LDA19-0568 Cromdale RA8 Rezoning & Road Closure

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

***The What We Heard Report is now available on edmonton.ca***

Thank you for participating in engagement activities for this rezoning application. For any further inquiries regarding this application, please contact the planner on this page, under the "who's listening" section.

The application is expected to go to City Council Public Hearing for a decision on August 31, 2021. For more information, please visit these FAQs (External link) for Council meetings.

Please review the information on this page. Tell us what you think and ask any questions below, before the end of the day on July 9, 2021. We will use any feedback that you share to ensure the public’s perspectives are fully captured and communicated to City Council prior to making a decision on this rezoning application.


Location

The City has received an application to rezone properties (map) located along 112 Avenue NW, between 78 Street NW and 79 Street NW in the Cromdale neighbourhood. The specific addresses are: 11233, 11231, 11227, 11219 - 79 Street NW; and 11232, 11226, 11224, 11220 - 78 Street NW. The subject area is currently comprised of vacant lots.


Rezoning Details

The proposed rezoning from (CNC) Neighbourhood Convenience Commercial Zone, (RA7) Low Rise Apartment Zone and (RF1) Single Detached Residential Zone to (RA8) Medium Rise Apartment Zone would allow for the development of a 23 metre high (approximately 6 storey) residential building with limited commercial opportunities at ground level.The applicant’s stated intent is to develop a seniors housing complex. The types of commercial space that would be permitted include, but are not limited to, neighbourhood convenience retail stores and specialty food services.


View a table illustrating a comparison between the current zones and the proposed zone. A conceptual massing model and sun-shadow analysis based on that massing is also available in the right sidebar.


Because the proposed RA8 zoning is considered a ‘standard zone’, the applicant is not required to provide detailed building drawings at this stage in the planning process. If the rezoning is approved by City Council, the next step will be for the applicant to submit a Development Permit application. At this time, the applicant will be required to submit detailed building drawings to the City for review.


Associated Road Closure

In addition to the rezoning, there is an associated application to close an unused lane positioned internally within the rezoning area so it can be incorporated into the proposed development.


More Information

For more information on the proposed rezoning and road closure, please refer to the application webpage.

***The What We Heard Report is now available on edmonton.ca***

Thank you for participating in engagement activities for this rezoning application. For any further inquiries regarding this application, please contact the planner on this page, under the "who's listening" section.

The application is expected to go to City Council Public Hearing for a decision on August 31, 2021. For more information, please visit these FAQs (External link) for Council meetings.

Please review the information on this page. Tell us what you think and ask any questions below, before the end of the day on July 9, 2021. We will use any feedback that you share to ensure the public’s perspectives are fully captured and communicated to City Council prior to making a decision on this rezoning application.


Location

The City has received an application to rezone properties (map) located along 112 Avenue NW, between 78 Street NW and 79 Street NW in the Cromdale neighbourhood. The specific addresses are: 11233, 11231, 11227, 11219 - 79 Street NW; and 11232, 11226, 11224, 11220 - 78 Street NW. The subject area is currently comprised of vacant lots.


Rezoning Details

The proposed rezoning from (CNC) Neighbourhood Convenience Commercial Zone, (RA7) Low Rise Apartment Zone and (RF1) Single Detached Residential Zone to (RA8) Medium Rise Apartment Zone would allow for the development of a 23 metre high (approximately 6 storey) residential building with limited commercial opportunities at ground level.The applicant’s stated intent is to develop a seniors housing complex. The types of commercial space that would be permitted include, but are not limited to, neighbourhood convenience retail stores and specialty food services.


View a table illustrating a comparison between the current zones and the proposed zone. A conceptual massing model and sun-shadow analysis based on that massing is also available in the right sidebar.


Because the proposed RA8 zoning is considered a ‘standard zone’, the applicant is not required to provide detailed building drawings at this stage in the planning process. If the rezoning is approved by City Council, the next step will be for the applicant to submit a Development Permit application. At this time, the applicant will be required to submit detailed building drawings to the City for review.


Associated Road Closure

In addition to the rezoning, there is an associated application to close an unused lane positioned internally within the rezoning area so it can be incorporated into the proposed development.


More Information

For more information on the proposed rezoning and road closure, please refer to the application webpage.

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.

Please note you must be registered on Engaged Edmonton in order to provide feedback.  However, only your username will be displayed publicly, all other information is kept confidential.  We use this information to distinguish between feedback received from the neighbouring/local area residents and other interested stakeholders.  You may also provide feedback to the Project Planner directly via the contact information under the "who's listening" section of the page.

CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

Greetings City of Edmonton

I have lived in Cromdale for four decades and devoted many volunteer hours to community activities. I am strongly opposed to the proposal to rezone the parcel of land on 112 Ave that is now being considered by Council. The rezoning would allow for the construction of a six story complex, a building 50% higher than the present zoning allows.
Here are my thoughts: great urban spaces are created when imaginative development combines with progressive and thoughtful city planning. I think of structures like Douglas Cardinal's National Museum of the American Indian in Washington. Cardinal, once based in Edmonton, didn't bend the rules of design, he created new ones. And in doing so he was able to honor the concept of integration rather than domination. That is what is completely lacking in this proposal. I am disappointed and appalled that our City administration could have given even initial support to this totally inappropriate proposal.
When the City created the Cromdale / Virginia Park Area Redevelopment Plan many years ago the neighbourhood and I were very involved and worked with a wonderful City planner named Bob Cauldwell. Working with the community, the city and residents created a plan for the future that we were assured would set in place rules for future growth that could not be easily tossed aside. When I received from the City a notice of adjustments to that plan in the Fall of 2020 to accommodate the Exhibition Grounds development I was relieved to see that the boundary of proposed changes was the center of 112 Ave. I now am told that the city used that initiative to cancel the entire ARP. In my opinion that was a very disingenuous move by the City.
I call upon City Planning to reverse its support for this rezoning in the midst of massive community opposition and quite simply rise to a higher standard. It is not too late to recognize that this proposal is the wrong building, in the wrong place.
G. McCrea
Cromdale home owner and resident since 1977.

