LDA20-0229 Holyrood Gardens DC2 Adjustments

Consultation has concluded

Thank you for your interest. This conversation has closed. Here is the What We Heard Report.

This page replaces in-person engagement to help you get information and find out what you think about the proposed land use changes.

This application proposes to make adjustments to a recently approved Site Specific Development Control Provision (DC2.1001).

Please watch the video and review the information on this page. Tell us what you think and ask any questions below, before the end of the day on November 30, 2020.

** The Transportation Impact Assessment referenced in the video as forthcoming is now available for review. This draft is under review by City engineers. Before the City concludes their analysis, we welcome your feedback to make sure our analysis is as comprehensive as possible. **

The existing DC2.1001 Provision was approved on July 9, 2018 and allows for a mixed use primarily high density residential development which includes 10 buildings and up to 1300 residential units. The primary change with this rezoning is to increase the total number of allowable units to 1750, an increase of 450 units. Other related changes to site layout, building size, setbacks and parking are described on the Application Website and the above video.

Zoning regulates what types of buildings are allowed on a site (eg. residential or commercial) and the basic size and shape of those buildings. It does not control who can live or work in the buildings or whether the property is rented or owned. Please see the sidebar for more information on what factors are considered when processing rezoning applications and how feedback will be used.

If you like to stay up to date on this application, please add your email address to our mailing list.

We will use any feedback that you share to make sure our review of the application is as complete as possible, and will also summarize it for City Council so that they know your perspective prior to making a decision.

Thank you for your interest. This conversation has closed. Here is the What We Heard Report.

This page replaces in-person engagement to help you get information and find out what you think about the proposed land use changes.

This application proposes to make adjustments to a recently approved Site Specific Development Control Provision (DC2.1001).

Please watch the video and review the information on this page. Tell us what you think and ask any questions below, before the end of the day on November 30, 2020.

** The Transportation Impact Assessment referenced in the video as forthcoming is now available for review. This draft is under review by City engineers. Before the City concludes their analysis, we welcome your feedback to make sure our analysis is as comprehensive as possible. **

The existing DC2.1001 Provision was approved on July 9, 2018 and allows for a mixed use primarily high density residential development which includes 10 buildings and up to 1300 residential units. The primary change with this rezoning is to increase the total number of allowable units to 1750, an increase of 450 units. Other related changes to site layout, building size, setbacks and parking are described on the Application Website and the above video.

Zoning regulates what types of buildings are allowed on a site (eg. residential or commercial) and the basic size and shape of those buildings. It does not control who can live or work in the buildings or whether the property is rented or owned. Please see the sidebar for more information on what factors are considered when processing rezoning applications and how feedback will be used.

If you like to stay up to date on this application, please add your email address to our mailing list.

We will use any feedback that you share to make sure our review of the application is as complete as possible, and will also summarize it for City Council so that they know your perspective prior to making a decision.

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.

If you have a question and would like a response, please use our Ask Your Questions area.

Consultation has concluded
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

I understand that the scope of this platform is to address the rezoning for DC2 and specifically Area 2-A on the north side of 93rd avenue. However, there are additional proposed rezoning sites that are awaiting approval and that are in very close proximity to this development and the proposed changes for 2-A.
I question to what degree the impact of these other developments are being considered, with these proposed change for 2-A.
For example – the additional rezoning re-application for 9312 and 9320 -83rd Street. Lot 22, Block 15, Plan 5112HW and Lot 21B, Block 15, Plan 2020893. Changing from RF1 Single detached Residential Zone to RF5 Row Housing Zone. Both situations - are now requesting to build bigger and more housing.
The landscape of surrounding Holyrood continues to change. And with each of these new developments, bring with it changes to the density and traffic.
My understanding is that a lot of time and hours went into coming up with the initial proposal and finding a positive outcome for the community, environment and developers. And now, there seems to be a significant departure from what was originally agreed upon.
I appreciate this forum, the detailed information and opportunity to ask questions and provide feedback. However, I am concerned that with the timing and disruption of Covid, that the voice of the community and public opinion will get lost and not be adequately expressed nor heard.

