LDA20-0123 106a Street RA8 Rezoning

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

Consultation has concluded

a black and white map of the area around the property that is proposed to be rezoned (8515 106A Street NW, 8521 206A Street NW, and 8523 106A Street NW), with a grey box on the property, labelled "RA7 to RA8".

***The discussion has concluded and a What We Heard Report will be posted here when available.***

Thank you for participating in engagement activities for this rezoning application.

The application is expected to go to City Council Public Hearing for a decision, with the exact date still to be determined. For more information, please visit these FAQs(External link) for Council meetings.

***The discussion has concluded and a What We Heard Report will be posted here when available.***

Thank you for participating in engagement activities for this rezoning application.

The application is expected to go to City Council Public Hearing for a decision, with the exact date still to be determined. For more information, please visit these FAQs(External link) for Council meetings.

Tell us what you think about the application

Please let us know what you like and what could be better about this application. What should Council know as they decide whether or not to approve the rezoning? Other people that visit this part of the site will be able to see your comments.

CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

Removed by moderator.

yeg over 1 year ago

I love this! It aligns with City Plan and when I went to school in the area I was looking for more housing options that fit my style. It is great to see this neighbourhood offer more modern options that align with what people are looking for today. I also think that the development would be adding higher efficiency buildings with more windows to help with the safety of walking at night.

yeg over 1 year ago

I liked the application, but I thought you could perhaps go further by adding retail on the ground floor of the low rises. Ground level apartments aren't really safe in high density areas anyway. And it would give room for necessary businesses like small grocery stores and daycares. Also, perhaps add more +15s to bridge hospitals to parts of the university and apartment buildings. It would be more convenient in the winter, provide quicker access, and decrease street traffic.
Also, I wish it could be 'model area' where the only vehicles are small buses, bicycles and small personal vehicles, with classic cars remaining only on the perimeter.

K_Sandstone over 1 year ago

This proposal is not the right one for this area. Living right next to this development, I feel it doesn't make any sense for this area. To rezone in this area when all other buildings are the same height should not be accepted. If you build a building that large next to two others that are two storeys, either building on the other side will lose the sunlight that comes into our windows cast by the long shadow of a building that height.

Building a complex with ground level retail also makes ZERO sense. I understand the need to want to attract people and business to this area, but you do that right along Whyte Avenue or a main arterial just off of Whyte (such as 109 Street or Gateway Boulevard), but to do so on a one way dead-end street where this is only room on one side of the street for parking? Where is all that extra parking supposed to go? What type of businesses would go in? This is a quiet neighbourhood, with people and traffic coming and going in and out, the potential for noise late at night is an unacceptable factor. It's difficult enough to get in and out of this area without having to worry about all the extra ground traffic, vehicle noise, and pollution that comes along with it.

Another mention in the previous city report stated was the proximity to the University of Alberta on foot. This is erroneous. I walk at least twice a week to the University of Alberta on foot to catch the LRT. It is a minimum of 20 minutes by foot and I am not a slow walker. So that needs to be addressed as well.

I am not against all developments all the time, but they have to be the right fit for the right area, and this development simply is not the right fit for the right area. I implore city council to come to the area and see for themselves, this development should be voted down. I respectfully ask City Council vote NO on the rezoning application.

KSR over 1 year ago

At the January 26, 2021 Council meeting, it was abundantly clear that there was little if any support for this rezoning. The meeting was mysteriously cancelled with no explanation to the participants. Now, we see that City Planning is again attempting to proceed with this rezoning despite considerable opposition to it. All of the people who opposed this application to change the zoning obviously oppose the changes to the bylaws now explicitly noted by the City. The Garneau ARP should not be changed in any way whatsoever to accommodate this rezoning or any other governed by the existing Garneau ARP.
Attached is the detailed explanation of why I reject the proposed rezoning. It was previously submitted to the City Clerk to be heard at the Jan 26, 2021 hearing.

