TAMRMS#: B06
7.1
REQUEST FOR DECISION
title
Bylaw 19/2025 - Land Use Bylaw Schedule A Amendment for a portion of 25331 Township Road 544 and 25321 Township Road 544 (1st, 2nd, 3rd Readings)
Presented by: Barb Dupuis, Planner, Planning & Development Department
label
RECOMMENDED MOTION(S)
recommendation
1. That the Public Hearing on Bylaw 19/2025 be closed.
2. That Bylaw 19/2025, being amendment 10 to Bylaw 18/2024, be read a first time.
3. That Bylaw 19/2025 be defeated.
body
SUMMARY
This report discusses a proposed redistricting for 8.50 hectares± (21.00 acres±) of land within the Northeast St. Albert Area Structure Plan, to facilitate a school site. The purpose of this report is to provide information on the application, a detailed policy analysis, and recommended motions for Council’s consideration.
Administration is recommending that Amendment 10 to Bylaw 18/2024 be defeated. Should Council choose to approve the bylaw, see Alternative 1 under Impacts of Alternatives Considered.
ALIGNMENT TO COUNCIL DIRECTION OR MANDATORY STATUTORY PROVISION
The Municipal Government Act, section 692(1) states:
Before giving second reading to:
(e) a proposed land use bylaw, or
a council must hold a public hearing with respect to the proposed bylaw in accordance with section 216.4 after giving notice of it in accordance with section 606.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION
Neighbourhood Context
Northeast St. Albert is a neighbourhood located in the northeast quadrant of St. Albert. It is bound by the northern City limits (existing Township Road 544 / future 127 Street) to the north; the eastern City limits (future 127 Street) to the east; St. Albert Trail / Highway 2 to the west; the Erin Ridge, Erin Ridge North, and Oakmont neighbourhoods to the southwest; and the Sturgeon River to the far south.
The Northeast St. Albert Area Structure Plan (ASP) was approved on February 4, 2025. It is a new area, and this is the first application for redistricting within the ASP area.
Site Information
The subject site is located east of St. Albert Trail, and north of the Erin Ridge North neighbourhood. The subject site is within NW ¼, Section 21, Township 54, Range 25, West 4 Meridian. The legal description of the subject site is Plan 052 0323, Block 1, Lot 1 and Plan 062 05326, Block 1, Lot 2. For the purposes of this report, the lands are referred to as the ‘subject site’.
The proposed bylaw is shown as attachment 1, and a location map is shown as attachment 2.
Proposal
On February 25, 2025, the applicant, Invistec Consulting Inc., on behalf of Landrex Hunter Ridge Inc., applied to amend the Land Use Bylaw 18/2024, Schedule A, by redistricting a portion of 25331 Township Road 544 and a portion of 25321 Township Road 544 from the Transitional (TRN) District to the Public, Private, and Institutional Service (PSI) District. The PSI District permits park and school uses.
In a separate application, Invistec Consulting Inc., on behalf of Landrex Hunter Ridge Inc., applied for a subdivision of the high school site, in the area being proposed for redistricting to the PSI District. The proposed subdivision area for the high school site is 8.095 hectares± (20.003 acres±). The school site is projected to have a maximum population of 1,650 students and teachers. This excludes attendance for events. Based upon the subdivision application, the proponent would be dedicating this land as Municipal Reserve.
While both the redistricting and the subdivision applications are separate, Administration must consider the impacts of both applications when writing this recommendation to Council regarding the proposed redistricting.
