LDA18-0427 Highlands Commercial Rezoning

Removed by moderator.

I am opposed to this rezoning. I have a concern about noise and increased traffic and a negative impact on properties in the neighborhood. This is not the first attempt at a rezoning and the answer from the residents in this area is still a resounding "no".

The application should be denied due to the location close to houses, without adequate road access for customers (parking is usually full in front) and the residential nature of the block. The area isn’t close to any successful businesses or major thoroughfares and is too far from the Highlands commercial area to draw customers. Because the application doesn’t revert to residential automatically, it could allow nighttime or alcohol/cannabis businesses in the future of the current applicant’s business fails and after Mount Royal Elementary closes. This neighborhood and Edmonton/Alberta don’t need any more liquor stores in low income neighbourhoods.

I support re-zoning of this property, as I live nearby and have done so since 2002. I walk by this property daily and it has nearly always been fairly vacant, inactive and unattractive. We need redevelopment of this property and on the east side of Highlands we have very few amenities. If we want to densify our neighbourhood to keep schools open, attract more families, then we need more amenities. I would welcome a quality commercial development here like a small grocer or coffee shop similar to what is further east on 65 st and 112 ave. There is no historical value in this property as it's an eyesore and has no architectural interest. I strongly support density and adding quality amenities in Highlands. I would like to see more information about the actual proposed development and the types of commercial use.

I support re-zoning of this property, as I live nearby and have done so since 2002. I walk by this property daily and it has nearly always been fairly vacant, inactive and unattractive. We need redevelopment of this property and on the east side of Highlands we have very few amenities. If we want to densify our neighbourhood to keep schools open, attract more families, then we need more amenities. I would welcome a quality commercial development here like a small grocer or coffee shop similar to what is further east on 65 st and 112 ave. There is no historical value in this property as it's an eyesore and has no architectural interest. I strongly support density and adding quality amenities in Highlands. I would like to see more information about the actual proposed development and the types of commercial use.

This application is the second time this rezoning has been attempted. The first time it was brought forward it met with almost unanimous opposition. Why is it now being resurrected during a period when in person meetings cannot be held? The designated uses are too broad and general, there are too many undesirable uses permitted under the proposed rules. With the narrow alley it poses a risk of congestion for properties on both sides of the alley. As previously mentioned there has already been damage caused to one adjacent property. Also as this property is in the middle of a residential street a business development is inappropriate. While we agree that this property does need to be improved commercial development is not the way to go. What is preventing this property from being developed for residential purposes?

I don't rezoning is appropriate in this area. The current building is an eye sore. Please keep our historical neighbourhood as is. Consider the residents around this building , and the affect it has on them. We certainly do not need more cars or commercial trucks around here. The impact on the people residing around the property should be foremost in your decisions.

As a neighbor directly affected by this attempt at rezoning, I do not support the application to change this property zone to anything but RF1. There has been another rezoning application in the recent past that was roundly and unanimously rejected by the people who will be directly affected. If anyone on this tread is supporting the change, please know a few facts. The owner of this property does not live in the area and therefore is not concerned about the potential negative impact. The property is in violation of property line bylaws...the owner of the property cannot access all of the building without literally trespassing on the neighbor's property. Noise, traffic, parking, litter, safety and congestion are all very valid concerns from nearby residents. One nearby property owner's garage has already been hit and damaged by trucks accessing the property. The city says it wants to increase housing density in established neighborhoods. Keeping this RF1 will ensure that this eyesore of a building is removed and housing built instead. Highlands already has a small shopping district. This will be the beginning of rezoning properties in the Highlands and set a precedent for commercial property development in this historic and quiet neighborhood.

From the notice: "An application to rezone the property to the (CNC) Neighbourhood Commercial Zone(External link) was submitted to the City in 2018 which was referred back to work with the community to explore further options, including direct control zoning for the site."

Why does this notice imply that there was any kind of support for direct control zoning when more than 40 people showed up at the public engagement meeting with the city after the original proposal where 38 hands went up when asked if those concerned want the zoning to REMAIN RF1? Has the city planning department forgotten that the city claimed it didn't require a public engagement meeting for the first application, by the way, since supposedly just 2 concerns were expressed from neighbours, yet when I actually went around and talked to my neighbours, so many people showed up to this meeting where they had to reset the room configuration because there was so much "unexpected" interest?

This has been a problem property for years, yet the city wants to give the owner MORE leeway as to what can be done with it? Is the city planning office going to consider the various code violations that this property has engaged in over the past 20 years, such as building a taller than allowed back fence, and building OVER the section owned by EPCOR? Did they even contact the "Call before you dig" people, or was this work that was done without any permits something that had put us all in danger in the past? How about it being rented out as a municipal election campaign office?

Numerous concerns about traffic, safety, noise, possible odors, etc were pointed out to the city. How many times do we have to repeat ourselves?

The city's own development department denied an application to allow for the building to be used for religious gatherings in April 2015: "In the opinion of the Development Officer, the proposed location of the Religious Assembly will negatively impact the peaceful enjoyment of of the properties of nearby residents and unduly interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood. This includes potential overflow of on-street parking in front of abutting and surrounding low-density residential development." This result was appealed and UPHELD by the city's own appeal process. What has changed since then about this property that would make the above conclusion, made by a representative of the city, any different now?

When this went to council last time I produced a 26 page report with accompanying photos outlining why the 3 of us who live on this property vehemently object to rezoning. I have confirmed that our household, and the adjacent properties to the west and south across the alley, all purchased our homes after confirming that the current zoning was RF1.

Grandfathering non-residential use clauses expire for a reason, yet somehow historical use from literally decades ago are now being cited as justification for rezoning?

