Lack of clarity in district plans could erode trust, councillors say
As a public hearing approaches for a new policy that is meant to shape the development of the city as its population grows, some city councillors are worried the proposed plans could erode trust between Edmontonians and council.
If council votes for a first and second reading of the district policy after the public hearing scheduled to run from May 28 to 30, it will go to the Edmonton Metropolitan Region Board for review. The plans would then return to council for a final vote, which is scheduled for early fall. If approved, the plans will come into effect immediately.
Some councillors argue the draft district plans aren't aligned with other city-planning documents, potentially leading to confusion and anger as neighbourhoods evolve.
"Even the person who wants zero change (to their neighbourhood), at least they should know, based off the plans, here's generally what they should expect over the next 10 or 20 years," Coun. Andrew Knack told Taproot. "They will still be upset no matter what, but I think that there's a difference between being upset about how your city is changing versus at least understanding how you got to that point."
The potential misalignment came up in a public hearing for a rezoning in April, for a lot across 116 Street NW from the University of Alberta's main campus. The developer applied to rezone a parcel containing three single-family homes to allow for a multi-unit building up to six storeys tall. Even though the district policy is not in effect yet, some councillors brought it up during the debate. Given it is 100 metres from the nearest university building and 650 metres from the nearest LRT station, many councillors said it would have been a great choice for a larger building. However, according to the draft district plan, the site falls just outside a major node boundary, meaning the existing zoning allowing for only a three-storey building would be considered appropriate.
"I think there would be a very reasonable argument to say that the zoning in Windsor Park wouldn't have actually aligned with the draft district plan… even though from a practical land use perspective, all of the boxes are checked," Knack said in an interview. "It is absolutely the place where we should be doing something like that."
Coun. Erin Rutherford echoed this during the public hearing on April 22. She said there was no reason the area shouldn't welcome more density, as it is a high-growth area near the university and near LRT stations. "If our district plan is saying something different, even the interpretation of it by two councillors… that's still a percentage of Edmontonians that would likely interpret it the same way, and that's problematic," she said at the public hearing.
Rutherford said she was feeling déjà vu, as there have been several rezonings that didn't appear to align with the district planning documents coming before council in recent months. (Administration clarified that the project proposal would be aligned with district plans and recommended that council approve the rezoning. In the end, the rezoning was approved, with Knack, Sarah Hamilton, and Karen Principe opposed.)
Knack said the misalignment is not unique to the Windsor Park neighbourhood, and he believes conversations like this will return to council if the district plans are approved in their current form.