Changes to Land Use Bylaw District Regulations
If this redistricting proposal were passed, there would be changes to the regulations that apply to the site, as shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Land Use District Comparison
|
|
Current (TRN District) |
Proposed (PSI District) |
|
Permitted Use Examples |
Agriculture (general) Animal Health (rural) Dwelling (single detached) |
School (elementary or secondary) School (post-secondary) |
|
Discretionary Uses |
(depends on parcel size) Animal service Construction service Public utility building Religious assembly |
Health service Hospital Public utility building Religious assembly |
|
Building Height |
Depends on the use |
15.00 m |
|
Setbacks (for a principal building) |
Front Yard - 35.00 m Side Yard - 6.00 m or 35.00 m for a corner lot that adjoins the road Rear Yard - 6.00 m |
6.00 m from any property line, or 10.00 m from any property line which adjoins a residential use or Residential District |
Planning Framework
Figure 1 shows the planning framework at the City of St. Albert. To put the amendment process into perspective, Bylaw 19/2025 is a Land Use Bylaw amendment, however there are policy tiers above, being the MGA, the MDP, the ASP, and the neighbourhood plan. The proposal needs to be reviewed against each of these documents, to check for alignment, as per Provincial planning legislation.
Figure 1: Planning Framework
Municipal Government Act (MGA) legislation and regulation considerations
When land is redistricted to PSI, it is intended for public use. Given this, Section 644 of the MGA may be triggered. Section 644 states the following:
644(1) If land is designated under a land use bylaw for use or intended use as a municipal public building, school facility, park or recreation facility and the municipality does not own the land, the municipality must within 6 months from the date the land is designated do one of the following:
(a) acquire the land or require the land to be provided as reserve land;
(b) commence proceedings to acquire the land or to require the land to be provided as reserve land and then acquire that land within a reasonable time;
(c) amend the land use bylaw to designate the land for another use or intended use.
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the Crown in right of Canada, the Crown in right of Alberta, an irrigation district, a board of a drainage district or a local authority, within 6 months from the date the land is designated under that subsection,
(a) acquires that land, or
(b) commences proceedings to acquire that land or requires that land to be provided as reserve land and then acquires it within a reasonable time.
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to land designated by the municipality as conservation reserve.
Given this, if the land is designated to PSI, then within 6 months of the designation to PSI:
• The City must either acquire the land as municipal reserve, or
• Commence proceedings to acquire the land within a reasonable time, or
• Redesignate the land for non-public use.
This legislation means that the City would need to either subdivide and dedicate the land to Municipal Reserve (through subdivision), or purchase the 8.50 hectares± (21.00 acres±), or re-designate it to a non-Transitional or PSI District, and/or a combination of these options.
The challenge with the accompanying and proposed subdivision application (which is necessary for the Municipal Reserve dedication and based upon the regulations) is that the Subdivision Authority cannot approve it due to servicing (utility and transportation) constraints. As such, should the redistricting proceed, the City could be obligated to purchase the entirety of the lands redistricted for PSI from the land developer. Additional information regarding this conflict is outlined in the sections “Municipal Reserve Over Dedication” and “Why the Redistricting Should be Defeated” within the agenda report.
Flourish Municipal Development Plan (MDP) Policy Context
In order to consider the proposed LUB amendment, alignment with higher order policy documents must be reviewed within the planning policy framework. This application was reviewed against Flourish MDP.
Flourish MDP designates the site as ‘Neighbourhoods’. Neighbourhoods are predominantly residential areas made up of low-rise housing, along with schools, parks, local shops, and services.
Attachment 3 provides a brief review of applicable MDP policies. There is misalignment with policies related to servicing the site, the amount of Municipal Reserve (MR) dedicated, and efficient use of land for school sites.
Northeast St. Albert Area Structure Plan (ASP)
The subject site is within the Northeast St. Albert Area Structure Plan (NE ASP), which was approved by Council on February 4, 2025.
In order to consider the proposed LUB amendment, this application was also reviewed against the Northeast Area Structure Plan (NE ASP). The Northeast ASP Map 2, Future Land Use (attachment 4) designates the subject site as Major Open Spaces with a potential school site, and Neighbourhoods. Section 5.1, Major Open Spaces & Parks states: “The potential high school site is contemplated on the NW 21-54-25 W4. If, in fact, the Government of Alberta funds a high school in this location, an adjacent community park is anticipated as well.”