Kristina over 3 years ago

This proposal to expand dwellings on this site by 450 is unacceptable. The addition of 1200 dwellings, already approved, is an enormous challenge for the community of Holyrood, with a population of 3294 of which 455 are children ages 0-14 (2019 City Census). This is a family oriented community containing an elementary school and a major seniors centre with a membership of 1000.

My family has recently moved into Holyrood and I made inquiries about purchasing a condo in this development. I was advised that all 1200 dwellings are rental units.

In one of the many documents provided by the applicant, they note a change in use from Apartment Housing to Apartment Hotels. This has not been explained.

The shadow studies are incomplete. There are more than 4 months in a year and more than 6 hours in a day. Shadows also affect properties to the west of the development. If images are of such poor quality that they are not useful, other drawings can be presented.

The City of Edmonton started developing a new Urban Design Manual in 2018. Their top priority was to develop guidelines for tall buildings. An initiative of planners and developers, the draft document has been available for some time and was last updated Feb. 28, 2020. Does this rezoning application meet our new City guidelines for tall buildings in residential areas?

The City of Edmonton has recently announced new retrofit initiatives to help us meet our climate change goals. While citizens can laud this initiative, indeed, demand such programs, it is also critical that brand new developments also incorporate the best new practices. What evidence do you have that this new building will meet new energy efficiency guidelines?

The timing of this application is curious. It was mailed to adjacent residents just days after City Council approved a new Open Option Parking policy, during a two-week city break. Did I not read that this new policy is scheduled for review by City Council in January 2021?

Residential Infill in mature neighbourhoods and particularly large scale infill are some of the most critical issues that big cities face, over time. Edmonton published guidelines in October 2009 considered the problem to be so acute as to develop new guidelines , still in draft form, but last updated February 28, 2020. While the developer is asking for consideration because of changing market demands, so must the city require that the developer now abide by new guidelines to ensure fairness and respect for all developers and all communities as our city matures. Does this new request meet these requirements?

I am not an urban planner, an engineer or an architect.
I am an active community volunteer with a background in sociology and anthropology. I am concerned about how the City plans to serve an estimated 2,000 new residents in this neighbourhood, many of whom will also be new citizens in Canada. Why is the onus on citizens like me to defend basic principles of community living. I would appreciate the opportunity to speak at the upcoming City Council meeting where this will be decided. Thank you.

MR over 3 years ago

Having examined the information you provided, I continue to have very serious concerns about the potential of Regency Developments’ proposed changes to detrimentally affect the quality of life within and around our community.

I note that, within the DC2, the General Purpose of this development is stated as: To allow for a mixed use, high density, transit oriented development adjacent to the Holyrood LRT stop that is compatible with the surrounding area and incorporates a mixture of built forms and housing options, limited commercial opportunities and a pedestrian-friendly environment.’

I would argue that this development, which in mid-2018 twice failed to obtain the support of the Edmonton Design Committee, has never been truly ‘compatible with the surrounding area’, and that, particularly with the addition of a new building, increased building heights, increased building floor plates, and increased shadowing, is now even further away from being an example of excellent, well designed, T.O.D infill, infill which, ideally, would integrate well with, and provide appropriate transitions to, the existing built forms within Holyrood and Strathearn.

Similarly, this new proposal does not really include a ‘mixture of built forms and housing options’ that take community context into account. Instead, the proposed development now looks more and more like an ill fitting wall of similar towers, albeit of somewhat varying heights, on the western edge of our community. While there is a proposed increase in 2 bedroom units, there is no proportional increase in family friendly housing units. If one of the City’s goals is to prevent urban sprawl, then densification within the core that includes the building of family units is essential, not a luxury. It is families with children who tend to opt for single family homes with private yards in the suburbs, not singles or couples without children.

It’s my firm belief that, within any community, public safety should be the primary priority, and that community members have the right to expect both our elected and appointed representatives to do their utmost to ensure an environment that both supports and promotes that safety. But, while ‘a pedestrian-friendly environment’ may be created within the site itself, the increases in vehicular traffic caused by the proposed development changes, increases that are, in some cases, well beyond city-recommended levels, will put pedestrian safety in proximity to Holyrood Gardens at much greater risk, again making the Holyrood Gardens site a T.O.D. development that detracts from, rather than adds to, the quality of life in Holyrood.

