LDA21-0442 Garneau 82 Avenue Rezoning

I submitted 3 questions on the "Ask Your Questions" page 7 days ago, and these have not yet been responded to and the questions are not showing up there either, so I'll post them again here so they're on the record, and hopefully responses will be forthcoming soon.

1. I'm writing from Garneau Gates, the building across the back alley from the proposed development. A major issue for construction of new buildings (and destruction of existing ones) within established neighbourhoods like this is the impact of construction vibrations on adjacent buildings, and the possible damage this can cause. Given how close our building is to the one being proposed (which would also involve demolition of the current one), I'm wondering, specifically what safeguards are in place to ensure that vibrations stay within a safe range that cannot possibly cause any damage to our building in any way, shape, or form? More specifically, what requirements do the construction of the new building (and destruction of the existing building) have to adhere to as far as vibration levels (i.e. what is the specific value of the safe level that is permitted on these projects)? My understanding is that a maximum of 0.5 in/s is considered the only safe level, so can you provide assurance that they will not exceed that? Also, who from the city will be monitoring that and how will they do so, to ensure that vibration stays within that safe range? (Of course if any damage to our building does occur, the builder/developer would be required to compensate fully for this, but I'm interested in ensuring there's no damage in the first place, hence these questions.).

2. Question from a Garneau Gates resident (the building directly across the back alley from the proposed development). Can you confirm that, if this project were to go ahead, all underground parkade exhaust vents for the new building AND all building/furnace exhaust vents would NOT vent into the back alley where our units that have balconies in back of our building are located? Can you confirm that all venting and exhaust would instead be located on top of and/or in the front of the new building, and would vent out towards the road (Whyte Ave)?

3. I'm a Garneau Gates resident (the building directly across the back alley from the proposed development). I'm wondering, what criteria does the City use in a case like this, to determine if it's appropriate to allow a 22-storey building to be built directly behind a 5-storey residential building like ours? If this were to go ahead, the units on the back of our building will basically have their ability to see the sky and sunlight from their balcony virtually obliterated by this, as well as be subjected to increased traffic in the lane, and no doubt substantially reduced property values. So, this would be immensely problematic for a huge number of our owners and residents here if this were to go ahead, and I'm curious why the City is even entertaining such a proposal when it is so obvious the negative impact this would have on us, the building's closest neighbour. Should the value of our residents' existing homes not take priority over the interests of a company wanting to come in after the fact, have the location rezoned, and land a massive building behind us? If not, why not?

We have owned a unit in Garneau Gates for 21 years and are strongly opposed to the proposed rezoning and development of a 22 storey structure. As long term owners in the community we are very disappointed that the city would consider this type of rezoning. Our unit faces south and what is now a sunny and bright location will become a totally shaded condo which will be impacted by greatly reduced property values. The units facing south will have no sun exposure. The traffic in the back alley which will be generated by a huge building such as the proposed one will be substantial. We would have never bought a unit in Garneau Gates if the proposed building had been in place. Who will want to purchase any of our units in the future? Please reconsider the zoning request to a lower structure to reduce the impact on the owners and tenants in our building.
Joymar

As an owner of a unit in Garneau Gates for the past 17 years, I am completely opposed to a 22 storey monstrosity being built across the alley. This project would effectively block all sunlight from about 35 units in the building, as well as negatively impacting lighting to other homes on 83 ave and the street itself. The alleyway is already narrow and crowded enough without adding this additional density to a street that is not designed to handle it.

The city needs to consider the negative impacts of increased traffic, noise, and further exacerbation of garbage collection issues to the residents of this area, not to mention the plummeting property values for Garneau Gates residents.

As a tax paying resident of this area for about 2 decades, it is a slap in the face to see this proposal be considered just so that a commercial company can profit. What kind of a city are we building if we choose to tear down heritage buildings and disrespect residents so that companies can profit? This is certainly not a city I want to live in.

Speaking as a resident of Garneau Gates, the building directly across the back lane from this proposed rezoning and new building project, and the building whose owners and residents would be most significantly impacted if this application were to be approved, I am extremely concerned that the City is even entertaining such a proposal.  

There is a reason that the location in question was not originally zoned to allow for a 22-storey building to be built there, and to alter this now would be an extreme disservice to neighbouring buildings, including ours.  Nearly half of our building's 70 condominium units have windows and/or balconies facing out over the alley in question.  

If this building project were to proceed, it would effectively obliterate all sunshine that these units receive there, expose them to greatly increased lane traffiic, as well as greater issues with garbage (of which we have had plenty already), not to mention increased noise.  All of this (most significantly the lane traffic and lack of sunshine) would cause our property values to plummet substantially.  

