LDA18-0690 King Edward Park Rezoning and Plan Amendment (8120 - 93 Street NW)

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

Engagement has concluded

***The discussion has concluded and a What We Heard Report has been prepared. The rezoning advanced to Public Hearing on December 8, 2020 (Items 3.6 and 3.7), and was approved by City Council.***

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, with the exact date still to be determined. For more information, please visit these FAQs for Council meetings.

Due to COVID-19 public health restrictions, the City is unable to host its usual in-person public engagement event to share information and collect feedback on this proposed rezoning. This page has been created in lieu of an in-person event to help you find out information about the proposed rezoning application and tell us what you think.

Please review the information on this page. Tell us what you think and ask any questions below, before September 22, 2020.




The application proposes to rezone a portion of 8120 - 93 Street NW from the (A) Metropolitan Recreation Zone to the (PU) Public Utility Zone to accommodate the existing drainage facility, and to rezone a separate portion of the property from (A) Metropolitan Recreation Zone to (RA7) Low Rise Apartment Zone to enable the development of a low-rise apartment building.

If approved, the proposed (RA7) Low Rise Apartment Zone would allow for a 16 metre high (approximately 4 Storey) apartment building with limited commercial opportunities at ground level, such as child care services, general retail stores and specialty food services.

An associated application has been made to amend the North Saskatchewan River Valley Area Redevelopment Plan (ARP) to remove the subject site from the plan boundary.

Zoning regulates what types of buildings are allowed on a site (eg. residential or commercial) and the basic size and shape of those buildings. It does not control who can live or work in the buildings or whether the property is rented or owned. Please see the sidebar for more information on what factors are considered when processing rezoning applications and how feedback will be used.

The City of Edmonton Social Housing Branch is accepting feedback separately on the building design and a good neighbour agreement. To provide comments on those aspects of the development, visit King Edward Park Supportive Housing Good Neighbour Plan and Building Design.

***The discussion has concluded and a What We Heard Report has been prepared. The rezoning advanced to Public Hearing on December 8, 2020 (Items 3.6 and 3.7), and was approved by City Council.***

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, with the exact date still to be determined. For more information, please visit these FAQs for Council meetings.

Due to COVID-19 public health restrictions, the City is unable to host its usual in-person public engagement event to share information and collect feedback on this proposed rezoning. This page has been created in lieu of an in-person event to help you find out information about the proposed rezoning application and tell us what you think.

Please review the information on this page. Tell us what you think and ask any questions below, before September 22, 2020.




The application proposes to rezone a portion of 8120 - 93 Street NW from the (A) Metropolitan Recreation Zone to the (PU) Public Utility Zone to accommodate the existing drainage facility, and to rezone a separate portion of the property from (A) Metropolitan Recreation Zone to (RA7) Low Rise Apartment Zone to enable the development of a low-rise apartment building.

If approved, the proposed (RA7) Low Rise Apartment Zone would allow for a 16 metre high (approximately 4 Storey) apartment building with limited commercial opportunities at ground level, such as child care services, general retail stores and specialty food services.

An associated application has been made to amend the North Saskatchewan River Valley Area Redevelopment Plan (ARP) to remove the subject site from the plan boundary.

Zoning regulates what types of buildings are allowed on a site (eg. residential or commercial) and the basic size and shape of those buildings. It does not control who can live or work in the buildings or whether the property is rented or owned. Please see the sidebar for more information on what factors are considered when processing rezoning applications and how feedback will be used.

The City of Edmonton Social Housing Branch is accepting feedback separately on the building design and a good neighbour agreement. To provide comments on those aspects of the development, visit King Edward Park Supportive Housing Good Neighbour Plan and Building Design.

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

CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

I've had to ask the same question multiple times to get a straight answer. It's like they're hiding information, or told by higher city management or council/mayor to hide information and reminds me of the Rogers Place project NAIT LRT, LRT River Valley Line to name a few, and the misinformation and lack of information shared to the public. "Open and transparent" are not adjectives that jump to mind when I think of this process of community engagement. I won't be surprised that, no matter what the report says, and whether it's accurate to the feedback, the rezoning will be approved, the project will go through, the next council will wipe their hands blaming the last council, and the community will live with the consequences.

RF 9 months ago

I find the engagement process for the King Edward Park supportive housing project (homeless shelter) very frustrating and very disappointing. Although I appreciate how difficult public engagement can be, it appears that this engagement process is rather one-sided. Although we have been asked to submit questions on the “King Edward Park Supportive Housing Good Neighbour and Building Plan” and “LDA18-0690 King Edward Park Rezoning and Plan Amendment (8120 - 93 Street NW)” web pages, it appears that my questions submitted to this page as well as those submitted to the September 14th livestream have been largely been ignored. It makes one wonder how many other questions have been selectively disregarded.
I find the engagement process for the King Edward Park supportive housing project (homeless shelter) very frustrating and very disappointing. Although I appreciate how difficult public engagement can be, it appears that this engagement process is rather one-sided. Although we have been asked to submit questions on the “King Edward Park Supportive Housing Good Neighbour and Building Plan” and “LDA18-0690 King Edward Park Rezoning and Plan Amendment (8120 - 93 Street NW)” web pages, it appears that my questions submitted to this page as well as those submitted to the September 14th livestream have been largely been ignored. It makes one wonder how many other questions have been selectively disregarded.
It would have been helpful if the all the questions submitted by all the participants during the livestreams had been streamed verbatim (the one question of mine that was partially answered was rephrased by the moderator) so that all participants could have seen the questions. As well, all the questions then should have been posted to the appropriate “Questions” web pages with responses.
There appears to be little transparency in the way this engagement process has proceeded. It is my understanding that authentic transparency shares information that encourages, honours and engages with the public something that appears to be lacking in the supportive housing discussions.

