LDA20-0229 Holyrood Gardens DC2 Adjustments

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

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.

CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

This feels like a bait and switch, not in good faith on the developer's part. Please consider the precedent this would set for development, that lip service up front can be undone once shovels are in the ground. The surrounding communities put thousands of hours of labour into developing an informed and measured response - Edmonton should be rewarding that advocacy. I see no proof that these changes are necessary on the developer's part.

JF 5 months ago

These changes effectively go back on many of the key outcomes of years of earlier community engagement. Allowing this would completely undermine that work and will not only damage this community but the integrity of the entire review and approval process. If this kind of subversion of the process is allowed, why should communities subjected to future developments anywhere in this city trust that approval means anything other than a license to mine the livability out of their part of the city? This development is already oversized and absurdly dense for the community, no changes unless the developer is willing to downsize it!!

Tim P 5 months ago

The proposed parking situation is already ridiculous. Adding another 450 units - will homeowners be given street parking passes so that we can have cars towed?

Hope 5 months ago

The developer and community and City of Edmonton have already gone through a LONG process that resulted in approved parameters (at one point the City stated that the Developer had not sufficiently engaged with the Community, requiring more consultation). This developer has been pushing and pushing all along and is not interested in community needs. He is only doing the minimal to get approvals and then pushes for more. It's really not fair to the community to go back now, and toss in a request for more units which brings it back to the original number! Community members are getting tired and thank goodness for our Holyrood Development Committee who continue to speak for community concerns, as we would be worse off without them,. Still, communities are still at a disadvantage against these developers who are trying to make profit at the expense of the community. I am concerned about walkability, traffic that will backflow (driving and parking) into the community (ex: past Holyrood Elementary school not to mention past my own home on 92 AV. If another study is required, this time it should be a study that looks at the impact on the community of the combination of the LRT and Development. The LRT was not fully considered when the last Regency Development traffic impact was done, and therefore, was not sufficient.

AHagan 5 months ago

To put it simple, I'm losing my view of the sunrise so a developer can make more money without having to give anything back to the city. They are taking away parking from the neighborhood and public Park space so they can have more units without having to engage the local residents. What i'm seeing is the developer wants to take away community. The studies done in Christchurch after the devastating earthquake there indicated that any building over 4 stories takes away from the community engagement and actually takes away from the walk ability of the area. Please leave the development as was already approved, both for parking as so i can stop living in a construction zone in a timely fashion. I want to enjoy my neighborhood and the city, not perpetually live in a construction zone that will never end.

toby1a 5 months ago

We are opposed to the proposed redevelopment plan of the additional 450 units. That is insane! The existing approval was determined through extensive involvement of the Holyrood community and a previous higher density proposal was already rejected by City Council. Why is it being revisited? The developers assertion that it needs the extra units to secure lending seems implausible given it was satisfied with the initial zoning that was approved. I'm sorry, but that is not the resident's problem if the developer is having financial issues. The proposed change is being done in very bad faith and a slap in the face to the residents - who already pay high taxes in the area. The proposed change will cause significant negative effects on the adjacent residential area, including especially traffic congestion/access/safety, parking, privacy(which will be NIL) and afternoon/evening sunlight. The City has an obligation to live up to its commitments to its residents and to the decisions made by Council. Keep what is left of the integrity of the community and do what is right for its residents and not for the developers profit margins! JUST SAY NO!

Madeleine A 5 months ago

I have future concerns about parking. Which 1200 already and wanting another 450 where is everyone all 1650 dwellings going to park? Where will all there traffic go? They will park on inner streets like 83st and run through the neighborhood to get to where they need to be. Speed limits are great but speeding is always happening already, add that many dwellings with that many more cars, that's an accident waiting to happen. Holyrood is a small neighborhood. Allowing more units is a bad idea. It increases more roadway issues, some dangerous and it also takes away 83st neighbors right to privacy. Buildings are becoming too tall and wide as it is. Less park space, and is already too close to the houses. Its not really nice to have a 15 meter building looking into your homes and yards.

Eric c 5 months ago

Some of the most problematic aspects of this proposal are the traffic and parking issues that would inevitably arise from the several hundred additional motor vehicles associated with the 450 additional housing units (plus however many more units will be added at the development permit stage, as we saw with the South portion of the site).

It is disappointing that this Engaged Edmonton website does not address these issues in any meaningful way.

1) There is no Traffic Impact Assessment posted on this site. Therefore the community does not have access to the information that it needs in order to make informed decisions about the traffic.