To allow this proposed rezoning and project to proceed would be to blatantly put the profit interests of a commercial company (who could easily go elsewhere) ahead of the interests of current residents of the area who have lived in, contributed to, and paid taxes towards the city, for decades.
 
It would show zero respect for our building's residents, and would also show zero respect towards the historical status of the existing building in the proposed rezoning location, the former home of St. John's Institute.  I would certainly hope that City Council will show respect for residents of our building (and surrounding buildings who would also be negatively impacted by this) and prevent this project from going ahead.  Thank you.

This proposal is not aligned with the Garneau Area Revelopment Plan, nor does it conform to the requirements of the Main Streets Overlay.

Considering the fact that the developer does not intend to adhere to the terms of these established policy documents, it is clear that this application for CB3 zoning signals an attempt to defeat the City's own stated objectives for redevelopment in this context.

If this application had been approached as a DC2, the proposal would at least be worthy of debate. But as a CB3 application that is openly defiant of the plans and policies that are specifically designed to protect neighborhoods like Garneau from the implications of bad design and bad urban planning, this application is not acceptable.

Please do not approve this application. I am strongly opposed to the application. I have not met one person yet who supports this application. The proposed building will negatively impact the Garneau community by increasing traffic, noise, and shadows. It will directly impact my property, minimizing my privacy and sun. It will also negatively impact the property vales in the neighbourhood.

I am strongly opposed to the application. I have not met one person yet who supports this application. The proposed building will negatively impact the Garneau community by increasing traffic, noise, and shadows. It will directly impact my property, minimizing my privacy and sun. It will also negatively impact the property vales in the neighbourhood.

I am opposed to the application.

As noted by others, the proposed building will negatively impact the community by increasing traffic, noise, and shadows. Here are some additional considerations:

The property is on the inventory of Historic Resources in Edmonton; it is architecturally unique; and it has a history as part of Ukrainian heritage in Alberta. The city offers up to $500,000 as an incentive for restoration if designated a Historic Municipal Resource; the developer has declined this opportunity. Support of the proposed development by Administration would mean that the city actively chooses to support the demolition of another historic resource rather than encourage redevelopment under the current zoning.

Rezoning is not a prerequisite for redevelopment – it is the preference of the developer.

Rezoning to CB3 does not merely impact building size and density; it fundamentally alters the intended uses for the site as part of the wider Garneau community. Current zoning of the site is Urban Services Zone: “The purpose of this Zone is to provide for publicly and privately owned facilities of an institutional or community service nature.”

Administration writes: “The only other zoning option that had merit was to use a (DC2) Site Specific Development Control Provision.” But CB3 rezoning is not the only option. If the intention of the developer is a mid-rise or high-rise building including residential and commercial uses, then various other standard zoning options are available. The purpose of RA8 is “to provide for medium rise Multi-unit Housing.” The purpose of RA9 is “To develop high rise residential buildings that contain active residential or non-residential Frontages at ground level.” Both options permit commercial uses.

A DC2 would also allow for mixed use while ensuring that specific guidelines are written into the provisions. That this option is rejected on the grounds that it does not meet the stated criteria is surprising; DC2 has been used frequently throughout Garneau. DC2 is often preferred by the developer to avoid the limitations of standard zoning.

CB3 is preferred by the developer – it is by no means necessary and will significantly impact the community.

As such, zoning is of critical importance. The developer’s intentions, which are not clearly articulated in the description of the proposed development, are not. The zoning dictates the range of permitted uses. As noted by Administration, this includes a building of different shape for 100% commercial purposes, which is neither necessary nor typical for the intended location.

The description of the CB3 by Administration points to possible commercial uses, which “could include, but are not limited to, general retail stores, health services, personal service shops (eg hairdressers, etc) and specialty food services.” This description is highly selective; the CB3 also allows for a variety of discretionary uses including, but not limited to, bars, pubs, cannabis shops, liquor stores, breweries, night clubs, pawn stores, and private clubs. The permitted uses apply to the zoning and would thus be available to both the developer and subsequent owners.

Situate Inc. represents Campus Assets Inc., a third-party property management company that specializes in large-scale development investment across the country. It may be in the developer’s interest to up zone or maximize property value with an eye to resale. The city must ensure that rezoning is necessary and appropriate, not simply as regards the (un)stated intentions of asset management companies with no local connections, but with respect to the site and the community, taking into account the needs and interests of that community.

To such ends, the city should reject the proposal and insist that the developer work with the Garneau Community League.