Feb 17 2021
Re: LDA20-0123 public meeting regarding the rezoning of 8515, 8521 & 8523 106A Street Jan 26, 2021
The noted property is subject to two overlays: The Mature Neighbourhood Overlay (MNO) and the Garneau Area Redevelopment Plan (Garneau ARP). From the MNO general purpose statement: “The purpose of this overlay is to regulate residential development in Edmonton’s mature residential neighbourhoods, while responding to the context of surrounding development, maintaining the pedestrian-oriented design of the streetscape, and to provide an opportunity for consultation by gathering input from affected parties on the impact of a proposed variance to the overlay regulations”. In other words, the approval of residential development must fundamentally depend on the existing development regulations and the impact of the proposed development on the local residents of the affected area; and not from a high level governmental perspective. This overlay has serious implications with regard to changing any of the existing development regulations.
The overall development concept of the Garneau ARP states: ”Redevelopment in Garneau will, however, be managed to ensure that it is compatible with the existing residential character by directing the location and regulating its form, thus preserving as much as possible the assets which make Garneau a desirable place to live.” Policy Number G:4 of the Garneau ARP states “it is the policy of council that NEW DEVELOPMENT MUST NOT EFFECT AN ABRUPT CHANGE IN HEIGHT BETWEEN ADJACENT LAND USE DISTRICTS OF DIFFERENT DENSITIES.” The summary of action states: “The ADMINISTRATION and COUNCIL will have regard for this policy when reviewing development applications and/or redistricting applications.”

The explanation of the policy continues with: “The negative impacts of high rise development such as overview and shadowing will not be severe with transition from high to medium to low rise forms. As well a transition in height will be more pleasing visually by avoiding extreme differences in scale. This policy will help ensure that redevelopment is consistent with the streetscape and is more compatible with low rise residential areas.”

On p321 of the Administration Report (AR) prepared by the City of Edmonton Planning and Development department (City), there were 8 negative concerns expressed in response to the public notice of May 4, 2020 regarding the rezoning application. The City has dismissed all of them in support of the rezoning by concluding:
1) it proposes a moderate increase in building mass on a site already zoned for low rise apartment buildings;
2) respects the height transition in the Garneau Area Redevelopment Plan (ARP); and
3) locates a mid rise building near to the University of Alberta and local amenities.
Based on the Garneau ARP, the conclusions arrived at by the City are therefore false. Point 1) is not a moderate increase in building mass. Increasing the height of the building from 4 storeys to 6 storeys is a 50% increase! That severely contradicts Policy Number G:4 of the Garneau ARP whereby redevelopment is to be consistent with the streetscape and is more compatible with low rise residential areas.
Point 2) does not respect the height transition required by G:4 of the Garneau ARP. An abrupt 7m height difference will be caused by the rezoning rather than a smooth aesthetic massing from the high rise buildings 1 block north on Saskatchewan Drive to the subject property.
The third point of the City is incorrect by stating the subject property is near the UofA. In fact, the property is 650m east and 150m south of the closest easterly boundary of the UofA campus. The word “near” would be properly understood to be within 100m of the UofA; not 8 times that by an accessible route of a road or a sidewalk.

The City admits, on p327 of the AR, that the proposed site does not fit well with the Residential Infill Guidelines. However, it incorrectly suggests “the locational criteria for Mid Rise Apartments in the Residential Infill Guidelines is likely too restrictive, when there are multiple high rise developments within a block north of the site.” In fact the noted guidelines are not too restrictive and are necessary to preserve a smooth height transition in the general area. Moreover, there are many RF-4 and RF-5 properties near Saskatchewan Drive or the CPR railway that can be rezoned to RA-7 for future higher density in keeping with the City of Edmonton longer term higher density plan. There is no need to create massing problems in existing RA-7 zones by increasing the dwelling density to RA-8.

Furthermore, on the same page of the AR, the City admits it views the project “from a high level policy perspective” rather than from the local perspective of the residents of the area as required by the MNO. It concludes “that this proposed mid-rise building is in support of the infill objectives of The City Plan” meaning that the City supports increasing the density of infill properties. But it must not change existing regulations for any development without responsibly considering the impact upon the existing regulations and the local residents.

In this case, the City is using the rezoning at 10757-83 Ave as a precedent to approve the rezoning of the subject property. However, the noted rezoning passed through the approval process by using the designation of an historical site. The 6 storey building “attached” to the historical resource will be an eyesore in the neighbourhood which cannot be used as an excuse to create other blemishes in the area.

As noted by the area residents, street parking is already an issue and shadowing on the west side of 106A Street created by the towering proposed development will be a new issue. The rezoning should be denied.

Dr. Gary Nash

nashco over 1 year ago

I live in one of the apartment buildings next to these houses and I want to express my support for this proposed project. Since these three houses look pretty old and distressed, replacing them with a modern apartment building will give the area a complete facelift, making it safer to walk.

Nadia Sharma over 1 year ago