Section 6.2.2(1) of the ASP requires the preparation of Neighbourhood Plans (NP), under the Northeast St. Albert ASP, with further technical studies provided. There are several requirements at NP stage, including geotechnical and environmental studies that are used to inform the provision of Environmental Reserve (ER), Municipal Reserve (MR), and Conservation Reserve (CR). A list of requirements to be addressed at the NP stage can be found as attachment 5.
Section 6.2.2(6) of the ASP requires the preparation of Neighbourhood Plans (NP), prior to redistricting or urban subdivision of parcels. This proposal is not in compliance with this policy, as a Neighbourhood Plan for the area has not been approved. As such, the redistricting application is considered premature.
Furthermore, the undertaking of a Neighbourhood Plan would have addressed the larger high school site size than was shown in the ASP. The proposed redistricting area is approximately 8.09 hectares± (20 acres±) and that is over the amount of MR that can be required by the City.
Lack of Neighbourhood Plan (NP)
Neighbourhood Plan Bylaw 05/2022 enables the approval of Neighbourhood Plans that are consistent with the Statutory Plans they are intended to supplement and support.
As noted, there is no current approved Neighbourhood Plan for the subject lands. While select items have been submitted for the NP, a complete application has not been received by Administration.
The process for land development within the City of St. Albert is for a Neighbourhood Plan to be approved prior to redistricting or subdivision of the lands. The applicant was advised on March 5, 2025, that a Neighbourhood Plan application should be submitted prior to proceeding with redistricting and subdivision. As per the established process, after the NP is approved, a redistricting for the subject site would be reviewed and presented to Council.
Over Dedication of Municipal Reserve
Typically, school sites are first taken as Municipal Reserve (MR) through a subdivision process. Municipal reserve is outlined in the Municipal Government Act (MGA) under Sections 665 and 666.
MGA Section 666(2) states:
666(2) The aggregate amount of land that may be required under subsection (1) may not exceed the percentage set out in the municipal development plan, which may not exceed 10% of the parcel of land less all land required to be provided as conservation reserve or environmental reserve or made subject to an environmental reserve easement.
Flourish MDP policy 11.1.1 requires the City to take the maximum entitlement of Municipal Reserve, that being 10%.
The two parent parcels the subdivision comes from are approximately 41.30 hectares± (102.05 acres±) in size. This would allow the City to take a parcel approximately 4.13 hectares± (10.21 acres±) for Municipal Reserve (MR) for these parcels. The proposed subdivision parcel area is approximately 8.10 hectares± (20.00 acres±), not including the roadway. This means an over dedication of MR of approximately 3.97 hectares± (9.80 acres±).
On March 11, 2025, the Landowner provided a letter proposing to dedicate 1.62 hectares± (4.00 acres±) of this over dedication of MR to the St. Albert Public School Board (shown as attachment 9) despite a prohibition of pre-allocation of school sites within the City’s School Site Allocation Agreement. This leaves approximately 2.35 hectares± (5.80 acres±) of over dedication of MR, as shown below. As the letter was not specific to a gratuitous dedication, as requested by Administration, the concern is that the City would have to purchase 2.3 hectares± (5.8 acres±) of MR, at market value, for the additional site size.
Table 2: Over-Dedication of Municipal Reserve (MR)
|
Proposed Parcel Size |
8.10 |
hectares± |
(20.00 |
acres±) |
|
10% Maximum MR allowed (based on parent parcel sizes) |
4.13 |
hectares± |
(10.21 |
acres±) |
|
Landrex Additional Dedication to the School Board |
1.62 |
hectares± |
(4.00 |
acres±) |
|
Remainder (Over-Dedication) |
2.35 |
hectares± |
(5.80 |
acres±) |
Purchase Requirement
If the applicant dedicates 1.62 hectares± (4.00 acres±) of land gratuitously to the school board, then the estimated cost of purchasing the additional 2.35 hectares± (5.80 acres±) of land is estimated to be in the low 7 figures, and would be subject to an appraisal of fair market value at the time of required purchase.
