LDA19-0297 - 86 Avenue Mid-rise Rezoning (11023-11045 86 Avenue NW)

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

** The discussion has concluded, and the What We Heard Report is available for viewing.**

Thank you for participating in engagement activities for this rezoning application.

The application is expected to go to City Council Public Hearing for a decision this fall, with the exact date still to be determined. For more information, please visit these FAQs for Council meetings.

** The discussion has concluded, and the What We Heard Report is available for viewing.**

Thank you for participating in engagement activities for this rezoning application.

The application is expected to go to City Council Public Hearing for a decision this fall, with the exact date still to be determined. For more information, please visit these FAQs for Council meetings.

Tell us what you think a​bout 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.

CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

I am a resident on 85 Ave, and I am strongly opposed to the proposed amendment to the Garneau Area Redevelopment Plan, which has already been carefully and collaboratively developed. Like many of my neighbours have expressed, I echo their concerns. I am very invested in the healthy growth and development of this community, and this proposal is not in alignment with the best interests of the community in this way. Please respect the GARP.

Alda Ngo about 2 months ago

As community members, and direct neighbours to this proposed development, we are receptive to more density. That said, we cannot accept the proposal in its current form. It must be something that abides by the current ARP and fits within current zoning. We take to many of the concerns and points already made by other community members, that oppose the proposal in its current form. Thanks so much for the engagement. We look forward to more :)

smbf about 2 months ago

You have a lot to read in all of the comments, so I will present my oppostion to this proposal in point form:1. This proposal is not so remarkable that it deserves to have the Garneau ARP tossed aside in favour of this.2. The City has invested heavily in the 109 St Plan, and there are opportunities along 109 St for the developer to exercise their desires along the artery without rezoning.3. The City has invested heavily in Missing Middle guidance for "multi-unit housing that falls between single detached homes and tall apartment buildings...row housing, triplexes/fourplexes, courtyard housing and walk-up apartments."Permitting this proposal for the middle of Garneau is not fulfilling the missing component; a true middle of Garneau will be gone, though.4. Looking at hard-laboured-over 109 St Plan of 2 (above) and the Award-Winning Missing Middle plea of 3 (above) together tells us all that the developer does not put City-building first, nor community building. 5. The City is investing heavily in a new zoning bylaw and, though not law yet, does this proposal fit in any way into that new future? We suspect not; it is an aberration to be tolerated in perpetuity.6. The parking story is very much up in the air, with the new rules about developer-choose model; is this developer courageous enough to embrace any planning objectives byA. skipping a level of parking,B providing proper utility and bike storage on the remaining level, C lowering the building so there is a ground level entrance and not a building perched on an alienating concrete box (parkade) that permanently divorces what should be the ground-orientated main-floor dwellings from earth, D do 4 levels at 3m floor-to-floor ( that's 9 ft ceilings), andE invest the savings into net-zero design to atone for the loss of opportunity in perpetuity of those to the north who may right now be tearing up plans to solar panel their roofs?6. Neighbourhood renewal will clash with this oversize-for-location proposal and will be a heavy touch on the new intrastructure--likiekly damaging it without recompense to those who will spend the next 20 years paying for the work. 7. I repeat Point 1: this proposal is not remarkable in the least. If approved, the pain of the construction will not be rewarding (except to the developer) other than as the building that is a constant reminder of a current City admininstration that will appear to be beholden to short-term economic interests (fees for City and jobs for a few workers for a while) over long-lived community. Thank you.