Located directly east of the northern portion of Holyrood Gardens, and mainly along 95th Avenue, are Holyrood School, Holyrood Daycare, the Holyrood playground, the seniors’ Golden Homes, Holyrood Extendicare, and just on the other side of the Holyrood Playground, the South East Seniors’ Association (SEESA). From my inexperienced reading of the most recent Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA), it appears that traffic along both 95th Avenue and 79 Street will not only increase substantially, but will also have the potential to seriously impact, and most likely threaten, the safety of both pedestrians and cyclists, the majority of whom will be our community’s most vulnerable citizens, i.e., children and seniors. This traffic will not only include additional vehicles from Holyrood Gardens, but also additional vehicles from at least two other development sites along 95 Avenue, the BILT site on the corner of 95 Avenue and 83 Street, and the Holyrood Court Apartments site on 95 Avenue and 79 Street. New development sites on 83 Street (one already approved, and one awaiting approval), located south of 95 Avenue and directly across the back alley from the eastern edge of Holyrood Gardens, will add to the congestion.

In addition, I note that Exhibit 5.1 of the TIA shows four paths that cross the back alley behind the northern portion of Holyrood Gardens, providing access from the community to this part of the site. Holyrood community members will be crossing the alley to access the Transit Station, and Holyrood Gardens’ residents, some of whom will also be children and seniors, will use those access points to reach 95 Avenue transit stops (to travel to places other than downtown), to attend programs or events at SEESA, and to travel to school, the daycare, or the playground. Given an increase in the number of vehicles accessing that alley in order to enter, and exit from, the Holyrood Gardens’ parkades, as well as the increase in vehicular traffic expected over time from the development sites on 83 Street, whose residents will likely also use this back alley to access their parking spots, I am wondering what pedestrian safety measures will be put in place along this alleyway.

I also seriously question the developer’s assertion that ‘we broke ground when the fear of COVID 19 was at its peak around the world and when many other Developers put their projects on hold indefinitely.’ I have seen virtually no evidence of this. In fact, in early April, the Government of Alberta designated the construction industry as an “essential service”. Throughout this pandemic, and within Holyrood, the addition of a new apartment building and parkade at Holyrood Court apartments, along 95th Avenue, has been proceeding at breakneck speed. The BILT townhouse development on the corner of 95th Avenue and 83 Street is also under construction, and the skinny homes along 85 Street have almost been completed, all within the last few months. Meanwhile, an additional developer is seeking approval for a new townhouse development on 83 Street.

Similarly, I’m very surprised at Regency Development’s comments that seem to imply that they are being forced to increase the number of units in order to secure financing. Due to COVID-19, interest rates on loans are now extremely low. For example, the Bank of Canada’s website states: ‘In response to the economic impacts stemming from COVID-19, we lowered interest rates to ¼ per cent to support economic activity. These moves support consumers and businesses by lowering payments on existing and new loans throughout the economy.’. (bankofcanada.ca). In addition, the Government of Canada is providing loans to businesses, including both small and medium sized businesses. For example: ‘Through the Business Credit Availability Program, the Business Development Canada's (BDC) Mid-Market Financing Program will provide commercial loans ranging between $12.5 million and $60 million to medium-sized businesses whose credit needs exceed what is already available through the Business Credit Availability Program and other measures. BDC anticipates that qualifying companies will have annual revenues in excess of approximately $100 million. This support is available until June 2021.‘ (canada.ca)

Did Regency Developments fail to secure financing for this project after receiving City Council approval to build. If so, why? And why would they now fail to take advantage of exceptionally low interest rates and available government loans?

In other words, I see no reason to support the proposed changes to this development, which, in my opinion, give every appearance of taking full advantage of a global pandemic to renege on a previous agreement, reached through thousands of hours of community volunteer time and collaboration, and which put our most vulnerable Holyrood residents further at risk.

C. S. over 3 years ago

Doubling the number of dwellings on Area 2-A is not acceptable. I enjoy living in Holyrood because it is a small friendly community. There are many small children that live in this community and safety on neighbourhood streets is critical. I can't imagine this big development without adequate parking for residents, their visitors and deliveries, etc. Adding more dwellings will increase congestion.Tall buildings remove privacy and sunlight. The approved 1200 new buildings, along with the LRT will already be a big adjustment for our families.

