the packed crowd to work with the CRP to manage growth in the area.
“Traditionally, we’ve always had an approach where we don’t want any development — we’re the last ones in, close the doors behind us,” said Yurchak.
That mindset has seen Springbank lose lands all the way to Bowness, he said.
“We didn’t use that land, we didn’t develop it. . . . The Province gets put in a situation where they have to figure out how to accommodate growth and who will be the better steward of that land so annexation occurs,” said Yurchuk, adding that pattern has repeated itself with the loss of lands up to Canada Olympic Park, Valley Ridge and now almost to RR 33.
“We’re all charged with this task of accommodating some growth in anticipation that if we can accommodate some growth there should be no need for annexation,” he said.
CRP executive director Rick Butler and land use manager Colleen Shepherd followed Yurchak’s talk, giving an overview of the draft plan. They have traveled throughout the 17 member municipalities and one First Nation holding scheduled presentations in the past month.
On the west side of the municipality Harmony and Cochrane Lakes have been identified as a potential compact urban node, as well as a potential development node along Hwy. 8.
Urban nodes are compact, mixed-use, walkable and connected to local and regional transit. Unplanned lands in existing nodes would see minimum densities of eight to 10 units per gross acre.
Springbank resident Richard Wilson asked what measures will be taken to protect lands around the node.
“What happens in 10, 15 years when the boundary of the node breaks down and it joins the nearest city, to have a node without protecting around the node is encouraging urban sprawl,” he said.
Transfer of land development credits have been used in the United States to protect certain areas, and it’s one tool the Province and the CRP are looking at using, said Yurchak.
Development credits allows landowners in designated sending areas to sell their development potential to developers in a designated receiving area, who can increase density beyond the allowable zoning limit. At this time the Province has not legislated any such credit.
Gerry Neustaedter, a former Bearspaw area councilor, voiced concern with how these developments will be serviced.
“One thing that’s scary for acreage people is the thought of regional sewage coming in, you need high densities to pay for that sewage,” he said. “If we want to maintain our rural lifestyle in Bearspaw, Springbank and other places in the MD we really need to oppose piped sewage.”
Yurchak said that it doesn’t make sense for one-acre lots not to get servicing. He pointed to the community of Bragg Creek whose residents can’t drink their own water.
Mayor Truper McBride was also on hand to field questions, explaining that water “is the enabling factor whether some areas will grow and others will not. If you are not in these growth areas, then you will not be receiving water from the regional level.”
While Cochrane is quickly approaching its own license limit, Calgary has agreed to extend its license to compact urban nodes such as Cochrane.
CRP staff plan to compile all the feedback from the open houses, tweak it, then bring it to each municipality and the Tsuu T’ina First Nation for approval by June.
BY NANCY GINZER
COLUMNIST
In a move that will sweep 100 years of historical independence down the Sheep River, Okotoks is about to sign onto the Calgary Regional Partnership (CRP) plan. This signals the beginning of the end for a great little town.
In the CRP agreement, Calgary, with the consent of two-thirds of 17 participating municipalities, will hold superior veto. Excessive growth being the natural outcome of a growth-obsessed province, undesired mandates could be forced upon Okotoks against its will. Yet, the Town is prepared to ratify the agreement in June.
CRP representatives say whether Okotokians keep the status quo cap (30,000 population) is “up to them.” This is disingenuous. By accepting the CRP mandate, the Town of Okotoks signs away its historic rights to autonomy. Even if citizens vote yes for the status quo in April’s community survey, the CRP could legally override the cap.
Head cheerleader for growth is Mayor Bill McAlpine, who said, “People are going to be here… so we might as well face that fact and deal with it responsibly.” The subtext of which is, “We’re going to grow big whether you like it or not. You have to accept it.”
But, is it “responsible” to sign onto an agreement that will so drastically change the quality of a town’s life? To be sure, an expanded population would bring more tax revenues to Okotoks. However, as the experience of unhappy towns in Ontario have proven, it will also bring more crime, traffic, pollution, costly infrastructure, a fourth bureaucratic level of government, and higher taxes.
The right thing to do, of course, is to call a public plebiscite. By not doing so, the mayor shows disrespect for Canadian democracy.
Water is at the heart of this debate. With expansion, the Town will be forced to find other sources. Alternative water supplies such as aquifers are being considered, but chances are water will be piped from the already stressed Bow River at exorbitant cost. This is not a sustainable solution. Population growth, climate change and historical drought are predicted by top water scientists to cause a prairie crisis in water quantity and quality… with far-reaching implications in mere decades. Okotoks’ contribution to the “crisis” only ups the ante.