AK about 2 months ago

1. Incomplete Consultation - Amendment to the Statutory PlanAccurate evaluation of the proposed rezoning is seriously impeded by the absence of the accompanying … and essential … proposed Amendment to the Garneau Area Redevelopment Plan (GARP). That information is mandated by Bylaw 6221, the GARP. Therefore, I reserve final comment on this proposed DC2 bylaw until I have had sufficient opportunity to review and comment on the proposed GARP amendment.Accurate evaluation is also impeded by the City’s improper amendment to the GARP in 2017 which deleted critical City Council Direction for this and other Garneau properties. Should this proposal go forward for City Council consideration, I strongly recommend that the improper 2017 deletion be reversed and the proper City Council policy direction be reinstated.2. Proposed DC2 Bylaws.3 USESNo comment at this time.s.4 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR USESNo comment at this time.s.5 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR SITE LAYOUT AND BUILT FORMNUMBER OF DWELLINGS – This 400% increase from the number of Dwellings allowed by the GARP is excessive. It would irrevocably change the character of the interior portions of Garneau neighbourhood from that of a modest to medium density mixed housing area to a density equivalent to the most intensive RA9 Zone for short term student rental housing. Through the GARP, City Council has already defined large portions of the neighbourhood for the more congested high density housing forms exactly like this one, but those allocations are based on sound planning principles. Some of those principles are that densities of this nature and housing types of this kind are suitable only where they are at the outer edges of the neighbourhood, where they have direct access to arterial traffic routes or are adjacent to commercial or institutional developments of high intensity impact, and do not introduce greater traffic volumes into and through the interior of the neighbourhood. The subject Site is an absolute contradiction of those principles of good community planning.HEIGHT - The proposed increase in allowable HEIGHT is acceptable subject to certain conditions and cautions that follow. Given that the lands opposite the Site on the north side of 86 Avenue are also permitted to a maximum of 6 storeys, and given the existence of an abutting property also limited to a 6 storey maximum, and given that properties to the immediate south are planned for 4 storey redevelopment, this proposed height is not out of character for this particular blockface.However, I note that the 6 storey height is not defined. In fact, the proposed DC2 Bylaw gives City staff the power to reinterpret the intents of the DC2 and leaves the possibility of up to 7 storeys. Even the appended drawings refer only to a “Proposed” number of storeys, not the “maximum.”This discrepancy can easily be corrected by deleting the word “Proposed” from the Appendices’ references to the number of storeys.SETBACKS – the proposed Front Setback is unacceptable, even for a development of this type. Garneau’s traditional streetscapes are defined by buildings that are set back from the public pedestrian realm, while this proposal allows development right up to the front property line. Every other residential property on this same block is required to provide substantially greater front setbacks.On Side and Rear Setbacks - no comment at this time.s.6 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR BUILDING DESIGN AND FEATURESGROUND LEVEL UNITS FACING 86 AVENUE – the regulation is incomplete. The Applicant touts this grade-level feature as row housing, but the regulation does not ensure that. Other Zones for high density housing forms like this one typically ensure that fronting at-grade dwellings not only have doors, but also have direct access between those doors and the public realm, in effect functioning as front doors and serving as eyes on the street. The regulation falls short of requiring these units to actually function as faux row housing dwellings.S.7 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR PARKING, LOADING, STORAGE & ACCESSNo comment at this time.s.8 DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS FOR LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING & AMENITY AREASBOULEVARD TREES – I am opposed to the regulation that allows for the complete removal of public trees within the 86 Avenue boulevard in front of the Site. Garneau’s street trees are a defining characteristic of the neighbourhood. The potential to eliminate street trees for an 80 m long gap or about half the block for the sole reason of accommodating an unnecessarily excessive massing is a betrayal of the community, its historical significance to Edmonton and one of its most prominent attractive features.AMENITY AREA – Giving the developer exclusive authority to determine how much if any private outdoor amenity space is to be provided for each dwelling (eg balconies, patios, etc) is unacceptable. Combining both outdoor and indoor space as well as private and shared space to satisfy the requirement for residents’ amenity space allows for a substantially substandard quality of housing.PRIVATE OUTDOOR AMENITY AREA AT GRADE – A mere 5 sq.m. of at-grade private outdoor amenity space is completely inadequate. It is less than most typical upper storey balconies in Edmonton, and is absolutely unsuitable and inappropriate for children’s recreation.s.9 OTHER REGULATIONSFAILURE TO DEVELOP WITHIN 10 YEARS – The fallback regulation allowing height to 16 m is excessive, given the height for the existing planned development in both the RF6 Zone and the GARP, clearly in excess of the existing limitation of 4 storeys.Considering the reduced height and FAR if construction has not started by 2030, the Setbacks contained in the proposed DC2 Bylaw are totally unnecessary and clearly out of character for any kind of future development on this Site. The Setbacks of the GARP or of the current RF6 Zone must be those that apply to any development after 10 years of inaction.s.10 PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND CONTRIBUTIONSMINIMUM OF TEN DWELLINGS – The requirement for ten 3-bedroom units located anywhere throughout the 6-7 storey building fails to serve the City’s and the neighbourhood’s needs and expectations. One of the main pillars of the Garneau ARP as well as many plans for other older neighbourhoods is the need to attract and provide stability for households with school aged children (family-oriented housing). In Garneau, this interior section of the neighbourhood, in close proximity to the Garneau elementary school, is both the best and the last opportunity to fulfill that goal. If the Site were developed under the existing ARP and zoning, at least 20 units would be family-oriented. Ten 3-bedroom plus 10 2-bedroom units, located within the first 3 storeys, with 15 sq.m. of private outdoor amenity space each, would satisfy that need. The proposed DC2 Bylaw ensures that will not happen and therefore fails not just the community, but the role of the local school as a community gathering space and the City as a desirable place to live as well.APPENDICESOverall, the various site plans and building elevations depict a monolithic and oppressive urban design, devoid of any of the features that would make it fit with the established character of the neighbourhood and satisfy the City’s standard of enhanced residential architecture expected of an infill development. The drawings are evidence that the excessive reductions in siting and building standards that are being sought are solely for the purpose of cramming too many adult-oriented units into an area neither suited for nor appropriate for that kind of use.