Rita over 3 years ago

For several years community members have devoted time and energy to negotiating with Regency to develop a plan for this site that would allow them to make enough of a profit and to provide a reasonable (although much larger than the community really wants) number of units for this site. To learn now that they are requesting to increase the density of the site by ALMOST 40% is completely dismissive of the hours invested and the approval process.

Even considering such a significant expansion undermines the proposal that was approved in 2018 and erodes public trust in the process. This request seems to mock the efforts of the community and many volunteers who spent years working with City Council and the developer on the plan that was approved in 2018.

The mention of Covid-19 by Regency to justify the changes they are proposing is ridiculous. The entire world is suffering the impact of this virus. The company’s need to secure funding for the development is their issue – and would exist no matter what current conditions are like. Instead, this request appears more like it has always been their plan. To get approval as they did in 2018, then go back and request more, more, more as their reputation says they will do. Increased unit sales have always been their goal. Please do not give in to them in a way that will set a dangerous precedent, destroy Holyrood resident’s trust in City Council and will effectively further damage a neighbourhood that is already impacted by developments here and in nearby communities.

The company has not made a compelling case for expansion and it has not addressed concerns about traffic congestion, inadequate parking, lack of school spaces, or inadequate site drainage to support and service this expansion. Even if parking is increased to accommodate 450 units – so at least 335 more parking spaces – this can only be done at a cost of green spaces. Overall, this site and the original development already had a bare minimum of green space available.

Not only do I disagree strongly with this proposal that will add considerable height to previously proposed development, but I am concerned about the precedent that would be set if this expansion is approved. By approving this dramatic increase, does City Council leave an option open for every future developer to consult with neighbourhoods and then when the project has started, come to Council asking for an additional 40% increase in density? This flies in the face of true consultation and it shows huge disrespect for the many concerned residents who worked hard to develop what we thought was the final proposal.

KT Foster over 3 years ago

If the proposed new Type B building and the larger floor plates were to co-exist with the approved ramp in the same area, the public amenity space would be quite cut up, so the proposed space wouldn't be very usable.
It is a stark contrast to the approved zoning, where it is essentially a large, wide open space, as a park should be.

In the proposed zoning, it appears the public amenity space would become significantly smaller. It may still meet a certain minimum size requirement, but that doesn't mean much, because it would be such a weird and impractical jigsaw puzzle shape that there wouldn't even be enough room to throw a frisbee or kick a ball around in the darker, colder, more crowded space. In short, it would not serve its intended purpose nearly as well, and is therefore a significant step backward in terms of quality of design.

I can appreciate the monetary benefits that the proposed zoning would confer to the condo development corporation, but in order to balance the analysis, we need to be realistic about the fact that these changes would come with significant costs to the Holyrood community. A diminished and degraded publicly accessible private park is an example of these uncompensated costs.
This isn't what the community signed up for.

Let's not loose sight of the following policy objective from "The Way We Live - Edmonton's People Plan":

"The City of Edmonton provides for the well-being of its citizens through outstanding parks, natural, green and public spaces."

Mike B over 3 years ago

After reading the proposed amendment to the DC2 for the Holyrood Gardens site, I feel compelled to summarize what I see Regency is actually proposing to do: take advantage of the unprecedented situation we are in where:

The community is distracted by the Covid-19 pandemic
+ Interest rates are at historic lows
+ the City has recently passed an Open Option Parking bylaw
= Regency wants use these combined factors as opportunity to massively increase profit by:
1) Undoing all compromises made in the 2017/18 process and increase density significantly
2) then refinance the larger project at very low interest rates
3) then (maybe) build it while construction costs are stable and in some sectors decreasing
A basic understanding of due process, compromise, fairness and integrity should mean that City Administration would recommend against this proposal and City Council would reject this proposal and ensure the Developer: lived to the compromise agreement in place in the form of the existing DC2. Do not forget there is a 25 story tower under construction on the site as part of this agreement (well in excess of the City’s own policy that stated 6-8 story buildings as appropriate).
I do not support any part of the proposed changes to the DC2. As being very involved in the process that resulted in the 2018 agreement, I am completely disgusted by the Developer’s complete disregard for that process, the community and his attempt to use the situation we are in to increase his profits.

