I attended last evening’s second public meeting for the development application currently open with the city by Stantec, Apollo and Habitat for Humanity.
I applaud the changes that have been made since the first public meeting. However, I still find myself confused by one particular step in the application process. The changes made adjusted the overall number of units (from 63 to 58) and increased the number of parking stalls from 88 to 108. I am left wondering how it is that the development application is going to be presented to city council with a significant shortfall of parking stalls, as outlined on page 60 of land-use bylaw, part 7. My confusion, I feel, is quite simple. I believe that not meeting the requirements set out in black and white in the parking regulations should cause the application to fail. Immediately. The application should not even be considered past the planning department if the clearly stated regulations are not met, if not exceeded.
From my calculations, the total number of stalls for 58 units should be 135.33 (two per unit, plus one for every three units for visitors). Given that the current designs allow for 108 stalls total, that is a shortfall of 27.33 stalls or 20 per cent. I guarantee there is not enough “overflow” parking on the street to withstand another 27 vehicles.
As a private resident of St. Albert, I have had to comply with the bylaws set forth by council and councils before it. I agree to their terms and do my utmost to uphold them as lifestyle guidelines. I am seriously offended that Stantec, Apollo and Habitat for Humanity feel that they can steamroll this council into agreeing to negate the bylaws. “Almost” shouldn’t make the cut in the planning department. And, if it does seem to suffice, then what good are any of the bylaws with the city? If this application is approved with only 80 per cent fulfilment of the regulations, then I foresee the next affordable housing development having ‘only’ 75 per cent fulfilment. Before long, word will spread that St. Albert is an easy city to “fill.” I have three children and have experience with children pushing their limits to find out what they can get away with before there is some sort of response. This inadequate application seems like dĂ©jĂ vu.
I know that I am responsible to the bylaws as a citizen. This council must uphold the bylaws that are already in place. Stantec and Apollo Homes — please go back to the drawing board. If it is not feasible, please look for another building site because 70 Arlington just isn’t the right fit for the affordable housing development that you have envisioned.
Phebe and Les Eglauer, St. Albert