brikro about 2 months ago

I am fully opposed to the proposed rezoning and proposed development of a 6 storey building. The GARP should be respected. The proposed rezoning and development has not considered the community zoning plan in any measure – it does not respect of the Garneau community. Maintaining the character of the neighbourhood and its homes are a goal according to the City of Edmonton’s video regarding this proposed development; however the proposed rezoning and development would undermine the character of the neighbourhood. The GARP was developed and regularly reviewed with high community interest in holistically planning for its future, and it enables densification. The community zoning plan is readily available so owners and buyers are fully aware of the agreed-to and established plan. The intent is to avoid applications for variance from the plan, and developers should look to acquire lots that are already zoned according to their intended needs and investment. In this case, Westrich Pacific Corp. would be best directed to acquire a currently DC2 lot or, alter its investment to meet an RF6 development. The City of Edmonton should respect the GARP to ensure that planning and zoning decisions are made in a clear, sound and systematic manner, and not take a property-by-property approach to its zoning decisions. We plan for a reason!The proposed rezoning and development would negatively impact the neighbouring properties, the block and the community. As just one example, traffic and parking issues, where the streets and alleyways lack to the capacity to handle the increase pressure. It would compromise safety, compromise access routes to the hospital and for services, and add infrastructure costs (the City budget cannot afford more road maintenance). Why is the proposed new design considered a “modified” application by the City of Edmonton? The design is a complete change, and would be better considered a new application that must follow requirements such as consultation. It seems that there is little regard for agreed-to plans and process.

KR about 2 months ago

I am a resident of Garneau and I would love to see this neighbourhood thrive and become the most liveable "hood" in Edmonton. Unfortunately, when exceptions to GARP plan are allowed, such as the proposed development, I become very sceptical. If you allow this proposed plan to go ahead, the neighbourhood will hurt. The residents will move away, and Garneau will disappear. The proposed building is simply too big, the dimensions do not follow the planning, and it poses further problems with traffic, shadow, and overall appearance. The only purpose it serves is a profit to a single business. Do not proceed with the building as planned.

Zuzana B. about 2 months ago

The building is 2 stories too high , has too many units and is deficient in all set backs . Why so many variances requested ? Spot rezoning mid block is very unfair to those rely on the City planning department to abide by the Garneau ARP regulations . These regulations should be followed until a replacement plan is put into effect.Thank you

art about 2 months ago

The proposed development should not be allowed to proceed. It does not come close to meeting the original specifications for the development of the Garneau community. No adequate justification is provided for a building that will decrease light, increase traffic, encroach upon pedestrian routes, and so on. Further, the updated proposal (July) should be considered on its own merits, or lack thereof, rather than as a compromise in the shadow of the original proposal, which was clearly a strategic ruse. The community plan is in place for a reason--to ensure responsible, collaborative, healthy development for the good of the community. Respect the community; follow the guidelines in place--do not cave to the profit-driven whims of corporate interests.