G.McCrea 12 months ago

Introduction
• I am opposed to the proposed bylaw amendments because the resulting development would significantly change the character of our neighbourhood.
• I have lived at 7925 - 112 Ave. South since 1978 and have seen it grow into a lovely, interconnected, human scale neighbourhood.
• The majority of development has been for newer single-family housing that fits well with the character of this lovely ravine area. The existing zoning provides for low density apartments beside 112 Ave.
• Smaller scale commercial development and low-rise apartments have been built on the SE, NE and NW corners of 112 Ave and 82 St. At 80 St., Cromdale School has been converted to a medical clinic. All of this provides a range of services to the neighbourhood without intruding significantly on its character.
• We are not opposed to development but feel the proposed rezoning would significantly and negatively alter the character of our neighbourhood.
Concerns
• I am concerned that the zoning changes and resulting development would have the following negative impacts on our community:
o Parking congestion:
 Street parking is already crowded.
 I have heard that 66 - 75 units are contemplated for the proposed development. Even if 1 parking spot per residential unit is included in the development (as is consistent with the recommendations in the Exhibition Lands Planning Framework, which council approved in 2020) there would be additional pressure on limited street parking from visitors of residents and from the proposed commercial and/or retail facilities.
 If 25% of the residents have visitors at any given time, there would be approx. 20 additional vehicles competing with residents for the limited street parking. This would be similar to the pressure that arose from football games, before residential parking permits were required, and during the exhibition. Except it would be year-round.
o Safety
 The neighbourhood south of 112 Ave. is very much like an extension of Ada Boulevard, in the sense that it is, for the most part, a low key and pleasant place for walking, cycling and running. Especially since COVID 19, many people both local and from elsewhere in the city are enjoying this recreational facility. Many bring their children with them. And virtually all of them love to wave, say hi, or stop for a chat with the neighbors.
 The additional vehicle traffic from 66 - 75 units, plus residential and commercial visitors would significantly alter this pace and place children and adults alike at risk of harm on this pleasant boulevard.
 There have been numerous incidents of wintertime damage from vehicles sliding through the bend on 112 Ave. South and striking parked vehicles or up onto front yards. Whenever traffic is backed up or blocked on 112 Ave., many vehicles attempt to shortcut through the neighbourhood at an unreasonable rate of speed. Increased traffic would only worsen these risks.
o Noise
 The significant increase in population as well as vehicle traffic would increase the noise level beyond that already experienced from being adjacent to the main thoroughfare of 112 Ave.
o Crime
 The likelihood of an increase in crime would follow from the addition of many new people either visiting residents or commercial facilities. The greater the volume of visitors and a population that doesn’t have a direct neighborhood connection, the greater the likelihood of petty crime.
o Disconnect
 I am concerned that a structure of the proposed scale, covering slightly more than 8 lots and 6 stories high, would create a disconnect with the neighbourhood.
 It is difficult to envision how a structure of such scale would enable face-to-face interaction and contribute to an ongoing interconnected neighbourhood and community.

• Community Values and Benefit of the Existing Scale of Development
o This neighbourhood is connected by its love of the area and has been enhanced by the nature of development that has occurred over the past 40 years.
o Neighbors know each other and, as described earlier, both local residents and others in the city enjoy the amenities of the area.
o The neighbourhood is naturally bounded by 82 St. And 112 Ave. Within that boundary there is a human scale of development that provides a natural transition to the beauty of the ravine and river valley. As indicated before, it’s really part of the corridor that includes Ada Boulevard and is appreciated by many for those characteristics.
o Much has been said and done lately to support the concept of diversity, including Black Lives Matter, Indigenous Reconciliation and workplace diversity. Human life and creativity flourish within diversity. Diversity in community structures is similarly valuable.
o The Exhibition Lands Planning Framework refers to 5 City Moves and 6 Guiding Values that are included in the City Plan. One of the City Moves is Community of Communities, and three of the guiding values are: preserve, belong and live.
o The existing scale of our neighbourhood is an important part of the diversity and balance in a Community of Communities that includes the Stadium ARP and the Exhibition Lands Planning Framework.
o I suggest that our community, with existing zoning in place, is already part of the Community of Communities that the Draft Exhibition Lands Framework speaks of and that it meets these values of “preserve, belong and live.”



• Density and Transit Oriented Development (TOD)
o I am aware that increased urban density is a tool to try to limit urban sprawl. And I am strongly in favour of limiting urban sprawl which permanently destroys valuable farmland.
o Similarly, as the former Director of Energy Efficiency and Conservation with the Alberta Department of Energy (2009 – 2013), I argued strongly in favour of TOD as a means to enhance energy efficiency within the city and to reduce our carbon footprint
o I still feel that way and have gone on record many times in support of Edmonton’s Sustainability office and the good work they have been doing and continue to do in this area.
o However, I feel that the Stadium ARP and Exhibition Lands Framework adequately address TOD and increased densification.
o Although I am not an urban planner, I feel that a balance between densification and smaller scale through diversity of Communities is an important principle in a healthy urban habitat.

• Commercial Mixed Use
o As indicated earlier, commercial mixed use in the area includes the three corners of 112 Ave. and 82 St. However, even before COVID, it was not clear those businesses were thriving to the point that more are required.
o There is little need for additional commercial development unless it were similar to the Highlands commercial area at 112 Ave. and 66 St. which is low density, community oriented, walkable, human scale and street level where people can engage with each other and their neighbors.
o I feel development that is comparable to Highlands, Alberta Avenue and to Whyte Avenue in its earlier days would fit well with our neighbourhood.
o However, I do not feel the proposed bylaw amendments and resulting development would achieve this.

• Consistency with Existing Polices and Guidelines
o The proposed rezoning to RA8 and the proposed development is not consistent with the following principles contained in the Residential Infill in Mature Neighbourhoods City Policy #C551:
 #2. - Projects should contribute to the creation and maintenance of socially sustainable mature neighbourhoods;
 #4. – Critical mass of single-family hosing should be protected in the core
 #7 – Crime prevention through Environmental Design Principles should be applied to all medium & large scale projects
 #8. – Residential infill developments should respect the role of lanes not only as a primary vehicular access route but as a factor in maintaining the livability of neighbourhoods
o It is not consistent with the following aspects of Residential Infill Guidelines contained in the manual from a report by Fletcher & Company:
 City Objectives # 3. To strive to secure community support and acceptance for residential infill in mature neighbourhoods:
• (a) by minimizing traffic and parking impacts
• (b) by providing for a more equitable distribution of density
• (c ) by ensuring infill is compatible in terms of scale and architecture with the existing and adjacent development.
 Neighbourhood Objectives # 7. To use infill as an opportunity for the social renewal and revitalization of the community
• (c ) Improving community interaction
 General Guidelines #8 & #11. Respect the role of lanes . . .
• Importance should be placed in the public realm of lanes as part of both a service and pedestrian network. Lanes should be considered in the design of infill development and kept attractive through fencing and landscaping and appropriate design of parking areas and garages.
• Infill development should respect the mass and scale of adjacent development and the character and availability of the existing streetscape
o It is also not consistent with the following aspects of the City’s Large Site Infill Guidelines:
 Mid-Rise Apartments (5 – 8 storeys) may be located on sites of greater than 1 hectare
 On other sites that are isolated from small scale residential by other land uses such as existing medium/large scale residential development.
 All parking should be accessed from the adjacent lane

• Conclusion
o I feel that our neighbourhood provides an element of diversity and resilience within an overall City Plan that supports a Community of Communities.
o Approving rezoning in this area to RA8 would not respect the scale of adjacent development.
o It would be a precedent that could likely lead to another developer seeking to purchase the lots south of the proposed development and seeking rezoning of the rest of the block as RA8, as well. This would further disrupt the character of the neighbourhood and exacerbate the above-mentioned concerns.
o I strongly urge the proposed bylaw amendments should not be passed so that the existing scale of density and character of neighbourhood can be maintained south of 112 Avenue.

anikiforuk 12 months ago

My wife and I oppose this rezoning application. Our property is located on the corner of 77 St. and 112S Avenue, so just one block away from the property in question. In terms of sightlines, there is only a park between our house and the land proposed for rezoning so from our property we will have a clear view of any development that takes place on the site.