Process to Create a School Site
When a school site is being planned in a new neighbourhood, the site size is approximately 3.8 hectares± (9.4 acres±) comprising 1.8 hectares± (4.4 acres±) for school and 2.0 hectares± (4.9 acres±) for an adjacent Community Park.
A high school site is typically larger than the 1.8 hectares± (4.4 acres±) for a school site in a new neighbourhood. However, efficient use of reserve land can be achieved by building multi-storey schools (MDP Policy 11.4.4(d)).
The process for creating a school site can be found as attachment 6, and a map of current school sites can be found as attachment 7. If a school site is needed imminently, St. Albert has other sites that could meet the needs of a school board, though St Albert Public Schools has consistently messaged their desire for a high school capable site east of St Albert Trail.
Joint Use and Planning Agreement (JUPA)
Currently the City is working on a new Joint Use and Planning Agreement with the school boards. At the time of preparing this report, the new JUPA remains unsigned, however there is an existing School Site Allocation agreement in effect which governs the allocation of school sites in St. Albert.
The existing School Sie Allocation agreement and draft JUPA state that several criteria need to be met for a school site to be included on the School Site Inventory, including sites being serviced, geotechnical information being available, and sites being suitable for development. There is also direction given that the type of school to be constructed on a site shall not be determined by the City or the developer prematurely. This requirement has not been met, as the applicant is proposing a high school.
Direction is provided that Administration would only transfer a school site to a school board after the site allocation committee makes a decision, and provides written approval of funding from the Province of Alberta. This requirement has not been met, as the City has not been notified of a decision by the site allocation committee, or any decision by the Government of Alberta.
In the future, there is a possibility this site may be used for a school, but at this time, it is not recommended to be placed on the School Site Inventory list for consideration by the School Site Allocation Committee.
Geotechnical Considerations
At the Area Structure Plan (ASP) stage, a geotechnical investigation, prepared in March 2021, was submitted for the NW-21-54-25-W4M, that looked at the suitability of soils for construction of single-detached dwellings, duplexes, underground utilities, roads to service the lots, and stormwater management ponds. The Northeast St. Albert ASP, Section 2.4.4 notes that a new or amended geotechnical investigation for the NW 21-54-25 W4 may be required once final land use details are confirmed, because the initial geotechnical investigation only contemplated limited land use types.
Additionally, a supplementary letter specific to the school site was submitted on April 16, 2025, by the applicant. Please see attachment 8.
The supplementary letter identified that:
• A footing-based foundation is not likely. A pile foundation would likely be needed for a building placed on site. Typically, pile foundations would cost more than footing-based foundations. This will impact the overall cost to construct the school.
• There is risk of movement for slab-on-grade. This is due to the high plastic clay soils that are present on site. The soil could be replaced, to reduce the chances of foundation movement.
• High water tables are also a concern - this presents an increased risk of frost heave.
The geotechnical indicates development constraints, and the applicant should ensure proper mitigative measures are implemented. Further geotechnical work would need to be undertaken at the Neighbourhood Plan stage, and prior to the issuance of a building permit.
While funding of school construction is the purview of the Government of Alberta, the quality of a site is a consideration. To illustrate the potential pitfall, a school site in Drayton Valley was abandoned, after only 11 years. The school was built in 2010, however “Wild Rose School Division Deputy Superintendent[…]says the school was scheduled for demolition due to several issues, primarily due to the soil” (shown as attachments 10 and 11). Sites with soil types that are susceptible to movement can impact the foundation of the building, causing costly repairs.
Servicing Comments
Servicing within the northeast area of St. Albert is constrained. The applicant submitted a service brief, specifically for the subject site. The servicing brief proposed extending the pipes along Element Drive North, but did not discuss or contemplate solutions to the lack of sanitary capacity in this area of the city or the management of Carrot Creek floodplain compensatory storage, and thus did not provide adequate information regarding how to service the subject site.