There used to be an additional access to the service road in front of this block that the city spent money on to close off. That is more supporting evidence that the city has treated this property as RF1 rather than anything else for its future.

As for future building and "additional setbacks", I want to existing rules to stand in terms of what's allowable: residential setbacks for residential uses, or commercial setbacks when adjacent to residential properties to apply should redevelopment occur. It sounds like this application would allow for commercial re-development using residential setback rules. I've already had to put up with the existing building being literally on my property line. They cannot access the exterior of the building in question without trespassing on my property. How is this possibly acceptable to the city?

I've asked the city whether my prior submission of the document we prepared would be considered as part of the file and I was told no. I asked again whether I should resubmit it so it would be and got no response. Should I just copy/paste the contents here before we are heard?

For any neighbours who want to see, it's available here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pf-NUSYHIUiMreNuxzTxLK_w2AAZIX9f/view?usp=sharing

Or you can email me at lily@fireflyconsulting.ca and I will forward the PDF.

In case the city is using their sketchy "counting" methods, I speak for a household of THREE PEOPLE at this address.

This is so obviously the case of a property owner who purchased a site without doing their own due diligence as to pulling paperwork as to what is allowed or not allowed to be done with it, and wanting to change bylaw for their own gain. Stop wasting city resources on this, deny this and future applications for rezoning. The owner can either find conforming uses for it or sell to someone who will.

This application is another attempt to do the same thing that was opposed in the past. We DO NOT want this type of development in the location. The increase in dangerous traffic would create a public hazard. The area is zoned properly at RF1, and it should remain that way. This time very few people that live in the area were notified of this application.
This proposed project would increase NOISE, TRAFFIC DANGERS, LITTER, to name a few of the issues. The area should remain RF1.

This application is another attempt to do the same thing that was opposed in the past. We DO NOT want this type of development in the location. The increase in dangerous traffic would create a public hazard. The area is zoned properly at RF1, and it should remain that way. During the last in person meeting, at the Church near by the property, all the residents of the area that attended were NOT in favour of this application. This time very few people that live in the area were notified of this application. This type of application actually goes against the
Highlands renewal plan. This proposed project would increase NOISE, TRAFFIC DANGERS, LITTER, to name a few of the issues. The area should remain RF1.

This building is old and hasn’t been used for as long as I can remember. It’s just wasting space and this whole mentality of keeping the neighbourhood the same is part of a larger urban sprawl issue. Yes, things will change, that doesn’t mean they will get worse. I would like to see someone putting this space to use – what’s the alternative? It just sits there for another 20 years, gets old, vandalized, and brings property values down?

I agree that changes shouldn’t be crazy different – keep the aesthetic of the neighbourhood, but do something useful with the space. Why not something that would make the neighbourhood more appealing?

I am in receipt of the notice of application to rezone 5335-112 Ave. I have attended the first planning meeting and wrote to the council and planners to oppose to the rezoning from RF1 to DC2. I have been a home owner in this neighbourhood for over 22 years and the traffic and parking limitation is absolutely not conducive to having any businesses in this building. Besides, this will disrupt the safety and tranquility of this neighbourhood. Does the city and city planners not hear our voices? We are appealing against rezoning the above address for any commercial use. As tax payers, as property owner, and if city of Edmonton is still considered a democratic society, majority rules. I am certain we have a quorum to rule against rezoning the property.

Hello Andrew, I am in receipt of the notice of application to rezone 5335-112 Ave. I have attended the first planning meeting and wrote to the council and planners to oppose to the rezoning from RF1 to DC2. I have been a home owner in this neighbourhood for over 22 years and the traffic and parking limitation is absolutely not conducive to having any businesses in this building. Besides, this will disrupt the safety and tranquility of this neighbourhood. Does the city and city planners not hear our voices? We are appealing against rezoning the above address for any commercial use. As tax payers, as property owner, and if city of Edmonton is still considered a democratic society, majority rules. I am certain we have a quorum to rule against rezoning the property.

I have talked with many neighbors. Some believe the rezoning to accommodate would be wonderful, especially as the school across the street closes and gets repurposed as well. Others are afraid of traffic increases or how their residence is affected. The fact is traffic will increase here regardless as the Highlands Junior High expands and is creating a school drop off zone that will push traffic from 118ave to 112ave. I think the city should consider putting angled parking here as a slow down and would help with already crowded parking capabilities due to people attending the church and utilizing the Vicki's daycare. Already a police sits there regularly to speed Cam people and we appreciate his/her police speed presence. This would be a great building to use as a seniors meeting center for a seniors society or group.

I beleive a small scale commerical space would be a nice addition to the neighborhood, something like a small coffee shop or ice-cream shop that residents can walk to.

The site is currently vacant and unusable, which is not beneficial for the neigborhood. The proposed zoning text appears to be condusive to making the existing site more aesethetic and functional, which would most definitly add more charm to the neighborhood.

I am in support of the rezoning and look forward to seeing this space put to use.

I would like more clarity on the proposed commercial use, but generally I welcome more business use along 112 Ave, as it has too much traffic to be suitable for residential use.

I beleive a small scale commerical space would be a nice addition to the neighborhood, something like a small coffee shop or ice-cream shop that residents can walk to.

The site is currently vacant and unusable, which is not beneficial for the neigborhood. The proposed zoning text appears to be condusive to making the existing site more aesethetic and functional, which would most definitly add more charm to the neighborhood.

I am in support of the rezoning and look forward to seeing this space put to use.

I think a development would be great here, it would be nice to have some commercial businesses for the neighborhood and it would be very convenient for people who live there.

I think a development would be great here, it would be nice to have some commercial businesses for the neighborhood and it would be very convenient for people who live there.