We bought our property in 1991. The Area Redevelopment Plan was in place and based on that and the City Plan at the time we thought we understood what to expect for future development in the neighbourhood. We purchased the property with the long-term in mind, planning to eventually develop our retirement home. We were surprised to learn the Area Redevelopment Plan was recently repealed since we never received notice that was planned, nor were we aware of any consultation in advance of it being rescinded.

City Administration, as part of the argument presented to Council to rescind the ARP, highlighted the role of the Infill Road Map 2018 for planning development in mature neighbourhoods. One of the key parts of the Road Map that will allow the public to understand proposed infill in their neighbourhood will happen when the City follows through on Action 11, which is publishing a public map outlining what infill is planned and where it is proposed. Right now no draft of that map has been proposed for public consultation, so we have no sense of what City planners may say about any development proposal. There should be consultation and discussion about infill development in advance of significant changes to zoning. Absent the plan/map promised in Action 11 of the Roadmap, consideration of this application for rezoning is not appropriate.

We built a new house on our property in 2011/12. We chose to build a 1,600-foot home – a bungalow that fits in with the style of housing in the neighbourhood. We like and value the family-friendly nature of the mix of older and new but still modest housing found in the area. We made sure our new house complemented existing housing styles in the neighbourhood to help preserve the community.

Cromdale is a mature community with quite a few long-term residents who own and live in our homes along 112 Avenue South and 79 Street. Current residents expect and deserve City support to ensure the character of the neighbourhood persists – and that means the zoning for the lot in question should remain RA7. A low-rise apartment building will help preserve the character, while a massive block of a building as allowed with RA8 zoning will not.

We support the plan to increase population density in the City through infill and always expected the property in question would be developed using the RA7 zoning. We do not object to a multi-family building on that site that is between 14.5 – 16 meters high as permitted under RA7 zoning. The height allowed under RA8 is 144% to 159% of the RA7 height. That is not a minor increase.

Good city planning encourages a mix of residential types, but always provides for transition. You don’t see tall apartment buildings planned right beside single-family dwellings. People should generally expect a mix of housing ranging from grade oriented residential to high-rise apartments, with higher apartments most often located near transit nodes. This allows a gradual transition from grade-oriented housing to taller buildings with higher population density closest to rapid transit. Right now there are no buildings higher than 4 stories anywhere near the site in question. A six-storey building on the corner as proposed by Ebenezer will stand out like a sore thumb in the existing neighbourhood.

I asked Stuart Carlyle, Planner with the City of Edmonton, what documents City Administration uses to guide their decision about whether to support rezoning applications since the Area Redevelopment Plan was repealed. He directed me to the Residential Infill Guidelines, A Manual of Planning and Design Guidelines for Residential Infill in Mature Neighbourhoods (Guidelines) as one of the key documents they refer to, so I looked at the part of that document that relates to Mid Rise Apartments (section G1), which are defined as being from 5 to 8 storeys.

Under the Location + Distribution heading, the Guidelines state that Mid Rise apartments should be developed on sites “over one hectare in size” (emphasis added). According to the handout from Ebenezer the site in question is .25 hectares, so only ¼ the size recommended for this type of building. The relatively small size of this site will really accentuate the apparent massiveness of the structure and make it stand out even more. The next bullet in the Guideline states smaller sites may be considered for mid-rise development where the building “…[is] isolated from small scale residential development by other land uses such as existing medium/large scale residential development….” The development proposed by Ebenezer is right next to small-scale residential. There is no separation, not even a laneway. In fact, the southern boundary abuts on a single-family property (RF1).

In the Guidelines under Point 4, Location + Distribution, it says the “site should have direct access to an arterial or collector road, or a road with the demonstrated capacity to accommodate the development without undue impact on adjacent areas.” I don’t believe the City will allow the development to provide direct access to the arterial road (112 Avenue) and no traffic study has been undertaken to demonstrate the impact on the two adjacent streets. It has been difficult to get a decent understanding of how traffic will be handled if the rezoning proceeds. There is no current landowner’s plan for parking since there is no requirement to make any commitments for anything when the zoning is a “standard” zone. So the landowner’s handout is just a “draft rendering”, with no commitment we can hold them to. For instance, the draft rendering shows 13 parking stalls across the north side of the building that would require vehicles to back out onto 112 Avenue. Apparently not much thought was put into the sketches provided nearby residents. Before any rezoning is considered, my wife and I believe a traffic study should be undertaken.

Most people expect the remaining lots currently zoned RA7 on the south side of 112 Avenue will eventually be redeveloped as low-rise apartments. The lower height allowed in RA7 compared to RA8 means the apartments won’t dominate the skyline the way a building 150% of the height allowed in RA7 will. A higher building will also contribute to a feeling of being hemmed in for the RF1-zoned properties nearby since there will be an apparent “wall” to the north with less than a block to the Kinnaird ravine.

The size problem with the site becomes really apparent when you look more closely at Section H of the Guidelines. On page H1 it states, “The Guidelines are intended to improve the livability and community benefit of large infill projects, mitigate their potentially negative impacts and ensure that the benefits of the development are enjoyed by both new and existing residents.” It goes on to discuss the neighbourhood context to ensure new development “[creates] the right interface between Large Infill Sites and existing small scale residential areas.” The Guidelines say that mid-rise apartment buildings should be developed on Large Infill sites.

Continuing to look at the Guidelines, on page H2, point 8 emphasises the need for planners to ensure they “[create] the right interface between Large Infill Sites and existing small scale residential areas.” Again, the Guidelines stipulate those sites used for Mid Rise infill should be Large Infill Sites. Putting a Mid Rise apartment on a site ¼ the recommended size right next to RF1 does not allow the right interface. That is why, on page H3 of the Guidelines the bullet in the middle of the page says:

“• Mid Rise infill development generally becomes feasible on sites of 1 hectare or larger”

Further along, Section H states, “The Guidelines are not a substitute for site specific studies and creative planning and design solutions. At the same time, inherent in the Guidelines are the fundamental planning principles of transition (emphasis added) between different scales of built form, the mitigation of negative impacts on adjacent properties and neighbourhoods, and the planning and design of livable, sustainable, communities.” We have different zones that allow different building sizes in the Zoning Bylaw to enable proper transition to occur. In this case, there would be no transition from single-family dwellings (RF1) to RA8 – the two would be side by side.

As noted earlier, the site in question is just ¼ of the size the Guidelines suggest should be considered for a Mid Rise apartment. The small size of the lot and the height allowed under RA8 zoning will make the building seem incongruous and be unsightly to the neighbours. Those of us who have owned our property in the neighbourhood a lot longer than Ebenezer and who have spent a lot of money improving and redeveloping our properties deserve to see the zoning remain the same. A low-rise building fits in the neighbourhood and would not be out of scale on the site but a mid-rise building would be too much.