David Buchanan about 2 months ago

I appreciate the importance of increasing dentity through multiplex dwellings throughout the city, but this proposal runs counter to the Garneau Area Redevelopment Plan (GARP), a plan worked out by the Garneau community as a whole, involving much time, effort and careful thought in consultation with City planners. To ignore the GARP now would send a rather distressing and cyncial political message to the community. Compared with the orginal highrise proposal, this develop may seem more reasonable but it presents analogous problems albeit on a smaller scale. It will still have to accommodate a significant number of cars, increasing traffic flow on the street and in the alleys, with a school zone on the next block. Cross through trafiic from the University and the Hopsital is already a significant problem in the neighbourhood. A six story low rise, with 159 units is still too large for this neighbourhood space: It is too large for the site itself, which is not on the end of the block; it is too large for a residential road; and it is too high for existing residental patterns, especial for those properties adjacent to the south on 85 Ave. Although not ideal from a neighbourhood commmunity perspective, a 4 story development would be more reasonable.

RaynorB about 2 months ago

I live on 86 Avenue, a few houses east of the proposed development. I believe that the opinions of persons living near the proposed development should carry more weight as they are the people more seriously affected. But, with this type of e-mail response, the opinions have no geographical reference or restriction. I believe that a spot rezoning to accommodate this development should not be allowed. This proposal for 150 plus units in what appears to be a long unbroken box-like structure contravenes the Garneau ARP in height, set-backs, number of dwellings.

art about 2 months ago

This building is not in accordance with the GARP. It should not exceed four stories. It’s unjust to make a plan that is only applicable in some cases. the intention was clear in making this plan that the priority should be character maintenance. the plan specified that anything over 4 stories would detract from that. this building is no exception.

EmilyB about 2 months ago

Removed by moderator.

RespectTheGARP about 2 months ago

If I wanted to live in an ugly neighbourhood with tacky buildings such as the one in this proposal, I'd move to Windermere.

RespectTheGARP about 2 months ago

Please don’t alllow this proposal to pass. This will not enhance the neighborhood in any way. The variances requested would change the frontscape or the block and be detrimental to those who live behind (I don’t live directly behind the proposed structure). Please stick to the GARP.

Bob 85 ave about 2 months ago

I fully support increased density at this location, however four stories is more appropriate considering existing developments and the single family detached housing immediately behind and adjacent to the property.

IanB about 2 months ago

The height of this development is inappropriate for a residential road, which isn’t even end of block. A 4 story development fits with already established development patterns.

IanB about 2 months ago

I do not approve of this development. The variances are great and would not only be detrimental to the neighbouring properties but the entire community. It does nothing to enhance the area in fact it takes away any redeeming qualities of the block. I also question the anonymous nature of this form of feedback. There is no way to know if those posting their comments are residents of the neighbourhood who will be directly affected but the development. Stick to the GARP

Megan McPherson about 2 months ago

Garneau plans were made by the community with thought and good reason. No good reason has been put forward for a change in zoning or for this inappropriate development. The spacial over-loading of both the site and adjacent streets and sidewalks would result in serious deterioration of existing conditions and could not provide necessary amenities, for example in parking, sunlight, open space, sidewalks etc Both zoning change and new application should be refused.

MC about 2 months ago

The design is okay but I am furious with a 6 storey proposal. That is too high for our neighbourhood. A 4 storey building would be better.

Marie about 2 months ago

Please do not rezone this block and stick the the GARP. The building has too many units for the size. 159 units are too many for this site. The variances requested are too great. The construction of this would be detrimental to the heritage of the Garneau. Please respect the community plans. While we do know a new building will be coming into the area please make sure it “will be compatible with the characteristics of the existing area” - this proposal will not contribute to the neighbourhood in any meaningful way.

Megan McPherson about 2 months ago