LDA20-0385 Station Flats Rezoning/Plan Amendment & Municipal Reserve Removal

Consultation has concluded

***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 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.


This engagement was for three components revolving around proposed development near the historic CP Train Station in Old Strathcona (8101 - Gateway Boulevard NW). Two of the components, the Rezoning and Plan Amendment (see Video #1), will be presented to and decided upon as a package by City Council. The third, the Municipal Reserve Removal (see Video #2), is a separate project in the same area and will be decided upon by City Council independently, though likely at the same Public Hearing.

For that reason, your feedback and opinion on the proposed rezoning/plan amendment package might be different than your feedback on the proposed Municipal Reserve removal.

Rezoning




The primary component of this application is a rezoning of land that currently contains the historic Canadian Pacific Railway Station, as well as a concrete covered piece of land north of the station and the surface parking lot to the south of it. The rezoning would continue to protect the historic CP Train Station as a designated municipal and provincial historic resource, but also allow new development north and south of it.


To the south, an opportunity would be created for the construction of an approximately 7 storey residential building with surface parking retained at ground level and up to 125 units above (referred to as “Station Flats”). To the north, an opportunity would be created for the construction of an approximately 3 storey commercial building built mainly out of sea containers with many small scaled commercial units in the containers (referred to as "Station Park"). These parts of the proposal would require your opinion on the rezoning and plan amendment."


Amendment to the Strathcona Area Redevelopment Plan

While the rezoning (the south portion of the project) generally complies with the Strathcona Area Redevelopment Plan, there are some amendments required to facilitate the rezoning. These are:

  • Revising Whyte Avenue Land-Use Strategy Policy 9 to better reflect Open Option Parking. Currently, there is a reference to “Non-accessory Parking” and with the Open Option Parking changes, the City no longer distinguishes between vehicle parking designed for use by people remaining on site (accessory) or going off site (non-accessory)

  • Revising Figure 7 (Land Use) to designate the land proposed for a new residential development as being for “Residential”.

  • Revising Figure 8 (Height Strategy) to allow 7 storeys on the land just south of the historic CP Train Station instead of the current 4 storeys that currently extends south to 80th Avenue and 6 storeys to 79 Avenue.


Municipal Reserve Removal




In addition to the commercial opportunities that the applicant wishes to introduce near the train station on their property, they are also seeking to expand commercial opportunities, on a temporary basis, further north onto an unnamed City-owned park space. This would require your opinion on Municipal Reserve Removal.


The zoning for the park space does not need to be amended to allow this, but for the City to sign a temporary lease for use of the land, the current Municipal Reserve designation would need to be removed. Municipal reserve is a designation applied to land that limits its uses to public park, recreation or for school board purposes. While the proposed development is permitted within the park, the municipal reserve designation needs to be removed in order to accommodate a lease agreement between the City of Edmonton and the developer. The agreement is anticipated to be for a five year timeframe and will identify the approved uses, public access, and maintenance responsibilities of the developer


The City is planning to undertake an Old Strathcona Public Places Plan, a study which will provide recommendations for this open space and other open spaces in the area. Since that study has yet to be done, the City is considering the applicant’s request to temporarily develop this park site.


The City is looking for input on this idea to inform our future decisions. It is important to note that the removal of the Municipal Reserve designation does not mean that the City is selling the land or that it would no longer be in the City’s parkland inventory. Municipal Reserve designation can be reinstated in the future as required and will be further reviewed as part of the Strathcona Public Places Plan.


***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 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.


This engagement was for three components revolving around proposed development near the historic CP Train Station in Old Strathcona (8101 - Gateway Boulevard NW). Two of the components, the Rezoning and Plan Amendment (see Video #1), will be presented to and decided upon as a package by City Council. The third, the Municipal Reserve Removal (see Video #2), is a separate project in the same area and will be decided upon by City Council independently, though likely at the same Public Hearing.

For that reason, your feedback and opinion on the proposed rezoning/plan amendment package might be different than your feedback on the proposed Municipal Reserve removal.

Rezoning




The primary component of this application is a rezoning of land that currently contains the historic Canadian Pacific Railway Station, as well as a concrete covered piece of land north of the station and the surface parking lot to the south of it. The rezoning would continue to protect the historic CP Train Station as a designated municipal and provincial historic resource, but also allow new development north and south of it.