KP Resident 9 months ago

BEFORE, we go any further with this project we need to back up the train, and the final rezoning stage needs to be scraped. If this area is re-zoned, how the re-zoning came about will result in questions being asked during the public forums during the 2021 election.
To arrive at this point council did not follow due process, as reflected in how they voted, to date, on this project. Instead, they voted to support the administration who had already short cut the formal process. That is, except for one counsellor who upheld the democratic process he was elected to respect. This means we have a council which will deny those who voted for them, their democratic rights. Those who support this project must not turn a blind eye to this ... if they support social justice ... as they wish to appear ... then they must also support the democratic process. Social justice is not a cherry pick.

KEP Res 9 months ago

Like others, I am in favour of supportive housing. However, I am disappointed in the lack of due process by city management prior to the approaching city council, and in particular, with community engagement.

I feel it is a poor location being beside Millcreek Ravine and across from YESS. Even if the project and its tenants are well managed, I am concerned about its ripple effects with those encamping in the ravine and the possible negative affects on the at-risk youth at YESS. I cannot get a straight answer on what kind of “opposition” from the community would be enough to start the process again or stop it completely. It feels like council is only going through the motions and have a forgone conclusion- engagement is merely window dressing.

I’m also concerned that KEP has to take on another city project- the construction, the work vehicles, the noise. In the last five years (six years if I include neighbourhood renewal) we have gone from a quiet neighbourhood to enduring the continuous disruption with the building of the LRT, the increase in traffic and speeding by those shortcutting because of the LRT, the permanent disruption and limited access from 83rd street into the community, the threat of having the LRT on Whyte Avenue- we would have been the only community in the city cornered by two LRT lines, and the inevitable ripple effects of the Bonnie Doon Mall project. And that doesn’t include the infill housing construction- approved by the city. There has been an increase of non-neighbours wandering through the alleys with shopping carts, break ins, and vandalism including graffiti. Encampments and their challenges continue to creep to south in the Millcreek Ravine.

We pay our fair share of taxes and have not been offered any compensation for what we put up with- past, present or future. We deserve a peaceful community like many/ most in the city. We do not need another city project and its construction, impacting our community.

It is for these reasons I do not support the rezoning.

RF 9 months ago

I am in favor of this development, our city does need appropriate support housing and this is an excellent urban to residential buffer location. But it cannot be another super cheap 4-storey walk-up, it must be thoughtful. Considerations should be given to incorporate some of the intentions of the new city plan, like allowing a pedestrian path to access the millcreek pathways and bike ways, and providing amenities for public access, like Day care as mentioned, or a cafe (co-operately run?) and an outdoor urban space, winter shelter, bus stop, rest spot, to engage neighbors and commuters. Minimize parking and put to the alley to encourage transit use, but not so much as to overly impact adjacent neighbours. Is there an opportunity to provide a park amenity feature at the top of the creek (similar to Avonmore area off 89 st?) Be sure to improve the area around the facility, and the neighbours and community will welcome this.
Lolly, Avonmore Neighbour

Lolly 9 months ago

Although I’m in favour of supportive housing, I find the entire process associated with this initiative very disappointing. As has been pointed out, it appears that this proposal was “pre-determined” and “community feedback is just a formality”. I find it disturbing that the City Administration and City Council (excluding one Councillor) by-passed their own public engagement process. This approach makes a mockery of public engagement and challenges the integrity and trust of the City Administration and City Council.

Also, I find it deplorable that for a project of this magnitude and profile that there wasn’t greater effort in contacting a larger portion of those in the affected area instead of limiting postcard notification to those within 60 metres of the development. Clearly the optics are rather poor, and it would go a long way to re-establishing trust and integrity if the entire process were restarted, with public engagement as the first priority.

KP Resident 9 months ago

From my perspective I support housing programs for those with mental illness and addictions. Yes, even in my neighbouhood. However, there are various housing models, and communities should be informed of what the specific housing model entails, the truth with respect to the purported 'evidence base' for each model, and whether the model is a good fit for the personal values of that community.

Here is a link describing the Housing First model. Homeward Trust, the proposed landlord, generally supports the Housing First model.