Beginning on page H10 of the Guidelines there is a section of the document that outlines how to apply the specific guidelines to allow transition from small scale residential to mid-rise apartments. In reviewing the transition guidelines, I did not see how the development proposed by Ebenezer could fit on the site at all if the transition guidelines were followed. I checked with Mr. Carlyle to see if my interpretation was correct. He confirmed if the transition guidelines from the Residential Infill Guidelines, A Manual of Planning and Design Guidelines for Residential Infill in Mature Neighbourhoods are followed, the development as proposed by Ebenezer would not fit on the site. The transition guidelines do not even consider a situation where a mid-rise apartment building and a single-family dwelling (RF1) would abut.

Mr. Carlyle correctly pointed out these are guidelines, not policy. I have a lot of experience leading public agencies and am aware of the difference between policy and guidelines. Typically, guidelines are published by a public agency so the public will understand how policies will be implemented and how the agency will deal with issues or situations that arise. They typically help guide the public (and staff) in understanding how the agency will conduct its business and are not prescriptive in nature. That said, if a public agency has a guideline that it makes public, that agency should be prepared to explain in some detail why that guideline is not going to be followed. I have not heard any explanation why, in this zoning application, the guidelines set out for infill in mature neighbourhoods are not proposed to be applied.

While guidelines are not the same as policy, they are often based on policy adopted by public agencies. I invite you to have a look at this page on the City of Edmonton web site: https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/urban_planning_and_design/residential-infill-guidelines. This City web page clearly states, “The Guidelines are an approved City Policy….” This same web page goes on to say, “The Residential Infill Guidelines apply to all new housing in Edmonton’s mature neighbourhoods.” So, while guidelines may not be prescriptive, the way this is presented on the City web site, certainly leads the reader to believe the guidelines will be followed. The City should either follow the Guidelines, or change them after appropriate public consultation. There should be a policy base to municipal planning decisions – it should not just be like the wild west where anything goes.

We would like to see the proposed rezoning rejected. Stick with the RA7 zoning and keep any new development on the site in character with the existing neighbourhood.

cdent 12 months ago

I am very concerned as a Virginia Park resident east of this development as a community league member on the issue that relates to the R8 zoning amendment. I really appreciate the length to which these submissions go in detail of how this has impacted many of us and for the future in our closely related communities along the North Saskatchewan River. It should be a part of our public discourse to really appreciate what it is we have and what is being done without a commitment by our city administration. In order to confirm our opposition and with the time that has been spent on enlisting resources; waiting to hear from the developers that this project is inconsistent with the community itself and is one that is needing a full stop.

It would have a very large footprint up to 6 storeys which if approved on August 31, 2021 at the “second” City Council Public Hearing that this is really a transgression for our communities. It should have been discussed with the wider community when we see more details that could be the next city plan in our Exhibition lands. Also it missed the mark to the degree that makes this application more of a knee-jerk plan to superfluously “meet with the community”. It hasn’t been the best opportunity to voice our concerns as a number of communities have been left out of the area such as Virginia Park which has a seniors complex with over a 100 residents. If this is already a new project to be a part of the many amenities there are in the area such as parks, LRT without adding more commercial spaces which has been updated on their original list that we learned only will this be sold for the future? As to how the city council reacted in the first public hearing, when it felt like Bard Golightly had a presentation bent on swaying the minds on the council that it’s a needed amenity for seniors has me questioning this information altogether . Telling also was that this project was not “architecturally compatible” according to the Cromdale-Virginia Park ARP and that it was a senior’s residence which was not made public until that presentation was made.
I am opposed for the reasons that so many have relayed on this survey due to inaccuracies of the information and the scant details if any for plans by the developer. It seems egregious of them to submit an application so flawed.

On October 2, 2020 I sent a request to the City of Edmonton planning Branch Department as to how our communities have been impacted, the Virginia Park and Cromdale communities in particular, and how that was responded to by the City administration without any feedback only to confirm this is the process that it is advice from the city and the public. Although we appreciate efforts to be transparent and helpful to engage with urban planners it meant little to the developers as they do seem to get what they want. Our urban planner changed in the middle of the process of engagement which many of us did not have prior knowledge of it occurring. It was also badly timed during a pandemic and for a hearing that went quite quickly in favor of rezoning but an 8 storey building was the focus on a plan that was 100 years in the making when it puts us into the future that way we can’t debate it again. So after another year we may have had more information but Block F, Plan 992 6758, located at 7128 – Ada Boulevard, Virginia Park, as shown on Schedule ”A” of the Bylaw adopting this Provision will be a maximum height of up to 29.0 m on the east side.
https://webdocs.edmonton.ca/ZoningBylaw/DC2/DC2.htm#600/DC2_649.htm

The same planning branch for the city has now resolved to support another project for R8 rezoning, and the public has not been given the time in which we would need to respond as this has occurred during a pandemic.
https://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/PDF/CityPlanningBranch_PlanningCoordinationSection.pdf
For Example: Bylaw 18146 February 26, 2018 to reduce or eliminate on-street parking problems in the area by requiring a certain standard of parking in new development; protect existing historically significant structures, and preserve the historic flavour of the Viewpoint community; Bylaw 9257 April 10, 1990 To define appropriate land uses and any areas of potential expansion for Borden Park are only a few bylaws that are important to this area.
I echo the sentiments of those residents in this area in particular the notion of how this has been addressed.
“With the repealing of the Cromdale-Virginia Park Area Redevelopment Plan on June 6, our community lost the support that we thought were supporting future development in our small downtown community. There are ongoing engagements to get feedback on how development should continue under the new City Plan (with new District Planning sessions), so allowing this massive increase to the community prior to that engagement seems inappropriate.” Quote from Share your thoughts.

A plan to take the community on with no more than a month to confirm the issues is really not helpful following the pandemic and also negotiability, it seems, is not one of the developer’s strongpoints as demonstrated by Ebeneezer and those representing the group.

Truthfully the land acquisition has to be addressed. In all of this and with all the differences on many issues such as traffic, and the height of these buildings the one thing that as much as it is a community together is that the motivation to get a rezoning should not be an inevitable outcome. This was our experience with how this was made to make transitioning from old and “outdated” to a new city council that is needed. We are hoping to afford more than just a sweeping account by City’s administration on these details as it is inherently difficult to task a community to stop a development that has not been proven as a “Big City” plan.

