FOOTHILLS COUNTY September 16, 2020 Location: Foothills County Administration Office 309 Macleod Trail South – High River COUNCIL AGENDA
A. GENERAL MATTERS
1. Call Meeting to Order 2. Approval of the Agenda as Distributed 3. Consideration of Additions to the Agenda 4. Minutes – September 9, 2020 5. Accounts – September 16, 2020
B. PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING
C. PUBLIC HEARINGS & MEETINGS
Logan Cox Pg. 2 10:00 am *1. Simper (Toyota) - NE 05-21-29 W4M – Redesignation & Creation of New Direct Control District D. MISCELLANEOUS PLANNING ITEMS
Pg. 43 *1. Peters - NE 01-20-29 W4M - Development Permit 20D 118
Pg. 51 *2. Vulcan County & Foothills County Intermunicipal Development Plan
E. SUBDIVISION APPROVING AUTHORITY ITEMS
F. MISCELLANEOUS MUNICIPAL ITEMS
G. NEW BUSINESS
1. Committee Reports
H. OTHER MATTERS
1. Adjourn 2. Next Meeting – September 23, 2020 3. September Accounts Review – Councillors: D. Miller, R. Siewert, R.D. McHugh PUBLIC HEARINGS AND MEETINGS PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REPORT TO COUNCIL REDESIGNATION AND CREATION OF NEW DIRECT CONTROL DISTRICT September 16, 2020 To be heard at: 10:00am
APPLICATION INFORMATION FILE NO. 19R072 DATE APPL. COMPLETE: November 1, 2019 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Plan 1863LK, Block 4; Ptn. NE 05-21-29 W4M LANDOWNER: Edward & Pamela Simper APPLICANT: B&A Planning Group on behalf of Toyota Canada AGENT: Jack Moddle PROPOSAL: a) New Direct Control Land Use District which was modelled after the Highway Commercial Land Use District within the Land Use Bylaw 60/2014. This proposed district is attached within the Application Appendix b) Redesignation of 8.5+/- acres to the newly proposed Direct Control Land Use District to allow for the future subdivision and development of a Toyota Dealership with the remaining 3.83+/- acre balance to remain Country Residential District. DIVISION NO: 5 COUNCILLOR Alan Alger FILE MANAGER: Logan Cox MUNICIPAL ADDRESS: 322031 15 Street E. LOCATION: north of the Town of Okotoks, adjacently west of Highway 2A, adjacently south of 322 Avenue E., and is accessed from 15 Street E. (parallel service road to Highway 2A) POLICY AREA: The subject parcel is within the Intermunicipal Development Plan Area with the Town of Okotoks, and within the Section 5 Area Concept Plan CURRENT LAND USE: Country Residential PROPOSED LAND USE: Direct Control & Country Residential Districts AREA OF SUBJECT LANDS: 12.33 acres NUMBER AND SIZE OF PROPOSED NEW PARCELS: one new 8.5+/- acre DC District parcel RESERVE STATUS: Reserves outstanding; Deferred Reserve Caveat 9057LL registered on subject property’s title
Page 2 PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: Council to consider further readings to Bylaw 14/2020 to create a new Direct Control Land Use District; this district is proposed in the appendix of Council’s Staff Report and was based off the existing Highway Commercial Land Use District. Council to consider further readings to Bylaw 15/2020 is to redesignate 8.5+/- acres from Country Residential Land Use District to Direct Control #37 Land Use District (new DC district) in order to allow for the future subdivision and development related to the operation of an automobile dealership and service station. Background: The subject application was opened on November 1, 2019 with a request for additional information sent on November 6, 2019. The applicant requested the file be sent into the 30-day circulation period while they worked on responses to the letter dated November 6, 2019. The applicant responded to the letter on November 27, 2019 and this response with the original questions has been included in the Appendix of this report. On January 22, 2020 Council held a Public Hearing for the proposal, following the Public Hearing no decision on the application was made. On February 12, 2020 Council made the following two motions: SIMPER (TOYOTA) – NE 05-21-29 W4M – REDESIGNATION BYLAW 14/2020 Bylaw 14/2020 was introduced into the meeting for the adoption of a new direct control district, Direct Control District #37, to allow Direct Control by Council over development pertaining to commercial uses related to automotive vehicles sales and services along the Highway 2A corridor north of Okotoks. Mr. McHugh moved first reading THE BYLAW WAS PASSED FOR ONE READING
BYLAW 15/2020 Bylaw 15/2020 was introduced into the meeting for the redesignation of an 8.50 +/- acre portion of Plan 1863LK, Block 4; Ptn. NE 05-21-29 W4M from Country Residential Land Use District to Direct Control #37 Land Use District in order to allow for the future subdivision and development related to the operation of an automobile dealership and service station, for the following reasons:
In consideration of the criteria noted in the Economy, Efficient Use of Land and Community Development policies of the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan; the Economy policies of the MDP2010; the Growth Management Strategy, and the direction within the Section 5 Area Concept Plan Council is of the opinion that the proposed redesignation would not be detrimental to the intended use or unduly interfere with the subject and neighbouring parcels. Furthermore, Council is of the opinion that the application is fitting with similar developments within the identified Gateway Area within the Intermunicipal Development Plan with the Town of Okotoks.
Page 3 Prior to further consideration administration is to complete the following: 1. Administration is to review the application with Alberta Transportation regarding the road network in the area as well as presenting this matter for further discussion at the upcoming Okotoks Intermunicipal Committee. Mr. Siewert moved first reading THE BYLAW WAS PASSED FOR ONE READING Unfortunately, a notification error occurred in the Western Wheel prior to the first Public Hearing and therefore a second Public Hearing is required prior to commencing. PROPOSAL: Development: The application proposes the redesignation of an 8.5+/- acre Direct Control District parcel to allow for the future subdivision and development of an automobile dealership and service station. The 8.5+/- acre parcel will be fragmented into two pieces by the realigned service road (15 Street E.) through the parcel. A stormwater management pond and dry pond (with overflow parking) is to be located on the south side of the realigned service road; with the proposed dealership, service station, parking and loading to be located on the north side of the road. The balance 3.83+/- acre Country Residential portion of the parcel is to remain as a residential parcel with the existing dwelling, outbuildings and overland drainage area. Servicing Considerations: The development is proposed to use truck in water (cistern/tank) and pump out septic (sanitary holding tank); water for firefighting is proposed to use piped stormwater from the pond on the south side of the road to dry hydrants on the north side near the structure. Access: Proposal includes intersectional upgrades to the intersection at Highway 2A and 322 Avenue E.; the Traffic Impact Assessment notes that the proposed development traffic will require partial illumination and a left turn lane. The development is anticipated to generate a total increase of 45 AM peak hour trips and 81 PM peak hour trips. The proposal also includes realignment of 15 Street E. (service road) from its current location to ‘S’ bend through the property with an additional proposed link through the proposed development site from the realigned service road to 322 Avenue E. as per the below image. With the realignment of the service road the application is requesting that the existing service road dedication be consolidated into the proposed 8.5+/- DC District parcel. With the inclusion of a consolidated service road the proposed parcel would be 10.14+/- acres in size.
Page 4
Page 5 EXISTING SITE CONSIDERATIONS: Access: Existing access is a residential approach from 15 Street E. Physiography / Environmental: The subject parcel is predominately flat with an overland drainage channel that runs north- south through the proposed 3.83+/- acre Country Residential District balance parcel. GIS imagery from 2012 shows an extended wet area that runs through the property, around the identified drainage channel, and continues to the south through adjacent parcels. The adjacent image highlights this extended wet area with a white outline and the identified drainage channel with a green line; the teal outline is the current property boundaries of the subject parcel.
Current Land Use: Subject Parcel: Country Residential District Adjacent Lands: Country Residential* and Agricultural Land Use Districts *Adjacent parcel to the south has the Okotoks Farmers Market, the Okotoks Hot Glass Studio, and a Community Garden that were approved through a Site Specific Amendment application to the Country Residential District as well as Development Permit 11D 066.
Page 6 Subject Quarter-Section History:
Subject
Parcel
2004 – Development Permit Approval for a Self-Storage Site • Approval for 328 self-storage units to be located as per the approved site plan that was submitted with the Site Specific Amendment application • Indicated on the map, above, as
2004 – Site Specific Amendment Application for a Firefighting Business as well as the storage and reconditioning of the equipment • Council refused the site specific amendment application to allow for a firefighting business as well as the storage and reconditioning of the equipment as it was Council’s opinion that a business of this nature should not be conducted within a country residential neighbourhood and feel that the increase of traffic directly caused by this business would have a negative impact on the municipal road system • Indicated on the map, above, as
2005 – Third Reading to Amendment Application for Subdivision • Amendment to Country Residential district in order to allow for the future subdivision of one additional parcel • Indicated on the map, above, as
2006 – Subdivision Finalized for one 3.03 acre parcel • Indicated on the map, above, as
Page 7 2005 – Third Reading to the Amendment Application for Subdivision • Amendment to Country Residential district in order to allow for the future subdivision of one 4+/- acre parcel • Indicated on the map, above, as
2007 – Subdivision Finalized for one 4 acre parcel • Indicated on the map, above, as
2009 – Development Permit for a Minor Home Occupation • The development permit allowed for the applicants to buy and resell newer Toyota trucks and SUV’s and the erection of up to three 210 sq. ft. portable shelters • Indicated on the map, above, as
2010 – Development Permit for an Accessory Building • The development permit allowed for the reallocation of accessory building sizes amongst various structures on the property including an art studio, a grain bin and two horse shelters • Indicated on the map, above, as
2011 – Site Specific Amendment allowing for a farmer’s market, fine art studio and community garden • Site Specific Amendment and Development Permit in order to allow for a farmer’s market, fine art studio and community garden on the subject property • Indicated on the map, above, as
2014 – Third Reading to the Amendment Application for Subdivision • Amendment to Country Residential ‘A’ district in order to allow for the future subdivision of one parcel in order to ensure the recommendations of the comprehensive site drainage plan, high water table testing for foundation design and septic system, septic disposal evaluation and building envelope identification are complied with as conditions of the Development Permit. • Indicated on the map, above, as
2015 – Subdivision Finalized for one 7.91 acre parcel • Indicated on the map, above, as
2016 – Application for Site Specific Amendment to allow for a Gymnastics Gym/Art Studio • Council refused the site specific amendment application to allow for a Gymnastics Gym/Art Studio • Indicated on the map, above, as
PREVIOUS COUNCIL DIRECTION: 2009 – Council gave first reading to a Bylaw 3/2009 for a Site Specific Amendment to the Country Residential District to allow for a vehicle dealership as a permitted use on Plan 8271HP, Block B; Ptn. SE 05-21-29 W4M. Prior to further consideration of the Bylaw Council required studies be undertaken with regards to the intersections at Highway 2A/322 Avenue E.
Page 8 and Highway 2A/338 Avenue E. This property is approximately 750 meters south of the subject parcel. No further readings to the Bylaw were given and no Development Permit was opened.
Council supported first reading to Bylaw 14/2020 and Bylaw 15/2020. Bylaw 14/2020 creates a new Direct Control District, DC #37, for the proposed development pertaining to commercial uses related to automotive vehicles sales and services along the Highway 2A corridor north of Okotoks. Bylaw 15/2020 redesignates an 8.5+/- acre portion of the subject property to DC #37 in order to allow for the future subdivision and development related to the operation of an automobile dealership and service station. Prior to further consideration Council directed administration to review the application with Alberta Transportation regarding the road network in the area as well as present the matter for further discussion at the Okotoks Intermunicipal Committee. On April 15, 2020 Council discussed the transportation matters with Staff and added the matter to the upcoming agenda of the Foothills County/Town of Okotoks Intermunicipal Committee for discussion. Alberta Transportation will not support the construction of a signalized intersection at this location at this time. On April 29, 2020 Council discussed the matter again, following this discussion the following motions occurred: SIMPER (TOYOTA) – BYLAW 14/2020 AND BYLAW 15/2020 Councillor Alger requested a recorded vote. Mr. Alger moved that no further readings be provided to Bylaw 14/2020 and Bylaw 15/2020. Voting in favor of the motion: Councillors Spilak, Parker and Alger Voting in opposition to the motions: Councillors Oel, Siewert, McHugh and Miller THE MOTION WAS LOST
Ms. Miller moved that Council authorize administration to proceed with scheduling of a public hearing for the purpose of considering the creation of a new Direct Control Land Use District which was modelled after the Highway Commercial Land Use District within the Land Use Bylaw 60/2014 and the application submitted by B&A Planning Group on behalf of Toyota Canada for the redesignation of 8.5+/- acres to the newly proposed Direct Control Land Use District to allow for the future subdivision and development of a Toyota Dealership within a portion of Plan 1863LK, Block 4; Ptn. NE 05-21-29 W4M in order to further consider Bylaw 14/2020 and Bylaw 15/2020. CARRIED POLICY EVALUATION: South Saskatchewan Regional Plan: This proposal aligns with some policy direction of the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan and does not align with some of the direction given. The most relevant policy section(s) of the SSRP are related to Economy, Efficient Use of Land, and Community Development. Intermunicipal Development Plan: The subject parcel falls within the Highway 2A Gateway Area within the plan area of the Intermunicipal Development Plan between the Town of Okotoks and Foothills County. The IDP directs the two municipalities to cooperate in preparing design guidelines to ensure public and
Page 9 private development within this area is of a high quality and shall cooperate in the preparation of a transportation strategy to plan for access throughout the gateway area. Municipal Development Plan: The application would have to be considered against policy 2 of the MDP2010 with regards to the proposal to limit the land use conflicts, the impact on adjoining lands, the efficient use of land, and that reasonable privacy is afforded to residents. An argument could be made for both sides of these policies with the application. Land Use Bylaw: The Land Use Bylaw has other districts that would allow for such uses proposed within the application. The applicant’s felt that those districts would allow for other such uses that would be detrimental to the neighbourhood and has alternatively proposed a new Direct Control District that would have less discretionary uses than Highway Commercial District in which it is modelled after. This proposed district has been added to the Appendix of this report Section 5 Area Concept Plan: The concept plan speaks to new rural commercial business applications being located on the eastern portion of the section along the 16 Street E. (Highway 2A) service road (15 Street E.). The ACP requires new applications within the section to be evaluated against the impact they may have upon prevailing country residential land uses and to not allow intrusive signs or noises. Growth Management Strategy: The subject parcel is located within the Central District of the Growth Management Strategy. This district historically has seen, and is predicted to be the growth engine for the County. Section 3.6 of the Growth Management Strategy speaks to planning for industrial and commercial development; this section suggests that the County re-affirm the Highway 2A corridor, Hamlets and Comprehensively Planned Developments as the most appropriate area for commercial developments. This section of the Growth Management Strategy requires approving authorities to remain cognizant of the impacts of commercial and industrial development on existing land uses when considering new applications.