I have detailed below some suggestions to Administration and City Counsel (and the Developer) on how to make any proposed increase in density more acceptable to the community (as it may be possible to fit a few more units in without the proposed destruction of the 2018 compromise based plans):
a) Declare how much parking will be provided (clearly the developer has a number in mind) and write it in the DC2 so it known exactly what is proposed and ensure this amount totals no more cars than previously allowed (because the new units are to be truly transit oriented and their residents will not require parking?)
b) Agree in the DC2 to follow all the recommendations of the Edmonton Design Committee (which includes more oversight based on the very poor submissions to-date)
c) Live to floor plate sizes for skinny towers (so no increase in size)
d) Listen to the community for advice on traffic flow (ie. one-way alley, with right in off 95th ave right out off 93 ave only)
e) Add much more family-oriented housing- replace at least some of what is to be demolished
f) Make the community amenity area bigger and better in keeping with the amount of proposed new density
g) Follow the advice in this section regarding wording of the drainage section of the DC2 and follow all other best practices laid out in the existing DC2 (ie. regarding wind studies, CPTED, etc.)
h) Don’t try to gain favor with Council by promoting that this site has commenced construction when the same developer’s BMO and Jasper Ave sites are sitting as undeveloped as eyesores.

MH-83 Street Resident over 3 years ago

As a resident of Holyrood for over 20 years this is by far the biggest change for the community. The reason I chose this community was because of my children,my work and it was a quite mature neighborhood.
I live on 83str. and 91ave and that is very close to the project.
With this new rezoning application the one section of the project is going to double in units. It is going to put a even bigger strain on traffic for the surrounding houses. With no public parking available there will be a lot more street parking in the surrounding area. Right now with the construction I have sometimes a hard time accessing my back alley because of vehicles parked to close to the entrance of the alley. If there is an increase in about 450 units that will just add more congestion.
I am all for revitalizing neighborhoods but there has to be a balance between the old and new. This project will add a brand new community to holyrood and we need to live without conflict between the new community and the old one. So I am against the increase in units because I believe that 1200 units will already make an big impact on the surrounding neighborhood.

Birgit R. over 3 years ago

Having reviewed both the proposed DC2 and the drainage report, I am concerned that the proposed DC2 wording is too vague and leaves too much latitude for the developer to design an “alternative” drainage servicing scheme that may negatively affect my property.

I have reviewed the “Storm & Sanitary Servicing Feasibility Study” (Stantec, May 30, 2018) and associated “Addendum to Storm & Sanitary Servicing Feasibility” (Aplin Martin August 4, 2020). The design constraints regarding the storm drainage from the development site were clearly set out by the city during the summer of 2017. In particular, an email from City Engineer Jatinder Tiwana (dated May 26, 2017 and included in Appendix C of the Stantec report) states that the existing combined sewers cannot handle the stormwater from the proposed development. I am concerned that the wording in the revised DC2, including “general conformance” and “or alternatives” gives the developer too much latitude and is inconsistent with the clear messaging provided by City of Edmonton engineers in 2017. I am especially concerned that the developer may suggest discharging some stormwater into the combined sewer in the alley east of the site, as a cost-saving measure instead of building a suitable stormwater management system. I am concerned that these changes will be proposed by the developer as a last-minute “alternative” design under the pretext of “general conformance”.

The DC2 should maintain the clear direction of the City of Edmonton engineers by stating the following design constraints clearly and quantitatively:
- All stormwater generated from the development site lands shall be directed to a new dedicated storm sewer running under 93 Ave
- The flow to this storm sewer shall be controlled such that stormwater flow from the site by any route does not exceed 20 L/s/ha at any time
- Stormwater management facilities shall be constructed to ensure that flow to the storm sewer does not exceed 20 L/s/ha
- Any deviation from these requirements shall be based on a computer model simulation analysis, prepared to professional standards.

Thank you for consideration of my concerns.

