TAMRMS#: B06
title
Land Matter - Community Amenities
Presented by: Adryan Slaght, Director, Planning & Development Department
label
RECOMMENDATION(S)
recommendation
That Council receive the Land Matter Community Amenities report as information.
body
PURPOSE OF REPORT
The purpose of the report is to outline considerations with respect to Council’s goal of identifying a site or sites to locate a variety of community facilities.
ALIGNMENT TO PRIORITIES IN COUNCIL’S STRATEGIC PLAN
• STRATEGIC PRIORITY #1:
• Growth Policy Framework: Develop a robust policy framework to guide growth.
• Develop a value proposition (inclusive of all the City offerings) to attract businesses, residents and other institutions to St. Albert.
• STRATEGIC PRIORITY #4:
• Infrastructure Investment: Identify and build needed capital assets.
• Identify feasible strategies for near term development horizons for community facilities inclusive of land, financing and partnership opportunities.
• Identify an inventory of existing facilities including an assessment of condition and usability and identify gaps in land and facility supply and demand.
ALIGNMENT TO LEVELS OF SERVICE DELIVERY
N/A
ALIGNMENT TO COUNCIL DIRECTION OR MANDATORY STATUTORY PROVISION
On February 25, 2019, Council approved the following motion:
INC-19-020
That the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) be directed to provide to Council by June 24, 2019 a recommendation as to whether the City should purchase up to 35 acres of land or utilize a similar area within lands already owned by the City for construction of one or more campus style community amenities.
That the CAO be further be directed to ensure that the said recommendation is supported by a local development plan including: a concept plan, estimates of both initial servicing costs and total (life cycle) cost of ownership, details of required updates to Area Structure Plans and other planning documents, and overall development timelines.
That the CAO is authorized to include without prejudice conversations with landowners as part of the research and due diligence activities leading to the said recommendation.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
For several years the City has been working toward identifying land requirements associated with various options for provision of community facilities. During this time, the City has received requests for land or facilities from several community organizations. In 2017, the City included three ballot questions during the Municipal election related to the planning of an additional branch library (7,802 for/13,346 against), a 6th sheet of ice (9,982 for/10,850 against), and additional aquatic space (12,050 for/8,922 against).
In July 2018, Council approved Administration seeking expressions of interest to help the City address the issue of providing recreation amenities. In response, the City received four proposals for campus style development of multiple facilities, and one for a stand-alone facility.
From November 2018 to February 2019 Administration had in camera discussions with Council on this topic (as permitted under the Municipal Government Act) including at Council's Strategic Planning Session in January 2019. On February 25, 2019, Council passed the motion set out above, directing the CAO to conduct due diligence investigations and make recommendations on acquiring land or using existing City owned land up to 35 acres for community amenities.
In exploring options for community amenities, Administration considered a variety of factors including location of land, type of facility being requested, compatibility between facilities and the parcel being considered, compatibility between facilities on the same site, land cost, servicing costs, how much of the cost would potentially be recoverable, ability to spur non-residential growth by providing servicing, maximum extent of proposed annexation, potential growth strategies, etc.
Potential sites considered
Administration began with an assessment of parcels of undeveloped land generally larger than four (4) acres, located within the City, primarily west of Ray Gibbon Drive north of Villeneuve Road, and north of Neil Ross Road. Land located on 137 Street in the City of Edmonton was initially considered, due to prior Council dialogue regarding the site, but was not ultimately considered as a potential site.
Potential facilities considered
Part of the consideration of sites revolved around the identified potential needs and desires for facilities as expressed to Administration by Council and the Public, as well as the minimum amount of land needed for each. It was determined 35 acres of land would meet the need for community facility development such as recreation facilities, fire hall, public works facilities and other community amenities.
Administration evaluated the proposed facilities with the potential locations to determine the suitability of the proposed facility to various lands, and the compatibility of facilities with each other.
Based on Administration’s analysis and Council direction, three sites have been identified for future consideration of a community amenities facility campus:
• City-owned Badger Lands
• Erin Ridge North Area Structure Plan (ASP) lands
• Range Road 260 ASP lands
Below provides a high-level summary of the three sites:
Parcel: Badger Lands
Servicing Type: Alternative
Estimated Net Cost (Land & Servicing): $7.1M ($23.5M cost less $16.4M recoverable)
Parcel: Erin Ridge North
Servicing Type: Traditional
Estimated Net Cost (Land & Servicing): $14.34M ($51.1M cost less $36.76M recoverable)
Parcel: Range Road 260
Servicing Type: Traditional
Estimated Net Cost (Land & Servicing): $ 8.0M ($24.5M cost less $16.5M recoverable)
DETAIL AND ASSUMPTIONS
Universal Assumptions
Below are some of the universal assumptions made for consideration of these sites:
• All sites will need a new Area Structure Plan (ASP), or an amendment to an existing ASP.
• All of the potential facilities are presumed to fit within each of the three proposed sites.
• All sites will need Water Act approval for stormwater discharge and/or wetlands compensation to varying degrees.
• A grade-separated pedestrian crossing has been anticipated for each of the three sites due to proximity to arterial roadways; however, it is not included in the costing presented in this report.
• Location of community amenities facilities at each of the three (3) sites identified could be anticipated to stimulate additional development in proximity to the site, to greater or lesser degrees.