On April 16, 2025, the applicant submitted a second version of the servicing study, which did not provide necessary information regarding how to address the lack of sanitary capacity in this area, and to ensure provision of adequate fire flow.
An interim sanitary servicing proposal is being worked on by Landrex and Melcor, however, nothing formal has been signed at the time of writing this report. The interim solution would result in a total available capacity of 7.7 l/s; however, a high school would be anticipated to absorb almost all of that created capacity (which would be shared between two neighbourhoods/developers). Therefore, the interim solution would not be able to include this school site location and residential development concurrently.
Sanitary Servicing
The Northeast St. Albert ASP, Section 4.6(21) requires that a Neighbourhood Plan confirm locations and capacity for any required wastewater lift stations. As this has not been completed, the applicant submitted two supplementary servicing briefs for this application. The applicant identified at the intersection of Element Drive North and Edgefield Way a sanitary trunk line, 450 mm in diameter, which would need to be extended approximately 70 m north to the proposed school site.
The applicant is proposing that the school site utility usage is off peak hour, and will not impact peak hour residential flows, and should not negatively affect the downstream system even with the limited capacity.
Administration has deemed this to be an inadequate proposal, for the following reasons:
• School sites typically host multiple after-school events that can occur during peak evening flow hours; thus, contributing to the overall sanitary servicing for the area. This could include music or sports practices, or plays and events.
• Wet weather flow also needs to be accommodated within the applicant’s proposal, which has not been done at this time. Wet weather flow in a sanitary sewer system is an increase in sewage flow during and after precipitation events, which includes both normal sewage and stormwater that infiltrates into the sanitary sewer system. These flows are dependent on weather conditions, and may impact peak period flows, if the weather event occurs during a period of peak flow.
There remains a lack of capacity in the City’s existing sanitary system that cannot accommodate any additional sanitary flows from new development. Administration and developers are exploring interim solutions for additional sanitary capacity in advance of the ultimate Northeast Servicing Project off-site levy project; however, no interim solution has been accepted by the City (as of the date of this report).
It is premature to consider this redistricting as the sanitary servicing proposal for the area is incomplete.
Water Servicing
The Northeast St. Albert ASP, Section 4.6 states that pipe sizing will be determined at the time of Neighbourhood Plan stage. As there is no Neighbourhood Plan - the water servicing network still needs to be addressed, to ensure safe fire flow can be maintained. There are concerns about the water hydraulic availability for the subject site and the ability to sustain the necessary fire flows for a school and subsequent future development in the area.
The applicant identified at the intersection of Element Drive North and Edgefield Way a water connection be extended 60 m to the proposed school site. Fire flows will not be available in the interim and further analysis is needed at detailed design stage to understand what upgrades are needed. If interim upgrades are needed because of insufficient fire flows some options suggested by the applicant includes: on-site private infrastructure to boost fire flow; a reservoir; or reduce the fire flow requirements and use high fire resistance building material. The applicant did not provide costs for these interim upgrade options.
Administration reviewed the proposal, but requires more information regarding each of the options on interim upgrades to adequately review the proposal and decide on a course of action.
It is premature to consider this redistricting as the water servicing proposal for the area is incomplete.
Stormwater Management
The Northeast ASP Section 4.6(28) requires that the NP provide more detail regarding stormwater plans for the area. As there is no Neighbourhood Plan, the stormwater network still needs to be addressed, to ensure there is no flooding in the area. According to the Northeast St. Albert ASP, the subject site will require adjacent stormwater management facilities (SWMF) including one SWMF for the storage of site-specific stormwater management and another SWMF for the floodplain compensatory storage of Carrot Creek backflows in accordance with the Carrot Creek Regional Drainage Master Plan and NE ASP policies 4.6.2(24) and 4.6.2(25).