J.N. over 3 years ago

I find it totally disheartening that the City should even consider these proposed changes by Regency. After many years of discussion and finally coming to what was an agreed upon plan, why are we talking about this? Frankly, my trust continues to be eroded. I supported the final proposal of 2018.
As we walk around our beautiful neighborhood during this last 9 months it is astounding to see how much development is occurring and how rapidly our community is changing in terms of density and increased traffic.
Holyrood, once a quiet, safe neighborhood is EXPLODING! I ask that the City of Edmonton reject the proposed changes by Regency Developers and honour the agreed upon 2018 proposed project.

RT over 3 years ago

I am really proud of community members for sharing their concerns in such an articulate way. The rezoning application by the developer is very concerning as it undermines the original agreement that was painstakingly made with the community. Hundreds of volunteer hours from thoughtful citizens who are truly concerned about the impact of this development on their neighbourhood. To make this application in the middle of a global pandemic when cities around the world are concerned about revenue, is highly questionable. I hope that the city actually listens to residents of Holyrood and our legitimate concerns regarding increasing density and the potential impact on the existing neighbourhood and infrastructure.

Karen over 3 years ago

Adding more buildings is one thing but with increase in population, there should be more commercial space available to allow for a community to thrive. The current handful of shops is not sufficient to create a vibrant walkable area in which people will enjoy spending time, not just live there and go elsewhere.

An increase in quantity of shops and restaurants would create a far more enjoyable place to visit and live. Please add more commercial spaces.

Andy over 3 years ago

I don't think I can add anything additional to the well presented comments from other participants and residents. I would say that I'm disappointed that our city would even consider an unsupported, unnecessary, and unproven need for further rezoning after our community committee dedicated hours of time in open discussion and communication to an agreeable and approved decision.

It is clear that developing company is trying to maximize their bottom line, while ignoring the needs and the infrastructure of the existing community. It's time to make the right decision and stop making a mess of infill and development in Edmonton. I am not against development, it just seems that so much is not being considered in proper development. Our future generations need this consideration so they aren't going to be the ones paying for the mess when that becomes the end result down the road. I liken this to flood damage that has happened in Millwoods that has resulted in millions of dollars of upgrading to drainage.

Love Holyrood Love Edmonton over 3 years ago

I feel extremely frustrated and frankly angry about this application. I live in Holyrood and am by no means anti-development. I was actually really excited when I initially hward they were developing the site. However, the neighborhood citizens hace worked ridiculously hard to respond to the initial application and the last upzoning. I believe the developer is just playing a game where they are trying to wear out the neighbors by just constantly trying to upzone until people are just tired and don't show up to fight. What is the point of zoning regulations and guidelines for building height (and transitions) and storm runoffs and traffic studies if the city of Edmonton doesn't hold developers to them?
I am particularly concerned about the additional traffic that 450 extra units will force back through Holyrood since the LRT will make it difficult for people leaving the site to get on to major roads. I am also concerned about storm runoff. This summer the water table rose so high at our house that our basement flooded for the first time ever.

Liz Dennett over 3 years ago

I am extremely concerned about the willingness of the City to review Regency’s request for re-zoning. It is clear through Regency’s language in their letter of intent that they wish to satisfy some lending metric to meet their internal rate of return. They wish to achieve this by dumping any fall out/externality of additional traffic and density on a neighborhood which grudgingly approved the initial development. There is no discussion on how to handle the additional 450 families including lack of schooling spots and access to road ways. This is pure self-interest of a developer looking to pull profit out of a project that had luke-warm social license. I support urban density, but this re-application must be viewed as bad-faith negotiation after agreement was met.

I hope The City of Edmonton's Urban Planning will not support short term profit-taking by a developer at the expense of a long-standing and strong community.

Please consider the role of Bonnie Doon mall's redevelopment plans. Urban density for Ward 8 will be achieved, but it requires a thoughtful process and method.

I trust Mr Ben Henderson and his peers on City Council will consider their constituents and the resounding community reponse toward a transparent profit grab by a developer.