Page 10
CIRCULATION REFERRALS REFEREE COMMENTS INTERNAL Engineering / • 1 residential approach and 3 commercial approaches to be Public Works constructed to meet Municipal standards • Preliminary Stormwater Management Plan approved o No concerns with the proposed storm pond o No parking can take place in the dry pond • Traffic Impact Assessment approved • New service road will require engineered plans • No concerns with holding tanks for water/wastewater EXTERNAL Town of Okotoks “The Town continues to have concerns with the incremental development occurring along the Highway 2A corridor, north of 338 Ave, in the absence of a comprehensive plan for this corridor, comprehensive planning could include: • The area wide transportation network including required changes to the intersections of Highway 2A / 338 Ave and Highway 2A / 322 Ave to support intensification along this corridor; • Area servicing strategies; • Land use compatibilities; • Comprehensive public consultation; and • A framework for developer contributions to support infrastructure upgrades. In addition, the Town has the following specific comments related to this proposal: • We note the TIA indicated that the traffic increase from this development will not be enough to warrant signals at Highway 2A / 322 Ave. Ultimately, signals will be installed at this intersection due to the warrant being met or potentially due to public pressure. It is Okotoks’ belief that the need for signals will be a result of the traffic generated by the development / intensification of the 2A corridor and its need to access Highway 2A, not of the traffic that uses the Highway to travel north/south of this intersection. • It was noted in the TIA correspondence (Appendix A) that the trip generation rates used from the 2014 High River Toyota TIA may need adjustment considering the proposed location’s proximity to larger urban centers. Further to this comment, the proposed dealership appears to be larger and could have a higher ratio of service floor area to vehicle sales area, which would result in higher trips generated. Having said this, we understand the Transportation Consultant and the road authority agreed to the trip generation rates that were used.”
Page 11 CIRCULATION REFERRALS Alberta • Roadside Development Permit will be required Transportation • “Alberta Transportation has reviewed and accepted the findings of the Traffic Impact Assessment prepared in support of this proposal. The improvements identified shall be constructed at no cost to Alberta Transportation and be completed prior to opening of the business/facility” FORTIS Easement may be required at the time of subdivision, further comments will be provided with that application in the future ATCO • ATCO Transmission will require a Utility Right of Way to protect the rights of the facilities affected by the road closure • One of the facilities may require a pipeline alteration. All costs associated with this alteration will be borne to the developer/owner and this process could take up to 18 months to complete. • Any ground disturbance within 30m will require written approval from ATCO Transmission high pressure pipelines. • Parking, paving and storage is not permitted on ATCO right(s)-of- way. • Encroachments are not permitted on the ATCO right(s)-of-way. PUBLIC Western The application was advertised in the Western Wheel on January 8th and Wheel 15th, 2020. The January 8th edition of the Wester Wheel advertisement portrayed the wrong site plan; this was rectified with the January 15th, 2020 advertisement. Should Council wish to support the application an additional Public Hearing will be required prior to 2nd/3rd readings. Land Owners Letters are attached in the Appendix of this report.
SUMMARY Bylaw 14/2020 to create a new Direct Control Land Use District, DC #37; this district is proposed in the appendix of Council’s Staff Report and was based off the existing Highway Commercial Land Use District. Bylaw 15/2020 is to redesignate 8.5+/- acres from Country Residential Land Use District to Direct Control #37 Land Use District (new DC district) in order to allow for the future subdivision and development related to the operation of an automobile dealership and service station.
Page 12 OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: OPTION #1 – APPROVAL Motion 1: Council may choose to support the application and grant 2nd & 3rd reading to Bylaw 14/2020
Motion 2: Council may choose to grant 2nd reading to Bylaw 15/2020
Recommended Conditions for Option #1 – Motion #2: 1. Submission of a complete Subdivision application and the necessary fees; 2. Submission of a complete Road Closure application and the necessary fees; 3. Submission of final Redesignation fees.
OPTION #2 – MOTION FOR NO FURTHER READINGS Council may choose to motion that no further readings by given to Bylaw 14/2020 and/or 15/2020.
APPENDICES APPENDIX A: MAP SET: LOCATION MAP HALF MILE MAP – LAND USE HALF MILE MAP – PARCEL SIZES SITE PLAN WITH ORTHO PHOTO
APPENDIX B: BYLAWS:
APPENDIX C: APPLICATION:
APPENDIX D: APPLICANT RESPONSES TO STAFF LETTER:
APPENDIX E: LETTERS OF SUPPORT (FROM FIRST HEARING):
APPENDIX F: LETTERS OF OPPOSITION / CONCERN (FROM FIRST HEARING):
APPENDIX G: CIRCULATION RESPONSE – TOWN OF OKOTOKS:
Page 13 APPENDIX A: MAP SET: LOCATION MAP
Town of Okotoks
Subject Parcel
Page 14 HALF MILE MAP – LAND USE
Legend A- Agricultural AA- Agricultural Sub A CR- Country Residential CRA- Country Residential Sub A DC - Direct Control BP- Bussiness Park r HC- Highway Commercial r SD- Service District
Page 15 HALF MILE MAP – PARCEL SIZES
Page 16 SITE PLAN WITH ORTHO PHOTO
Page 17 APPENDIX B: PROPOSED BYLAWS: BYLAW 14/2020
BEING A BYLAW OF FOOTHILLS COUNTY TO AUTHORIZE AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE BYLAW NO. 60/2014 AS AMENDED. WHEREAS the Council of the Municipal District of Foothills No. 31 in the Province of Alberta passed Bylaw 14/2020, being a Bylaw for the purpose of the creation of a Direct Control District to allow Direct Control by Council over development pertaining to commercial uses related to automotive vehicles sales and services along the Highway 2A corridor north of Okotoks.; NOW THEREFORE, the Council of Foothills County, duly assembled, and pursuant to the authority conferred upon it by the Municipal Government Act, RSA 2000, c. M-26 and amendments thereto, enacts as follows: 1. This Bylaw may be cited as “Direct Control District” (DC) for the purpose of Direct Control by Council over development pertaining to commercial uses related to automotive vehicles sales and services along the Highway 2A corridor north of Okotoks
2. That Schedule ‘A’ attached hereto and forming part of this Bylaw be established as the Foothills County Direct Control District (DC)
3. This Bylaw shall have effect on the date of its third reading and upon signing.
FIRST READING: February 12, 2020 ______Reeve ______Municipal Manager
SECOND READING: ______Reeve ______Municipal Manager
THIRD READING: ______Reeve ______Municipal Manager
PASSED IN OPEN COUNCIL assembled at the Town of High River in the Province of Alberta this day of 2020.
Page 18 Schedule ‘A’
DIRECT CONTROL DISTRICT #36 (DRAFT FOR REVIEW) HIGHWAY 2A VEHICLE SALES
1. PURPOSE AND INTENT
To accommodate a limited range of commercial uses related to automotive vehicle sales and services along the Highway 2A corridor north of Okotoks, requiring a high degree of visibility, ease of access and attention to design and landscaping.
2. PERMITTED USES 3. DISCRETIONARY USES
Auto sales and repair Accessory buildings requiring a development Community services permit Government services Accessory uses Public works Agricultural support services Signs not requiring a development permit Business office Tourist information services and facilities Car/truck wash Utility services, minor Lot grading Recreational vehicle sales
4. LAND USE REQUIREMENTS
4.1 Utility Servicing Criteria
a. Municipal or communal water and wastewater disposal systems; b. Municipal or communal water system, and an advanced package sewage treatment system; or c. On site water storage system on site and/or wastewater pump out tanks if deemed appropriate by the Approving Authority
5. LAND USE REQUIREMENTS
5.1 Maximum Lot Coverage a. No building or group of buildings including their accessory buildings and impervious surfaces shall cover more than (60) sixty percent of the lot area.
5.2 Minimum Yard Setbacks Requirements a. Front Yard Setbacks: i. 15m (49.21 ft) from the right of way of an internal subdivision road; ii. 48m (157.48 ft) from the centreline of a Municipal road;
Page 19 iii. 40m (131.23 ft.) from the ultimate right of way or 70 meters from the centreline of a Provincial highway, whichever is greater; b. Side Yard Setbacks: i. 1.5 (4.92 ft) from the property line. c. Rear Yard Setbacks: i. Principal Building – 6m (19.69 ft) from the property line; ii. Accessory Building – 1.5 (4.92 ft) from the property line. d. If the title to a lot is subject to a caveat in respect of a land dedication or an agreement for the acquisition of land for road widening purposes, the dedicated area or area of future road widening shall be considered the future property boundary for which setback distances set out shall apply.
5.3 Corner Parcel Restrictions: a. In accordance with Section 9.27.9 - 9.27.12.
5.4 Minimum Environmental Setback Requirements: a. Slope: i. Adjacent to a slope of 15% (8.3°) or greater, development shall be setback a minimum of 30m or the distance determined by a Geotechnical Report. b. Water body: i. 30m (98.43 ft) (from the top of bank); or ii. Setback determined appropriate by The Approving Authority in accordance with the “Riparian Setback Matrix Model”, whichever is greater.
5.5 Other Minimum Setback Requirements:
a. See Section 9.27 “Special Setback Requirements” of this bylaw for additional setback requirements that may apply. b. The Approving Authority may require a greater building setback for a use which, in the opinion of a Approving Authority, may interfere with the amenity of adjacent uses.
5.6 Maximum Height of Structures a. 12m (39.37 ft).
6. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS
6.1 Landscaping and Screening: a. Landscaping shall be completed in accordance with the Municipal Screening Standards; b. Levels and methods of screening of the site shall be completed in accordance with the Municipal Screening Standards.
6.2 Lighting:
Page 20 a. All lighting must be in accordance with Section 9.15 of the Land use bylaw and with the Municipal Dark Sky Bylaw.
6.3 Access: a. The location of access/egress points to a parking area shall be established at an adequate distance from an intersection to ensure sufficient stacking distance for vehicles entering or leaving the site.
6.4 Loading/Unloading a. All outside loading and unloading areas shall be located at the side or rear of the building. Where loading areas will be visible from adjoining streets, residential sites or public parking areas, they should be screened in accordance with the Municipal Screening Standards.
6.5 Lot Drainage: a. A Development agreement shall be entered into for lot grading to the satisfaction of the Director, Public Works and Engineering; b. Lot grading and drainage shall be in accordance with Section 9.17 of the Land use bylaw.
6.6 Other: a. The Approving Authority may allow a building to be occupied by a combination of one or more of the above mentioned uses listed for this district.
Page 21 BYLAW 15/2020
BEING A BYLAW OF FOOTHILLS COUNTY TO AUTHORIZE AN AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE BYLAW NO. 60/2014 AS AMENDED WHEREAS pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal Government Act, Chapter M-26 Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000, and amendments thereto, the Council of Foothills County in the Province of Alberta, has adopted Land Use Bylaw No. 60/2014 and amendments thereto; AND WHEREAS the Council has received an application to further amend the Land Use Bylaw by authorizing the redesignation of a 8.5 +/- acre portion of Plan 1863LK, Block 4; NE 05-21-29 W4M from Country Residential District to Direct Control District #37 to allow for the operation of an Automotive Dealership. NOW THEREFORE THE COUNCIL ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. Land Use Map No. 2129 is amended by redesignating an 8.5 +/- acre portion of Plan 1863LK, Block 4; NE 05-21-29 W4M from Country Residential District to Direct Control District ## to allow for the Operation of an Automotive Dealership.
2. This Bylaw shall have effect on the date of its third reading and upon signing.
FIRST READING: February 12, 2020
______Reeve
______Municipal Manager
SECOND READING:
______Reeve
______Municipal Manager
THIRD READING:
______Reeve
______Municipal Manager PASSED IN OPEN COUNCIL assembled at the Town of High River in the Province of Alberta this day of 20 .
Page 22 APPENDIX C: APPLICATION:
Page 23 APPENDIX D: APPLICANT RESPONSES TO STAFF LETTER: FOOTHILLS COUNTY 309 Macleod Trail, Box 5605 High River, Alberta T1V 1M7 Tel: 403-652-2341 Fax: 403-652-7880 www.mdfoothills.com
B&A review and response November 27, 2019. November 6th, 2019 Applicant responses provided below in blue. B & A Planning Group Attn: Jack Moddle, MPlan, MCIP 600, 215 9 Ave SW Calgary, AB T2P 1K3 CANADA
Dear Sir: RE: Redesignation from Country Residential Land Use District to a newly proposed Direct Control Land Use District Plan 1863LK, Block 4; Ptn. NE 05-21-29 W4M
This letter is being sent to you to serve as a notice that the assigned File Manger has requested the following information and/or documentation to assist in the circulation to be sent for your above proposed application. If at all possible, please send the requested information on or before November 29th, 2019.
