LDA20-0321 Strathcona Gateway Rezoning

Engagement has concluded

a black and white map of the area around the property that is proposed to be rezoned (10119, 10125, and 10135 - 85 Avenue NW), with a grey box on the property, labelled "RA7 to RA8 and RF5 to RA8".

***The discussion has concluded and we have written a "What We Heard" document that will be shared with Council when they make their decision at Public Hearing.***


Thank you for participating!

***The discussion has concluded and we have written a "What We Heard" document that will be shared with Council when they make their decision at Public Hearing.***


Thank you for participating!

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 and plan amendment? Other people that visit this part of the site will be able to see your comments.

Engagement has concluded

CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

DEC 06, 2020

To whom it may concern,
The Strathcona Community League would like to offer feedback regarding the Gateway Strathcona project by Rohit. The SCCL Civics and Planning Director and Past President met with the developers on Nov. 25th to review their design proposal, and field any questions we had at the time. They were helpful and forthcoming about their design thinking, and made revisions to their design presentation materials based on feedback we provided during that meeting.
While we recognize some merits in their proposal -- such as the inclusion of family-oriented units, below grade parkade, and the effort made to relate the ground level units to the street -- we would like to share some concerns that came up during our Civics and Planning Committee meeting.
Our concerns are as follows:
Building massing. The design is effectively a 6 story extrusion straight up from the ground plane. This creates a very imposing presence from street level. We appreciate that their strategy was, instead of having a step in the massing above 4 floors to meet the additional setback requirements, they set the entire building back from the property line a sufficient distance to clear the setback of the higher portion. Unfortunately this compromises the following requirement of the RA8 zoning: “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.” Recognizing that some design efforts were made on this point, we do not feel it is effectively executed, and that the monolithic presence of this 6 story volume will loom heavily over the surrounding area.
Related to the last point, the current version of the building contributes to the further erosion of transition within the built fabric of Strathcona. Density is intended for close proximity to arterial roads, transitioning down toward the more fine-grained built fabric of the neighborhood interiors, composed primarily of single family houses and low-rise apartment buildings. There are no other buildings of this scale this far in the interior of Strathcona, and as indicated in the point above, the building makes no effort to transition the scale of its massing as it approaches the more fine-grained areas to the east.
We would like to see a comparative shadow study to clearly see the difference in shadowing between the proposed 6 storey massing and a 4 storey massing.
It would also be good to see traffic impact assessment of adding this much density adjacent to the schools. Traffic already gets very congested in this area in mornings and afternoons, and the addition of this many units all exiting on to 101 seems likely to cause issues.
Similarly, it would be good to see information related to anticipated impacts on street parking in the immediate vicinity of the building.
The loss of senior’s housing hurts Strathcona’s inclusivity, diversity of demographics, and prospects for residents to “age in place”. We wonder if there is any means of reserving a subset of units as prioritized for seniors, or even a mechanism for subsidized units?
Aside from the issues above related to massing, there is concern of the general overall aesthetics of the building. Acknowledging that all we have to go on are faint black and white renders, and also acknowledging that some effort was made with the public art around the entry, the design articulation that can be seen so far is not inspiring.

Thank you, and if you have questions please feel free to contact us.

Derek Kaplan
Director of Civics and Planning
Strathcona Community League

Derek over 3 years ago

While the addition of three-bedroom accommodations suitable for families will benefit the neighborhood, the height of the proposed structure is out of scale for the community. It is not acceptable that the elementary school students will have their access to sunlight so severely limited on the schoolyard for a considerable period of the school year.

Gurston Dacks over 3 years ago

While the addition of three-bedroom accommodations suitable for families will benefit the neighborhood, the height of the proposed structure is out of scale for the community. It is not acceptable that the elementary school students will have their access to sunlight so severely limited on the schoolyard for a considerable period of the school year.

Gurston Dacks over 3 years ago

I do not support rezoning. 6 Stories in the middle of our community is much too tall. It will stick out like a sore thumb literally and figuratively. Considering the elementary school beside and the low angle of our winter sun, the playground will be in shadow from November to February. Why did we bother drafting a Strathcona ARP if it is not be followed? Do we not want a consistent look and feel to our community? As usual it's the wild, wild west of development on our community where any developer that doesn't like the what they see laid out in the ARP, designs what they want, asks for an amendment and the city grants it. What our community needs to do is band together to put in place a restrictive covenant like Old Glenora has. What a joke, thank you for not wasting my time hosting this sham of a consultation in person.