Andrew over 3 years ago

Regency’s Letter of Intent (LOI) states “However, the pandemic has impacted our original timeline to commence the second building south of 93rd Avenue. … Regency has undertaken this rezoning so that we might engage a lender to finance the first building north of 93rd Avenue as the next phase of the development instead, which will allow us to continue construction on the overall project in the timely manner we intend.”
Covid 19 has impacted the whole world and has not singled out Regency. How can Covid 19 be used as an excuse to increase the number of suites from 1200 to 1650?
Regency’s LOI states “might engage a lender”, not “must engage”, not “ must stop the development”. I feel this LOI is very misleading as to the real intent of Regency’s request.
Where/how is the increased traffic from the 450 units going to get to/from these additional suites? Plus an increase in visitor traffic, plus the increased traffic due to the ever increasing on-line shopping deliveries?
There is no additional road increase along 85 St for this increase.
The small one lane alley is not being increased to 2 lanes.
The increased traffic will go through the existing single family neighborhood to get to 98 Ave, 90 Ave or 75 St. This increase in traffic will go by Holyrood Elementary School, by a year round daycare/after school care facility, by the only playground zone in Holyrood, by a Senior’s Rec Center, and by a Seniors Care facility. This is a danger to senior aged pedestrians and children going to/from school and the playground.
Since Regency applied and received the zoning for 1200 suites, there has been new developments approved and under construction at 95Ave/83 St and at 95 Ave/79 St. The 2 additional developments alone have added over 100 suites into Holyrood. Plus there have been dozens of skinny homes, many garage suites and 4-plexes built in the last 2 years.
The recently released Nov 12th draft Traffic Impact Assessment shows that some of the Holyrood intersections, for example 95Ave/79st will have a “F” rating. F is the poorest rating and below the City’s threshold of an “E” rating. Traffic will increase 2.25x in volume around the only playground zone and school zone in Holyrood. For concerned Holyrood residents, please look at this study. According to the studies diagrams, some of our quite streets will become “cut through” streets and will get of poor rating during peak hours when children are going to/from school.
This report is based on the assumption of a high use of the LRT by Holyrood Gardens residents. However, this high assumed usage rate is higher than the City has ever seen before in neighborhoods that currently have LRT access. So the traffic maybe a lot worse than this study shows.
All of this has a huge impact on a neighborhood which was mostly comprised of single family homes.
Where else in the City has 1200 units, plus an additional 100+ units, plus numerous skinny homes/4-plexes/garage suits been added?
How can an additional 450 units be allowed on top of the above?
Why is Holyrood being singled out as the high density development area for Edmonton?

Longterm Holyrood Resident over 3 years ago

Short version: Reject for two reasons - 1, it sets a dangerous precedent to allow the developer to come back and overturn what was already accepted by the community and 2, there is nothing in the submission indicating a compelling reason to expand the development.

I think the rezoning application should be rejected on principal as it sets a dangerous precedent. There was significant community input on the original plan. While some concerns were addressed, like the number of units, many were not, and the developer was not entirely cooperative in the process. Now they have come back looking to increase the number of units to more than initially proposed and which the community was against. Why do community consultation if the developer knows they can wait until construction and financing puts "urgency" into the request to get what they really want?
There is nothing in the submission that would indicate a compelling reason for these changes. Roadway capacity in the area hasn't magically improved to handle the additional units. The school hasn't magically gotten bigger to handle potential more students or added overpasses to get kids there safely. They aren't adding a whole bunch of low-income suites which might buy them some moral credit to allow this expansion. The letter doesn't say anything about the financing requiring more units (and if that was the case, then the business plan and execution were flawed from the start). The City's change to allow the developer to select the appropriate level of parking is letting the fox guard the henhouse - parking is expensive so why would a developer put in anymore than the absolute minimum they can get away with? Parking is going to be a nightmare in the community streets around the development. I understand that ideally development around an LRT hub would eliminate personal vehicle usage but I haven't seen much indication that attitude has been adopted by Edmontonians. What is being removed to make room for additional units? Public park space. Justification? The minimum standard will still be met. As there was a bit more than minimum, the developer is getting rid of the excess for more units. See my complaint about the parking standard change - developers have only their own profit interests in mind.