• Please confirm the 12m (39.37 ft.) maximum height proposed within the district is adequate for the proposed use of the site. Does this maximum height take into account fascia signage and the total peak height (from grade to peak) of the structures on site? Based on prototypical standards provided by Toyota Canada, the 12m maximum height will be sufficient to accommodate structures and signage on site. See Appendix A for building & monument tower prototypes. Light standards may be anywhere from 10’0” to 35’0” tall pending light fixture selections and light level calculations agreed upon by all parties (Toyota Canada, High River Toyota, Foothills & Okotoks). • Please provide additional information with regards to the Community Board Room: . Is there to be assigned parking availability for board room use separate to the dealership onsite? Not presently planned but can be implemented with signage if required. . Is this board room also to be used for Toyota on site as additional space? The boardroom is an integral component of the dealership and is located within the main dealership building. It is a room that will be used by the Toyota staff two times a week for 4hrs at a time and will be available to the public and all charity, non-profit, and government organizations while not in use by the dealership. . Is the board room separately accessible from the dealership and would have its own operating schedule and hours separate to that of the dealership? All personnel entering and exiting the facility must sign in and sign out with reception for fire safety, liability and confidentiality reasons. An agreement would be entertained between High River Toyota and any organization should they request use of the boardroom during non-business hours. Examples include, a High River Toyota employee must be present or a security guard must be hired for the course of the
Page 24 event. • Please provide additional information on the proposed balance parcel with the residence and drainage course on the parcel: . What is the proposed land use for the 3.83 acre parcel? The 3.83 acre parcel is proposed to remain as Country Residential, and is not intended to be redesignated as part of the application. . Is there solely proposed access from the re-aligned service road? No access from 322 Avenue E.? The new access for the proposed balance parcel is only shown conceptually at this point to demonstrate that a new access could be provided. At the time of subdivision, access could be provided either to the service road, 322 Avenue E, or both, as desired. . Can you please submit a plan showing the parcel with dimensions, setbacks from structures to proposed parcel lines for the 3.83 acre balance parcel, the location of the water well and location of the septic system. Provided as Appendix B. . Would the landowner/applicant consent to Environmental Reserve Easement or Overland Drainage Right-of-Way over the drainage area on the proposed balance parcel? The landowner and applicant may consider one of the above easement/ ROWs on the balance parcel, dependent on the requested area and the need. It is uncertain at this point whether the drainage course and waterbody (believed to be a man-made dugout) would qualify as Environmental Reserve; part of the intent behind subdividing out the balance parcel was to completely avoid any potential disturbance of these features. • Proposed Storm Pond: . Please provide additional information on the proposed method for the storm pond to be used as water for firefighting? The intent is to use the storm pond to fight fire. However, since detailed grading design is not done yet, the pressure losses during pumping cannot be determined exactly. If the pond is used, then there will be a piped connection to a dry hydrant. If pressure losses are deemed too high then a water tank will have to be installed on site which will have a connection to the dry hydrant. Based on the building size, type and location, NFPA 1142 was used to determine the volume of water required to fight the fire. Approximately 320m3 is required. . Is the intent to have a dry hydrant on the dealership side of the service road with piped connection to the storm pond? Yes. . What is the proposed depth of the pond and will there be enough water in the pond in a freeze cycle to sustain the water requirements for firefighting under the NFPA (National Fire Protection Agency) and Building Code? The proposed depth of the pond is 4m. Accounting for the volume loss through 0.6m of ice layer, 0.3m of turbid water below the pipe, and 0.6m of water above the pipe, we will still have approximately 650m3 of water to fight fire. A fixed water elevation at 25.16m will have to be maintained in the pond at all times to ensure that this volume of water is available . What is the method to allow for stormwater to reach the pond? The application notes swales and ditches; are these swales to be located across the service road (culverts) from the dealership site to the storm pond? Yes, all storm water will be directed to the swales, ditches and culverts which will convey the storm water to the pond.
Page 25 • Proposed Gravel Parking Area: o Is there proposed access to farmer’s market site from the gravel parking area? Vehicle access to both properties is proposed to be separate from one another, but pedestrian traffic between properties can be implemented. o Is there a proposal to change the access to the farmer’s market with the addition of the gravel parking area, or is this parking area purely separately accessed overflow parking? The Farmers Market and High River Toyota are two separate properties with two separate businesses, each requiring their own access to their own property. The dry pond gravel parking will be owned by Toyota, but in the interest of being good neighbors it is proposed that public parking will be allowed for use by the Farmers Market. o How many parking stalls are anticipated to be accommodated within this area? The gravel parking area is anticipated to contain approximately 50-75 parking stalls dependent on layout. It is not intended that this site be fully parked on a daily basis, but that it can serve as overflow for the dealership and farmer’s market as needed. o Please provide more information on whether the proposed gravel parking area is also the dry pond, or if the dry pond and gravel parking area share a boundary? The figures appear to show a shared boundary but the submission alludes to them being the same thing, ie. the gravel parking area is the dry pond. This is correct- the gravel parking and dry parking areas are the same. Because it is an evaporation pond with no overland escape route, this pond must be designed to handle 1:500 year storm events. The shallow region (shown with a diagonal hatch, referred to as dry pond) provides more than 0.5m freeboard in order to store water in case of a 1:500 year storm event or greater. For storm events less than the 1:500 year this shallow region will be dry and can be used for parking. The intent of this approach is to make efficient use the available land on site while providing overflow parking for the farmer’s market and dealership, thus avoiding unsafe parking of vehicles on the side of the service road which had been identified as a concern by stakeholders. • Please identify the location of utilities within the parcel. The application notes a utility right-of- way along the existing service road, is this to be relocated? See the updated Site Conditions figure (Appendix C). Our current understanding is that this is a natural gas pipeline ROW owned by Canadian Western Natural Gas Company (ATCO). The purpose of this pipeline and its potential activity/inactivity are unclear as the registered documents are quite old and it is unclear whether this portion of the pipeline has potentially been discharged (see the registered document attached as Appendix D with what appears to be a crossed-out portion covering this site). Online data sets including GIS and Abadata show no operating pipeline existing at this location.
We also do not have full details of any existing utility rights-of-way which may exist within the existing service road, which is currently owned by the County. Based on data obtained from SPIN, it appears there may be an existing ATCO gas pipeline which crosses through the service road, but the data shown on the Site Conditions figure is all that is visible to us.
Depending on the requirements for each, these existing ROWs could be relocated, contained within an easement in their current location, or discharged as required. • Please provide a completed Abandoned Well Site Form See Appendix E. • Direct Control District: o Can you please elaborate on the inclusion of the Agricultural Support Services Discretionary Use? Was the intent to have services such as a veterinarian or was the
Page 26 intent more along the lines of ‘Farm Equipment Sales and Service’ and/or ‘Agricultural Support Services’ as per the definitions within the LUB? Neither of these are intended uses; the inclusion of Agricultural Support Services seems like an oversight, and it can be removed if desired. o Staff would suggest keeping ‘Signs requiring a Development Permit’ and ‘Special Event’ as discretionary uses to the DC District. Signs so that in the future should the landowner wish to add additional signage they could and special events in case the dealership wanted to host something that would not be typical for the operation of the approved use on site; ie. Farmer’s market use, private event, community board room is to be used for a an non-profit event, etc. Noted. We will include these uses. o Under Land Use Requirements; Staff has noted that an additional section will need to be added that speaks to subdivision requirements under the district (most DC districts require a Council Amendment prior to subdivision). Noted; we will work directly with you on this proposed wording. o Clarity on the front yard setbacks, will this create a limited building envelope for the structure with the Municipal Setback to Roads and the Highway Setback? Would a smaller setback to both or either be more appropriate for the dealership? These setbacks were proposed simply because they align with the existing Highway Commercial setbacks. Based on typical dealership building envelope design it is not anticipated that these setbacks will negatively impact site design. Retaining the setback distance from municipal roads may be beneficial as it gives some additional buffer to neighbors to the west, south and east. However, we would be open to looking at reduced setbacks from the highway if desired, as this could lead to more flexibility in site design. o Under Special Requirements; Staff has noted that an additional section(s) regarding nuisances and the Development Authority’s ability to impose conditions should be added, similar to other DC Districts. Additionally, the proposed section 6.6, which speaks to multiple users of the building, will require more information on procedures around this and whether or not condominiumization is contemplated or just multiple users. The comment regarding a nuisance section; we would like to work directly with you to craft this wording if possible. To clarify the intent of Section 6.6, this is only meant to allow for certain uses, such as a car wash or car rental service, to operate If you have any questions or concerns regarding the information in this letter, please contact the undersigned. Yours truly, FOOTHILLS COUNTY
Logan Cox Planning & Development Officer P. 403-603-6207 E. [email protected]
Page 27 Letter Appendix A:
Page 28 Letter Appendix B:
Page 29 Letter Appendix C:
Page 30 Letter Appendix D:
Page 31
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 35
Page 36
Page 37
Page 38
Page 39 APPENDIX E: LETTERS OF SUPPORT (FROM FIRST HEARING):
Letters are available on the Digital Version of Council’s Staff Report.
APPENDIX F: LETTERS OF OPPOSITION / CONCERN (FROM FIRST HEARING):
Letters are available on the Digital Version of Council’s Staff Report.
Page 40 APPENDIX G: CIRCULATION RESPONSE – TOWN OF OKOTOKS:
Page 41
Page 42 MISCELLANEOUS PLANNING ITEM APPLICATION AND DEVELOPMENT REPORT TO COUNCIL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION September 16, 2020 APPLICATION INFORMATION FILE NO. 20D 118 DATE APPL. COMPLETE: July 9, 2020 LEGAL DESCRIPTION: Plan 9010611, Block 13, Lot 2; Portion of NE 01-20-29 W4M LANDOWNER: Raymond & Elaine Peters PROPOSAL: Request for Development Permit approval to allow for an expansion to the existing Major Home Based Business of a mini storage business, on the subject property. The proposed expansion consists of four additional mini storage buildings of 3,000+/- sq.ft. each. DIVISION NO: 1 DEPUTY REEVE Rob Siewert FILE MANAGER: Drew Granson
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Summary of Proposal: Landowners have submitted application for Development Permit on the DC#27 property to allow for an expansion of the existing Major Home Based Business on the subject property. The existing business consists of a mini storage business with five 3,000+/- sq.ft. and one 1,500+/- sq.ft. mini storage buildings. The landowners are requesting to construct four additional mini storage buildings of 3,000+/- sq.ft. each, within the lands directly north of the existing buildings.
Pertinent Site Considerations A dwelling with an attached garage and a 2,400 sq.ft. accessory building are located at the front or south side of the property. Five 3,000+/- sq.ft. mini storage buildings and one 1,500 sq.ft. mini storage building are located within the central portion of the property. The four proposed buildings are proposed to be located to the north of the existing mini storage facility area within the central portion of the subject property.
Policy Evaluation The application generally aligns with the Growth Management Strategy and sections of the MDP2010 that speak to home based businesses and intensification of land uses, provided they complement or minimize conflict with surrounding uses.
Referral Considerations Public Works recommends submission of an updated Stormwater Management Plan to address the additional impermeable surfaces within the proposed development and recommends that signed and sealed “As-Builds” be provided upon completion of the development. All necessary Permits and Inspections required for proposed buildings in accordance with Alberta Building, Safety, and Fire Codes. Landowners have submitted application for a Roadside Development Permit from Alberta Transportation and are awaiting approval.
Page 43 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION MUNICIPAL ADDRESS: 64218 426 Avenue East LEGAL LAND DESCRIPTION: NE 01-20-29 W4M; Plan 9010611, Block 12, Lot 2 LOCATION: The subject property is located on the north side of 426th Avenue E., approximately 250m west of Highway 2A, and 500m southwest of the Hamlet of Aldersyde. CURRENT LAND USE: Direct Control District #27 – Major Home Based Business District AREA OF SUBJECT LANDS: 8.97 acres
PURPOSE OF APPLICATION: The proposed addition to the existing Major Home Based Business is to allow for four additional mini storage buildings to be constructed on the subject property, being 30’x100’ (3,000sq.ft.) each. The applicants have stated that the proposed expansion would not require additional employees; the two residents on the property are the only employees. Proposed expansion would not result in exceeding the previously approved eight (8) business related vehicle trips on any given day. All other aspects of the existing operation are proposed to remain unchanged. The four buildings are proposed to be located directly north of the existing development and along the east boundary of the subject property. Note: Standard side yard property line setback requirements within the DC#27 – Major Home Based Business District is a minimum of 15 meters, or as approved by Council. The applicants have proposed the easternmost buildings to be located 25 feet (7.62 meters) from the east property line at their closest points; therefore, must be acknowledged by Council.
SITE CONSIDERATIONS: Access: One existing approach provide access to the property off the north side of 426th Avenue East and approximately 250 meters west of Highway 2A. Site lines are good in both directions and this approach meets current commercial approach standards.
Physiography / Site Improvements: All site improvements are located within the southern half of the property, and the northern portions are generally flat and entirely grassland. A dwelling with an attached garage and a 2,400 sq.ft. accessory building are located within the southernmost portions of the property. The south half of the parcel is well screened along the west and east boundaries with mature shelter belts of deciduous and evergreen trees and shrubs, as well as a mature strip of trees perpendicular across the center of the property and directly north of the six existing mini storage buildings. The south boundary is landscaped with several evergreens. The four new buildings are proposed to be located to the north of existing buildings and existing vegetation screening. The applicants have proposed to plant a row of trees along the west side of the proposed buildings, and have noted that the rolling topography partially screens the proposed building locations from the lands to the north as well that the lands to the north consist of construction and storage yards, so are of the opinion that additional screening of the proposed buildings to the north and east is not necessary.
Page 44 CIRCULATION REFERRALS REFEREE COMMENTS INTERNAL Engineering / Recommend submission of an updated Stormwater Management Plan to Public Works address the cumulative impermeable surfaces on the subject property. Building/Safety Applicant to obtain all appropriate BSC permits for proposed buildings prior to Codes construction. Foothills Fire ▪ Fire Inspection of new buildings required once completed. Services ▪ Address of property to be posted. ▪ Ensure access to buildings at all times for Fire Department Apparatus ▪ Fire Safety Plan to be posted as per Fire Code. EXTERNAL Alberta Landowners have submitted application to Alberta Transportation for Roadside Transportation Development Permit for the proposed development. Utilities No concerns were received from Atco Gas, Atco Transmission, and Fortis. PUBLIC Western Wheel Development Permit applications on Direct Control District properties are not advertised in the Western Wheel unless a Public Hearing is held. Land Owners Development Permit applications on Direct Control District properties are not circulated to neighbouring landowners unless a Public Meeting is held.