To the south, an opportunity would be created for the construction of an approximately 7 storey residential building with surface parking retained at ground level and up to 125 units above (referred to as “Station Flats”). To the north, an opportunity would be created for the construction of an approximately 3 storey commercial building built mainly out of sea containers with many small scaled commercial units in the containers (referred to as "Station Park"). These parts of the proposal would require your opinion on the rezoning and plan amendment."


Amendment to the Strathcona Area Redevelopment Plan

While the rezoning (the south portion of the project) generally complies with the Strathcona Area Redevelopment Plan, there are some amendments required to facilitate the rezoning. These are:

  • Revising Whyte Avenue Land-Use Strategy Policy 9 to better reflect Open Option Parking. Currently, there is a reference to “Non-accessory Parking” and with the Open Option Parking changes, the City no longer distinguishes between vehicle parking designed for use by people remaining on site (accessory) or going off site (non-accessory)

  • Revising Figure 7 (Land Use) to designate the land proposed for a new residential development as being for “Residential”.

  • Revising Figure 8 (Height Strategy) to allow 7 storeys on the land just south of the historic CP Train Station instead of the current 4 storeys that currently extends south to 80th Avenue and 6 storeys to 79 Avenue.


Municipal Reserve Removal




In addition to the commercial opportunities that the applicant wishes to introduce near the train station on their property, they are also seeking to expand commercial opportunities, on a temporary basis, further north onto an unnamed City-owned park space. This would require your opinion on Municipal Reserve Removal.


The zoning for the park space does not need to be amended to allow this, but for the City to sign a temporary lease for use of the land, the current Municipal Reserve designation would need to be removed. Municipal reserve is a designation applied to land that limits its uses to public park, recreation or for school board purposes. While the proposed development is permitted within the park, the municipal reserve designation needs to be removed in order to accommodate a lease agreement between the City of Edmonton and the developer. The agreement is anticipated to be for a five year timeframe and will identify the approved uses, public access, and maintenance responsibilities of the developer


The City is planning to undertake an Old Strathcona Public Places Plan, a study which will provide recommendations for this open space and other open spaces in the area. Since that study has yet to be done, the City is considering the applicant’s request to temporarily develop this park site.


The City is looking for input on this idea to inform our future decisions. It is important to note that the removal of the Municipal Reserve designation does not mean that the City is selling the land or that it would no longer be in the City’s parkland inventory. Municipal Reserve designation can be reinstated in the future as required and will be further reviewed as part of the Strathcona Public Places Plan.


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.

Consultation has concluded
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

I am very much in favour of some type of residential/commercial development at the station flats location, but 4 - 6 stories would be more appropriate. I am not in favour of the Station Park development and temporary MR removal. 5 years is too long.... and the development would obstruct some of the views of the old train station. Would like to see a city project to renew and upgrade this park site.

JMP about 3 years ago

I'm not in favor of the development. The residential building is too tall for the area - previous guidelines are very reasonable and should be respected. It also doesn't make sense to build it alongside such a busy street - it's bad from a noise and air quality perspective for its future residents, and will only add to the congestion. A commercial building made from sea containers sounds ugly. It would be useful to see more detailed plans of how it would look and extend the public engagement period. It would be much better to make the entire area a green space / park, or at the very least ensure that large trees can be planted. Also, any proposal should include a pedestrian / bike path across 80th Avenue, which would allow residents east of the railway to access shopping areas like the one around No Frills without having to drive or take an inconvenient detour.

Alex L. about 3 years ago

The online engagement period is too short. My league's board (Ritchie) only became aware of the project in mid February via your postcard...too late to inform members and residents through our usual newsletters. Further, the board was only able to secure a meeting with the developers and city to discuss the proposal March 4, again scant time to take its learnings back to the community to garner its response to better inform the league's official feedback via this portal.

Keri W about 3 years ago

In reviewing the proposal I do not support the proposed height for the Station Flats proposal. Given that there was a lot of work done to revise the Whyte avenue strategy it is ridiculous to then ignore these requirements on one of the first applications in front of Council. These guidelines are new and should be honoured.

Secondly the proposed long slab approach continues to create a 'wall" of development that doesn't reflect the potential for extension of the avenues as the rail yards are developed. The mass should be broken up to reflect the two building heights as per the plan with space between the buildings that at a minimum reduces the slab feel that the current proposal has. If enough space is provided for road extensions at a later date that would be good. If built out as proposed there will be no opportunity later.