• A community recreation campus is anticipated to draw significant traffic volumes. This type of amenity is not considered in any of the current ASPs and therefore not contemplated in any Transportaion Impact Assessment ("TIA"). Further evaluation would be required.
• All sites will require off site servicing which includes storm, sewer and water.
• All sites have been considered for traditional servicing (new off site pipelines connected to City’s existing services) and/or non- traditional servicing (new self contained services within the land under consideration and not connected to City’s existing services).
• Cost sharing agreements with municipal neighbours and/or other levels of government have not been included.
City-owned Badger Lands Site
Parcel: Badger Lands
Servicing Type: Alternative
Estimated Net Cost (Land & Servicing): $7.1M ($23.5M cost less $16.4M recoverable)
Badger Lands Assumptions:
• The City currently owns the land, therefore no incremental land costs are associated.
• The City would need to provide for all servicing for the parcel.
• The current snow storage facility would have to be relocated.
o To relocate the snow storage facility, snow dumping would need to be discontinued in advance of any development in order to dewater/remediate the site in time for development.
• Future Fowler Way is currently anticipated to bisect the northern half of the parcel.
• Alternative servicing would be a preferred option on the site, allowing the evaluation of its servicing viability on a portion of the site. This would incur relatively low risk due to the scope, and would retain the ability to move to traditional servicing at a later date, if necessary.
Erin Ridge North ASP Site
Parcel: Erin Ridge North
Servicing Type: Traditional
Estimated Net Cost (Land & Servicing): $14.34M ($51.1M cost less $36.76M recoverable)
Erin Ridge North Assumptions:
• It is anticipated that in the approved Erin Ridge North ASP phase 2 Municipal Reserve would be dedicated to community campus facilities, which would diminish the amount of park space available for neighborhood residents.
• Based on the existing geotechnical reports around this area, any development on this site would need to consider the depth to groundwater, which may then lead to significant increase in associated construction costs.
• Development on this site will require an ultimate storm water solution, which is in process; timing of the resolution (including construction) remains to be determined.
• As proposed by the developer, a land gift of approximately 30 acres includes on-site servicing costs, but does not include off-site servicing costs.
• The Erin Ridge Neighbourhood currently has perceived issues with traffic congestion. A community recreation campus is anticipated to draw significant traffic volumes. This type of amenity is not considered in the current ASP and therefore not contemplated in the TIA. Further evaluation would be required.
Range Road 260 ASP Site
Parcel: Range Road 260
Servicing Type: Traditional
Estimated Net Cost (Land & Servicing): $ 8.0M ($24.5M cost less $16.5M recoverable)
Range Road 260 Assumptions:
• Siting a community facilities campus in the RR260 ASP would likely spur residential development within the ASP, and the Lakeview Business District to the south if traditional servicing is brought across Ray Gibbon Drive.
o Administration anticipates that while each of the options would serve as a driver for local residential development, the RR260 option would likely have the greatest opportunity to spur development on the west side of Ray Gibbon Drive.
• The existing ASP is slated for commercial and industrial land uses. The use of the northeast portion of RR260 for community amenities would result in a reduction in anticipated non-residential tax revenue.
• It is anticipated some of the municipal reserve requirement for Range Road 260 ASP would re allocated to campus site which would diminish the amount of park space available for neighborhood residents.
• The developer would gift approximately 30 acres of land as well as former landfill #1.
o Potential uses for the landfill could include a dog park, sports field, putting green, disc golf, etc. The City would likely have more uses for the site than a developer.
Next Steps
Based on final direction from Council, a concept plan, Area Structure Plan (or amendment), and detailed site planning will need to take place prior to development.
A Project will be developed for each of these aspects, for inclusion in 2020 Budget considerations, and estimated time frames are listed below:
• Decision on Land: Q4 2019
• Decision on amenity priorities and phasing: Q1 2020
• Site Concept Plan Development & Public Engagement: 2020/2021
• Area Structure Plan Development: 2020-2021
STAKEHOLDER COMMUNICATIONS OR ENGAGEMENT
Engagement has been primarily limited to internal departments, and landowners that could act as potential development partners. The City has formally requested expressions of interest for the sale/donation of land for community facility purposes.
On September 4, 2019, Administration provided an overview of the final three potential community facility sites to the members of the School Site Allocation Committee.
IMPLICATIONS OF RECOMMENDATION(S)
Financial:
Full cost of buildout of any of the reviewed scenarios/phases will be provided, should the project move forward. Any proposed development of community amenities could have implications for the City debt limits. More specific costing will occur through development of project briefs & charters, based on Council’s eventual direction.
Legal / Risk:
N/A
Program or Service:
Development of any or all of the proposed community amenity facilities could impact service levels, and would be further defined through capital project budget charters.
Organizational:
Development of any or all of the proposed community amenity facilities could impact organizational resource levels, and would be further defined through capital project budget charters.
ALTERNATIVES AND IMPLICATIONS CONSIDERED
If Council does not wish to support the recommendation, the following alternatives could be considered:
Alternative 1. That no further action be taken at this time.
Report Date: September 23, 2019
Author(s): Adryan Slaght
Committee/Department: Planning & Development Department
Deputy Chief Administrative Officer: Kerry Hilts
Chief Administrative Officer: Kevin Scoble