Draft Springbank ASP - Preliminary Analysis

Our preliminary review of the new draft Springbank ASP has identified some concerns that we want to highlight in advance of the County’s online information sessions on August 14^th and 19^th., both from 6:30 - 8:00p.m. The link for those sessions will be posted here on the RVC website on the day of the event.  The draft ASP is also posted at this link.

Council’s direction to Administration was straightforward – combine the Central Springbank, North Springbank, and Moddle ASPs into one ASP while maintaining the direction of the existing land use strategies.  While the revised draft removed many of the provisions that residents found problematic in earlier drafts, there are still several that remain.  Some of these were not part of the existing ASPs.  Others simply raise questions and concerns.

Some of the policies included in the new draft ASP that were not in the existing ASPs’ land use strategies are:

• Cluster residential – Policy 8.22 proposes to permit up to 64 one-acre parcels on a quarter section “if justified on the basis of additional open space, subdivision design, or environmental features” and the site has both piped water and wastewater servicing.

  • Not only is this one of the most contentious hold-overs from earlier drafts, but the proposed policy doesn’t have the controls over the use that were in earlier drafts.

• Institutional and community land uses – why is so much land being set aside for these uses? 

  • This is another hold-over from earlier drafts of the ASP – the “community core” without that name.  The existing ASPs set aside no land for these uses. 

  • How can Springbank need 8 quarter sections of land for these uses along RR33 from Springbank Road all the way up to Township Road 250?

  • What evidence exists to justify so much land being set aside for these uses in Springbank compared to Bearspaw’s new draft ASP?  That ASP has less than one quarter section set aside for all commercial, institutional, and community uses.

  • At a more detailed level, many of the proposed uses push the boundary between institutional / community uses and commercial uses (e.g. funeral services, medical treatment services, tourist attractions).

• Policies dealing with the closure of undeveloped road allowances that may not be consistent with other county policy on this issue.  The proposed policies appear to make it easier for landowners to close road allowances, removing them from publicly accessible recreation uses.

• Confusing policies dealing with river access.  The policies appear to require all conceptual schemes to consider the issue while stating that no river access will be considered until incorporated into council policy.

  • Although not quite an ASP question – why can both Calgary and Cochrane have easy river access points, but Rocky View doesn’t?

Other aspects of the draft ASP that raise questions and concerns include:

• Why do the existing land use map and the proposed land use strategy map not include any fully built out areas?  

  • There are several quarter sections in Springbank that are fully built out under the ASP’s definition (64 two-acre parcels/quarter section).  These should be identified as built out, not as “in fill”. 

  • Identifying these as “in fill” implies further development is possible. If the ASP is serious about protecting Springbank as a country residential community, these quarter sections need to be properly identified.

  • Separately identifying fully built out and actual infill areas (quarter sections with a mix of parcel sizes) would clarify future development potential.

• The draft is full of “should” clauses where “shall” clauses would be more appropriate.  For example, Policy 7.04 states that “business uses should be directed to only those areas identified on Map 6.”  That leaves the door open for council to use its discretion to permit businesses to locate elsewhere – why?

• Why will concept schemes be mandated for all residential redesignations / subdivisions that create more than 1 new parcel, but not required for any new agricultural development, including what is being referred to as “contemporary agriculture”?

  • This policy was in the Central Springbank ASP; however, it was never enforced at this level of minutiae. 

  • In contrast, the recently released draft Bearspaw ASP only requires concept schemes for redesignations/subdivisions where the parcel is 20+ acres in size or the proposal adds 10+ new parcels.

• The definitions of both “agriculture” and “contemporary agriculture” appear to be overly broad.  This is particularly concerning since the ASP provides very little restriction on developments that fit within either category.

  • Agriculture is defined to include value-added processing, products, and services.  Our understanding is that the Land Use Bylaw considers these to be agricultural business uses, not agriculture itself.

  • Contemporary agriculture is defined as “small-scale agricultural pursuits that are specifically designed to integrate into a residential community.  May include a variety of agricultural uses such as community gardens, equestrian uses, farm-to-table eating establishments, markets, and agri-tourism”.  From our perspective, with the exception of community gardens, these are all commercial activities that could impose significant negative impacts on adjacent residential properties.

• Regarding agricultural development, why are master site development plans only a discretionary requirement?  And, why are the considerations for redesignation or subdivision for agricultural purposes only discretionary? 

  • In contrast, both the existing Central Springbank ASP and the draft Bearspaw ASP include policies to ensure that these uses are compatible with the surrounding area and will have minimal impact on the neighbouring parcels, county infrastructure or the environment.

• The draft ASP identifies three “special planning areas” – the Hwy 1 corridor, the area immediately adjacent to Calgary, and the area around the Bow and Elbow rivers.

  • Although the ASP appears to intend to provide additional consideration and/or protection for these areas, there is little guidance on how that will be accomplished and several policies that conflict with that objective.

  • These areas were all identified in the Central Springbank ASP but were largely ignored.  Without stronger policies in the new draft, the risk is that this will continue.

As well as attending one of the online info sessions, please consider sending your comments to Admin by August 29^th for them to consider as they amend this draft before the October 2^nd public hearing.  It would be useful if Admin addressed residents’ significant concerns before the public hearing – but if they don’t hear from people, that is less likely to happen.