No more development permits on this application should be made available until the next municipal city election as we are well aware that this decision has to be infallible and no mistakes on how it impacts the communities surrounding the development will be considered.
Sincerely, Virginia Park resident Sherry

Dangergirl 12 months ago

Who benefits

I am opposed to the proposed rezoning. In addition to the standard concerns of increased parking, traffic and crime I oppose the rezoning because of the negative impact the potential for a 6-story building would have on the community. Cromdale is almost exclusively single detached houses. A 6 story building, which the land owner has confirmed they plan to build if rezoning was approved, would dramatically reduce the privacy enjoyed by neighbouring residents. It would also negatively impact the character of the neighbourhood composed of single- and two-story houses with an imposing 23 M structure. There is no comparable building in Cromdale or Virginia park (the community directly to the East). Furthermore, rezoning is vehemently opposed by the vast majority of community members as has been documented is a recent survey. It is also worth mentioning that the part of Cromdale to the South of Kinard ravine has a DC2 development restriction. For a similar rezoning to be considered in that part of Cromdale would be unthinkable and for good reason: it would negatively impact the character of the community and people’s reason for living there. Why should North Cromdale be treated any differently?
A simple question that needs to be answered by Council when considering whether or not to approve the rezoning is ‘who benefits?’. It is assumed the developer/landowner would but what about the other stakeholders?

The community does not benefit
As mentioned above, the increased density would change the character of the neighbourhood by bringing in more traffic and parking, impacting the privacy of people’s yards and having a material impact on the visual landscape where currently the majority of dwellings are single and 2 story houses.

Future potential-residents do not benefit
Cromdale is an appealing place to live because it is a family-oriented community of affordable single detached houses with easy access to downtown and a variety of other facilities and attractions (parks, entertainment, education). Most importantly, it is a desirable place to live because of the lack of mid to large scale buildings. Cromdale provides a unique living opportunity for current / future Edmontonian who want single detached homes to raise young families. A 6 story building takes away from that while adding no additional appeal to residents. For those who want higher density and the same access to facilities and downtown, there is no need to live in Cromdale because of the abundance of nearby alternatives:
- Stadium Yards – 84 current units, 202 planned
- Exhibition land – 2 – 6 stories buildings, min 50 units per hector (up to 8500 residents)
- Multiple high-rise options on the East end of Jasper Ave

The City does not benefit
Rezoning would reduce the unique characteristics of Cromdale making it more like other centrally located neighbourhoods with their mix of single detached houses and low and mid-rise apartments. The City has a stated objective of providing housing for future Edmontonians by increasing housing density. However, this needs to be balanced with providing a range of options not only in housing types but community types as well. By maintaining the character of inner-city communities, which can meet the varied living/lifestyle preferences of current and future residents, our city can continue to be an inviting place for people to move and become long term Edmontonians.

In conclusion, I believe that unfortunately only a single stakeholder would benefit from the proposed rezoning. When Council makes its final decision, it needs to not only consider the negative impact rezoning would have on the neighbourhood but also the lack of support for the proposal from community members and the lack of benefit to the City and future residents.

Olivier C 12 months ago

My wife and I own a property on 112S Avenue and are opposed to this rezoning. I Just want to add a few points to the many that have already been submitted by our community.

1. This has not been a consultation in any way; it has been a sales pitch. The developer has been trying to sell the neighborhood on how good it will be to have Seniors in the neighborhood and a seniors facility nearby. We have never been opposed to this, we oppose the 6 story building and how it does not fit in with the neighborhood.

2. There have been no actual plans submitted for us to look at, we have been shown similar buildings that may or may not be built here.

3. To administration I would like an answer to what can the neighborhood do if the area is rezoned and then the developer decides to sell?

4. The developer has said that there they have no intention of submitting any concrete plans until they receive the RA8 zoning and will not consider anything under the current zoning.

5. When asked about a 6 story building in our neighborhood and how it will look/fit in during the zoom consultation the answer given was "In 5 years you will not notice it and there is lots of trees in the neighborhood".

6. What is the impact of the rezoning on the Kinnard ravine?

7. Who is GG? And why is there no name or address left?

Allowing this rezoning contradicts the City's vision of promoting livable neighborhoods. This community is 1 City Administration and Council should promote as a model for all others to strive to become; not rezone at the request of 1 owner/ developer.

Thank You
John and Heather Lazaruk


John Lazaruk 12 months ago

My husband and I own a heritage property one block east from the proposed rezoning and development area. As the Neighbourhood Watch Ambassador for North Cromdale, I support redevelopment of this large empty plot of land. An appropriate sized and well-designed development has the potential to increase security in our neighbourhood and add to its vibrancy. However, a 6 story building would dwarf the surrounding single story buildings and diminish the character of the neighbourhood. Therefore, I oppose RA8 zoning.

M. Moore 12 months ago

We are 21-year residents at 7905 112 South Avenue and will be directly impacted by the proposed rezoning to RA8. This proposal is not in alignment with the current City of Edmonton’s Neighbourhood Revitalization Program that is “to improve the livability of Edmonton’s mature and established neighbourhoods and mobilize community-led action.” My husband and I are opposed to the rezoning proposal to change the land use from RA7 to RA8, a 6-story building is too large and does not fit.
The lack of community consultation, clarity, transparency, and lack of respect/disregard for the residents thus far from Ebenezer is unacceptable and should concern both council and our neighbours.

This unique pocket in Edmonton should be preserved and protected. We believe the impact of a 6 story development would destroy the vibrant “livability” of this eclectic and historical neighbourhood fringing on the delicate natural park space of the Kinnard Ravine. Few homes have exchanged hands over our 21 years as residents as this is a desirable neighborhood with a mix of well-kept single-family homes. Of course, new residents are often young families attracted by the sense of community and vibrancy of this narrow pocket. Our daughter, her husband, and our two grandsons moved 5 doors to the east of us last fall adding to the buzz of neighbourhood children playing, biking, scooting in front of our homes almost every night.

A six-story building would tower over the community. The reference that there will be almost zero impact on traffic and parking in the community is unrealistic. Increased density and traffic are huge safety concerns.

We are not opposed to developing the vacant parcel of land, but we are opposed to any development taller than 4 stories. A walk down our street would make it obvious to anyone that a 6-story development does not fit. The residents have been loud and clear that this proposal is not beneficial to us but could clearly be detrimental to this splendid community.
As quoted from the city’s revitalization mandate, “Together, they develop a vision and goals for the neighbourhood, and identify community-level projects that will help advance those goals and vision.” Let’s move towards crafting a suitable development that will strengthen and enhance this unique community.
Don and Juanita Roos

JRoos 12 months ago

I am not in favour of this rezoning. The building is too large for the area which is primarily composed of single family homes and low rise walk up apartments.

Rezoning a parcel of land from RF1 single family dwelling to RA8 is too big of a change.  The RA7 site is sufficient to accomplish the City's goals of increased density.

This proposed development is located in a small nook that cannot accommodate this scale of development.  There is less than 1/2 a block between 112 Ave and 112A ave. Behind 112A ave the neighbourhood ends as it abuts Kinnaird Ravine.  The proposed development building would double the height of the surrounding buildings and dominate the area. It is incongruous with the neighbourhood directly affected by the change.

The residents in the area would be profoundly negatively affected by the height and imposition of the building looming over their small homes.

I am also concerned that a zoning change to RA8 gives the residents no comfort that a seniors complex will actually be built. Consultation with the developers indicated that they viewed it as eventually being turned into apartment dwellings at some future date.

In short, I am opposed to such a dramatic and negative change to our residential area.

Aisling 12 months ago

Anthony Oliver here. I am a resident of Cromdale and the current Civics Director for the Parkdale-Cromdale Community League.