In any case, who says growth is the only option? The provincial government? Big business? In progressively minded countries, the “everything must grow” philosophy is passé, while support for small, sustainable communities is increasing. Okotoks, a former leader in the green movement, is about to turn its back on its sustainable mandate. Why?
The mayor and the Minister of Sustainability Resource Development, Ted Morton, ought to visit the shrinking Columbia Icefields to remind themselves that Alberta — a semi-arid desert — has only two per cent of Canada’s water. They should take off their blinders and read Jared Diamond’s “Collapse,” a book that describes how societies that deplete their resources for short-term fiscal gain and overpopulate their regions relative to the carrying capacity of the environment, fail. Look at the severe droughts in Australia, Africa, Spain, Argentina, USA, China. As former chair of the UN’s Water Initiative, Bob Sandford said, “The Bow River basin is where Spain was 20 years ago, while Australia is where we might be 20 years from now.”
Alarm bells are ringing everywhere. Except where money trumps common sense.
Once the CRP is ratified by Okotoks, say goodbye to your “sustainable” little town. Down the road, it’s certain to become another faceless “blue blob” where crowding, water woes and top-down governance are what you’ll get. Is this the quality of life you envision for your family’s future?
Nancy Ginzer is a member of
Citizens for a Sustainable
Okotoks
Land in the DeWinton and Dunbow areas proposed for long-term, urban-style development should not be written in stone in a regional plan, say MD of Foothills councillors.
Councillors asked Calgary Regional Partnership (CRP) officials last week plans for a large area in the northern portion of the MD near Calgary not be formalized until the MD has had more time to discuss the concept with area residents.
“In a 60-year plan, if it takes us a while to get it pegged down, does it really matter?” asked Coun. Terry Waddock.
While a series of open houses are being held across the region this month, including one held in Millarville on March 17, the draft plan was formally unveiled to MD council at its March 19 meeting.
The plan identifies future “compact urban nodes” in the DeWinton and Davisburg areas. The regional plan sets out future development in these areas will see higher densities between eight to 10 units per acre.
Waddock said council has already tried unsuccessfully to have the draft policy changed so urban growth areas would not be formalized until two years after the agreement is signed this June.
He said there are a lot of ideas in the plan the MD supports, but there are a lot of residents in the MD who will be impacted and haven’t had a chance to respond to the plan.
“The concern I have is there are nearly 2,000 people who might be affected by this,” he said.
According to Waddock, the MD is also concerned the plan does not identify how amendments would be made — that is, if decisions would have to be unanimous or would the CRP use the double majority process.
Coun. Larry Spilak said the plan is being completed without regard for the rights of landowners.
He suggested taking more time to identify urban growth areas and to do it through a regional commission that includes the City of Calgary, the MD and affected land owners.
“It will give them input to decide how their lands are going to be used in the next 60 years,” said Spilak.
Coun. Ron Chase does not support the proposal for future urban growth in Division 5.
“Unless it’s eliminated, I can’t support this plan at all,” he said. “I’d be very interested in knowing how someone could walk through my area… and expect to put eight to 10 units per acre in there.”
Chase said population growth isn’t the issue, but the planned urban growth is incompatible with the MD’s rural setting.
Colleen Shepherd, CRP land use plan manager, said the Dunbow Road area could be designated as a special area outside the plan.
“It’s important that you know that at the end of the day, we’re not saying this is how it has to be,” she said.
However, she said other CRP members are fully supportive of the proposed urban growth areas within their jurisdictions and would like some indication of support for their plans from the partnership.
Shepherd said servicing will be provided to compact urban nodes and their development would be phased in over the long-term. If urban growth areas in the MD are removed from the plan, she said they wouldn’t receive services until they are covered in the document.
She said the DeWinton area is a potentially significant area for transit-oriented development. As well, she said the CRP is trying to encourage businesses to locate in the rural areas such as in Aldersyde, and those areas could receive water services and well as a link to the regional transit network.
According to Shepherd, the plan will not eliminate country residential developments or growth in rural areas and the MD will be able to deal with those proposals.
“We aren’t saying there won’t be any rural residential at all,” she said. “We know there will still be a market.”
MD residents voiced
concerns of their own at an open house on the plan in Millarville last week.
MD resident Suzanne Oel said the CRP’s plan includes some good proposals, but more time is needed to consider feedback from the community.
Ultimately, she said landowners should’ve been more involved with the process.
“Their timeline is happening awfully fast and it’s scaring a lot of people,” she said.
MD resident Nick Worthington said the plan looks like an “urban planners approach to planning in
a rural area.”
He suggested the MD should hold a referendum on the issue
Don Thomson, a Millarville area resident, said it’s good to plan for the region’s future.
“It’s opened my eyes to what the thinking is long-term,” he said.
Yet, he said he is concerned the City of Calgary will drive the process.