2) There is no information about how many parking spaces the developer intends to provide. Zero parking spaces? One thousand parking spaces? Again, the community is being denied access to critical information that is needed in order to make informed decisions, and this is truly pushing the limits of what might reasonably considered to be reasonable, even in the context of the Open Option Parking.

3) There is no plan in place for how to deal with the parasite parking that would arise if the developer provides inadequate on-site parking. Yet again, key information that the community needs is being withheld. It is thoroughly inadequate to say this issue may or may not be addressed at some indefinite point in the future. By that time, rezoning may have created a parking problem so large that effective mitigation may be impossible. There needs to be a formal plan in place well before the public hearing.

This is the current state of affairs as I am writing this on November 12th. This site asks the public to have all comments in by November 30th. Even if all three of the issues mentioned above were addressed by posting new documents on the site today, that would leave just 16 days for the public to review and comment. A short window of opportunity indeed.

I would hope that Planning strives to achieve a fair and balanced approach to public consultation, but the present reality is that critical information is being withheld at the same time as an ambitious timeline for public consultation is being implemented. Sadly, the omission of publicly accessible traffic & parking information serves only to limit informed debate and erode trust in the rezoning process.

Therefore, I oppose this development proposal.

Mike B 5 months ago

The application to increase this site is not good for anyone but the developer. The number of dwellings does not reflect the number of parking therefore would bleed onto the neighboring street which would create so much traffic down a quiet street. There are a number of small children that regularly play in the green space there and are put in harm due to the increase. This developer has in good faith already made an agreement and should be held to that agreement. This site is already going to create problems for every home on 83st in regards to traffic on their street as well as the back lane and most importantly their right to privacy is stripped to nothing allowing these units to see into their yards and windows with ease.

C.C. 5 months ago

I do wonder at what point Council considers the integrity of a developer when considering an application. Maya Angelou said, "When people show you who they are, believe them." This developer has treated community members, including the Holyrood Community League, extremely poorly. They have refused to engage at times, withheld information, willfully deceived, and drained the resources of the community volunteers acting as guardians for the neighbourhood and yet somehow believe the City should extend them license to make substantial changes that they are selling as in the community's interest. Holyrood Community League has done their homework to identify multiple challenges with this application. I support that submission fully. I also beg Council to recognize sincerity, honesty, and goodwill as fundamental to the approval of development applications. Change and progress is welcome. The changes proposed in this application are not. Thank you.

Lisa G 5 months ago

After years of effort and consultation with Holyrood residents and the Development Committee to arrive at what was approved in 2018, Im disappointed to learn the developer come back and ask for more without any of the same level
of consult it took to arrive at what currently was approved. Very sneaky, well played Regency! Council - please do not approve this latest rezoning. I have the exact same concerns I had when the whole project was first proposed- density too high and not enough parking. This is Edmonton...even on a LRT line people own a car so they can still go to Costco and other big box stores. I’m glad the area is being redeveloped, I’m not in favour of increasing the density any further, esp when taking into account all the other plans in the area - Bonniedoon and Strathern.

ColleenW 5 months ago

I am opposed to the proposed redevelopment plan. Here’s why: the city has approved 3 massive developments within a 10 block zone, Strathearn, Holyrood, and Bonnie Doon. Strathearn has also just gone back to increase density with the same "no community consultation" and was approved without it. The facts are Strathearn population will more than double, Holyrood double and Bonnie Doon quadruple. City has not included Strathearn in the proposed traffic study they state they will be doing, and it has to be asked why not? The LRT has reduced 83 St to one lane from 95 Ave to Argyll (not everyone will use the LRT, as not everyone works downtown, and if they own a car, it has to be parked somewhere regardless if they use LRT or not) The city has made it very clear to the residents in these affected areas that they are siding with the developers as very little community involvement is asked when making changes to already approved applications.

Holyrood is a vibrantly mixed income community and we want to keep it that way. Please do not ruin our incredible community with these massive monolithic developments thay will destroy the fabric of our streets.

Anna 5 months ago

I am absolutely opposed to the proposed increase in the number of units. The existing approval was determined through extensive involvement of the Holyrood community and a previous higher density proposal was already rejected by City Council. As such, the proposed change is a very bad faith proposal, a slap in the face to the residents of the area. The proposed change will cause significant negative effects on the adjacent residential area, including especially traffic congestion/access/safety, parking (compounded by the adjacent LRT - there is already parking and traffic spillover by construction workers into the adjacent residential area), privacy and afternoon/evening sunlight. The City has an obligation to live up to its previous commitments. Reject this proposal please. Sincerely, Gordon Berdahl, 52 year nearby resident

gberdahl 5 months ago

The increase in the number of units is concerning as I assume this means there are less 3 bedroom units and more single or loft units. The increase in the height of the buildings is also concerning as this was a major concession for the approval when the first approval was given.