Further to my submissions to Council on May 4, my opposition to the application by Ebenezer Developments is not simply due to the prospect of higher density but rather because an RA8 would be too abrupt a transition given the unique size and layout of our ribbon community. The RA8 footprint would take up 1/2 a block in a residential neighbourhood that is only 1 block wide. The RA8 would take over the northern skyline creating significant privacy concerns for the entire neighborhood. The RA8 would add 50% more density in a single-dwelling family area that already has densification issues. The RA8 would erode our property values and surely destroy one of Edmonton’s most well-established, historic communities.

Since this matter appeared before Council, the Developer has refused to provide a design or site plan, recently acknowledging it may sell the property if the RA8 is approved by Council. The Developer has failed to introduce the community to Points West who the Developer says will co-develop the land if and only if the RA8 is approved. The Developer has failed to commit to a set number of units or parking stalls, and fails to confirm whether those parking stalls will be above or below ground. The Developer refuses to discuss reducing the height or footprint of the building advising that Points West will not take part in the development if the footprint is reduced. The Developer refuses to consider a Direct Control application that would provide assurances of maximum height or footprint. The Developer refuses to conduct impact studies such as a traffic assessment while conceding that a seniors rental is no longer permitted. This vitiates their claim that parking won't be an issue because seniors don't drive.

The current zoning seems more appropriate as the planned Medium-High density structures to the north and west would transition smoothly into the Low-Rise zone which could serve the day-to-day needs of our neighbourhood, i.e. coffee shop, professional services, etc. Further:
• The northwest parcel (zoned CNC) could yield a two storey building with commercial uses on the ground floor and residential dwellings above.
• The northeast parcel (zoned RA7 - Low Rise Apartment) and middle parcel constitutes the majority of this site. This parcel permits commercial space as it faces an arterial roadway. That could be a coffee shop or other residential use small businesses.
• The RA7 has a minimum density of 45 dwellings/hectare and an allowable height of 14.5 metres for a flat roof and 16 metres for a gabled roof (approx. 4 storeys). The Minimum equates to approximately 12 dwellings for this site, but per Mr Carlyle the density would likely be much larger than 12 units.
• The parcel zoned RF1 could yield a semi-detached house or two skinny houses (through a subdivision). Both secondary suites and garden suites are opportunities in this zone as well. In other words, the southernmost parcel could yield up to 6 dwellings under its current zoning of RF1.

Ebenezer Developments has no other projects - in process or complete - known to the City Planner or to us. Ebenezer failed to file its annual return in 2020 and has nothing registered on the PPR. Ebenezer has owned this land since 2007 yet has done nothing with it, a detriment not just to us but to the City which seeks infills and core densification.

Anthony Oliver 12 months ago

I am vehemently opposed to this rezoning application! I think this application is all about flipping the property and making a hefty profit. All that needs to be said has been stated in the previous comments and covered very thoroughly. I am disgusted by the whole process, or lack there of. This rezoning DOES NOT consider the uniqueness of our neighbourhood, it’s history and heritage and most importantly the residents. To state the decision has already been determined is outrageous! Is it only the people with deep pockets that are allowed to address their bottom line, or those with the “right connections”! This does not pass the “smell test”! The little guy, our community, gets bullied, told untruths, an bulldozed, all in the name of turning a profit!! This is a very contentious issue and City Council is totally disregarding the uniqueness of our situation and our bottom line ($). I propose, that at the very least, this decision be postponed until AFTER the upcoming Civic Elections. This will at least allow us to send a message using the ballot box as well as giving fresh eyes an opportunity to review this debacle! Our eclectic neighbourhood, referred to as The Jewel of Cromdale deserves better.

Nancy B.
17 year resident

Nancy B. 12 months ago

Engaged Edmonton Submission-RA8 Cromdale
July 4, 2021
My wife, Jean, and I own our home at 7731- 112 Ave. South NW, Edmonton. We have lived here for over twenty-two years. Our property is 75 meters from the S.E corner of the proposed redevelopment site.
We are part of the group of over 200 people opposing the amendments to the Bylaw that signed the recent petition. Specifically, we oppose Bylaw amendment 19687 changing the zoning from RA7 to RA8.
There are, for us, two major issues with the developer’s proposal:
1. The height of the proposed Building.
2. The increased population density that will be associated with the proposed change.
Height
The most significant difference between the current RA7 zoning and RA8 amendment is the height of the proposed building to be a 6 -story apartment building.
This building will dominate our area as it creates privacy concerns and fundamentally changes the nature of our community.
Our properties will be overlooked by a large imposing building that is not representative of our community. The positioning of one RA8 zoned building immediately beside the RF1 zoned residential properties, in the immediate vicinity, with no transition space between, is unacceptable.
Density
We already know that the density around our residential area will be increased by the city’s 30 - year Redevelopment Plan for the whole area to the North of 112 Ave. Significant density increases are proposed, particularly around the Coliseum site, and the new proposed LRT station site. At least this density increase, as per the City’s area redevelopment plan, is using land that is not right in the middle of a residential area.
The increased traffic will be a problem and decrease the safety of all residents in the area. Given that the City of Edmonton no longer requires a builder to provide parking for all residents means parking may well not cover the building resident’s needs, let alone provide for visitors and service providers. There is very little parking space on the streets and avenues immediately adjacent to the proposed redevelopment. In winter, 79 Street heading south often becomes a small one lane street because of parking allowed on both sides of the street and snow accumulation.
Cromdale crime rates are already high. We know that Cromdale’s total crime rates are 125% above the Canadian National average. Violent crime is 76% higher and property crime is 141% higher. (Areavibes, AB Crime Rates.) We work with our area Neighborhood Watch volunteers and know that it is a challenge to get residents to report minor property crimes. The reported property crime, we believe, is much lower than the reality.
We are also concerned that the increased density of the area may adversely impact single family property values in the area.
Since the May 4, 2021 Public Hearing, we have participated in one of the consultation meetings with Ebenezer’s representatives and were scheduled to attend one of their Zoom meetings. The site meeting attended was simply an attempt to convince the residents of Ebenezers’ representatives plans for the property and to go through the motions of satisfying the City of Edmonton request that the missing consultation be completed. A suggestion was made that they look at a four- story building that would be lower but cover a larger area of the land. Their response was “we could have a look at that” but no commitments were made.
At that meeting, questions were not answered fully or in some cases accurately. At the meeting I asked if the land in question was up for sale? I was advised by Ebenezers representatives that it was not.
In the May 4th City Council Public Hearing Brad Golightly, who spoke for Ebenezer said that he had advised Ebenezer to take down their “For Sale” sign just before that meeting and that the land was no longer for sale. Ebenezer’s representatives admitted, when, challenged, at the “consultation meeting”, that the sign was taken off the property just before that hearing.
What is very interesting is that this property has been on MLA listings for approximately 2 years and can be viewed currently at:
https://www.realtor.ca/real-estate/21757309/11233-79-st-nw-edmonton-cromdale
It appears that neither City Council nor the community members were provided the correct status on the land sale.
Ebenezer’s representatives were also asked what guarantee the community has that this land will be used for a senior’s residence. They advised that there was no guarantee that this would actually happen.
The written information provided to residents by Ebenezer’s representatives, and the plans within, were referred to by them as being simply “concept designs” and it was clear that beyond their claim that they have a contract with Points West to build a senior’s residence there are currently no detailed plans. Although it was our understanding that a representative from Points West would come to our meetings they did not show up.
The idea of a Direct control (DC1) zoning was discussed however we were advised that the City of Edmonton was not in favor of DC1 zoning.
Ebenezer’s representatives asked us to trust them a number of times during the meeting, but gave us little reason to do so. We declined to attend any further meetings with them as a result of the misinformation that was provided by Ebenezers’ representatives and the lack of meaningful consultation.
In conclusion we remain totally opposed to the rezoning of the property in question. In our view, RA7 is appropriate zoning and one that more accurately reflects the needs of the community. We ask that you vote to retain the current zoning of the area.