SUMMARY Requesting consideration of Development Permit 20D 118 to allow for an expansion to the existing Major Home Based Business of a Mini Storage Business on the subject property, consisting of four additional mini storage buildings of 3,000+/- sq.ft. each, on the subject property.
OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: OPTION #1 – APPROVAL Should Council choose to approve Development Permit 20D 118, they may consider the following motion: Council moved that Development Permit 20D 118 to allow for an expansion to the existing Mini Storage Business, consisting of four additional mini storage buildings of 3,000+/- sq.ft. each, on the subject property, being Plan 9010611, Block 12, Lot 2; Ptn. NE 01-20-29 W4M, subject to the following conditions:
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR COUNCIL’S CONSIDERATION: Council may wish to provide any of the following conditions, or any additional conditions, as a pre- release condition(s) should they be of the opinion that the requirement be addressed prior to the Development Permit being issued. Should Council wish to require pre-release conditions, please provide a timeline or deadline for the pre-release condition(s) to be fulfilled. Should any pre-release condition(s) not be adhered to within the provided timeline, the decision would become null and void.
Page 45 Recommended Pre-Release Conditions: 1) The applicant shall submit a Professional Engineer signed and stamped Stormwater Management Plan addressing the additional impermeable surfaces, for review and acceptance by the Public Works Department; 2) The applicant shall submit a refundable compliance deposit in the amount of $5,000.00. This deposit will be refunded at such time that the involved professional(s) provide written verification that all aspects of the noted reports and plans have been satisfied, and the project has been completed as approved herein; 3) The applicant is required to obtain all necessary approvals, or waivers of such requirements, from Alberta Transportation prior to this permit being endorsed. It is the applicant’s responsibility to provide proof of such to the County;
Additional Recommended Conditions: 4) Upon satisfaction of the Pre-Release Condition(s), this approval will allow for four (4) additional mini storage buildings of 3,000+/- sq.ft. each, to be located on the subject property, as proposed within the submitted application, and as accepted by the Foothills County Council as the Development Authority. Revisions and/or additions to this approval shall be acknowledged and accepted by the Development Authority, prior to implementation; 5) This approval is in addendum to the existing approval under Development Permit 16D 078 and 19D 216 does not supersede existing requirements and restrictions under previous approvals, except as specifically noted within this approval; 6) The proposed mini storage structures shall be located as identified on the approved site plan, which illustrates that the two easternmost buildings are a minimum of 7.62 meters (25 ft.) from the east property line at their closest points, as acknowledged by Council; 7) All necessary Building and Safety Code Permits, shall be obtained for each of the proposed structures and may further require Professional Engineer reports, for use and occupancy; 8) The proposed mini storage buildings shall not exceed a maximum height of 10.67 meters (35 ft.) from grade to peak; 9) Providing variance for the Oversized Accessory Buildings exhausts the area of permitted accessory buildings on a property of this size. As such, absolutely no additional accessory buildings or additional garage space is permitted on the subject property without first obtaining the necessary approvals through Foothills County. This includes any structure with a roof; such as, any tent, shelter, lean-to, shed, greenhouse, and/or any buildings with temporary foundations; 10) No portion of any of the mini storage building are permitted to be used as a secondary residence, or for the purpose of overnight accommodations at any given time, unless prior appropriate approvals of such are obtained from Foothills County; 11) Natural drainage of the property must be maintained. Alteration to natural drainage may proceed as recommended within the accepted Stormwater Management Plan; 12) It is the applicant’s responsibility to contact Foothills Fire Department and obtain all necessary approvals and inspections and provide proof of the same to the Development Authority; 13) It is the landowner’s responsibility to provide notification to the Development Authority upon completion of the development;
Page 46 14) Prior to the County acknowledging completion of the development, it is the responsibility of the applicant to submit as-built drawings and/or completion certificate, executed by the designated professional(s), confirming that all improvements are consistent recommendations with the required Stormwater Management Plan, as accepted by the County; 15) The issuance of a development permit from the County does not relieve the applicant of the responsibility of complying with all other relevant municipal bylaws and requirements, nor excuse violation of any provincial or federal regulation or act which may affect use of the land; 16) The applicant shall be responsible for payment of any professional costs including legal fees that may be incurred by the Municipal District with respect to the development approved on this permit.
OPTION #2 REFUSE APPLICATION Should Council choose to refuse Development Permit 20D 118, they may consider the following motion and reasons for refusal: Council moved that Development Permit 20D 118 to allow for an expansion to the existing Major Home Based Business to allow for four additional Mini Storage Buildings be refused as Council was of the opinion that the application does not satisfactorily conform to those policies that guide use within the Direct Control District #27;
OPTION #3 – POSTPONE APPLICATION for Should Council choose to postpone their consideration of Development Permit 20D 118, they may consider the following motion: Council moved to postpone consideration of Development Permit 20D 118, as Council is of the Opinion that a non-statutory public meeting be held prior to further consideration of the application.
APPENDICES APPENDIX A: MAP SET: LOCATION & LAND USE MAP SUBMITTED SITE PLAN LOT ORTHO IMAGE
Page 47 APPENDIX A: MAP SET
Hamlet of Aldersyde
Subject Property
Page 48 Submitted Site Plan
Four proposed buildings
Page 49 Subject Property
Page 50 MISCELLANEOUS PLANNING ITEM PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT REPORT TO COUNCIL September 16, 2020
REQUEST FOR MOTION OF COUNCIL TOPIC: Vulcan County and Foothills County Intermunicipal Development Plan (IDP)
PROPOSAL: Draft amended Intermunicipal Development Plan document and maps for review and consideration of direction to undertake public review.
FILE MANAGER: Julie McLean
PURPOSE OF REQUEST: Council to review the proposed amendments to the Vulcan County and Foothills County IDP and consider giving staff direction to proceed with a public review.
BACKGROUND: The current Intermunicipal Development Plan (IDP) is relatively recent having been adopted by Vulcan County and the Foothills County in the fall of 2015 (Foothills County Bylaw 83/2015 Vulcan County Bylaw 2015-019). While the current IDP has served the two municipalities well, recent amendments to the Municipal Government Act (MGA) necessitate that a review and amendment be undertaken in order to ensure that the IDP continues to meet all requirements under the Act.
On April 29th, 2020 Foothills County Council approved the following motion:
Moved that Council direct Foothills County administration to proceed with the review and amendment of the current Vulcan County and Foothills County Intermunicipal Development Plan, as per the processes outlined in the project Terms of Reference and the Communications and Engagement Approach.
Staff from both municipalities have worked together to create a red-line document with proposed amendments to the IDP for review by both Councils, attached as Appendix A to this report. We would note that the maps to be included in the draft document are provided separately as Appendix B.
As per the communications and engagement approach that was endorsed by both Councils, at the outset of the project newspaper advertisements and municipal websites were used to provide notification that the amendment was taking place. Now that a draft plan has been completed, it is suggested that rather than a public open house event, staff will facilitate an on-line public review period.
Page 51 The process being proposed is very similar to that which was undertaken last year for the Wheatland County and Foothills County IDP review. The draft plan will be posted on the project page that has been created on each municipality’s website. It is proposed that administration will provide notice of the opportunity to review the draft plan through newspaper advertisements, on- line notices and potentially through social media posts. Written notification will also be provided by direct mail to landowners in the plan area. Staff are suggesting a 30-day review period. Subsequent to the public review, administration will report back to both Councils with a summary report of the results.
At that time, changes may be proposed to address comments and concerns that were brought forward during the review. Then, direction will be sought to proceed to public hearing and consideration for approval.
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: It is requested that Council consider the following motion: That Council direct Foothills County administration work with administration from Vulcan County to facilitate a public review of the draft amendments to the Vulcan County and Foothills County Intermunicipal Development Plan and report back to both Councils on the results of the review.
APPENDICES:
APPENDIX A: RED LINE DOCUMENT OUTLINING PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE IDP. APPENDIX B: MAPS TO BE INCLUDED IN AMENDED IDP
Page 52
Photo Credit: Canadian Badland LTD.
Foothills County & Vulcan County Intermunicipal Development Plan Foothills County Bylaw No. XX/2020 Vulcan County Bylaw No. 2020-XXX
Adopted: Month 2020
Page 53
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The following individuals and organizations are thanked for their assistance in the development of one or both of the 2015 and 2019 versions of this document:
Residents and Stakeholders who provided comments Foothills County and Vulcan County Councillors
Administration Staff from Foothills County and Vulcan County
ORRSC PROJECT TEAM (2015 Plan)
Cameron Klassen – Project Manager Ryan Dyck – Planner Diane Horvath – Planner
Barb Johnson – Executive Secretary
Intellectual Property – All Rights Reserved © Copyright
This document is protected by Copyright and Trade Secret Law and may not be reproduced or modified in any manner, or for any purpose, except by written permission of the Oldman River Regional Services Commission, Vulcan County or Foothills County. This document has been prepared for the sole use of the Municipalities addressed and the Oldman River Regional Services Commission. This disclaimer is attached to and forms part of the document.
Page 54 Rural Multi-jurisdictional Intermunicipal Development Plan Project 2012-2015
In 2012, Vulcan County and seven other rural municipalities initiated a process to create a series of 11 rural-to-rural intermunicipal development plans. The impetus of the project is to improve consultation between rural municipalities in Southern Alberta, who in many cases share expansive borders. Although the border areas are primarily used for agricultural purposes, in many cases significant ecological, mineral and hydrogeological resources exist, as well as important infrastructure including transportation and utilities.
The Rural Multi-jurisdictional Intermunicipal Development Plan Project involves the participation of: • Cardston County • County of Newell • County of Warner No. 5 • Municipal District of Foothills No. 31 • Municipal District of Ranchland No. 66 • Municipal District of Willow Creek No. 26 • Vulcan County • Wheatland County
Figure 1: The eight Rural Multi-jurisdictional Development Plan Project participating municipalities
Page 55 Table of Contents
1| INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Purpose of the Plan ...... 1 1.2 Municipal Profiles ...... 2 Foothills County ...... 2 Vulcan County ...... 2 1.3 Legislative Framework ...... 4 Municipal Government Act (MGA) ...... 4 South Saskatchewan Regional Plan (SSRP) ...... 6 Calgary Metropolitan Region (CMRB) ...... 8 1.4 Plan Preparation Process ...... 9 2015 Plan Preparation Process ...... 9 2018/19 Plan Amendment Process: ...... 9 2 PLAN AREA ...... 10 2.1 Study Area Analysis ...... 10 2.2 Defining the Intermunicipal Development Plan Area ...... 10 3 INTERMUNICIPAL POLICIES ...... 11 3.1 General Policies ...... 11 3.2 Land Use ...... 12 General Land Use ...... 12 Agriculture ...... 13 Resource Extraction & Energy Development ...... 13 Renewable Energy Development ...... 14 3.3 Future Development ...... 15 3.4 Transportation ...... 15 3.5 Natural Environment ...... 16 3.6 Water Quality and Flood Protection ...... 17 3.7 Coordination of Intermunicipal Programs ...... 18 4 PLAN ADMINISTRATION & IMPLEMENTATION ...... 18 4.1 Intermunicipal Referral Process ...... 18 General ...... 19 Statutory Plans ...... 20
Page 56 Non-Statutory Plans ...... 20 Land Use Bylaws ...... 20 Subdivision and Development ...... 20 Response Timelines ...... 21 Consideration of Responses ...... 21 4.2 Plan Validity and Amendment Policies ...... 21 5| DISPUTE RESOLUTION ...... 23 5.1 General Dispute Process ...... 23 General Agreement ...... 23 Dispute Resolution ...... 23 Filing an Intermunicipal Dispute under the Municipal Government Act ...... 24 Dispute Resolution Flow Chart ...... 25 6| INTERPRETATION OF LANGUAGE ...... 26 6.1 Interpretation ...... 26 APPENDIX A | DEFINITIONS APPENDIX B | DATA SOURCES
1 | INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Purpose of the Plan ...... 1 1.2 Municipal Profiles ...... 2 Municipal District of Foothills No. 31 ...... 2 Vulcan County ...... 2 1.3 Legislative Requirements ...... 3 1.4 Plan Preparation Process ...... 5
2 | PLAN AREA ...... 6 2.1 Study Area Analysis ...... 6 2.2 Defining the Intermunicipal Development Plan Area ...... 6
3 | PLAN ADMINISTRATION & IMPLEMENTATION ...... 7 3.1 Intermunicipal Referral Process ...... 7 General ...... 7
Page 57 Municipal Development Plans ...... 8 Other Statutory Plans and Non-Statutory Plans ...... 8 Land Use Bylaws ...... 8 Subdivision and Development ...... 9 Response Timelines ...... 9 Consideration of Responses ...... 9 3.2 Plan Validity and Amendment Policies ...... 9 Addressing Provincial Regional Planning Requirements ...... 10 Addressing Municipal Amendments and Plan Validity ...... 10
4 | DISPUTE RESOLUTION ...... 11 4.1 General Dispute Process ...... 11 General Agreement ...... 11 Dispute Resolution ...... 11 Filing an Intermunicipal Dispute under the Municipal Government Act ...... 12 Dispute Resolution Flowchart ...... 13
5 | INTERPRETATION OF LANGUAGE ...... 14 5.1 Interpretation ...... 14
APPENDIX A | DEFINITIONS
APPENDIX B | DATA SOURCES
Page 58 Municipal District of Foothills No. 31County & Vulcan County Intermunicipal Development Plan
1 | INTRODUCTION
1.1 Purpose of the Plan
The purpose of the Municipal District of Foothills No. 31 & Vulcan County Intermunicipal Development Plan (also known as the IDP or the Plan) is to foster an inter-jurisdictional approach to address planning issues on lands that connect these municipalities. The Plan serves as a means for information exchange between the municipalities, in accordance with the Alberta Land Stewardship Act, Statutes of Alberta 2009, Chapter A-26.8 (ALSA), and the Municipal Government Act, Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000, Chapter M-26 as amended (MGA ) and the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan (SSRP)..