“Will Calgary dictate what’s going to happen out here?” he asked. He doesn’t want to see the MD develop to significant densities.
Read the full article at:
Residents voiced their concerns over a residential plan that could see Okotoks’ population and its residential densities potentially double.
The Town of Okotoks held two meetings last week looking to residents for direction on the fate of the Sustainable Okotoks policy and the town’s 30,000 population cap as the deadline looms on the Calgary Regional Partnership’s (CRP) regional plan.
Okotoks resident Tony Sansotta said people will have to understand what the decision will mean.
“I’m concerned that if you lift the cap, you don’t know what you’re going to get. People really have to know what impact it will have,” he said.
If the Town chooses to grow, Sansotta said it will challenge Okotoks’ long-term sustainability stretching water supplies and putting the Town’s fate in the hands of the City of Calgary.
According to the CRP, 1.6 million people are expected to move to the Calgary region in the next 60 to 70 years. Under the group’s draft regional land use plan, Okotoks is being asked to accept two per cent of the future growth in the
region — or 30,000 people — and nearly double its current residential density.
Former town councillor Laurie Hodson said future growth cannot occur without additional water, which is already an issue in Okotoks.
“If we have no assured access to water, there is no decision to make,” he said
Hodson argued the City of Calgary is being given too much power under the partnership.
Continued on page 7
Okotoks Mayor Bill McAlpine said he believes the Town needs to grow and that concerns over water supply will be addressed.
“We need to grow to thrive and be an active participant in the partnership,” he said.
According to McAlpine, the Town can keep the cap and stay within the CRP, but it’s a decision that will have consequences in terms of access to regional services or from the Province.
He said the CRP will also be working on a number of initiatives including carbon dioxide emissions and garbage and the Town will be able to play a more substantial role in developing those programs from the inside.
The Town presented three scenarios to respond to the growth and it has to decide which model it will follow before the final plan is adopted by the CRP on June 19.
• In the first scenario, the 30,000 population cap is retained. The Town would continue with a proposed annexation of 290 acres on Okotoks’ southeast boundary and it will grow to the 30,000 population mark with existing residential densities of 4.6 units per acre. According to information presented at the meetings, the Town would be connected to the city with bus transit, but commuter rail service may not be viable.
• In the second scenario, the town would grow to 45,000 people by 2039. It’s predicted 730 acres will need to be annexed under this scenario and the overall residential density would nearly double to eight units per acre. It’s expected there would still be growth pressures near Okotoks’ borders under this scenario. The Town would tie into a regional water system and rail transit service into the city could be possible under this scenario
• In the third scenario, the town would grow to 60,000. It’s predicted 1,667 acres will need to be annexed in this scenario over a 30-year period with residential densities in town of eight units per acre. The town would connect to a regional water pipeline from Calgary and would be served by a commuter transit line.
Linda Bruce, CRP chairperson and Airdrie mayor, said Okotoks can decide whether or not it wants to grow. If it decides to grow, she said water services will be available. If not, Bruce said the Town will give up a say on future development outside its boundaries.
“There’s going to be development in that area. Either they can control it within their borders or they can hand it to everyone and it’ll be on the outside of their borders with no control or no say,” she said.
Bruce said the plan will ensure that water services will be provided to areas identified for future urban growth that are developed to densities of eight to 10 units per acre.
She said the City of Calgary will provide water for urban growth and added this won’t give the City additional control over the plan.
“This is not about Calgary holding a hammer. If that’s the case, Calgary could’ve limited Airdrie’s growth in the past,” Bruce said. “It’s about making sure water allocation is done appropriately in the future.”
If the Town chooses to grow, Okotoks resident Ken Colosimo said there still has to be a target and basing the capacity for growth on the river is a good model to use.
“I don’t have a problem necessarily with growth, but we do have to base it on something,” he said.
Colosimo said he has concerns about how the Town will be able to pay for future growth. He noted the Town’s 2030 financial sustainability plan, which shows it will be fiscally viable with 30,000 people. If the Town grows, he said it will need assistance from the provincial and federal governments.
“We’ll have to rely on someone else now,” Colosimo said.
Steve Hanhart, Okotoks’ municipal planning manager, said that if the population cap is held in place, the town can expect to see growth near its boundaries.
“There will be increased growth pressures outside town boundaries very near to Okotoks,” he said.
If the cap is dropped, Hanhart said the Town would see a more dense level of development. While there will still be single-family houses, he said there will be more row housing and in-fill development of existing communities.
The Town’s presentation and all slides and information shown at the meetings will be made available on the Town’s website at http://www.okotoks.ca
Read this article online at: http://www.westernwheel.com/090318/index.htm
Just say NO! to a Calgary VETO 