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

Will provide much needed housing to the area and boost to the economy. 110% in support.

159 more units in an already crowded area will increase traffic flow again, with the city allowing developers to decide how many parking stalls are allocated to a development I suspect we will see the small amount of on street parking disappear totally. What is the point of having a development plan for the neighborhood when every project is asking for it to be relaxed changed or basically ignored.

The tree canopy will be disrupted by a 6-story building, as clearly shown in the “Design Analysis: View Corridors” section of the application. The proposed development will stick out like higher density areas to the north and west. The ARP zoning would protect the tree canopy, benefiting sight-lines for residents of the current and future towers to the north and west. Increased density in itself is not bad, but on this site it is detrimental to the majority of residents in the neighbourhood.

Too Big For This Site.
We need to respect the ARP. It was carefully created to encourage higher density to the north and west of this area, but to keep density low on this block. Stacked row housing is a a reasonable compromise between the old homes currently on the site and a mid-rise building, which would be too large in context of the surrounding neighbourhood. By first proposing a disastrously large building, we are now asked to consider the mid-rise proposal as a compromise. But stacked row housing was already a compromise. They are not respecting the ARP and seek high density at this location solely for their own benefit, not that of the neighbourhood.

Needs more, better, more accessible bike parking. Needs less car parking. Great density for the area and will bring down some of the absurdly high rents in the area.

Why are we amending the Garneau Area Redevelopment Plan (ARP)?! This seems like a ridiculous idea to me.

As an Environmental Engineer, I am very familiar with contamination in the area, and the history of RFO (retail fuel operations) in the area since the early 1900's. We should not be mowing down houses in a beautifully treed area to put up any high rises. All you need to do is to look on 109 ST between 84 AV and 86 AV and you will see multiple commercial sites that would be perfect for a mid rise or high rise complex that would essentially remediate any contamination by putting in a lower level car parking garage below the structure.

We have a McDonald's, a pub, an older two story multi-family residential complex, a yoga studio, and a mucho burrito that use low density buildings on contaminated, but valuable land with no pressure to put high rises on there.

Instead the City decides to allow a developer to buy much cheaper single family dwellings on pristine land, and destroy the character and density within the neighbourhood!

WHAT IS GOING ON HERE!!!???

KEEP these dwellings at 2 or maximum three stories!

Thanks!
Mr. Blair Lowe, P.Eng

I would support this application with a caveat on design. I would note that, design wise, it doesn't seem to have incorporated any of The Garneau's design/architectural features as most of the new university housing north of 87 avenue between 110 & 111 Street has worked hard to do and integrate. Design comes across like the vanilla condo projects on 111 street between 87 Ave and 83 Avenue as well as a development on 83 Ave between 110 & 111 Streets. Has City's historical review team in planning reviewed, do they still exist (not when I look at some of the new houses approved in middle Garneau)?

I used to live in one of the houses that was torn down on the site of this proposed redevelopment. I cannot imagine 159 cars (or more) accessing parking from that back alley every day.

I do not support this application. I can see that the revisions demonstrate a real effort to address the concerns raised by area residents, which I do appreciate. Design-wise, it is an attractive building, but it is not at all sympathetic to the character of the neighbourhood. I am still not in favour of the policy revision.

I fully support this application, and think it will be an excellent addition to the neighbourhood. This re-submission has been dramatically reshaped to respond to the feedback and concerns of the community. The overall size, FAR and form are well aligned to the community and existing zones. The concessions in size, proximity to transit, and ample bike parking will all contribute to a much smaller traffic/parking impact than typical projects.

Section 7.4. of the draft DC2 states: "Vertical racks may be used to satisfy Bicycle Parking requirements. The minimum size of vertical bike parking spaces shall be a minimum of 0.60 m wide, 2.3 m high, and 1.1 m deep, with a minimum 1.5 m wide aisle." - this would exclude a number of types of bicycles including cargo bikes and trailers, and vertical racks are not inclusive as not everyone has the capacity to lift a bicycle into a vertical rack. This should be amended to be more inclusive.

Also, though the city no longer has parking minimums, I would recommend a cap of 0.5 stalls per unit or lower to help manage traffic impacts of this development. Given its proximity to transit corridors, a grocery store, the UofA, and other amenities, I imagine its ideally located for those looking to be car-free.