Municipalities work together to adopt IDPs to: • Meet the requirements of the Municipal Government Act; • promote consultation, coordination and cooperation regarding planning matters of joint interest within a defined planning area; • provide a framework for addressing land use concerns with regard to joint planning matters; • establish procedures for dealing with development proposals within a defined planning area; and • address any other matters relating to development considered necessary within a joint planning areaby the municipalities.
An IDP is a planning tool that can provide numerous benefits to participating municipalities, which may include, but are not limited to the following: • municipal cost-savings, as a result of infrastructure and service sharing, which also provides residents with a higher quality of life; • reinforcing and protecting both municipalities’ development philosophies and goals while mitigating the potential for future intermunicipal conflict; and • ensuring development for both municipalities occurs in an orderly, economic, efficient and harmonious manner that is sustainable by considering existing development conditions and future municipal goals.
Page 59 The Plan contains policy that is to be used as a framework for working cooperatively, communicating and making decisions in each municipality. Each municipality is ultimately responsible for making decisions within their own municipal jurisdiction.
1.2 Municipal Profiles
Municipal District of Foothills No. 31County
Foothills County covers an area of approximately 370,000 hectares (914,287 acres) with a population of approximately 22,766 (Statistics Canada Census Profile 2016). The County surrounds four urban municipalities and contains ten hamlets, as well as the Eden Valley First Nation Reserve. Foothills is also bordered by six rural municipalities, the Tsuu T’ina First Nation Reserve, as well as The City of Calgary.
Foothills is a rural municipality, being rural is why many residents choose to live here. Rural character is highly valued by Foothills residents and while it is not always easy to define, the following qualities taken from the Municipal Development Plan 2010 begin to describe what it means: wide-open spaces, scenic vistas, dark skies, cultural heritage, and the quality of the physical environment. Of course, agriculture also plays an important role in establishing the rural character of Foothills; most of the land base in the County is made up of working farms and ranches.
The main economic driver in the County is Agriculture but there is also significant tourism, oil and gas activity, and some industrial development. The majority of the County’s industrial development is being directed to the Highway 2A Industrial Corridor between High River and Okotoks.The Municipal District of Foothills No. 31 covers an area of approximately 364,000 hectares (899,463 acres) with a 2013 population of 21,258 (Alberta Municipal Affairs, 2013). The M.D. surrounds four urban municipalities and contains ten hamlets, as well as the Eden Valley First Nation Reserve. The M.D. is also bordered by six rural municipalities, Tsuu T’ina Nation, as well as Alberta's largest City of Calgary. The main economic driver in the M.D. is Agriculture but there is also significant tourism, oil and gas activity and some industrial development. The majority of the M.D.'s industrial development is being directed to the Highway 2A Industrial Corridor between High River and Okotoks.
Vulcan County
Vulcan County covers an area of approximately 550,000 hectares (1.3 million acres), with a population of 3,984 (Census Canada, 2016)with a population of 3893 (Alberta Municipal Affairs, 2013). The County surrounds six urban municipalities, contains eight hamlets, and is bordered by six rural municipalities and the Siksika Nation The economy of Vulcan County has traditionally centered on agriculture, although oil and gas along with renewable energy development, primarily wind farm and solar development, play an important role in the County’s economy. The County has a number of recreational residential developments, particularly around McGregor Lake Reservoir and Travers Reservoirs and continues to encourage responsible Reservoir development. Vulcan County also has convenient access to major rail networks, enabling access to both domestic and international routes for shipment of goods.
Page 60
An IDP is a planning tool that can provide numerous benefits to both municipalities… by considering existing development conditions and future municipal goals.
Photo Credit: Canadian Badlands LTD.
Page 61 1.3 Legislative RequirementsFramework
Municipal Government Act (MGA)
The MGA lays out the purpose of municipal governments and dictates how they operate. In recent years it was amended in 2016 by the Modernized Municipal Government Act and again in 2019 by the Red Tape Reduction Implementation Act in order to enhance cooperation, improve municipal relationships, mitigate conflict between municipalities, and streamline planning processes. While the 2016 amendments made intermunicipal plans mandatory for municipalities that shared a boundary and augmented the requirements that these plans must meet, the 2019 amendment enabled municipalities to be exempt from the requirement to adopt an IDP if they enter into an agreement indicating that they felt an IDP was not necessary.
Relevant sections of MGA as amended are as follows: 631(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), 2 or more councils of municipalities that have common boundaries and that are not members of a growth region as defined in section 708.01 must, by each passing a bylaw in accordance with this Part or in accordance with sections 12 and 692, adopt an intermunicipal development plan to include those areas of land lying within the boundaries of the municipalities as they consider necessary.
(2) Subsection (1) does not require municipalities to adopt an intermunicipal development plan with each other if they agree that they do not require one, but any of the municipalities may revoke its agreement at any time by giving written notice to the other or others, and where that notice is given the municipalities must comply with subsection (1) within one year from the date of the notice unless an exemption is ordered under subsection (3).
(3) The Minister may, by order, exempt one or more councils from the requirement to adopt an intermunicipal development plan, and the order may contain any terms and conditions that the Minister considers necessary.
(8) An intermunicipal development plan (a) must address (i) the future land use within the area, (ii) the manner of and the proposals for future development in the area, (iii) the provision of transportation systems for the area, either generally or specifically, (iv) the co-ordination of intermunicipal programs relating to the physical, social and economic development of the area, (v) environmental matters within the area, either generally or specifically, and (vi) any other matter related to the physical, social or economic development of the area that the councils consider necessary,
Page 62 And (b) must include (i) a procedure to be used to resolve or attempt to resolve any conflict between the municipalities that have adopted the plan, (ii) a procedure to be used, by one or more municipalities, to amend or repeal the plan, and (iii) provisions relating to the administration of the plan. (9) Despite subsection (8), to the extent that a matter is dealt with in a framework under Part 17.2, the matter does not need to be included in an intermunicipal development plan.
In order to foster cooperation and mitigate conflict between municipalities the MGA includes two mechanisms that allow a municipality to:
• include policies regarding coordination of land use, future growth patterns and other infrastructure with adjacent municipalities in their municipal development plans [Section 632(3)(iii)] if no intermunicipal development plan exists with respect to those matters;
• complete and adopt an intermunicipal development plan with adjacent municipalities to address the above matters.
Specifically the MGA states:
631(1) Two or more Councils, may, by each passing a bylaw in accordance with this Part or in accordance with sections 12 and 692, adopt an Intermunicipal development plan to include those areas of land lying within the boundaries of the municipalities, as they consider necessary.
631(2) An intermunicipal development plan
a) may provide for
i. the future land use within the area,
ii. the manner of and the proposals for future development in the area,
iii. any other matter relating to the physical, social or economic development of the area that the Councils consider necessary,
and
b) must include
i. a procedure to be used to resolve or attempt to resolve any conflict between the municipalities that have adopted the plan
ii. a procedure to be used, by one or more municipalities, to amend or repeal the plan, and
iii. provisions relating to the administration of the plan.
Page 63 South Saskatchewan Regional Plan (SSRP)
INTENT
In addition to the MGA, all statutory plans in the South Saskatchewan Region (as established in Alberta’s Land Use Framework) must comply with the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan (SSRP), which came into effect September 1, 2014. In addition to the MGA, the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan (SSRP) came into effect September 1, 2014. The SSRP uses a cumulative effects management approach to set policy direction for municipalities to achieve environmental, economic and social outcomes within the South Saskatchewan Region until 2024.
Alberta’s Land Use Framework (LUF) was adopted in 2008, and sets out an approach to manage public and private lands and natural resources to achieve Alberta’s long-term economic, environmental and social goals. In 2009, the government adopted the Alberta Land Stewardship Act (ALSA) to enable several of the strategies identified in the LUF to be carried out (See Figure 1 - Planning Hierarchy, page 10).
Pursuant to section 15(1) of ALSA, the Regulatory Details of the SSRP are enforceable as law and bind the Crown, decision makers, local governments and all other persons while the remaining portions are statements of policy to inform and are not intended to have binding legal effect. Municipalities in the SSRP region are expected to align all of their plans and policy documents with the direction provided in the Regional Plan as a way to achieve the goals and strategies of the LUF and ALSA.
The amended Vulcan County and Foothills County Intermunicipal Development Plan was developed in consideration of the objectives and strategies in the SSRP and complies with the overall intent of the policies contained in the regional plan. The policies in the SSRP that are most relevant to this IDP are contained in Section 8, which speaks to Community Development.
Pursuant to Section 13 of the Alberta Land Stewardship Act, regional plans are legislative instruments. The SSRP has four key parts including the Introduction, Strategic Plan, Implementation Plan and Regulatory Details Plan. Pursuant to Section 15(1) of ALSA, the Regulatory Details of the SSRP are enforceable as law and bind the Crown, decision makers, local governments and all other persons while the remaining portions are statements of policy to inform and are not intended to have binding legal effect.
The Regional Plan is guided by the vision, outcomes and intended directions set by the Strategic Plan portion of the SSRP while the Implementation Plan establishes the objectives and the strategies that will be implemented to achieve the regional vision. As part of the Implementation Plan, Section 8: Community Development includes guidance regarding Plan Cooperation and Integration between municipalities with the intention to foster cooperation and coordination between neighbouring municipalities and between municipalities and provincial departments, boards and agencies. Section 8 contains the following broad objectives and strategies.
Objectives
Page 64 • Cooperation and coordination are fostered among all land use planners and decision-makers involved in preparing and implementing land plans and strategies.
• Knowledge sharing among communities is encouraged to promote the use of planning tools and the principles of efficient use of land to address community development in the region.
Strategies
8.1 Work together to achieve the shared environmental, economic, and social outcomes in the South Saskatchewan Regional Plan and minimize negative environmental cumulative effects.
8.2 Address common planning issues, especially where valued natural features and historic resources are of interests to more than one stakeholder and where the possible effect of development transcends jurisdictional boundaries.
8.3 Coordinate and work with each other in their respective planning activities (such as in the development of plans and policies) and development approval process to address issues of mutual interest.
8.4 Work together to anticipate, plan and set aside adequate land with the physical infrastructure and services required to accommodate future population growth and accompanying community development needs.
8.5 Build awareness regarding the application of land-use planning tools that reduce the impact of residential, commercial and industrial developments on the land, including approaches and best practices for promoting the efficient use of private and public lands.
8.6 Pursue joint use agreements, regional services commissions and any other joint cooperative arrangements that contribute specifically to intermunicipal land use planning.
8.7 Consider the value of intermunicipal development planning to address land use on fringe areas, airport vicinity protection plan or other areas of mutual interest.
8.8 Coordinate land use planning activities with First Nations, irrigation districts, school boards, health authorities and other agencies on areas of mutual interest.
The above strategies were considered by both municipalities when developing policy within this IDP and will be considered when rendering land use decisions pertaining to development within the Plan Area. Other strategies contained in the SSRP should be considered in the context of each rural municipality’s Municipal Development Plan, Land Use Bylaw or through policies found within this Plan.
POLICIES
1.3.1 The municipalities will work together to ensure that this Plan aligns with the objectives and strategies of the SSRP. 1.3.2 After the Plan’s adoption, if it is subsequently determined that additional amendments are needed to the Plan to adhere to provincial requirements of the SSRP; both municipalities will review and discuss possible amendments through administration.
Page 65 Calgary Metropolitan Region (CMRB)
INTENT
As illustrated in Map 1 – CMRB Boundary, Foothills County is a member of the Calgary Metropolitan Region Board (CMRB) while Vulcan County is not. As a member of the CMRB, Foothills County must ensure that all of their statutory plans, including IDPs meet the CMRB requirements even if the other municipality that is party to the IDP is not a member.
At present, the CMRB has an Interim Growth Plan (IGP) and an Interim Regional Evaluation Framework (IREF) in place to provide guidance that enables member municipalities to proceed with planning and development approvals, prior to the adoption of the fulsome Growth and Servicing Plans and Regional Evaluation Framework (REF). As a statutory plan in a member municipality, this IDP is subject to the IGP and the IREF and will be subject to the Growth Plan, Servicing Plan and REF once they are in place.
It is noted that an amendment to an existing IDP, that does not contemplate employment areas or more than 50 additional residences, under Section 4.1 of the IREF, does need to be referred to the Board for approval prior to third readings being granted to the bylaws adopting the plan. Commented [JM1]: As long as the IGP and IREF are still in place when this plan is adopted we can keep this as is. If the POLICIES fulsome plans are adopted prior to this IDP, we will amend this section accordingly. 1.3.3 Subsequent to the Plan’s adoption, if it is determined that additional amendments are needed to the Plan to address the requirements of the CMRB Growth Plan and Servicing Plan once approved; both municipalities shall review and discuss possible amendments through administration.
INSERT: MAP 1 - CMRB BOUNDARY
Page 66 1.4 Plan Preparation Process
The formation of both the original Foothills County and Vulcan County IDP (2015)Plan and the amended (2020) IDP was guided by senior administration and planning staff from both municipalities. With respect to decision making, both parties agreed at the outset of the process that their chosen decision-making model would be based on reaching consensus on the issues discussed.
2015 Plan Preparation Process
A background and study area analysis was undertaken which served as the foundation from which both municipalities could review the existing land use conditions and determine the relevant issues, goals and objectives.
Prior to identifying areas of importance and concern with the municipalities, planners from ORRSC met with each municipality to clarify their municipal perspectives on general issues. Once each municipality’s perspectives were identified, a draft document was prepared for review. An outline of the project purpose, process, ideas and concepts was then reviewed with affected landowners, stakeholders and the general public at an Open House.
After the Open House the Review Committee and each municipal Council reviewed the draft; a refined document was then prepared and submitted for the Review Committee’s final endorsement. Upon endorsement, the final draft document was then forwarded to each Council for review. As required by the MGA, mandatory public hearings were held by each Council and subsequent to the public hearings, the IDP was adopted by each municipality under separate municipal bylaws.
