Skip to content

County approves first phase of Bingham Crossing

Rocky View County (RVC) council voted 5-4 in favour of approving the Bingham Crossing Phase 1 subdivision application May 27.
Rocky View County.
Rocky View County.

Rocky View County (RVC) council voted 5-4 in favour of approving the Bingham Crossing Phase 1 subdivision application May 27.

The vote came after hours of deliberation, where concerns over stormwater, wastewater treatment and transportation were discussed.

The Bingham Crossing development will comprise 185,000 square feet (sq. ft.) for senior housing and 270,000 sq. ft. for commercial/retail space. It has been met with public opposition since the application came before council in 2012.

The 200-bed seniors facility will be the first of its kind in Springbank, just west of the City of Calgary and northeast of the junction of Highway 1 and Range Road 33.

“It would be negligent to approve (the) subdivision based on the current drainage plan,” said Bearspaw-area councillor Al Sacuta. “Basically this drainage channel has challenges from the top all the way to the bottom.”

Byron Riemann, the county’s general manager of infrastructure and operations, explained the county has been working on localized drainage issues since 2012 and the flooding issues are usually seen only in the spring and early summer.

“I would safely say that I would not describe their problem as localized flooding, every year it gets worse,” said area councillor Jerry Arshinoff.

Arshinoff expressed concern over what he said is a lack of reports available to the subdivision committee, prior to making a decision.

“We’re suppose to have all the reports before so that we can make a decision,” he said. “How is it possible to think we have all the information?”

Arshinoff presented council with two photos that he took six weeks earlier that appear to show localized flooding on the northeast quarter section of the application, where the development is slated to go.

“It needs much more current studies done to see what’s happening today,” Arshinoff said.

The drainage study referenced in the Bingham application was conducted in 2012, and both Arshinoff and Sacuta said they wanted current conditions surveyed.

“How does (the application) proceed if approved?” asked councillor Earl Solberg.

“There are a number of steps beyond this that put holds on the developers to (adhere) to the conditions that have been identified, who produces a development permit?”

RVC general manager of corporate services Kent Robinson explained that the developer had to meet the conditions on the application before a development permit could be issued.

“This is completely useless,” Sacuta said. “It’s like granting a person who failed their drivers license, giving them a drivers license on the basis that they will pass the test in the future. This is crazy.”

Reeve Margaret Bahcheli questioned the Transportation Impact Study (TIS) and the traffic ramp that may need to be built, according to the last TIS conducted in 2012.

“Calaway Park has to lose a lot of land (to build a ramp) and for some reason that was concern from engineering for Bingham,” she said.

The TIS was not available May 27, and will be delivered at a later date, but will identify that the transportation upgrades required for the development included: a new westbound off-ramp from the Trans-Canada Highway onto Range Road 33, a new single-lane roundabout at Range Road 33 and the new ramp, right in/right out access on Range Road 33 at the west site access, a forced left-hand turn slot from the exit onto Township Road 250 and the closure of Commercial Drive’s access onto Range Road 33.

Alberta Transportation has the final say as to whether a ramp would need to be built, based on the expectant numbers of vehicle traffic in the area.

“I don’t find the report sufficient, at the (very) least (it needs) to be updated and presented to council,” Bahcheli said. “This isn’t a stall tacit, it’s about quality, not quantity.”

Councillor Lois Habberfield was opposed to postponing the application.

“We need to protect the residents and I think we’re committed to doing that,” Habberfield said.

“It’s (the development is) not going to increase the current flow rates and they will be built an adequate stormwater pond (to relieve water volume issues). Sending it into limbo land is unacceptable, I think people have a right to a decision.”

Arshinoff made a motion to refuse the application, but was defeated in a 2-7 vote with Arshinoff and Sacuta voting in favour. Arshinoff made a motion to postpone the application – until all the engineering and Alberta Environment reports were available – the motion was defeated in a 3-6 vote with Arshinoff, Sacuta and Bahcheli voting in favour.

Councillor Bruce Kendall made a motion to approve the Bingham Crossing application and was successful with a 5-4 vote. Councillors Kendall, Rolly Ashdown, Greg Boehlke, Solberg and Habberfield voted in favour.

push icon
Be the first to read breaking stories. Enable push notifications on your device. Disable anytime.
No thanks