The developer did not engage the community prior to application development. A meeting initiated by community representatives following a required notification of local residents made it clear that the developer has no interest in collaboration on anything other than superficial design elements – a gesture that is unrelated to the issue of zoning.

This is not surprising given that the Situate Inc. project website states: “Rezoning is the first step in the land redevelopment process, followed by design, permits, and construction.” Community collaboration, in their view, is neither an initial nor an integral part of the process and is reduced to the submission of online comments following the application.

The lack of collaboration, however, is not specific to developers or their representatives. Administration writes: “The City held a formal Rezoning Pre-Application Meeting with the applicant on July 7, 2021 to discuss the potential zoning options for achieving their objectives for this redevelopment.” Private meetings between the city and the developer are common practice; the result is exclusion of a key stakeholder – the community – which is partly why opposition at public hearing is also common.

Given that neither district planning nor zoning bylaw changes are complete, the city should not support ad hoc rezoning to further private interests. The city should defer consideration of new large-scale development applications until district planning and zoning bylaw changes are in place. If carried out democratically and transparently, the result of this process will depend on meaningful engagement with local communities. That would be a far better ground upon which to consider the addition of towers and other forms of development in Garneau and elsewhere.

Finally, Administration writes: “The City’s position will be determined by a thorough analysis of the proposal that includes technical considerations (e.g. traffic and drainage impacts) and alignment to applicable City land use-related plans and policies (eg. The City Plan).” Technical considerations are necessary; an overarching city plan should not be used as vague justification for a particular development.

I respectfully ask that Administration not support this proposal on the grounds that both CB3 zoning and high-rise development at this location will negatively and unnecessarily impact the lived experience of residents in Garneau. Further, no development of this magnitude should proceed prior to the completion of district planning and zoning bylaw renewal and without significant collaboration with the community.

Come on Edmonton......you can do better than this.....less density (and less vehicle traffic), more pedestrian friendly neighborhoods is the way to go...this proposal (especially if 22 stories is approved) is absurd.

While the above proposal is interesting, I do not think any potential "pros" would outweigh the substantial, and fully expected, cons.

Traffic in this area especially between the U of A and 109st is poor at best and adding additional high density housing for a condo would greatly impact local traffic (along 82 ave, the rear lane, and the surrounding neighborhoods). This is especially likely as condo unit owners typically own and operate motor vehicles (yes quite possibly more than one per unit) as their main modes of transportation rather than utilize the bus services in the area or walk to their destinations.

The type of person who may want to live in this condo also needs considering. As condos of course can be expensive, especially in such a nice area, it is likely that the individuals in these units will not be students or young families, and often individuals who are less interested in maintaining the vibrant communities of the area.

Of course there would be significant upgrades required to both power and water, and waste disposal would also be much more commonly accessed. The construction alone to enable these utilities would be a horrendous burden on the area for several months at best.

As a person who previously lived in the area while attending university I cannot see any net benefit other than the increase in density to the area (which is already quite dense!). If the proposal was for a tower much shorter in height, say 5-8 stories it could be considered more reasonable. However, more condos is the last thing the city needs as there is nothing stopped people who do not and will not live in Edmonton for the considerable future (if ever) from purchasing these units. We have seen all over Edmonton's densely populated areas that condos are being purchased as rental properties at best, and by international coop-orations who don't spend a dime on local businesses at worst, rather than by people who actually want to live in them. Additionally, given the far reaching effects of the COVID 19 pandemic on retail space, there must be millions of already available square meters of space to rent across the city, I don't think that the proposed additional commercial space will be offering anything but a price war (to the bottom) on local retail space.

While this application is completely reasonable in terms of density and height allowances, I do have some reservations.

The main concern is the potential variations on the new development allowed by the CB3 zone. While the use of standard zones is typically a good thing, I would much rather see a DC zone that codified a certain amount of new housing into the plan. We should be extremely wary of losing existing affordable housing (in an historically listed property no less) without the promise of significant new density being added. The commercial-only options in this zoning would be a net-loss to the city. While I am encouraged this is not the applicant's stated intent, it would be a nice benefit to get additional zoning protection against it.

Frankly, a DC-zoned tower with taller height allowances would ensure existing housing units are replaced with far more certainty, and would allow for a slimmer tower to limit the shading and view-loss impacts on adjacent properties.

However, on balance I support this application. The intensity and height is abundantly reasonable given its location and proximity to transit. We should never treat the loss of historic properties, or existing affordable housing lightly, but the balance is reasonable here (unless the commercial-only options are pursued).