2019/2020 Plan Amendment Process:
In December of 2019, Vulcan County initiated discussions on an IDP amendment by sending a letter to Foothills County suggesting that a review of the IDP was warranted in order to address new requirements under the MGA. Foothills Council agreed and both municipalities directed their administrations to work together to facilitate a review and amendment of the Plan.
In early 2020, administration prepared a terms of reference for the plan review process as well as a public engagement strategy. Subsequent to approval by both municipal Councils, staff issued announcements that the project was being undertaken and began work on drafting suggested amendments to the plan.
In August 2020 administration completed draft amendments to the plan and in early September they were taken to both Councils for review. At this time direction was sought to undertake an online engagement regarding the draft amendments.
Remaining process will be filled in as the project progresses…
Page 67
"The MD of Foothills encompasses a diverse rural landscape in which leadership and planning support a strong agricultural heritage, vibrant communities, a balanced economy and the stewardship of natural capital for future generations." — Vision Statement, M.D. of Foothills Municipal Development Plan 2010 "Striving towards innovation in agriculture and development while respecting our roots and history." — Vision Statement, Vulcan County Municipal Website
Photo Credit: Canadian Badlands LTD.
2 | PLAN AREA
2.1 Study Area Analysis
To determine the extent of the 2015 Plan Area, the municipalities began by analyzing a Study Area approximately 7 km (4 miles) on either side of the shared border, with ranges from 3 km to 10 km in some areas. The following key features in the Study Area were examined: • Land Use • Transportation Corridors • Natural Landscape
2.2 Defining the Intermunicipal Development Plan Area
After careful review by administration and planning staff, the municipalities used the Study Area analysis to help define the Intermunicipal Development Plan Area (also referred to as the Plan Area). It was determined that due to the relative consistency of key characteristics within the Study Area that a Plan Area boundary of 3.2 km (2 miles) would not only encompass the natural landscape between the two municipalities, but would make for a consistent Plan Area. For the 2020 review, it was determined that the Plan Area would not change, The Plan Areait consists of approximately 34,344 hectares (84,865 acres) and is illustrated in Maps 1 2 - Plan Area Location and Map 3 - Plan Areaand 2.
Page 68 INSERT: MAP 2 - PLAN AREA LOCATION and MAP 3 - PLAN AREA
Photo Credit: Canadian Badland LTD.
3 | INTERMUNICIPAL POLICIES
3.1 General Policies
INTENT
The general policies are not specific to individual sections of the plan and are not intended for specific areas within the Plan Area, but rather pertain to the entire Plan Area. Most of these policies speak to the desire of both municipalities to continue to share information and work collaboratively and cooperatively to achieve efficiencies and ensure mutually beneficial outcomes.
POLICIES
3.1.1 The municipalities may collaborate and investigate methods of giving support to projects that may mutually benefit or enhance the quality of life of residents from both municipalities. This could be in the form of in-kind donations, materials, municipal letters of support, unified government lobbying, application for grants, or other more permanent arrangements. In all cases, both municipalities would have to agree, enter into discussions and make specific agreements for such.
Page 69 3.1.2 Both municipalities agree to jointly discuss ways to cooperate with provincial and federal agencies and utility providers to help facilitate the efficient delivery of infrastructure and services that are of mutual benefit.
3.1.3 Foothills County and Vulcan County shall strive, to the best of their ability and knowledge, to forward all notices of government projects within the Plan Area to the adjacent municipality.
3.1.4 Both municipalities shall strive to the best of their ability to forward any notices received regarding development approvals from other levels of government or other authorities pertaining to lands within the plan area to the adjacent municipality.
3.1.5 Both municipalities are encouraged to share with the adjacent municipality, the results of all publicly available technical analyses required by a Subdivision and Development Authority as part of an application, where there is the potential for impacts on lands and bodies of water within the adjacent municipality
3.1.6 In any area where the plan area for this IDP overlaps with another IDP plan area, the policies from both IDPs will apply.
3.2 Land Use
As illustrated in Map 4 - Land Use, the majority of the plan area is designated as Agriculture District in Foothills and Rural General in Vulcan County.
In Foothills County there are a number of Country Residential parcels in the plan area, the majority of which are first parcels out from previously un-subdivided quarter sections. In the southern portion of the plan area in Foothills County there is also a quarter section designated as municipal reserve. This parcel was severely impacted by flooding on the Little Bow in 2013 and was subsequently purchased by the County under the Government of Alberta’s Flood Reduction and Erosion Control (FREC) program. It will continue to be utilized for Agriculture under a Municipal Reserve license. There is also a confined feeding operation in the southern portion of the plan area.
In Vulcan County, the vast majority of the lands in the plan area are designated as Rural General. First parcels out from previously un-subdivided quarter sections generally retain the Rural General designation. There are a couple of Single Lot Country Residential parcels and a portion of a quarter south of Highway 23 that is designated as Grouped Country Residential. There is some gravel extraction activity in the northern part of the plan area. Finally, in the northernmost tip of the plan area along the Bow River, there is a parcel that is designated as Rural Recreational.
INSERT: MAP 4 - LAND USE
General Land Use
INTENT
Page 70 As outlined above, agriculture is the predominant land use in the Plan Area with some residential uses and resource extraction and this is expected to continue into the future. Applications for other uses will be considered in accordance with each municipality’s Municipal Development plan and planning framework, while recognizing that impacts may occur on lands in the neighbouring jurisdiction.
POLICIES
3.2.1 The municipalities, as per this Plan, shall strive to engage in effective dialogue when considering land use changes in the Plan Area, while still maintaining complete jurisdiction on lands within their own boundaries.
Agriculture
INTENT
It is recognized that the agriculture industry is an important part of our history and culture and creates economic benefit and employment opportunities in both municipalities. Agriculture is currently the predominant land use in the Plan Area and there is presently no expectation that this will change in the foreseeable future.
POLICIES
3.2.2 Agriculture will continue to be the predominant land use in the Plan Area. The impact on agricultural uses shall be a consideration when determining the suitability of non‐agricultural land uses in the Plan Area.
Resource Extraction & Energy Development
INTENT
Vulcan County and Foothills County recognize the importance of resource extraction and energy development to the local economy and to the construction and maintenance of transportation routes and other infrastructure. However, it is also acknowledged that resource extraction operations may have impacts on surrounding lands. These impacts should be mitigated through careful siting, and the use of operational best practices.
POLICIES
3.2.3 If either municipality is in receipt of a notice of application for a new or expanded gravel extraction operation within the Plan Area, they shall forward a copy of the notice to the other municipality. 3.2.4 Each municipality shall notify the adjacent municipality of any resource development proposal that will require access from a road under the adjacent municipality’s control or management. Administration from both municipalities are encouraged to dialogue regarding the potential impacts the proposed
Page 71 development may have on the affected municipality’s roads prior to the acceptance of the application as complete. 3.2.5 An agreement may be required regarding the construction, repair, and maintenance of any municipal roads which may be impacted by resource development, when the development requires access to come from the adjacent municipality’s road.
Renewable Energy Development
INTENT
Vulcan County and Foothills County recognize the role that renewable energy development could play in supporting the local and regional economy. It is also recognized that the approval of renewable energy developments may create off-site impacts and there is a need to ensure the compatibility of land uses across municipal boundaries.
POLICIES
3.2.6 The municipalities may support the location of renewable energy developments within the Plan Area: a) where compatible with existing land uses on both sides of the municipal boundary, and b) in consideration of comments from the adjacent municipality. 3.2.7 Either municipality shall refer to the other municipality any land use or development permit application for a renewable energy development within the Plan Area including but not limited to: • wind farms, • hydroelectric development, • solar power, or • other related and similar developments, in accordance with the intermunicipal referral policies in Section 4.1. Confined Feeding Operations (CFOs)
INTENT
Both municipalities recognize the Natural Resources Conservation Board has jurisdiction over the approvals, regulations, and enforcement of confined feed operations (CFOs). However, the municipalities acknowledge Vulcan County’s CFO exclusion zone and their attempt to mitigate potential nuisances and conflicts pertaining to current and future CFO development within their jurisdiction. Both municipalities also recognize that it is beneficial to ensure that information regarding applications for new or expanded CFOs in one municipality is shared with the adjacent municipality.
POLICIES
Page 72 3.2.8 Existing CFOs located within the Plan Area will be allowed to continue to operate and expand under acceptable operating practices and within the requirements of the Agricultural Operation Practices Act and Regulations.
3.2.9 In Vulcan County, new CFOs are not permitted to be established within the CFO Exclusion Area as illustrated in the Vulcan County Municipal Development Plan, Bylaw 2012-003, Appendix B.
3.2.10 If either Foothills County or Vulcan County are in receipt of an application for new or expanded CFOs within the Plan Area, they shall forward a copy of the application to the other municipality.
3.2.11 Should amendments be proposed to the Vulcan County CFO exclusion areas, Vulcan County will circulate the proposal to Foothills County prior to the amendment and in accordance with the timelines established in this plan
3.3 Future Development
INTENT
It is anticipated that land uses similar to those that currently exist will continue in the plan area. If however, a proposal for a large or intense development that is not consistent with current use were to come forward in either municipality, it is expected that discussion and collaboration between the municipalities will occur. Depending on the scope and scale of the proposal, it may be advantageous to engage the partner municipality prior to formal circulation to flag any potential areas of conflict.
POLICIES
3.3.1 Future land use amendments in the plan area will require referral to the adjacent municipality as per Policy 4.1.11 in the referrals section. 3.3.2 Applications for development for uses other than agricultural, residential, resource extraction or renewable energy generation or that propose a significant change in the intensity of use will require consultation between the municipalities and may require a plan amendment at the discretion of both municipalities.
3.4 Transportation
As Illustrated in Map 5 – Road System, portions or provincial highways 23, 547, 799 and 804 travel through the plan area. There is also a system of municipal roads that cross the boundary between the two municipalities and range roads 261 and 271 run along portions of the municipal boundary within Vulcan County. Currently there are no maintenance agreements regarding roads between the two municipalities.
INSERT: MAP 5 - ROAD SYSTEM
Page 73 INTENT
The municipalities agree that it is desirable and mutually beneficial to coordinate on planning for transportation with the goal of supporting the safe and efficient movement of people and goods within both municipalities.
POLICIES
3.4.1 Each municipality is responsible for the maintenance and construction of transportation infrastructure located within their jurisdiction. However, the municipalities may choose to enter into cost sharing or maintenance agreements where infrastructure benefits both Counties or where efficiencies may be created.
3.4.2 Both municipalities recognize the importance of maintaining a coordinated system of haul routes and non-banned roads across the intermunicipal boundary, and agree to consult with each other on any proposal to designate a road as a haul route or non- banned road within the Plan Area.
3.4.3 Applications for haul routes that affect the adjacent municipality shall be referred to that municipality for comment, and decisions regarding the approval must be made in consideration of comments received.
3.4.4 Each municipality shall notify the adjacent municipality of any subdivision or development proposal in their jurisdiction that will result in either access being required from, or a significant impact being created on, a road under the neighbouring municipality’s control or management.
3.4.5 When the construction of new municipal roads is proposed within the Plan Area, the municipality initiating the development will notify the other, prior to construction commencing, to provide an opportunity for comment on the potential impacts the new road may have on the existing road network, infrastructure and land use.
3.4.6 The municipalities should endeavor to foster continued dialogue with Alberta Transportation regarding provincial highways in the Plan Area, including any planned changes to the highways that may impact either municipality.
3.5 Natural Environment
INTENT
Both municipalities recognize the connection between the natural environment and quality of life and the importance of striving to protect, preserve and enhance natural systems and environmentally significant areas, while supporting appropriate development. Much of the plan area is cultivated land and there is limited natural vegetation other than along or adjacent to waterbodies.
Natural waterbodies may provide wildlife habitat, aesthetic value, recreation opportunities and ecosystem services. There are a number of waterbodies within or adjacent to the plan area:
Page 74 • The Bow River flows from west to east along the northern boundary of the plan area; • The Little Bow River flows in a southeasterly direction along the municipal boundary in the southernmost part of the plan area; • Frank Lake is just outside of the plan area boundary in Foothills County; and • un-named drainage courses and wetlands of various sizes and categories.
POLICIES
3.5.1 On lands identified on Alberta Culture and Tourism’s Listing of Historic Resources as having a Historic Resource Value (HRV) a historical resource impact assessment (HRIA) may be required by the municipality as part of an approval process for development in an effort to uphold and respect culturally important areas in each municipality. 3.5.2 Both municipalities should consider the provincial Wetland Policy when making land use decisions in the plan area with the goal of sustaining the environmental benefits provided by wetlands. 3.5.3 The use of Environmental Reserves, Environmental Reserve Easements, Conservation Easements, or other similar tools in the plan area is encouraged to protect or preserve areas as appropriate. 3.5.4 Development on slopes and river valleys within natural areas is generally discouraged. However, it may be supported if it is done in accordance with the respective municipality’s statutory plans, applicable bylaws, and other municipal policies and regulations. 3.5.5 When evaluating applications for Subdivision and Development in or adjacent to river valleys the municipality with jurisdiction shall take into consideration slope stability, soil characteristics and flood hazard mapping where available in order to minimize negative environmental impacts and potential property damage.
3.6 Water Quality and Flood Protection
INTENT
Because of the cumulative impacts that nearby development can have on the Bow and Little Bow Rivers and their tributaries, it is important that both Counties consider the impact of development on water quality. Further, protective measures should be taken to ensure proposed developments are not located within flood-prone areas in either County, as identified by the Provincial Flood Hazard Mapping (as available / amended).
POLICIES
3.6.1 When making land use decisions in the plan area, each municipality will: a) determine appropriate land use patterns in the vicinity of significant water resources and other water features;
Page 75 b) utilize and incorporate measures which minimize possible impacts on significant water resources; c) establish appropriate setbacks to maintain water quality, flood water conveyance and storage, bank stability and habitat. 3.6.2 Where land use and development is to occur in flood prone areas, appropriate regulations shall be implemented to ensure no negative impacts on the neighboring Municipality. 3.6.3 Development proposed in proximity to the Bow and Little Bow Rivers and their tributaries shall be carefully evaluated for any impacts on water quality. 3.6.4 Where new development is proposed in proximity to the Bow and Little Bow Rivers and their tributaries, stormwater management shall be considered where necessary to reduce runoff and mitigate impacts on water quality. 3.6.5 Each municipality shall respect the boundaries and limitations of the Provincial flood mapping (as amended) when considering development on or near the identified flood prone areas.
