Revised Pleasantview Rezoning Application: 11010 60 and 11015 60 Avenue NW
Consultation has concluded
Engagement has now concluded. A What We Heard report will summarize the key themes heard throughout engagement can be found here.
Thank you for participating in engagement activities. Please review the information on this page and provide feedback before the end of the day on Nov 9, 2022.
The City’s Land Development Section initially submitted a rezoning application to rezone the properties at 11010 60 Avenue NW and 11015 60 Avenue NW from Single Detached Residential Zone (RF1) to Low Density Infill Zone (RF2) in order to subdivide the two lots into eight lots. The rezoning application went before City Council during a Public Hearing Meeting on January 25th, 2022.
At that Public Hearing, we heard a desire to balance open space and a higher density development like row housing or semi-detached homes. Ultimately, City Council passed the following motion:
“That Charter Bylaw 19937 be referred back to Administration to consider potential zoning that would accommodate open space, a mix of park space and/or other development or use of the land as public park and return to a future City Council Public Hearing”.
Upon further review, we are revising our rezoning application to propose:
- 11010 60 Avenue NW is rezoned from Single Detached Residential Zone (RF1) to Low Density Infill Zone (RF2) to create 5 single family infill lots. The single family lots would allow for livable secondary and garden suites on each property which would allow for up to 2 more units per lot, potentially resulting in 15 total dwelling units across the 5 lots.
- 11015 60 Avenue NW is rezoned from Single Detached Residential Zone (RF1) to Small Scale Infill Development Zone (RF3) to enable row housing development. The property is also reconfigured to allow for additional open space and protection of utilities as road right-of-way dedication (grey on the rezoning map below).
After reviewing feedback from the January City Council Public Hearing, and considering the City Plan and the site context, the revised proposal for these properties balances an increase in density, while considering the adjacent land uses and maintaining the open space. The City Plan encourages a gradual increase in density while considering scale to existing uses. The approach for this area currently is to develop based on market demands and previously identified priorities to create conditions for success in the next population horizon.
The properties are located on the North West corner of the Pleasantview neighbourhood (as seen in the image above) and adjacent to a shared use path connecting the neighbourhoods (red dotted line) and a shared roadway for bicycles (light blue dotted line). This corner is at the intersection of two Secondary Corridors as identified in the City Plan and not located in a current Priority Growth Area. 11015 60 Avenue NW can be accessed via 60 avenue while 11010 60 Avenue NW can be accessed from both 60 Avenue and the back lane abutting the dog park. This rear vehicular access to 11010 60 Avenue NW enables rear facing garden suites, helping to increase the density on these lots.
The open space assessment found that the total area of open spaces in the neighbourhood exceeds the targets for the current and anticipated population of 2050, excluding the cemetery, and that there are limited opportunities to develop our properties into highly functional open spaces.
The revised proposal for these properties balances an increase in density, while considering the adjacent land uses and maintaining the open space.
Let us know what you think about the rezoning
Consultation has concludedCLOSED: This discussion has concluded.
Signup Banner
Who's Listening
-
Planner
Email stephen.chow@edmonton.ca
ADVISE
ADVISE
This means the City asks the public to share feedback and perspectives that are considered for policies, programs, projects, or services.
ROLE OF THE PUBLIC
This is but a minor change to the previous proposal. Both sites should be rezoned to RF3 for row-housing. Putting 5 very narrow lots into 11010 60 Ave is NOT in keeping with the community's look. More than 90% of the infills on this side of 106 Street are at minimum 12m wide. If this lot has to be rezoned to RF2, I BEG YOU to put in 3 lots, not 5. With the dog park going in next door, and NO CONSIDERATION from the planners of that dog park for parking in the area, including not listening to our suggestion for residential permit parking on this cul de sac, putting in 5 lots will reduce the street parking to NIL! There is no space to park in front of an 8m wide lot that could have a driveway at the front. The impact of creating 15 units on this small space without regard for the availability of parking defeats the purpose of increasing density in our community. Even if only 2/3 of the residents have vehicles, this is 10+ extra vehicles that need to park somewhere. Our cul de sac is on a well-used bike path; increasing vehicle traffic here will increase the chance of an accident. If we reduce it to 3 lots, there is a maximum of 9 separate units. Balanced with row-housing at 11015 60 ave, this is much more reasonable and manageable as a step towards increased density in this part of our community.
This is a no-brainer and I highly support it, particularly the RF3 row-house portion of the proposal. These types of projects are critical to achieving our infill goals and place new missing-middle housing in a desirable location. This is a very modest intensity of development being requested given the location and proximity to key amenities.
Hopefully this new density will spur the development of better pedestrian and active transportation connections across 111st and 61 Ave which are currently extremely poor.