yegchick over 3 years ago

I do not support the request in the application. The height requirements are not appropriate within the neighbourhood. Our neighbourhood already supports high density on all arterials, even on 99th street where the sidewalk is not even buffered by a median. The plan presents a large wall facing the school playground, covering it in shadow all December. There is only one entrance in the centre, with the thought that art could be incorporated but no intention to do so within the plan. The row housing is on the street not the avenue. It would be interesting to know the proposed selling price for these units as the row houses in the original Bateman proposal were advertised in their brochure for just under a million dollars. This is not affordable housing for most families. Again, as in all recent developments in this area, the majority of the units are one and two bedroom that do not attract families. We already have a surfeit of such housing available for rent or purchase in our area, not including the already approved Bateman development and the development on 99th street between 90th & 9lst avenues. The city maintains that it supports walkable neighbourhoods with a variety of housing options. Nearly the only section of the area with single family housing is east of 99 and there is encroachment there. West of 99, very few single houses remain; duplexes and row housing proposed in the first few versions of our neighbourhood plan, have been upzoned to walkups and this is happening here again, with even a greater height proposed.

gloria.chalmers@gmail.com over 3 years ago

I think this is a great missing middle proposal. Most of the low-rise housing in our neighbourhood is aging and doesn't accommodate families or interact well with the street. The RA8 zoning includes many features that help with this. And the possibility of welcoming more families with this type of housing is really important for our school and community vibrancy. When I found out this large parcel was for sale so close to Whyte and less than a block from 103St I was really worried it might end up being a tower development, especially with this amount of land. A 6- storey with step backs and individual entrances to the street will be wonderful. So many families want to live here, and many do in the high rises on Sask Drive, but our single family housing is expensive and requires upgrading, and the walk up's don't tend to include in suite laundry or bike parking or more storage or larger units. And some are still adult only too. Currently the area along the parking lot on 103st is pretty lonely and isolated, and my family has run into safety issues around there, having housing that engages the street will activate the area and put more eyes on the street. Going from a 4 storey to a 6 storey in that location won't be particularly intrusive and will allow for more design features that encourage neighbourliness and more diverse tenants.

HappyYeg over 3 years ago

I do not support rezoning these properties to RA8, the height of 23 m is much too tall for this area which is in the middle of the residential neighbourhood (Strathcona centre). The properties in question are opposite a school (a low building) and large open school grounds, and across the alley from mainly single family maximum 2 storey homes. Currently one property is RF5, the rest are already at RA7, which allows for 14 m in height - approximately 4 stories I believe. Good designs that will accommodate row housing and apartments within the 14 m height of RA7, and that fit with the existing scale of this particular area, are certainly possible here and have been done elsewhere. Why not just allow the rezoning of the one property from RF5 to RA7, so the properties can be redeveloped in such a way that fits with the existing scale of the neighbourhood? This would still allow for an increase in housing density AND promote in-fill development that still maintains the residential “essence” that makes this area so attractive to live in.

Janet over 3 years ago

I like the idea. Nice place for family’s to live

Nicole over 3 years ago

I think 23 m is too tall for a building in this area. It's not on a main thoroughfare (as the planned developments on 99 st), so I think it would stick out, disrupt the flow of the neighborhood, and negatively contribute to shadowing. The low-rise scale fits the neighborhood and I assume this is why the Strathcona Area Redevelopment Plan was structured as such to only permit 14 m.

Alison over 3 years ago

I generally like this development. The connections to the street are great. I would like move connections to the alley if possible. And whatever you're planning for parking? Less. The more parking, the more traffic through the neighbourhood. Be bold, put in less parking!

It's a real shame that you're tearing down that perfectly good apartment building and the church. Please reclaim as much as you can from those buildings.

Finally, I would like to see this built as a net zero or near-net zero building.

Conrad over 3 years ago

I'm happy to see this proposal. The location is great (quiet and close to amenities) and seems like a good place to add more residents. Though specifically ruled out, I would actually love to see commercial or other mixed use as part of the development. My main complaint about living in Strathcona is that most destinations are clustered on Whyte Ave with few within the neighbourhood.

Bea over 3 years ago

I support higher density housing interior to the Strathcona Neighbourhood, especially close to amenities like a school. A medium rise apartment here would add housing options without being excessively tall.

yegperson over 3 years ago

Medium density row housing, like in the Netherlands, makes so much more sense than Edmonton's current paradigm of middle-density apartments. If this is rezoned, it should align with "missing middle" principles.

Loves2Bike over 3 years ago

Please stop building above 3 stories on the south side of Whyte Ave. It is turning Whyte Ave into a dark shadow. We need more sunshine on Whyte, not less sunshine.

Liquid Larry over 3 years ago