3.7 Coordination of Intermunicipal Programs
Coordination of intermunicipal programs is addressed in the Foothills County and Vulcan County Intermunicipal Collaboration Framework (ICF) as may be amended from time to time, the initial ICF was approved by Foothills County and Vulcan County in the spring of 2020.
ICFs are a new legislated requirement that was mandated with the approval of the Modernized Municipal Government Act in 2016. All municipalities that share a common boundary must create an ICF. Municipalities that are members of the same growth management board are required to create a framework with each other only in respect of the matters that are not addressed in the board’s growth plan or the servicing plan. ICFs and IDPs can work together to provide the appropriate mechanisms to address different types of issues and different levels of cooperation between municipal neighbours.
Through the IDP or ICF, or by other means the municipalities may collaborate and investigate methods of giving support to projects that may mutually benefit or enhance the quality of life of residents from both municipalities. This could be in the form of in-kind donations, materials, municipal letters of support, unified government lobbying, application for grants, or other more permanent arrangements if both municipalities agree and enter into discussions and make specific agreements for such.
4 | PLAN ADMINISTRATION & IMPLEMENTATION
4.1 Intermunicipal Referral Process
INTENT
Page 76 The purpose of this section of the Plan is to establish a clear and consistent referral process whereby each municipality is able to provide comments on proposed changes to statutory and non-statutory plans as well as proposed subdivision and development applications within the Plan Area.
POLICIES
General 3.1.1 The municipalities, as per this Plan, shall strive to engage in effective dialogue when Commented [JM2]: Now in Section 3.2.1 considering land use in the Plan Area, while still maintaining complete jurisdiction on lands within their own boundaries.
3.1.2 The municipalities may collaborate and investigate methods of giving support to Commented [JM3]: Now in Section 3.7 projects that may mutually benefit or enhance the quality of life of residents from both municipalities. This could be in the form of in-kind donations, materials, municipal letters of support, unified government lobbying, application for grants, or other more permanent arrangements if both municipalities agree and enter into discussions and make specific agreements for such. 3.1.3 Both municipalities agree to jointly discuss ways to cooperate with provincial and federal agencies and utility providers to help facilitate the efficient delivery of infrastructure and services that are of a mutual benefit. 4.1.1 The M.D. of Foothills No. 31County and Vulcan County shall endeavor, to the best of their ability and knowledge, to refer all notices of government projects within the Plan Area to the adjacent municipality. 4.1.2 3.1.5 Both municipalities are encouraged to share with the adjacent municipality, the results of all publicly available technical analyses required by a Subdivision and Development Authority as part of an application, where there is the potential for impacts on land, water and air within the adjacent municipality. 4.1.3 3.1.6 Where an intermunicipal referral is required by the MGA or the policies contained in this Plan, both municipalities agree to share mailing address and property ownership information for circulation purposes with adjacent municipality, and where applicable, the municipality’s processing agency. 4.1.4 3.1.7 Administrative staff or representatives for the M.D. of Foothills No. 31County and Vulcan County are encouraged to discuss, with one another, forthcoming Statutory Plans and Land Use Bylaws, including amendments, which may impact the Plan Area. 4.1.5 3.1.8 Administrative staff or representatives for the M.D. of Foothills No. 31County and Vulcan County are encouraged to discuss, with one another, forthcoming subdivision and development applications that may impact lands within the Plan Area. 4.1.6 3.1.9 If either municipality is in receipt of a referral, prior to the holding of a mandatory public hearing, the receiving municipality may present their comments and concerns at or prior to the other municipality’s public hearing.
Page 77 Municipal DevelopmentStatutory Plans 4.1.7 3.1.10 A newly proposed M.D. of Foothills No. 31 Municipal DevelopmentCounty statutory plan or plan Plan or amendment affecting lands in the Plan Area shall be referred to Vulcan County for comment prior to a public hearing. 4.1.8 3.1.11 A newly proposed Vulcan County Municipal Development Plan orstatutory plans or plan amendments affecting lands in the Plan Area shall be referred to the M.D. of Foothills No. 31County for comment prior to a public hearing.
Other Statutory Plans and Non-Statutory Plans 4.1.9 3.1.12 A newly proposed M.D. of Foothills No. 31County statutory plan or non- statutory plan (excluding a Municipal Development Plan) or plan amendment that will have an impact onaffecting lands in the Plan Area shall be referred to Vulcan County for comment prior to a public hearing. 4.1.10 3.1.13 A newly proposed Vulcan County statutory plan or non-statutory plan (excluding a Municipal Development Plan) or plan amendment that will have an impact onaffecting lands in the Plan Area shall be referred to the M.D. of Foothills No. 31County for comment prior to a public hearing.
Land Use Bylaws 4.1.11 A newly proposed Land Use Bylaw from either municipality shall be referred to the other for comment prior to a public hearing. 4.1.114.1.12 3.1.14 All Land Use Bylaw amendments in the M.D. of Foothills No. 31County that affect lands in the Plan Area, shall be referred to Vulcan County for comment prior to a public hearing. 4.1.124.1.13 3.1.15 All Land Use Bylaw amendments in Vulcan County that affect lands in the Plan Area, shall be referred to the M.D. of Foothills No. 31County for comment prior to a public hearing. 4.1.134.1.14 3.1.16 All redesignation applications within the Plan Area shall be referred to the other adjacent municipality for comment prior to a public hearing. 3.1.17 A newly proposed Land Use Bylaw from either municipality shall be referred to the other for comment prior to a public hearing.
Subdivision and Development 4.1.144.1.15 3.1.18 All subdivision applications for lands within the Plan Area shall be referred to the other municipality for comment prior to a decision being rendered. 4.1.154.1.16 3.1.19 The M.D. of Foothills No. 31County shall refer all discretionary use development permit applications within the Plan Area to Vulcan County for comment prior to a decision being rendered. 4.1.164.1.17 3.1.20 Vulcan County shall refer all discretionary use development permit applications within the Plan Area, to the M.D. of Foothills No. 31County for comment prior to a decision being rendered.
Page 78 Response Timelines 4.1.174.1.18 3.1.21 The responding municipality shall, from the date of notification, either by postal mail or electronic mail, have the following timelines to review and provide comment on intermunicipal referrals: a) 15 calendar days for all development applications, b) 19 calendar days for subdivision applications, and c) 30 calendar days for all other intermunicipal referrals. 4.1.184.1.19 3.1.22 In the event that either municipality does not reply within, or request an extension toby, the response time for intermunicipal referrals stipulated in this Section, it is presumed that the responding municipality has no comment or objection to the referred planning application or matter.
Consideration of Responses 4.1.194.1.20 3.1.23 Comments from the responding municipality regarding proposed Municipal Development Plans, other statutory or non-statutory plans, and Land Use Bylaws, or amendments to any of those documents, shall be included in any reports provided to the approving authority and considered by the municipality in which the Commented [JM4]: Vulcan County has an MPC in addition application is being proposed, prior to a decision being rendered. to Council 4.1.204.1.21 3.1.24 Comments from the responding municipality regarding subdivision and development applications shall be considered by the municipality in which the application is being proposed, prior to a decision being rendered on the application.
4.2 Plan Validity and Amendment Policies
INTENT
This Plan may require amendments from time to time to incorporate new information, accommodate unforeseen situations, and to keep the Plan relevant. This Plan does not contain a “sunset” clause, but rather, a method of continuous updating.
POLICIES
4.2.1 Addressing Provincial Regional Planning Requirements The South Saskatchewan Regional Plan (SSRP) has been completed and came into effect September 1, 2014. The municipalities are under the mandate of this legislation and will consider the following in respect of the SSRP legislation: 3.2.1 The municipalities agree that they will comply with the adopted regional plan strategies, and are of the opinion this Plan aligns with strategies of the SSRP. 3.2.2 After the Plan’s adoption, if it is subsequently determined that additional amendments are needed to the Plan to adhere to provincial requirements of the SSRP,
Page 79 both municipalities will review and discuss possible amendments through administration. Commented [JM5]: Addressed in section 1.3 Legislative Framework Addressing Municipal Amendments and Plan Validity 3.2.3 This Plan comes into effect on the date it is adopted by the M.D. of Foothills No. 31County and Vulcan County and remains in effect until: a) either Council rescinds the Plan by bylaw after giving six (6) months' notice to the other municipality; or a) b) mutual agreement of both municipalities to rescind the bylaws adopting the plan; or. b) ea) either Council rescinds the Plan by bylaw after giving six (6) months' notice to the other municipality stating the intent and reasons for repealing the plan.; or
4.2.2 3.2.4 Should only one municipality wish to amend the Plan, the dispute resolution process in Section 5 shall be initiated. 4.2.3 Amendments to this plan shall only be initiated by Vulcan County or Foothills County. 4.2.4 Amendments shall beto the plan come into effect once adopted by both Councils using the procedures outlined in the MGA. No amendment shall come into force until such time as both municipalities adopt separate amending bylaws. 4.2.5 Should information regarding flood mitigation, including flood mapping or other flood related studies, become available that may have impact on lands within the Plan Area, and both municipalities subsequently determine that additional amendments are needed, both municipalities shall review and discuss possible amendments through administration. 4.2.6 After the Plan’s adoption, if it is subsequently determined that additional amendments are needed to the Plan, both municipalities will review and discuss possible amendments through administration. 3.2.5 Amendments to this Plan by parties other than the M.D. of Foothills No. 31 or Vulcan County shall be accompanied by an application for amendment submitted to the municipality in which the application originates, along with the applicable fee for processing amendments to a statutory document. 3.2.6 Both the M.D. of Foothills No. 31 and Vulcan County agree to share the amendment fee to assist in costs associated with processing amendments to a statutory document. 4.2.7 Administrative staff should review the policies of the Plan annually and discuss land use matters, issues and concerns on an on-going basis. Administrative staff may make recommendations to their respective Councils for amendment to the Plan to ensure the policies remain relevant and continue to meet the needs of both municipalities. 4.2.8 3.2.8 A formal review of the Plan should occur within 10 years from the date the IDP is adopted by both municipalities.
Page 80 5 | DISPUTE RESOLUTION
5.1 General Dispute Process
INTENT
The policies of this Plan are designed to be general in nature, ensuring and ensure that both the M.D. of Foothills No. 31County and Vulcan County maintain jurisdiction over the decisions made within their borders. It is anticipated that by following the process below, any disputes or conflicts that may arise can first be avoided, and but where necessarywhen un-avoidable, disputes may be settled at the local level. Only in those circumstances where a resolution cannot be achieved locally would the dispute be referred to outside parties.
POLICIES
General Agreement The municipalities agree that:
5.1.1 4.1.1 It is important to avoid dispute by ensuringTo avoid disputes, it is important that the Plan is adhered to as adopted, including full circulation of any planpermit or application that may affect the municipality or as required in the Plan, and prompt enforcement of the Plan policies. 5.1.2 4.1.2 Prior to meeting, each municipality through its administration, will ensure the facts of the issue have been investigated and clarified, and information is made available to both parties. Staff meetings are encouraged to discuss possible solutions. 5.1.3 4.1.3 The municipalities’ administrations should discuss the issue or dispute in good faith with the intent to seek resolution on the issue.
Dispute Resolution In the case of a dispute, the following process will be followed undertaken to arrive at a solution:
5.1.4 4.1.4 When a potential intermunicipal issue comes to the attention of either municipality relating to a technical or procedural matter, such as inadequate notification or prescribed timelines, misinterpretation of Plan policies, or a clerical error regarding the policies of this Plan, either municipality’s Land Use Bylaw, or any other plan affecting lands in the Plan area, it will be directed to the administrators of each municipality. The administrators will review the technical or procedural matter and if both administrators are in agreement, take action to rectify the matter. 5.1.5 4.1.5 Should either municipality identify an issue related to this Plan that may result in a dispute that cannot be administratively resolved or any other issue that may result in a dispute, the municipality should contact the other and request that a meeting be scheduled with equal representation of councillors or staff in addition to the administration staff chosen in policy 4.1.4 to discuss the issue. The
Page 81 representatives will review the issue and attempt to resolve the matter by seeking resolution consensus on the issue. 5.1.6 4.1.6 Should the Council members and administrative staff be unable to resolve the matter, facilitated mediation shall be initiated if agreed tosubject to agreement by both municipalities.
Filing an Intermunicipal Dispute under the Municipal Government Act 5.1.7 4.1.7 In the case of a dispute involving the adoption of a statutory plan, land use bylaw or amendment to such, within 30 days of adoption, the municipality initiating the dispute may, without prejudice, file an appeal to the Municipal Government Board under section 690(1) of the MGA so that the provincial statutory right and timeframe to file an appeal is not lost. 5.1.8 4.1.8 The appeal may then be withdrawn, without prejudice, if a solution or agreement is reached between the two municipalities prior to the Municipal Government Board meeting. This is to acknowledge and respect that the time required to seek resolution or mediation may not be able to occur within the 30 day appeal filing process as outlined in the MGA.
Note: Using section 690(1) of the MGA is the final stage of dispute settlement, where the municipalities request the Municipal Government Board to intercede and resolve the issue.
Page 82 Dispute Resolution Flow Chart
The dispute resolution flow chart presented here is for demonstration purposes only and shall not limit the ability of either municipality to explore other methods of resolution or to choose one method in place of another.
Conflict Arises
Adhere to IDP Policies
Administration meets to resolve
Equal representation of Council and Administration meet to resolve Resolution/Process Ends Explore resolution options
MGA Section Mediation 690 (1)
Page 83 6 | INTERPRETATION OF LANGUAGE
6.1 Interpretation
INTENT
To ensure the policies and language within this Plan are communicated in the proper context so as to ensure the intent of the Plan is as clear and concise as possible.