Item #3 in the link is key. It states that residents are not required to accept treatment. This means treatment for addiction and/or mental illness.

https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/programs/homelessness/resources/housing-first.html

From my perspective, unless, the staffing and security levels onsite are safe for residents, staff, and community then I feel this is NOT an appropriate housing model for a family neighbourhood such as King Edward Park, on a site located atop the ravine, and across from a youth shelter.

The Homeward Trust, I understand, has stated that the residence will be staffed 24/7. However, what would be the quality and quantity of staffing? Low paid, high staff client ratio, custodial type support is not adequate. If this model is to be implemented then the community has to be informed of, and feel secure with the staffing resources.

Below are two more links. One link describes funding available from the Alberta Government for a model which has been successful in Portugal. The approach emphasizes client responsibility and contribution to the community. The other link is to the Oxford model, active in Calgary, and it is based on the Portugal model.

Again, from my perspective, my personal values support a model which expects client responsibility, participation in recovery, and contribution to community.

Perhaps the City of Edmonton could propose a partnership between Homeward Trust and Oxford Foundation for the development in King Edward Park.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/recovery-centres-addiction-mental-health-alberta-1.5651339

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxford_House

Finally, it is near impossible to have trust in council which has already moved ahead on a project without following due process. Input does feel futile ... and perhaps that was the goal of those who voted in favour of the project knowing full well that they had not followed due process.

KEP Res 9 months ago

I do not support the rezoning. There is not enough evidence to support the likely success of this project versus the risk to the neighborhood. More of the long term plan needs to be shared. How is funding going to be maintained? Is this the best use of funding instead of supporting and growing current established centers?

Heresone 9 months ago

I am not in favour of the proposed development. The loss of parkland cannot be offset by any benefits gained from the proposed zoning. The parking situation is already a problem; so if the proposed plan was to sacrifice some of the parkland for some parking spots; as ugly as that may be, it could help; but adding a large building surely won’t.

I’m also highly suspicious of this process. I can’t say I feel like the community is actually being consulted. The language used in the comments that seem in favour is strangely similar to that of the city’s website and pamphlets. It does not echo conversations I have had with neighbours. I suspect if the city really wanted community feedback and decided to go door-to-door rather than use a hard to find website.

Could anyone from the city share stats on how often a project gets reversed at this stage of the process if the community opposes it?

RichardFarmer 9 months ago

It seems like this has been pre-determined by the city and community feedback is just a formality. I live down the block from the site and was only informed about the proposal via postcard this past summer, not in 2019 as the timeline suggests. The notification also came after the sale of the land had been approved, thereby reaffirming the belief a decision has already been made by the city to move forward with this project.

I take issue with the proposal for several reasons:
-the land is currently zoned as recreation - will the neighbourhood be getting more recreation land if this site is rezoned?
-parking is already an issue at that particular intersection due to the other business plaza on 93 Street
-worries over the interaction of users of the site with the ravine and concerns over whether it will make the ravine riskier to use

I am supportive of supportive housing but this process has been flawed and there has been no transparency with neighbourhood residents.

Julia 9 months ago

I generally support supportive housing and this project. It should, however, have some form of retail/commercial use on the main floor facing Whyte Avenue. Retail will benefit the residents and increase pedestrian use on this segment of Whyte.

Evan 10 months ago

I highly support this rezoning, and completely support the proposed supportive housing concept for this site. Even without the supportive housing component, this site is vacant land next to a major corridor and is completely underutilized. There is no reason for this site not be at least RA7 zoned (if not more) given its location and the developments around it. This rezoning will add greatly to the neighbourhood, while also providing supportive housing and services to some of our most vulnerable residents and neighbours. The City should pursue many, many more developments like this one.

GG 10 months ago

I am in favour of this development.
In an ideal world, we would not have to amend the ARP; however, this lot is not really part of the river valley parks system and hasn't been for a long time. It's not parkland - it's basically a vacant lot. It has been put to use by the community but it's not a naturalized area.
Supportive housing is desperately needed in Edmonton, and this is a great location: it's in a quiet, safe, enjoyable neighbourhood that will be a very supportive environment for vulnerable Edmontonians to rebuild their lives, and it is well-served by transit (bus and soon the new LRT line) and close to many services.
This is a very good location for this kind of medium-density residential building.
At 4 storeys, this building would be a little bit taller than some of the other commercial properties on that section of 82nd (a lot of little strip malls), but no taller than the buildings across the street from it. YESS is 2-3 storeys, and the luxury condo development is 6 storeys.

RC 10 months ago

At the least, this site should remain as community use parkland. We don't need to be like the suburbs and continue to give up parkland to development. At the most, this site should not have a four story building impacting the already fragile neighborhood and surrounding views. Ideally, this site should contain a building for use by ALL community members such as a library or community league for all to enjoy the ravine views and access. Not just a single segment of society as proposed.

Justin B 10 months ago

4 Storeys is too much for this neighbourhood.
Parking concern as parking from business across the street already overflows towards proposed site.

Julianna of Jack 10 months ago

Parkland within the city should be protected and the rezoning should not take place.

Brian 10 months ago