I greatly disagree with this rezoning proposal. It appears as if you have ignored the wishes and thoughts of Pleasantview residents, at least the many that I have talked to, with this proposal. The proposal to turn 11010 60 Ave into 5 rf2 lots is appalling and would lead to a series of repulsive looking shoebox houses that have no esthetic appeal and are completely out of the character of the neighbourhood. Further, you will greatly increase the density of a cul de sac that already struggles with street parking. This will make this issue even worse as there doesn't appear to be any room on these lots for someone to park on. We have seen absurd lot splitting once before in our neighbourhood with cheaply built ultra skinny houses on them, and no one likes them, and no one wants to buy them. They sit for sale for years and residents avert their faces as they walk buy. Assuredly if you are set on having these lots developed rather than staying a part of the current beautiful green space you can come up with something much better than this. The only focus this seems to have is to increase the density and tax revenue as much as possible.
I am very strongly against the redevelopment of said zones. Once again the city is taking away another green space from a beautiful and old well established neighbourhood. I have lived in the pleasantview neighbourhood for quite a few years and walking my dog around here I wonder what has become of it. The old traditional houses are slowly disappearing and these god awful monstrosities are going in there place. I was always under the impression that new builds had to be of certain height and character, what I see is nothing but office style houses, no trees anymore no area in the back where children can play. Every time a house is deemed old and not live able down it goes along with the age old trees and there sits a vacant lot waiting for some square box/boxes to be put in there place. And to add insult to injury the city is planning an off leash dog park, why I don't know when there is a great one just twenty minute drive from Pleasantview. I also would like to know why the city needs to fence said dog park, as I have noticed that south on 111st between 37 ave and 40 ave Duggan off leash dog park is not fenced. All that needs to happen is signs put up not a fence.
Both plans are ridiculous and should be removed from the city councils agenda. I also feel that the time that people have taken to voice their concerns seems to have fallen on deaf ears I hope that does not happen again
Too much density added into a small portion of land. The proposed increased amount of total units would contribute to a lot more congestion into the community; an issue which is having to be controlled already. The main road from these developments being so close to 1 of the main vehicle entrances into the community would mean having to reconfigure the proposed roundabout (to be completed next year) and/or the traffic signal system at 109 St. Additionally, parking remains a concern as with the approved dog park bordering this area, where will all the parking be made available? Street parking in the area will be limited and it will be important to be able to accommodate individuals using the dog park as well, without further decreasing the amount of green space available in the community.
The new proposal seems like a good fit for the community. Garden suites will create more choice in housing. I dont recall when the dog park area was approved. Why isn't part of the dog park area used for similar development?
It is a great idea. We should 100% create more density in the area in line with the new City Plan and proposed Zoning Bylaws. Underused and empty space in the middle of the city are a travesty.
I fully support bringing more density to the neighbourhood, especially with the garden suite options.
I strongly disagree with this proposal. I feel like the city planners are trying to strong arm their plans. I submitted my detailed concerns in an e-mail prior to the last city council review in January and I see nothing better in this plan. In fact, the idea of garden suites as part of this skinny house concept is ridiculous. I am very unhappy that city planners are trying again to get this through. What about planned low income housing if you really want to help people who need affordable housing. These skinny properties will be priced in the $700,000. price range and how does that help anybody. Rather than doing everything via computer how about holding a public meeting so people can really share their thoughts and get detailed answers to their questions?
This is better than before however, still concerned about the following before being 100% supportive of the land use.
RF3 houses - how will be it be ensured that the RF3 zoning will not encroach or ask for ask open park space as well as protect the current tree stands at this location? Will they be relocated ?
General
- this is an entrance point to the Pleasantview community. How will the developers / City landscape to present as such?
1- 5A lots
- very skinny lots to include garden suite access. Support up to 3 lots plus garden suites (total of 12 units). 15 seems excessive for this location for both available parking and scale of houses. 5A would mean cutting down a huge tree stand/portion of the land that provides trees as well as community entrance/placemaking to the area (north corner). Is there a way to reconfigure to support infill however, maintain the tree stand at the north corner?
At this point, not supportive of the new changes.
I strongly oppose this rezoning proposal. It would decrease the quality of life of Pleasantview's residents by removing the green space when there is already so little of that space available. It also opens up the noise and pollution from 111th street. Please don't do this!
Of each of the 5 northern lots has a total of 3 separate place for people to love and there are 2 people in each with cars, where do the 30 cars park?
Where does the new road start and end? There is only a small segment of it on the map. Please provide an updated map with the road.
That seems like a lot of lots for a very small space. Also that area is currently used a lot by pedestrians and bikers to connect Pleasantview to the intersection crossing, so there will be a lot of foot traffic. If there are that many lots - and subsequent cars - it might impede the walkability of that space and actually cut off pleasantview's access to parkallen and the future dog park.