LDA20-0279 Bateman Lands Mid-Rise

I am opposed to the rezoning application primarily due to the proposed building height of 34 m, the building mass, the insufficient setback of the floors above the ground floor and the insufficient amount of ground floor commercial space. Generally I am supportive of multi-family development in exiting neighborhoods as long as those developments are appropriate for the scale of the neighborhood and adjacent buildings. In this case the proposed 8 to 10 story building with a total height of 34 m is too high and too large for the site given the adjacent zoning and buildings. I note that the previous proposed project for which the current DC2 zoning was approved promised more commercial space including a grocery store. This proposal can have as little as 100 square metes of commercial space which is effectively nothing. To be acceptable this application should be limited to a maximum of six or seven stories which is at least consistent with recently approved applications for rezoning of sites immediately to the west along 89th avenue and on the north-east corner of 90th avenue and 99th street. Additionally the proposed DC2 provision should require that the entire ground floor to be commercial space to be inline with the current DC2 provision. For these reasons I ask that the City reject the proposed rezoning application.

The information provided by the developer about this application is misleading and I would like the City to set stricter rules for any future DC2 zoning applications.

The zoning request is for a maximum height of 34 meters or, as stated, 8-10 storeys. However, the rendering of the possible building only has seven storeys. This is misleading. It is much easier to judge a proposal based on the enclosed renderings, than on the actual numbers that are requested. The shown building drawing appears to be much smaller than the largest building allowed under the requested rules. The City should require all applicants to enclose a sample drawing of the largest possible building allowed under the application.

The range of proposed commercial space is equally problematic. Residents in the neighbourhood would like to see at least another grocery store and cafe to replace the previous ones, which seems quite possible within 650m2. However, there is nothing from stopping the developer to only have 100m2 of commercial space, barely enough for a cafe. With an 8-10 storey building, twice as high as is normally allowed, it is very reasonable to require at least a full storey of commercial space.

Finally, requesting a setback in a range of 1-2 meter is meaningless if there is nothing stopping the developer from implementing the shortest setback. Proposing the range of 1-2 meter, especially combined with a
proposed building drawing with 2 meter setbacks, is again misleading.

I think this is an acceptable level of development. It is very important that at least a small grocery store goes into the commercial space of this building - there used to be one in the old building and it was the only grocery store for that area. The next closest grocer is 25-30 mins walk away. These types of amenities are essential for the neighbourhood. It is also important that the design of the building suit the historic nature of the area.

Removed by moderator.

Removed by moderator.

I think this is an acceptable level of development. It is very important that at least a small grocery store goes into the commercial space of this building - there used to be one in the old building and it was the only grocery store for that area. The next closest grocer is 25-30 mins walk away. Having these types of amenities makes the area even more desirable. It is also important that the design of the building suit the historic nature of the area.

I'm cautiously optimistic about this change. I I'd like to see between 19-30 3bdrm units which I expect is a stretch. And other family friendly design features including storage, bike parking that can accommodate trailers etc. There needs to be more that 100 sq m of commercial. And there should be some extension to provide for patio, outdoor seating space. I'd like to see design features that are very intentional about breaking up the facade and mitigating wind. It's not as tall but it's now a very big box. Indoor amenity shared spaces should be included in order to improve neighbourliness making residents. The garage style door was a great feature added last time. Side walk along 99st should be doubled along the whole stretch. And the rooftop gardens should be kept as well. Need to go read the zoning now... :)

The original application had the same number of dwellings as this revised proposal. There was in my opinion at that time NOT enough underground parking for the number of units, and the assumption that commercial customers would use underground rather than street parking was wishful thinking. There is currently inadequate street parking in this corner of old Strathcona, and this will be further reduced when 100 st. becomes a bikeway, with the loss of street parking there. Note that this area is still enough distant from the core that many couples have 2 cars... Also, the continued reliance on exit via 90th avenue is absurd, considering how narrow that street is, and an additional access from 89 ave. is not going to alleviate the traffic problem substantially. There is NO information on the number of one vs two vs three bedroom units to be provided, and a few townhouses at the base along 89 ave. are not adequate "family" housing. I suggest the lack of interest in the previous high-rise design (a lot of one-bedrooms, emphasis on bicycle use) indicates there would be more interest in 2 to 3 bedroom units for couples and small families or eg divorced with teenage children, as children cannot be blocked from residing in new buildings. There should be provision for trees/landscaping along 89 ave as well as 99 st.

The notice states “ maximum floor area ratio of 6.0. What does this mean?
The first proposal included a driveway into parking from 89 ave. This one expects 190+ residents to enter from the alley way and mostly from 90 ave. Have any of the planning committee driven on 90 ave during the day or anytime that parking is allowed on two sides? It’s an accident waiting to happen.
A big concern is that the plan is still to have similar number of units. There is currently very limited on street parking on 90 or 89ave. Where will visitors park?
Perhaps if Bateman is interested in improving the community, a retail space with the displaced grocery store, hair salon, wine bar, cafe/ bakery, laundry services that we all sadly miss could be housed?!

What could go wrong this time? Please provide timelines on project start and completion pending re-zoning approval by Council.

What could go wrong this time? Please add information on projected start and completion of this project pending Council approval.

I would still like to see commercial on the main floor, such as grocery and cafe. These are important amenities to the community and were included in the first proposal.

Thanks for the great summary. This application seems very reasonable, and as a whole, I think making rezoning and further development as easy as possible has a lot of positive externalities for Edmontonians.

Please ensure that this building will contain a significant number of family units to support the maintenance of our neighbourhood as the family-oriented community we value so highly. Also, please ensure adequate on-site parking to avoid excessive demand on the already heavily utilized street parking in the area. Thanks for asking

Just a comment to encourage getting rid of the parkade to bring down unit prices.