LDA20-0441 Prince Rupert

I’m a strong proponent of increasing density in our core. The urban sprawl is expensive . I love living in this neighbourhood and it’s proximity to downtown. It’s exciting to see some more retail close by making it truly a walkable neighbourhood

I strongly support this development, as it fits with the city plan of increasing densification along major corridors. Let's do our part helping transform Edmonton into a 15-minute city.

If this area is re-zoned I would expect the entire 111ave corridor on the north side to be re-zoned which then directly affects all homes along 111A avenue with shadow and traffic issues (on the southside, sharing a back alley) and potentially all homes south of 112 avenue with shadow if 6 story buildings are allowed to be built. Have a good look at the shadow studies...it's really bad. I'm not directly affected but I care about my neighbours and our community. Property values are important, but most of my neighbours want to keep living here, and quality of life is the primary factor we're talking about here.

I recognize that this engagement is primarily about traffic, but there is so much wrong with this development and community members have offered great alternative suggestions before. I am NOT OPPOSED to increasing density in our community--we have a fantastic community with lots of great walkable destinations. More people should live here. BUT:

We don't need more cars on our roads, especially dual direction side roads with poor or dangerous access to anything other than a westbound direction. People WILL exit and cut across three lanes of traffic in less than a half block to try and make the left turn southbound on 119th street. This will give them access eastbound to downtown (at 107th ave) and southbound on 116 to the south side.

This proposed rezoning is in direct conflict with the ideology of The City of Edmonton and our federal gov't in terms of climate change initiatives. Far too many homeowners will be affected by the outcome of the sun-shadow analysis that was completed. How are these homeowners ever to consider solar panels on their rooftops with the horrific amount of shade they will now experience? I expect, as a taxpayer and supporter of solar energy, that the City would run all considerations of rezoning through the City's own carbon footprint initiatives, and ensure all proposals align to the City and government climate change action plans. Please consider executing this type of assessment for all future rezoning proposals. It is the 21st century.

Many residents over the last 3 years have voiced their concerns and offered compromise solutions for a win win for all involved. A lower height structure would provide density and not have the undesirable side effects.
This project has so many negative side effects of, blocking out the sunlight during the winter months, traffic safety hazards, devalued property, etc. However this has been voiced many times in meetings and public forums.
This current appearance of public engagement is simply propaganda. Congratulations city council for learning from the news how to spin misinformation. Perhaps the citizens will wisely and collectively respond in a effective way.

I recently moved into the area to get away from the massively condensed new development I was in. Bringing in a 6-story building of more people, more traffic... I totally disagree with it and would vote against it. It's not what I want in my area and see no real benefit to the whole. The loss of sun and the loss of privacy to the immediate area is a huge consideration. I hope this project is seriously reconsidered or aborted.

Some possible nice commercial uses - like child care or restaurant - but many concerning potential "commercial" uses in DC2 adjacent to properties. Cannabis/liquor sales (already exist in the community), group home/lodging services all seem contrary to neighbourhood needs and desires. A stricter list of potential uses that contribute to the community is required.

Many negatives. Huge shadows to the north, including all the way to 112 Ave in the winter. Long E-W design provides shadow impacts that are permanent, not part of the day. Additional builds that could imitate this EB along 111 Ave could shade much of the south side of the community. TIA shows service road traffic impacts are huge, and pedestrian/cycling conflicts will happen. TIA does not address expected parking concerns for remaining residents, nor probable double-parking of delivery vehicles (iPS/Amazon) in front of building, nor the EB queue to turn into the service road. TIA shows expected shortcutting, U-turns on 111 Ave, and drivers quickly crossing 3 lanes of 111 Ave to get into the WB left turn lane. Illegal lane changes? And more

As previously discussed with Stuart via email correspondence. I am a newly resident of PR, former resident of the suburbs. In saying so, the location of PR being close to DT and also the walkability to nearby amenities was the reason we moved here. In hearing about the new DC2 zoning of this land i am thrilled to be able to see more retail and mixed use that is walkable. I am excited to see more of mix use development to promote a more pedestrian friendly community. I hope this project continues as is.

I was on the fence about this development when I thought it would be 3 or 4 stories tall, but now that I know that it is planned to be 6 stories tall I do not agree with it at all. The sun study proves that every home around it will lose so much sunlight throughout the year. The home owners will also lose their privacy by having 6 stories of windows looking down into their yards. I feel badly for the people neighbouring this planned structure and the impact it would have on their lives.