Under Section 3.4 of the May 2024 Engineering Design Brief for the ASP, it states that “design of the minor system should be done at the Neighbourhood Plan (NP) and subdivision design stage”. This section also identifies the Carrot Creek storage facility requiring “Further analysis of pond water levels and control methodology will be completed at the Neighbourhood Plan level.” Under Section 6.4 of the ASP it states that stormwater management facility sizes are approximations and may change in size during the preparation of Neighbourhood Plans, in consultation with the City of St. Albert.
The applicant has suggested that stormwater flow to east of the site, to a temporary SWMF, which then releases flows south into the Erin Ridge North neighbourhood, connecting with stormwater management facility (SWMF) #3B be constructed.
The proposed pumping concept has not been discussed with City Administration and no details were provided by the applicant. Currently, there is no existing lift station for SWMF #4 in Erin Ridge North. At this time, the developer's contractor uses a portable pump for pumping, and the pumping routine appears to be “requirement based”.
The City has been alerted to a High Water-Level condition multiple times. There are concerns about monitoring if both proposed locations are pumping without permanent lift stations and SCADA (Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition) system being built and in place. The SCADA system provides real-time monitoring and control of the drainage system, and enables automatic response after a storm. The SCADA system provides better flood prevention than a manual system. At present, the City must manually check the water level after rain events. This will occur until the permanent lift station is constructed.
On March 21, 2025, feedback from Sturgeon County indicated that with the removal of the existing wetland and drainage channel located within the redistricting area, it is necessary to construct the Carrot Creek floodplain compensatory SWMF before any development can proceed. City Administration confirms the need for the Carrot Creek floodplain compensatory SWMF to be analyzed through a Neighbourhood Plan storm servicing plan. It is anticipated the need for the compensatory SWMF would be triggered with the proposed school site and therefore more information is required to ensure the City can make an informed decision. This is the Carrot Creek Floodplain Compensatory Storage pond that is located immediately west of the redistricting area, as shown in Figure 1. The wetland has Water Act approval for removal.
Figure 1: Carrot Creek Floodplain Compensatory Storage Location
It is premature to consider this redistricting as the stormwater servicing proposal for the area is incomplete.
Off-Site Levies (OSL)
Typically, off-site levies are taken at the time of subdivision. The applicant submitted a subdivision with this redistricting.
Both offsite leviable infrastructure and developer paid infrastructure will be required to provide adequate servicing to this area to support the proposed land use. A Neighbourhood Plan and supporting technical documents will identify what improvements are required and allow for the development staging and infrastructure to be built that provides conformity throughout the entire area. Without the NP, this redistricting is considered premature.
Road Network & Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA)
At this time, Element Drive North ends in a turnaround. Element Drive North would need to be extended northwards to support this site. Administration recommends a full connection to St. Albert Trail be provided. This east-west road is shown in the Northeast ASP, and is located north of the site.
The rationale for providing both segments of road is due to the future traffic demands of the subject site. A turnround would not be able to accommodate the future site traffic when built. Building both road segments also means there are two ways to access the site (St. Albert Trail and Element Drive North) in case of emergency.
Two Transportation Impact Assessments (TIA) would need to be submitted to move this proposal forward:
• The first TIA would be with the Neighbourhood Plan. The NP TIA should identify any opportunities to stage the roadway and/or intersection improvements and expand intersection analysis to include the Neighbourhood Road (collector)/Local Road intersections.
• The second TIA would be a site-specific TIA for the subdivision or development. That TIA would need to consider roadway/intersection operations but also site layout, parking, site circulation, pick-up/drop-off, bus accommodation, and pedestrian accommodation.
Conclusion
When land is districted, the next step is subdivision, which is when parkland is given to the City by the Developer, with a designation of Municipal Reserve (MR). However, a subdivision needs to be serviceable. These lands are not serviced, and there is no capacity in the existing system to service the lands. To service the lands will trigger the offsite leviable servicing projects with an estimated $74.1 million required up-front cost to the City for the Northeast Servicing Project.
