Summary#

On May 12, 2026, Calgary City Council passed third reading of three bylaws for the Stonegate Landing area in Ward 5. They amend the Municipal Development Plan and Northeast Industrial Area Structure Plan, and change land-use districts on about 194.81 hectares (481.38 acres). The stated goal is to allow a mix of housing, commercial, industrial and other uses, including near a future LRT station.

• The land-use changes cover sites at 12331, 12414, 13030, 13440, 13440R, 13601 and 13621 – 36 Street NE; 1300, 1450, 1495, 1500 and 1570 Barlow Crescent NE; 3699 and 4440 Country Hills Boulevard NE; 12939 Métis Trail NE; and 4200 – 128 Avenue NE.
• The new districts include industrial, commercial, residential, multi-residential, mixed-use, infrastructure, and school, park and community reserve uses. The changes allow residential and mixed uses while retaining some industrial and commercial uses.
• The changes to the two plans set policy for the area, including how development is phased in line with updated transportation planning and capital funding.
• The Council motion did not approve the outline plan. Calgary Planning Commission had referred it back to City staff to add a public utility lot protecting gas infrastructure along Métis Trail and to review its conditions.
• Council passed the bylaws 14 to 1; Councillor Yule voted against. Council defeated a separate proposal to add a maximum residential density of 36.2 homes per hectare (13 per acre).

What it means for you#

• People who may live or work in the area: The land-use changes allow a wider range of housing and business uses than the previous districts. They do not specify how many homes will be built.
• Nearby residents and road users: Two public letters raised traffic concerns. The decision identifies future road and interchange work, but the supplied material does not give a construction schedule.
• Landowners and developers: The new land-use districts allow the listed uses, but the outline plan was referred back to staff. The Council decision does not itself approve that plan.
• Taxpayers: City staff say full build-out will require future investment in interchanges and transportation improvements. The decision does not set a final cost or funding amount.

Money#

The available material gives no total cost estimate.

• City staff say full build-out will require new interchanges and mobility improvements, including widening Métis Trail and the Deerfoot/128 Avenue interchange. A Northeast Network Study is to confirm the improvements.
• Staff say funding would be assessed through the Growth Application process and/or the City’s Business Plan and Budget process.
• Staff identify a trade-off: less land for future industrial use, but a larger residential tax base. No dollar estimates are provided.

What is unclear#

• The supplied record does not show a later decision on the outline plan, its revised conditions, or the proposed public utility lot.
• The material does not say how many homes the land-use changes would allow or when development might occur.
• The future LRT station is described as future; its timing is not given.
• The total cost, timing and final funding sources for transportation work are not set out.
• The two traffic objection letters are noted, but their specific concerns and City staff’s responses are not included.

Case for#

• City staff say the changes would allow more housing choices while retaining industrial and commercial opportunities.
• Staff say mixed uses near a future LRT station and other mobility options could support walking, cycling and transit.
• Staff say the area could provide housing, jobs, services, a school site, open space, a fire station site and regional pathways.

Case against#

• Two public letters raised concerns about traffic impacts. The supplied material does not include the details of those concerns.
• City staff identify loss of strategically located industrial land as a risk, including a possible effect on City tax revenue.
• Councillor Dhaliwal’s proposed density cap was defeated 3 to 12. Councillors Ward, Yule, Pantazopoulos, Jamieson, Clark, Atkinson, Tyers, Kelly, Chabot, Schmidt, Wyness and McLean voted against it; the approved decision therefore does not include that cap.