POLICIES 4.1.16.1.1 Unless otherwise required by the context, words used in the present tense include the future tense; words used in the singular include the plural; and the word person includes a corporation as well as an individual. Unless otherwise stipulated, the Interpretation Act, Chapter I-8, RSA 2000 as amended, shall be used in the interpretation of this bylaw. Words have the same meaning whether they are capitalized or not. 4.1.26.1.2 All references to a specific agency, body, or department were accurate at the time of writing. It is understood that agency, body and department names change from time to time. All references throughout the Plan shall therefore be considered to be applicable to the current relevant agency, body or department. 6.1.3 In this document the operative terms Shall, Should and May are used for consistency and clarity. The interpretation of these terms is as follows: • Shall is an operative word that means the action is mandatory. • Should is an operative word that means that in order to achieve the Plan’s objectives, it is strongly advised that the action be taken. • May is an operative word that means that there is a choice, with no particular direction or guidance intended.
Page 84
APPENDIX A | DEFINITIONS
Page 85 APPENDIX A | DEFINITIONS
Adjacent Land(s): Land that abuts or is contiguous to the parcel of land that is being described and includes land that would be contiguous if not for a highway, road, lane, walkway, watercourse, utility lot, pipeline right-of-way, power line, railway or similar feature and any other land identified in a land use bylaw as adjacent for the purpose of notifications under the Municipal Government Act, Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000, M-26 with amendments.
Alberta Land Stewardship Act (ALSA): The Alberta Land Stewardship Act, Statues of Alberta 2009, Chapter A-26.8, as amended.
Area Structure Plan (ASP): A statutory plan in accordance with the MGA for the purpose of providing a framework for subsequent subdivision and development of an area of land in a municipality. The Plan typically provides a design that integrates land uses with the requirements for suitable parcel densities, transportation patterns (roads), stormwater drainage, fire protection and other utilities across the entire Plan Area.
Calgary Metropolitan Region Board: a board established under the Calgary Metropolitan Region Board Regulation (AR 190/2017) mandated with promoting the long-term sustainability of the Calgary Metropolitan Region, ensuring environmentally responsible land-use planning and coordinating regional infrastructure investment.
Calgary Metropolitan Region Growth Plan: an integrated growth management plan for the Calgary Metropolitan Region, including any amendments to that plan, approved by the Minister under section 708.1 of the Act.
Calgary Metropolitan Region Interim Growth Plan: an interim growth management plan for the Calgary Metropolitan Region, approved by the Minister under section 708.1 of the Act, intended to be in effect until such time as a fulsome Growth Plan is developed and approved.
Council: The Council of the M.D. of Foothills No. 31County and the Council of Vulcan County in the Province of Alberta.
County: The Municipality of Vulcan County and/or Foothills County.
Development: As defined by the Municipal Government Act in Part 17, section 616, means a) an excavation or stockpile and the creation of either of them; b) a building or an addition to or replacement or repair of a building and the construction or placing of any of them on, in, over or under land; c) a change of use of land or a building or an act done in relation to land or a building that results in or is likely to result in a change in the use of the land or building; or d) a change in the intensity of the land or a building or an act done in relation to land or a building that results in or is likely to result in a change in the intensity of use of the land or building.
Page 86 Discretionary Use: The use of land or a building in a land use district for which a development permit may be approved at the discretion of the Development Authority with or without conditions.
Intermunicipal Border: The shared border between the M.D. of Foothills No. 31County and Vulcan County.
Intermunicipal Development Plan (IDP): A statutory document, adopted by bylaw in accordance with section 631 of the Municipal Government Act, which is used by municipalities as a long-range planning tool.
May: Is an operative word that means that there is a choice, with no particular direction or guidance intended.
Mediation: The non-adversarial intervention between conflicting parties to promote settlement, compromise and understanding. It is an informal, confidential and structured process to resolve disputes before they escalate to heightened hostilities such as litigation.
Municipalities (the Municipalities): The municipalities of the Municipal District of Foothills No. 31County and Vulcan County.
Municipal Government Act (MGA): The Municipal Government Act, Revised Statues of Alberta 2000, Chapter M-26, as amended.
Municipal Development Plan (MDP): A statutory plan, adopted by bylaw in accordance with section 632 of the Municipal Government Act and used by municipalities as a long-range planning tool.
M.D.: Municipal District of Foothills No. 31.
Non-Statutory Plan: A municipal planning document, conceptual design scheme or conceptual plan, that is endorsed or approved by resolution of Council, typically to guide future land use, development or subdivision of a specified area within a municipality, but does not include a municipal development plan, area structure plan or area redevelopment plan adopted under the Municipal Government Act.
Plan: The Municipal District of Foothills No. 31County and Vulcan County Intermunicipal Development Plan.
Plan Area: The lands defined in this document to which the policies of this document pertain.
Shall: Is an operative word that means the action is mandatory.
Should: Is an operative word that means that in order to achieve the Plan’s objectives, it is strongly advised that the action be taken.
South Saskatchewan Regional Plan (SSRP): The regional plan and regulations established by order of the Lieutenant Governor in Council pursuant to the Alberta Land Stewardship Act.
Page 87 Stakeholder: A person with an interest or concern in matters pertaining to this Plan.
Statutory Plan: As per Part 17 of the Municipal Government Act, is an intermunicipal development plan, a municipal development plan, an area structure plan, or an area redevelopment plan adopted by a municipality under Division 4 of the Municipal Government Act.
Subdivision and Development Authority: Within the boundary of the M.D. of Foothills No. 31 means the M.D. of Foothills No. 31 Subdivision and Development Authority, and within the boundary of Vulcan County means the Vulcan County Subdivision and Development Authority.
Study Area: The area identified by both municipalities that encompasses areas of importance and concern and has been identified has an area where additional study took place in order to help define the parameters of the Plan Area.
Page 88
APPENDIX B | DATA SOURCES
Page 89 APPENDIX B | DATA SOURCES
The following is a list of data used to generate the Maps used in this Plan. All Information was retrieved between March 1, 2014 and June 1, 2014.
ALTALIS, "The Municipal District of Foothills No. 31". Digital Imagery Ortho-rectified by Atlis Geomatics.
National Road Network. (2013). GeoBase. Retrieved from http://www.geobase.ca/geobase/en/data/nrn/index.html
Welcome to AltaLIS. (2014). AltaLIS.ca. Retrieved from http://www.altalis.com/ Commented [JM6]: We will update this page once we have completed the maps for the document.
Page 90 Foothills County - Vulcan County IDP MAP 1 - CMRB BOUNDARY August 2020 Legend . Foothills County & Vulcan County IDP Plan Area Scale 1: 1,000,000 Data sources: CMRB Boundary Foothills County, Vulcan County, ORRSC, AltaLIS
Foothills County & Vulcan County Boundaries Vulcan County is not responsible for errors or omissions.
Mountain Starland View County Kneehill County County
Rocky View County
Calgary
Wheatland ¦¥1 County
¦¥1
County of Newell
Foothills County ¦¥2 Vulcan County
¦¥2
M.D. of Willow M.D. of Taber M.D. of Creek No. 26 Ranchland No. 66 Lethbridge County
Page 91 Foothills County - Vulcan County IDP MAP 2 - PLAN LOCATION August 2020 . Legend Scale 1: 900,000 Foothills County & Vulcan County IDP Plan Area First Nation Reservations Data sources: Foothills County, Vulcan County, Foothills County & Vulcan County Boundaries Highways ORRSC, AltaLIS Vulcan County is not responsible for errors or omissions.
Rocky View County ¦¥2
Calgary Wheatland County ¦¥1
TSUU T'INA NATION 145
County of Newell SIKSIKA 146
Foothills County
EDEN Vulcan County VALLEY 216
M.D. of Ranchland M.D. of Willow M.D. of Taber No. 66 Creek No. 26
Lethbridge County ¦¥2 M.D. of Pincher Page 92 Creek No. 9 Foothills County - Vulcan County IDP MAP 3 - PLAN AREA August 2020
Legend Scale 1: 220,000 Foothills County & Vulcan County IDP Plan Area Foothills County Parcels Data sources: Foothills County, Vulcan County, . ORRSC, AltaLIS Foothills County & Vulcan County Boundaries Vulcan County! Parcels Vulcan County is not responsible for errors or omissions.
Rocky View Wheatland County County SIKSIKA 146 30
22 19 23 24
15 14 13 18 UV552 10 11 12 7
3 2 1 6
34 35 36 31
27 26 25 30 Mossleigh ! UV547 ¦¥24 UV547 22 23 24 19
15 14 13 18
10 11 12 7 UV799 3 2 1 6
34 35 36 31
Foothills 27 26 25 30 Herronton County 22 23 24 19 ! Blackie 15 14 13 18 ! Vulcan County 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7
2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 ¦¥23 UV542 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36
27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25
22 23 24 19
15 14 13 18 Brant !
10 11 12 7
3 2 1 6 804 UV Ensign 34 35 36 31 !
27 26 25 30
22 23 24 19
15 14 13 18 17
10 11 12 7 8 9 M.D. of Willow Page 93 Vulcan Creek No. 26 Foothills County - Vulcan County IDP MAP 4 - LAND USE August 2020
Legend Scale 1: 220,000 Data sources: Foothills County & Vulcan County IDP Plan Area Foothills County Parcels Foothills County, Vulcan County, . ORRSC, AltaLIS ! Foothills County & Vulcan County Boundaries Vulcan County Parcels Vulcan County is not responsible for errors or omissions.
Rocky View Wheatland County County 30 SIKSIKA 146
22 19 23 24
15 14 13 18 Foothills County Land Use 552 UV Flood Hazard Protection Overlay 10 11 12 7
A- Agricultural Foothills 3 2 1 6 AA- Agricultural Sub A County 34 35 36 31 Arrowwood CR- Country Residential 27 26 25 30 Mossleigh ! 547 24 547 UV ¦¥ PUL- Public Utility UV 22 23 24 19
MR- Municipal Reserve 15 14 13 18 Vulcan County Land Use 10 11 12 7 UV799 RG- Rural General 3 2 1 6 GCR- Grouped Country Residential 34 35 36 31 RR- Rural Recreational 27 26 25 30 Herronton SCR- Single Lot Residential 22 23 24 19 ! SH- Small Holdings Blackie 15 14 13 18 ! Confined Feeding Operation Exclusion Area 11 12 7 8 9 10 11 12 7
2 1 6 5 4 3 2 1 6 5 UV542 34 35 36 31 32 33 34 35 36 Vulcan County ¦¥23 27 26 25 30 29 28 27 26 25
22 23 24 19
15 14 13 18 Brant !
10 11 12 7
3 2 1 6 804 UV Ensign 34 35 36 31 !
27 26 25 30
22 23 24 19
15 14 13 18 17
10 11 12 7 8 9 Page 94 M.D. of Willow Vulcan Creek No. 26 Foothills County - Vulcan County IDP MAP 5 - MUNICIPAL ROAD SYSTEM August 2020
Legend Scale 1: 220,000 Data sources: Foothills County & Vulcan County IDP Plan Area Rural Roads Foothills County, Vulcan County, . ORRSC, AltaLIS Foothills County & Vulcan County Boundaries Vulcan County is not responsible for errors or omissions.
2253 DR E SIKSIKA 146 Rocky View Wheatland County County HWY552E TR214TR214
128 ST 128 E
96 ST E 96
112 ST E ST 112
RR244
RR252 RR251
RR260
RR244
RR252 RR251 RR260 RR253 RR253 306 AVE E TR212TR212 TR212TR212 UV552 RR242
RR242
320 ST E 320
RR250 RR250 HWY799 338 AVE E 338 AVE E 338 AVE E TR210TR210 TR210TR210
160 ST E 160
RR244 RR244
112 STE 112 ST E 224
RR260
RR252
RR260 RR253
RR252 RR253
128 ST E 128
RR251
RR255
RR251 RR255
208 ST E 208 Mossleigh HWY547 !
96 ST E ST 96 UV547 UV547
RR261
RR250
RR261
RR250
RR245 RR245 320 ST E 320
192 ST E 192
402 AVE E ST E 304 TR202TR202 TR202TR202
! 272 ST E 272 176 ST E 176 799 24
240 ST E 240
RR252 RR251 112 ST E ST 112 RR255
RR254
336 ST E 336
RR252 RR251
UV RR255 RR254 ¦¥
HWY2 434 AVE E
RR245 RR245
144 ST E 144 RR242
RR260 RR242 RR260 160 ST E 160 Vulcan County 466 AVE E TR194TR194 TR194TR194
111 ST E ST 111 Herronton !
128 ST E 128
HWY2
RR250
RR254
RR261
RR250 RR254 Blackie RR261 498 AVE E ! 498 AVE E TR192TR192
HWY23
240 ST E 240
ST E
121
RR260
RR245 RR244
RR252 RR251
RR260 RR255
RR245 RR244
RR252 RR251 RR255 High E RD C.I.L. ¥23 UV542
River Foothills ¦
RR250
RR254
RR270 RR262
RR250
RR254 RR270 RR262 136 ST E 136 County
562 AVE E 562 AVE E TR184TR184 TR184TR184 TR184TR184
RR261 RR261
152 ST E 152 ¦¥2
RR271 RR271 Brant 594 AVE E ST E 248 ! TR182TR182 TR182TR182 TR182TR182
264 ST E 264
184 ST E 184
RR254 RR252
RR260
RR254 RR252 RR260
200 ST E 200 104 ST E104 626 AVE E 626 AVE E TR180TR180 TR180TR180 540 ST E 168 E ST 232
UV RR270 RR262 RR270 804 RR262 Ensign UV ! TR175TR175
HWY2 658 AVE E TR174TR174 TR174TR174 TR174TR174 !
Cayley 674 AVE E
RR252 RR252 1104 DR E 690 AVE E TR172TR172 TR172TR172
200
ST E ST
RR245
RR250
RR245
RR250
RR255
RR261 RR264 RR262
RR255
RR261 RR264 RR262
RR254
RR254
RR253 RR251
RR260
RR253 RR251 M.D. of Willow Page 95 RR260 Vulcan Creek No. 26 UV534