The Subdivision Authority is the Director of Planning and Development, as per Bylaw 19/1995. The Subdivision Authority must consider several sections in the Municipal Government Act, and Matters Related to Subdivision and Development Regulation, when making a decision to allow or refuse a subdivision, including:
MGA section 654 Approval of Application:
654(1) “A subdivision authority must not approve an application for subdivision approval unless
(a) The land that is proposed to be subdivided is, in the opinion of the subdivision authority, suitable for the purpose for which the subdivision is intended,”…
Matter Related to Subdivision and Development Regulations section 9 Relevant considerations:
9. In making a decision as to whether to approve an application for subdivision, the subdivision authority must consider, with respect to the land that is the subject of the application,
(c) storm water collection and disposal,
(f) the availability and adequacy of a water supply, a sewage disposal system and solid waste disposal,” …
The Subdivision Authority is obligated to refuse the subdivision as the lands are not suitable for the purpose of a school, because there is no agreed to storm water collection management, and there is no sanitary capacity or water servicing solution to support the development of a school.
The Subdivision Authority does not plan to approve the subdivision with municipal reserve designation for a school and park. This means the land will not be provided as reserve. Given Section 644 of the MGA, which is provided above, the financial implication is if the lands were districted by Council as PSI, the City may be obligated to acquire the land within 6 months, because of the intended uses of school and park. The amount of land the City could be obligated to acquire would be the amount of land districted as PSI, 8.50 hectares± (21.00 acres±).
Summary
Administration is recommending defeat of Bylaw 19/2025, for the following reasons:
• Conflicts regarding MGA legislation/regulations;
• Misalignment with statutory policy direction of Flourish MDP and the Northeast St. Albert ASP;
• There is no submitted and/or approved Neighbourhood Plan;
• There is a lack of servicing for the Northeast ASP to enable the proposed development;
• Accellerating the financial implications to City to service the site;
• This proposal is not in compliance with the proposed Joint Use Planning Agreement or the current School Site Allocation Agreement;
• There is a proposed over dedication of Municipal Reserve with potential financial implication to the City; and
• Given section 644 of the MGA, by districting the lands as PSI, will require the City within 6 months from the date of the decision to acquire the land or amend the Land Use Bylaw to designate the land for another or intended use.
It is Administration’s position that this redistricting should be denied and subdivision refused as the applications are premature, with no Neighbourhood Plan submitted or approved, and no servicing capacity to service development of the site.
There are other opportunities for sites to place a high school within the City, as shown on attachment 7, should funding for a high school be received. For example, there is a high school site approved in the Cherot neighbourhood, with an approved ASP and NP, and no servicing constraints.
STAKEHOLDER COMMUNICATIONS OR ENGAGEMENT
Feedback was sought from the public, internal, and external interested parties, including:
• The Cultivate the Conversation page for the proposed amendment went live on March 12, 2025.
• The proposed Land Use Bylaw amendment was circulated to interested parties on March 7, 2025.
• The circulation included landowners within 100 m of the subject site.
• There were no public comments received during the circulation period; therefore, no What We Learned report for this file.
• The applicant installed a notification sign on the subject lands, to notify any passersby.
The public hearing is scheduled for July 15, 2025. A public hearing notice has been posted on the City website, and full page Citylights advertisements appeared on both June 26, 2025, and July 3, 2025. A news release was also issued for this public hearing.
IMPACTS OF RECOMMENDATION(S)
Financial:
None at this time.
Compliance & Legal:
First reading for Bylaw 19/2025 is not a debatable motion, and is required in order to table a bylaw for Council’s consideration. Providing first reading of a bylaw does not indicate agreement with the bylaw, but rather is the process by which the applicant’s bylaws may be put forward in accordance with procedural fairness principles.
The proposed redistricting is contrary to the Northeast ASP, which provides that “Completion of applicable Neighbourhood Plans is required prior to redistricting and subdivision within Northeast St. Albert.
An implication of defeating this Bylaw would be that the applicant cannot re-apply until at least six months after the date of Council’s decision not to pass the bylaw.
Program or Service:
None at this time.