Ken F over 3 years ago

I live in the neighborhood and have for almost 10 years. This massive increase is absurd and absolutely unacceptable. Over Two years ago our community put together a sub committee to fight against just this - the developing company trying to maximize their bottom line, while absolutely ignoring the needs and the infrastructure of the existing community. Increasing density in such a small space only a couple blocks away from me will absolutely impact me and my existing neighbours negatively. The amount of street and foot traffic will increase and therefore naturally, so will crime.
The space does not warrant massive sky rises. It will look out of place and change the look of our neighborhood monumentally. The community does not want 1700+ units in that space and that message was made VERY clear when they first approached the community with some information sessions back when this project was in its infancy. The development company should instead focus on bigger better single family units with adequate underground parking, and space for retail shops such as restaurants, cafes, boutique shops, flower shops, bakeries etc. The space does not warrant sky high buildings that block the light and completely change the feel of the mature neighborhood. The development company does NOT need to increase the units being built just to satisfy their earning potential and it’s a absolutely unacceptable that it will be aloud just because it’s on the new LRT line. I embrace urbanization and discourage suburbia. I’m all for densification, but a reasonable and fitting amount. Not to a point that completely takes over the look and feel of a neighborhood that’s been around for decades. Find another spot and build. Leave this one space as it was - I believe we even fought hard a couple years ago to reduce the size from this previous plan. Enough is enough. And just because you can increase it, doesn’t mean you should.

Andrea Veale over 3 years ago

We previously participated in the consultation and engagement activities related to Holyrood Gardens, which resulted in a plan that represented a relatively reasonable (to us) compromise between the community and developer.

As many others have shared, it is in incredibly bad faith that the developer is now submitting a request to increase the density by 450 units. Especially since this increase would only be north of 93rd Ave - this represents more than a DOUBLING of the proposed units, from 440 to 890 dwellings. As a homeowner that will be right next to these developments, this proposed change would negatively impact our access to light and privacy. Not to mention, as my neighbours already have, the increased traffic in this incredibly small area and concerns about safety on the roads and parking overflow into neighbouring streets.

The developer has not shared anything in their proposed plans as to how the community's concerns - clearly and repeatedly shared over a multiyear period - would be addressed. This is disappointing. Related to this, we are very disappointed that Planning Coordination has shared that things like past consultations would not be taken into consideration for its recommendation. Quite frankly, if this is the case, it feels like we are being told that the City does not care about our and our community's efforts to participate and contribute honest, carefully prepared feedback and suggestions. The original plan was approved just two years ago - and our concerns remain the same.

City Council, please do not approve this request.

C.C. over 3 years ago

I would like to continue to echo my previous concerns, and that of many community members, that this is effectively a bad faith process on the part of the developer despite hundreds of man hours invested by the developer, the city, and the community, to get the existing zoning approved. That said, on the merits of the proposal, I would like to lend my support to the Holyrood Development Committee's critiques of the proposal and restate some of them here:

"Entrances to the parkade ramp cannot and should not be adjusted at the development permit stage at the whim of the developer. This is a major change that would clearly impact intermodal transportation safety around the site. Details of the parkade and access/egress must be clearly determined and outlined in the DC2."

"Additionally, though our committee is generally supportive of the City’s new Open Option Parking policy, we do not support changing the regulations that exist in the current DC2, regulations which are slightly more stringent than the TOD maximums under the OOP. This change, combined with Regency’s proposed increase in units, would allow for the construction of hundreds of additional parking stalls, leading to additional motor vehicle traffic—traffic which would, in the main, need to travel through our neighborhood due to this site’s constrictions—in particular, to the site being hemmed in by the LRT as mentioned above."
- Regarding this, we have already seen traffic impacts from the construction at the site, including major safety concerns like blocking driveways, reduced site lines, speeding, and traffic conflict.

" The HDC believes that an increase in density should not be considered until the design issues brought forward by the EDC are better addressed, i.e., until the site has undergone ”significant refinement and/or redesign”. The letter also states that the applicant would greatly benefit from visiting the EDC at the development permit stage. These statements clearly indicate that this development requires both more thoughtful effort and greater controls. Given EDC’s reflections on this development, we feel very strongly that Regency Developments and DER Architects should not be granted the greater latitude and lessened control they are seeking."

"The developer appears to be seeking an increase in density, while also attempting to sidestep City policy that exists to provide both affordable housing contributions and housing that would encourage families; this cannot not be permitted to occur. "

Foster over 3 years ago