Cal and Jean Wrathall

Cal Wrathall 12 months ago

My husband and I do not support rezoning the site to RA8 for a 75 foot building footprint.

We believe context matters in land use decisions, and the context of this change is one that would result in the infill development dominating the neighbourhood.

As the city "evolves" infill guidelines to make room for the planned growth in existing neighbourhoods the support of existing neighbourhoods is important, and the vast majority of residents that are impacted by this change are not supportive of this change due to the size of the building immediately next to single family homes.

The requested rezoning of this site to RA8 would take this site to the largest newly-allowable form identified in the new "missing middle" residential infill guidelines. A transition from small single family homes to a 75 foot apartment building is inconsistent with guidelines that otherwise include guidelines to protect existing residents, such as: mature neighbourhood overlays that take into account what is currently built and integrating new housing with existing forms; the missing middle zone reviews that identify configuration guidelines that attempt to reduce the impact of overall massing in RF3 zones and have height limitation near set backs in RF5 zones.

Because this rezoning is going to RA8, it seems there is no protection for integration into an existing, mature neighbourhood, and the only guidelines related to "fitting in", besides a few set backs, seem to be (from RA8 zone documents): "#10. Side and front Façades shall include design techniques including, but not limited to, the use of varied rooflines, variations in building Setbacks and articulation of building Façades, in order to minimize the perception of massing, eliminate large uninterrupted expanses of wall and provide visual interest when the structure is Abutting an adjacent roadway."
The only reference is the visual interest to the ADJACENT ROADWAY, there are no guidelines to how it should fit with the existing homes.

Previous infill guidelines identified RA8 as high density forms, and it is only recently that RA8 has been "brought in" to residential infill guidelines.
With the repealing of the Cromdale-Virginia Park Area Redevelopment Plan on June 6, our community lost the support that we thought were supporting future development in our small downtown community. There are ongoing engagements to get feedback on how development should continue under the new City Plan (with new District Planning sessions), so allowing this massive increase to the community prior to that engagement seems inappropriate.

Finally, at the initial May 5 Public Hearing, many community members referenced our community ARP for support against the rezoning application, but NO ONE from council or administration pointed out that our ARP was scheduled to be repealed at the June 6 session. That was very relevant to our community. Council sent this rezoning back for further "engagement" as no one was aware of the developers plans. Comments made at the time, and confirmed by administration was that this engagement was unlikely to make a difference to the outcome at the next public hearing. Administration met with us after the first public hearing and advised us they were NOT going to review their recommendation to approve the rezoning. I have no prejudice against the developer or their proposed use, however this engagement seems to be a "check box", and not a genuine process. Personally I don't feel that anyone on council is interested in understanding why allowing a 6 story, 75 foot building in the middle of a small, single family residential neighbourhood, that is very close to downtown and to new development coming with the Exhibition Grounds redevelopment is the wrong decision and will change the nature of this small neighbourhood. More appropriate use would be to retain the RA7 zoning and build small form

Shauna.Faragini 12 months ago

Further to my earlier comments about Mr. Golightly's ability to stay on message. It contrasts with the Ebenezer inability to say anything to convince us otherwise that they just want to obtain a RA8 to make a sale potentially more valuable.
My neighbours have done a good job of pointing the inconsistencies of the Ebenezer narrative. As well, they highlighted possible negative impacts for the established community.
What stands out for me is that Council is being asked to take a big leap of faith on this proposed rezoning.
All that has been presented are: a drawing of a building from another project and a generic executive summary of their proposal.
There are no architectural drawings, and no satisfactory explanation of why the project ("numbers") won't work as a low rise.
I would urge Council members to tour the area of concern, if they have not done so already. It would help show the decision makers the difference between reasonable densification and congestion, (with some visualization required).
Having said that, we do not support the rezoning to RA8.

Sincerely,
Howard and Nataliya Gibb

hgibb 12 months ago

We have resided in Cromdale on 79 St for six years now. The lots under consideration for rezoning to RA8 are kitty corner to our west side of the street. Therefore, a six story building of whatever designation would have some tangible effect upon our family's privacy and quality of life within the community.
I did say "whatever" designation, since the Public Hearing the owner's actual commitment to a senior's residence is unclear. Community residents Zoom attending the community engagement opportunity were left feeling underwhelmed by the Ebenezer group.
Unless their spokesperson Bard Golightly keeps the talking points straight, the narrative wanders.

hgibb 12 months ago

The proposed RA8 development at that height is a huge invasion of privacy for the residents located immediately south of the proposed development. A building of this size is not in keeping with the style and look of the neighborhood.
In addition to this, Ebenezer has made it clear that the most important thing to them is to make money by selling units. They have not indicated that they are trying to serve the community or seniors (for whom they say they are wanting to develop this property). They have indicated that it has been an expensive investment for them. However, it is not the responsibility of the community to bear the cost of Ebenezer's projected loss. It is not the City of Edmonton's responsibility to approve the RA8 application purely because it helps Ebenezer to financially recoup their losses in this property, or to help them profit by it on the backs of the residents. It is appropriate to approve this consolation for RA7. It is NOT appropriate to approve it for RA8.

Rosemarie S. 12 months ago

I was hopeful following the City Council meeting on May 5th, 2021, when council members voted to have the re-zoning proposal sent back for further study and discussion with the community. Meetings were arranged to have the residents in the community meet the landowners (Ebeneezer Developments) who are requesting this re-zoning change and their team to see if we could find some common ground to support their re-zoning application.

Unfortunately, the optimism vanished quickly, on June 24th, 2021 during the first ‘Zoom meeting’ with Ebeneezer, their team and the members of the community. A question was asked as to why Ebeneezer required to change the current zoning of RA7 (4 storey) to RA8 (6 storey)? We in the community can see that there are other RA7 - 4 storey buildings in the community that both fit and are financially viable. The response from Ebeneezer was that the "numbers don't work for them as a 4-storey building", even though the developer they are working with operates many senior living buildings in different cities that are 4 storeys or less.

