A public petition opposing a controversial high-density development in South Riel wasn’t added to the agenda package for the April 23 council meeting, and that has one St. Albert resident worried.
Richard Caig, who lives along Hawthorne Crescent, spent the greater portion of April 10 and 11 gathering signatures from his neighbours in anticipation of the upcoming public hearing on the Midtown development, an Averton project that includes a high-density area. He had hoped to present city council with the petition, which received 40 signatures, to showcase residents' concerns over the developer's plans to put in small lots and six- to 12-storey buildings.
While council did see the petition at the April 23 meeting, it wasn’t added to the meeting’s agenda package because the city wasn’t able to verify the signatures or the consent of those who signed.
Caig said he feels the city isn't listening to residents' concerns.
“When you were at that public meeting, all the decisions were made,” he said on Wednesday. “There was only one councillor who stood up and turned around and said, ‘Wait a second, you can’t even get a (Ford) F150 on the driveway.’ She actually looked at the building code and said, 'This doesn’t jive with anything else in St. Albert.' What I really feel like they’re doing is building slums, at the end of the day.”
The Midtown development, a first of its kind in the city, is aiming to bring in 800 residential units, seniors housing and standalone commercial properties while achieving a density of more than 80 units per hectare.
The development is broken up into three areas named A, B and C.
Area A will be the first stage and is located closer to Riel Drive. Areas A and B will primarily be townhouses. Area C, which was planned to have stacked townhouses to achieve 125 dwelling units per residential hectare, didn’t receive support to be redistricted.
Area C was the most contentious part of the development, as evidenced by residents who attended the council meeting. The development calls for buildings between six and 12 storeys.
Among the changes approved by council: reducing the common amenity area from 1,000 square feet to 500; closing Riel Road to allow for the access point to be moved farther north; removing plans for a signalized intersection at Riel Road and Riel Drive; and redistricting areas A and B.
The majority of these passed in a 6-1 vote, with Coun. Sheena Hughes often the lone opposition with two exceptions. Coun. Ken MacKay joined her in voting against amending the area structure plan and land use bylaw.
Multiple residents spoke out against the project during the meeting, including Caig, but the project continued to move forward.
Caig said he wanted to do the petition because he felt the city is forcing more to live in certain areas where there are no services available to them.
The petition states at the bottom that the intent is to present this to council and would be made available for public view.
David Leflar, director of the city’s legal and legislative services, said the city wasn’t given time to verify the names on the list to ensure it didn’t violate anyone’s privacy.
“We just couldn’t take that chance,” he said on Friday. “We did feel it was appropriate for council to be aware that such a document was received. The person who presented it said that these were signatures that he had collected from people in the neighbourhood, so council was certainly made aware of that, but we couldn’t make the document itself a public document given our lack of being able to verify the signatures.”
There’s much more to a petition than gathering signatures.
Under the provincial Municipal Government Act, a petition needs a witness affidavit included when given to a municipality’s CAO or city manager and each page must include an identical statement that people’s personal information will be protected.
Leflar urged anyone who may have a concern to come to council chambers or contact him and his staff to learn how to express their views to council.
“We’re always trying to improve our process for open, transparent government,” he added. “That is (absolutely), I guarantee you, the case. I take this seriously and we’re going to see if we can deal with it in a better way in the future.”
