St. Albert city council was divided on amendments to its Land Use Bylaw (LUB) for the Midtown District.
As a result, the motion failed to progress to its third reading, with councillors Shelley Biermanski, Sheena Hughes, and Mike Killick opposed.
The public hearing, during the April 1 council meeting, dealt with amendments to the LUB in relation to the Midtown district, which is located to the south within the South Riel Area Structure Plan (ASP).
The amendments would add townhouse complexes as a discretionary use in Area C, provide density bonusing in Area C, and replicate the regulations found in the High Density Residential District (HDR).
A density bonus is an incentive that allows a developer to increase development in exchange for building things like community amenities or affordable housing.
City administration recommended the motion be defeated, as it had not reviewed the functionality of the changes recommended by council, and the lack of a planning application meant it did not consult with landowner South Riel Development Ltd. on whether the amendments aligned with site goals, planner Suzanne Ruegg told council.
The public hearing resulted from a motion put forward by Coun. Wes Brodhead. Normally, requested text amendments to the LUB are submitted through applications to the planning department with an associated fee, and then voted on by council.
Paul Lanni, president and CEO of Averton, addressed council during the public hearing. He argued the amendments were in the name of equity and consistency.
"I think these principles are vital to any municipal regulations, especially land use. We are seeking to achieve those same advantages that have been bestowed upon the Greater St. Albert Land Use Bylaw," Lanni said.
"The foundation for bringing this forward is that a Land Use Bylaw that we just finished passing excluded Midtown District from the bonusing that was available to other developers within the city of St. Albert itself," Brodhead said.
Hughes worried council, if it approved the motion, would indicate to developers they could skip the application process entirely.
"My concern is that the message we're sending here — regardless of whether you want to agree with this bylaw change or not — is that you can go to council, council can make these decisions, without involving administration," Hughes said. "Being put from out of the line to the front of the line at the consequence of everybody else who followed the system."
Killick said he "could not play that role of an expert planner and I would not even pretend to try and do that."
"It would not do justice to the developer and it would not do justice to our planning department," Killick said.
Coun. Ken MacKay countered although he also is not an expert planner, he believes council is being asked to be a "referee in the process."
"I do know equity and fairness, and I do know consistency. And I believe the Land Use Bylaw that we recently passed contains the items that I believe the land owner has come before us and asked us to just referee and apply equally across the board. I don't think we're being asked to do anything other than that," MacKay said.
With the motion failing to achieve unanimous consent for a third reading, it will appear at the next regularly scheduled council meeting on April 15.