Any hopes of compromise by Ebeneezer, by working with the community quickly vanished and does not appear to be an option...or something that Ebeneezer wishes to seriously consider or pursue.

It also appears to be disingenuous that the same company who has submitted this re-zoning application to City Council, also has this parcel of land that will be affected by this application listed for sale at the following link (still active and available at the time of this feedback on July 4, 2021). Perhaps by having City Council approve this re-zoning application to build a tower that is 50% taller than any other building we have in the community will increase their land sale value? How does that help our community?

http://www.remaxstonyplain.com/listing/edmonton/cromdale/e4193404

Our community supports city councils desire to increase to the density of our city, but we strongly and virtually unanimously agree that RA7 accomplishes that goal in Cromdale, without destroying our community.

Roman W.

Roman W 12 months ago

I am a Cromdale resident and a retired business and sociology prof with a doctorate. I am familiar with the housing requirements of seniors as my mother passed away as a resident of Virginia Park a couple of years ago.

I am totally opposed to the building of a 6-storey rental complex in this area which is presently quite delightful with its gentle mix of historic, new, and quaint houses, 4 storey multiple dwelling buildings, and its senior and family residents all in a beautiful location.

I helped with a petition against this rezoning request that gained well over 200 signatures from residents in 3 subphases of the ARP. Of the 20 or so houses that I covered in the area, all but one family signed, and that one did not because they had not been aware of what was going on. The entire community is united in its opposition to this rezoning application.

I have also written to the city planner, Stuart Carlyle and sent letters to all the city councillors. I attended the Public Meeting via zoom on May 4 and 5, and have attended 2 subsequent meetings with Ebenezer representatives. The developer has refused to provide us with actual drawings, has changed the number of suites for this development from 66 to 80 and now says that they don’t know what the building will be other than taking up at least half the block. If this development is allowed to proceed, it will ruin this wonderful community and stunningly beautiful neighbourhood.

A 6 storey build in this narrow build does not belong in this residential neighbourhood. If approved it will be the beginning of the end for residential housing here. It is a very slippery slope. Assess the vacancies present in the newly constructed highrises along Jasper and 82 St alongside the LRT. They have changed the entire skyline of the area, there are many, and yet families, especially those with young children still prefer to live at ground level and move to the suburbs whenever they can. The argument that increased densification via high rise buildings in inner cities will help prevent urban sprawl is spurious at best. Yet this is the philosophy that City Council is pursuing. Sociological studies show that people- all people- prefer living in communities- at best no more than 4 storeys above ground.

The developer first told us it would be a seniors build, but it seems now they cannot be held legally to any such commitment. At the last meeting the developer admitted they may sell once the RA8 is approved. Regardless there is already a quite lovely seniors’ development at Virginia Park, two pharmacies within easy walking or driving distance, and a fully equipped medical centre opposite to where this building will be. And crossing the road at the corner of 112 Ave and 79 Street is deadly. The commercial services that will accompany this building on the ground floor will not be attractive or useful to people passing by on 112 Avenue-since they are usually going or returning from work, (isn’t this the reason the road was widened recently?), and if they do attract people, the parking in the neighbourhood again becomes an enormous issue.

All the evidence to date suggests that the developer is trying to pull the wool over Council’s eyes. The actual developer will not be Ebenezer but rather Pointe West, (or could it be MDM construction according to their brochure they distributed in the neighbourhood?). We simply do not know for sure who will do this build. We have not seen a representative from any such company although they promised to introduce us. They also informed us that Bard Golightly was their chosen representative to market this development at the last city council meeting, though once the zoning is approved, he will apparently have nothing to do with the project.

An RA8 by virtue of its size, whatever its purpose will negatively impact neighbourhood shade and sunlight as well as the night sky unique and precious to Borden Park.

The building will be a mighty obstruction overhanging our neighbourhood. It simply does not fit except as potentially the beginning of a row of undesirable equally oversized buildings along an increasingly busy 112 Ave. Is this City Council’s intention? Our neighbourhood may be able to accommodate a 4 storey seniors’ centre as a socially desirable development, but 4 storeys will always be enough here. Especially since it will require sufficient ground parking for contractors and visitors, sufficient underground parking for senior residents (seniors are increasingly reluctant to give up their vehicles), and sufficient green space surrounding it to be attractive. A six-storey building, built to maximum footprint, where inhabitants can overlook surrounding gardens and homes is a huge invasion of privacy and also quite frightening.

I cannot believe that the city planner Stuart Carlyle actually said, after Council sent this issue back, that there is NOTHING we can do or say to change administration’s approval. Why then even go through this process?

If the developers are sincere, they should be prepared to meet the neighbourhood requests for actual plans. But they say it is too expensive. This really does appear to be a bait and switch proposal – bait us with a humanitarian pitch about what such a development can offer seniors, and then selling to whomever to turn a profit on dead money.

What happened to the idea of Public Private Partnerships where the neighbourhood can be involved as an equal partner? After all we too pay taxes, and have a major interest in this development in terms of the investment in our homes, our families, our neighbours and our future. A decent partnership is what a truly visionary city council should be encouraging as a demonstration of what is both possible and socially desirable in urban neighbourhoods such as this.
Dr. Jennifer Bowerman, Cromdale condominium resident.

Dr. Jennifer Bowerman 12 months ago

As residents of this neighborhood for 19 years, we are opposed to the RA8 rezoning.
The Developer has applied to the City for this property to be rezoned from RA7 to RA8. On this web site in the right hand column there is a PDF file Applicant’s Statement. Ebenezer have listed the "advantages for seniors" with this project. What they have failed to tell us, the residents, of this community is how a 6 story building would "enhance" our neighborhood. In the same column is a PDF Conceptual Massing Model. This 6 story block absolutely towers over our community of single family homes and 3 walk up apartments.
While the developer gave City Council and then sent some of us a possible rendering of the project and an information sheet on the forgotten 40 %, on Sat June 26th at the "On Site Meet and Greet" Ebenezer told us “This may or may not be a Senior Center” . What is stopping the developer from selling once the land as been rezoned.
What benefit is this RA8 development to our neighborhood. It will decrease our property values, increase our local traffic and make street parking even more difficult. A six story apartment building with balconies will take away our privacy.
Originally we understood a smaller development was going on the property, which was not opposed. A four story senior center would be welcomed to our community.
The city is already planning an 8500 residential expansion on the Exhibition Lands. Shouldn’t that be enough to satisfy the city’s need for higher density?
But this a dramatic change, it will dominate our area, controlling our lives and financial futures for years.

Debbie Boccabella & Peter Luciw

Debbie Boccabella 12 months ago

I am totally against the rezoning. Privacy issues with such a tall building over looking our yards. Low rise apartments would not be such an issue but a 6 floor high rise is not fitting for the local area. There is also comment that they will have a pharmacy and walk in clinic which I am also completely against. We have at least two pharmacies within walking distance and a massive health centre with out of hours service along with other walk in centres in very close proximity. There is no requirement for such facilities. I support the building of a seniors facility on a more modest scale which would be more fitting to the area.

KimV 12 months ago