Organizational:
None at this time.
Risks
None at this time.
ALIGNMENT TO PRIORITIES IN COUNCIL’S STRATEGIC PLAN
Initiative aligned with Strategic Plan:
None at this time.
ALIGNMENT TO LEVELS OF SERVICE DELIVERY
This aligns with Service Level Inventory Item D.4.1 Current Planning Application Processing, which includes processing and coordination of the approval of statutory plans and amendments, subdivision and condominium applications.
IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
If Council does not wish to support the recommendation, the following alternatives could be considered:
ALTERNATIVE 1:
Give all three readings and approve the redistricting:
1. That the Public Hearing on Bylaw 19/2025 be closed.
2. That Bylaw 19/2025, being amendment 10 to Land Use Bylaw 18/2024, be read a first time.
3. That Bylaw 19/2025 be read a second time.
4. That unanimous consent be given for consideration of third reading of Bylaw 19/2025.
5. That Bylaw 19/2025 be read a third time.
Financial:
At this time, the subject lands do not have servicing, or approved funding for servicing.
There are financial risks to the City by approving this redistricting in an area that is constrained. Servicing in this area was discussed November 5, 2024, with the first reading of the Northeast ASP. Approval of the redistricting could put increased pressure on the City to accelerate the funding the off-site leviable servicing projects with an estimated $74.1 million required up-front for the Northeast Servicing Project. In addition, there is concern that the school site may trigger further accelerated development in the Northeast St. Albert area, advancing infrastructure investments earlier than anticipated, with costs in the order of ~$232 million over the next 25 years.
Districting the land to PSI, knowing the Subdivision Authority cannot approve the application due to servicing constraints, limits the City’s ability to collect Municipal Reserve. This could require the City to purchase the PSI districted land of 8.50 hectares± (21.00 acres±) at market value.
Approval of this redistricting will require the associated expenditures and the reprioritization of priority projects based on the City’s debt capacity, unless existing budgetary commitments are revisited.
As of the date of this report, there have not been any commitments to funding this project from the province, the City, the developers, or St. Albert Public Schools.
Compliance & Legal:
First reading for Bylaw 19/2025 is not a debatable motion, and is required in order to table a bylaw for Council’s consideration. Providing first reading of a bylaw does not indicate agreement with the bylaw, but rather is the process by which the applicant’s bylaws may be put forward in accordance with procedural fairness principles.
The public hearing and first, second, and third readings of Bylaw 19/2025 could be approved on the same day. The Municipal Government Act provides that a proposed bylaw must not have more than two readings at a council meeting unless the council members present unanimously agree to consider third reading at the same meeting.
If unanimous consent for third reading of Bylaw 19/2025 is not granted on July 15, 2025, after first and second reading, third reading of Bylaw 19/2025 will occur at the next regular Council meeting on September 2, 2025. During that time between July 15, 2025, and September 2, 2025, Council members will be unable to accept further written or verbal submissions germane to this matter, and will not be able to ask for new, substantive information on the subject matter prior to third reading (MGA, s. 187; Procedure Bylaw, Schedule E, s. 19).
Program or Service:
None at this time.
Organizational:
None at this time.
Risks
In addition to the Financial context above, the following risks should be noted:
Geotechnical study: Further geotechnical work needs to be completed at the Neighbourhood Plan stage to confirm whether the site can support a school.
Infrastructure servicing: Approving this application could trigger millions of dollars in infrastructure upgrades. As an example, a school site in Camrose is unable to open due to critical infrastructure not being in place (please see attachment 12).
Municipal Reserve dedication: Should servicing be deemed acceptable and the subdivision proceed, the site requires an over-dedication of Municipal Reserve approximately 3.97 hectares± (9.80 acres±) which would need to be purchased by the City.
body
Report Date: July 15, 2025
Author(s): Barb Dupuis
Department: Planning Branch
Department Director: Kristina Peter
Managing Director: Adryan Slaght
Chief Administrative Officer: William Fletcher