Both increasing the number of units and increasing the height are not what was approved and should not be allowed at this time. The development must continue to consider the community it is in and not solely the profit it can make for the developer. The city has an obligation to uphold the development as was determined by council, not as is desired by the developer to increase profit margins.

Katie T 5 months ago

I want to add to Erika's comments below, as the city has approved 3 massive developments within a 10 block zone, Strathearn, Holyrood, and Bonnie Doon. Strathearn has also just gone back to increase density with the same "no community consultation" and was approved without it, see attached link.

https://www.edmonton.ca/residential_neighbourhoods/PDF/LDA20-0192-Proposed_DC2_Provision.pdf

The facts are Strathearn population will more than double, Holyrood double and Bonnie Doon quadruple. City has not included Strathearn in the proposed traffic study they state they will be doing, and it has to be asked why not? The LRT has reduced 83 St to one lane from 95 Ave to Argyll (not everyone will use the LRT, as not everyone works downtown, and if they own a car, it has to be parked somewhere regardless if they use LRT or not) The city has made it very clear to the residents in these affected areas that they are siding with the developers as very little community involvement is asked when making changes to already approved applications. Holyrood has a very active community league, and hopefully going forward they can prevent the blind approval Strathearn received in their consultation of Holyrood development.

Cindy 5 months ago

This increase in units would have a significant impact on the neighborhood, essentially doubling the population.
The neighbourhood worked very hard with the developer to push for family units and low income units. The developer agreed, but clearly was not negotiating in good faith. A change this substantial to the development will also have a large impact and change on the neighbourhood. Please honor the hard work of the community league, they worked tirelessly with the neighbourhood and the developer to get to a finalized plan that both sides agreed to. Please ensure that the developer sticks to this agreement, for the health of the neighbourhood and the health of the new development.

Erika 5 months ago

Dear Development Officers and City Council,

I’m writing in response to the proposed rezoning for the Holyood Gardens Redevelopment.

The current approved plan already looks to double the population of the Holyrood community and impose increased traffic and public parking on the street. The proposal looks to increase the number of residents and reduce the available parking on the development.

The future street parking issue is already evident and can be witnessed daily with the addition of merely 30-50 construction workers. With this minor addition to the neighbourhood population, streets are lined with vehicles often resulting in severely reduced visibility particularly when moving along 83st and 93ave. This reduces the safety of community pedestrians, many of whom are seniors and children (families) with the nearby schools. It is extremely likely that this issue will worsen once the LRT is operational.

The approved plan allows for increased density with expected impacts to existing traffic and parking in the area. This impact will only increase with the addition of 150 dwellings and reduced available parking. This will impact will directly affect the aesthetics and function of the neighbourhood while reducing the safety for resident Edmontonians in this community. I therefore am not in favour of this rezoning application.

Sincerely,
Colin Maxwell

Colin Maxwell 5 months ago

In my view there were already lengthy consultations with the community and city over the past few years relating to this project. During the time since the intial zoning approval, there have been no changes to the circumstances that would warrant increasing the previously approved unit counts by city council. If anything the subsequent approval of the future Bonnie Doon development will likely mean existing roads would be further over taxed as the existing traffic impact assessments have already indicated that the major intersections will be points of congestion. The developers assertion that it needs the extra units to secure lending seems implausible given it was satisfied with the initial zoning that was approved. In my opinion, the rezoning should be declined until there are material changes in the circumstances such as the completion of the LRT which would give the community and city administration time to observe the impacts of the operational trains and potentially the initial building of the development.

Matthew 5 months ago

I believe this choice of higher density will overall improve the quality of the project, however, I am deeply concerned about the anticipated impact on availability of street parking in my neighbourhood as a result. I have already lost front-of-house parking to the LRT station project; now I am afraid that I will be asking guests to find parking a block or two away from my house just to visit me.

Is there no way to mandate more on-site parking for this project? With the density they are talking about, a small parkade might be an appropriate choice here.

Patrick Rochefort 5 months ago

I do not support the additional 450 units requested within the application. No matter how impressive the idea of having a housing community that could support transit and walking only as a means to get around - I do not believe that Edmonton has a comprehensive transit system to support this idea. I believe that this will require many of the tenants to continue to require a vehicle and require parking. Right now, the number of parking spots is very limited in this design. As a resident that lives near by, I feel that the parking issues and people traffic will ruin the neighborhood feel and cause extreme congestion.

Jody 5 months ago