I object to this building being designed only for students. The amount of tiny apartments designed for students in this neighbourhood far outstrips the need. What is needed is space for families of all shapes and sizes. We need three and four bedroom units and lots of them! That's how the City Plan is going to be achieved - by making it attractive for families to live in what is already a 15 minute neighbourhood and not out in the suburbs.

For the commercial, I hope that the units are small or at least mixed in size to attract a diversity of businesses.

I am concerned about the added pressure on the back alley. Especially in winter when the City does not do an adequate job of dealing with the snow. There will be added pressure with more vehicle traffic and how those drivers will interact with the ones already there and the garbage issues is something the developer and city need to address.

I doubt there would be any benefit to re-developing that area as proposed. I am someone who has lived in that area for several years for university. Having parking access through the back is going to make the back alley even more congested and difficult to navigate than it already is. In addition, street parking is already a chore. Bringing in a new building - especially one that is ~20 storeys high - is asking for trouble, with congestion and trash becoming even bigger problems than they already are.
There are already many living quarters around this beautiful (but crowded) area. There are no issues finding stores for commercial use. We don't need more.
Lastly, constructing a high-rise building would be adding insult to injury to all the other buildings around it. Part of the beauty in the area is attributed to the sunlight, and this project would destroy all of that.

I'm an Edmonton realtor and I own a unit in Garneau Gates. This development will absolutely bring down the market value of EVERY single unit in Garneau Gates. A high-rise building will block sunlight, cause significant traffic and garbage issues. As if the market price of condos is not bad enough in Edmonton over the past 10 years. Look at what is happening to the property value of the One Century Park building at 2510 109 street after a high-rise luxury rental project was built right behind it. Since then One Century Park property value has dropped significantly! I'm strongly opposed to this project. A high rise should not be allowed in a highly condensed community as Garneau. Please reconsider!

I am totally opposed to this project. My concerns regarding the LDA21-0442 Garneau 82 Avenue Rezoning Application is that it would present significant drawbacks for residents in the neighboring Garneau Gates Condo complex, particularly those whose units face the back lane and would face the new high-rise building. A few other potential problems for Garneau Gates Condo Complex include substantially reduced property values , blocked sunlight, and significantly increased traffic in the back lane as well as potential for increased garbage issues .

Totally opposed to this development. We purchased this unit due to the view onto Whyte Ave. Back lane is already congested. It will totally block any sunlight not to mention the view. Would you want to look out your living room window to this? I am positive you would not! We are devastated that the city would consider such a project. Please reconsider. Thanks.

Totally opposed. Back lane already too busy. Access to daylight totally blocked. We purchased this property with the understanding we would not have our sight lines / access to daylight blocked. Very disappointing to say the least.

I having been living in this area for over 20 years. I have watched this area grow and have seen the result of the growth. I DO NOT agree with the proposal for a high story condo unit. Some of small business that have started in this area have come and gone. A lot of has to do with the congestion of traffic and lack of parking. This area cannot handle the increase in of a 22-story condo as the streets are not setup for the increase demand of traffic. We need to keep this area less congested so our ambulances can get to where they need to go. This is not only a residential area but it is a hospital area. Our water system in this area would not be able to handle the increase system usage. Epcor would have to make some substantial renovations to handle the increased usage that would result in a big increase in our utilities. Not to mention the building height would affect the condo behind it, such examples as less sunlight as the alley way is not that wide. Then we would have the problem of the waste removal. At the present time we have problems with the waste removal as the garbage pickup drivers have a hard time removing the present garbage. That unit is only 5 stories high; can you imagine the increase of 17 more stories of condo. Not to mention that it would decrease the value of the condo behind that building. This will also attract more homeless people in the area. We already have a problem with the homeless in this area trying to get into the garage to look for a place to live. Also, a high rise building is being built closer to the University hospital for students. I don't think it is necessary to build another high rise condo in this area.
Sharon M

I own a unit in Garneau Gates (11025-83 Ave NW). This high story condo unit would present significant drawbacks for residents in our building, particularly those whose units face the back lane as I do. The new proposal will substantially block sunlight, increase traffic in an area that is already at it's maximum and will ultimately reduce property values. I hope you reconsider the development; I fully understand the need to move forward but a building of this size does not fit the property in question.

Hello,
My husband and I own a unit in Garneau Gates (11025-83 Ave NW). This high story condo unit would present significant drawbacks for residents in our building, particularly those whose units face the back lane. As well as substantially reduced property values, blocked sunlight, significantly increased traffic in the back lane and streets, and potential for increased garbage issues. I hope you do not go ahead with this development.