I do not support giving up MR on the corner to place the Stations Park development. There is little enough park space in the area and this should be redeveloped into an attractive urban park - rather than paved as an extension to the commercial area. In seeing seacan types of developments in other parts of the world I would be concerned about the durability of this type of development - especially in the context of an historical area. This is completely counter to the other historic feel that other buildings in the area have (Old Strathcona) and completely swamps the historic building from visibility from Whyte Avenue.

Dagny about 3 years ago

As somebody who lives, works, and spends their free-time in the area, I do not support this development as it is currently proposed.

Comments on AREA A:
I would prefer to see the city work to develop this into a nicer green space and think more strategically about how to improve the pedestrian and cycling pathways all the way down to 76 Avenue or even Argyll road.

As well, this space needs to be thought of more strategically in terms of how it connects to the land on the north side of Whyte Avenue.

This is the ONLY green space directly on Whyte Avenue. It could be a beautiful community hub if more love was given to the landscaping, more bushes and trees were planted as barriers between Gateway Blvd and the pedestrian area.

There needs to be more thought given to improving the sidewalk / biking / transit connections from this corner of Whyte Ave at least all the way down to 76 Avenue. Ideally, Gateway Blvd would have much better pedestrian / cycling / and transit connections all the way down to Argyll Road.

I do not mind the idea of a seacan or two being part of this re-imagining (perhaps as a new home for the train museum) as it fits with the history, but the proposal to cover it in concrete is very very poor for what is probably one of the 4 most important intersections in the city. We need to do better.


Comments on AREA B:
While I would love to see this area developed, this developer is completely out of touch with the community. The design of the building does not match the historic character of the neighborhood, does not encourage foot traffic or more of the street level retail that makes Whyte Avenue so vibrant, and is out of scale with the historic train station directly adjacent.

The 7 storey building will overshadow the historic train station. It should be stepped down to 3 storeys near the train station, although 4 or 5 may be appropriate on the very south side of the development.

Retaining the surface parking is lazy, and does not encourage street level retail. By leaving the surface level parking, this development cements in this "Dead space" onto the Blvd, and discourages future development south, on either the east or west sides of the Blvd. Underground parking would me much more appropriate.

Area B fails to propose more retail or office space. More retail space on the street level in this area should be welcome it will introduce more competition for commercial rental rates. Currently, a very small handful of landlords own a large majority of the retail spaces on Whyte Ave and they use this monopoly to their advantage--charging some of the highest rates in the city. We must give business owners more choice and do what we can to break up this monopoly. The future of Whyte Ave depends on it. More retail produces more foot traffic, which benefits all retailers in the area.

Finally, where are the pedestrian / cycling / transit connections as part of Area B? With the heavy traffic zipping by, perhaps a multi-use path would be appropriate on the East side of the development. Or--if we'd like to have it on the west side of the development--the city could propose a road diet here and turn one of the traffic lanes into a sidewalk with a parallel bike lane and barrier of trees between the pedestrians and traffic. Truly pedestrian friendly connections all the way down to 76 Ave are sorely missing.

Bryan S about 3 years ago

Please don't approve this rezoning. This is one of the few green spaces left. We can't continously promote the economy and building things over the environment and nature. It's not sustainable.

MG about 3 years ago

I do not support the Station Flats development at all. The city needs more green space, not less--as we have seen so clearly in Covid. There is also a glut of empty office and retail space across the city, including along Whyte Avenue. The park here has beautiful flowering trees, and is one of the few common spaces along Whyte Ave. It is well used and contributes greatly to the village feel of Whyte Avenue. This land should be left as-is.

Kristine about 3 years ago

As a long-time area resident and property owner, I strongly oppose this project and the proposed land use changes – primarily due to the height and design of the main building.

It seems the City is already aware this project doesn’t align with the Strathcona ARP, which was updated barely a year ago to address collected concerns and feedback from the community.

A relevant quote from the planWhyte Land Use study from 2018:

“Whyte Avenue is a key area where change needs to be carefully managed and leveraged to sustain its future prosperity, attractiveness and livability.

The City initiated the planWhyte - Whyte Avenue Commercial Area Land Use Study in 2016 following the proposal of 2 large-scale redevelopment projects (The Mezzo and Southpark on Whyte) and in recognition of ongoing development pressure, sensitivity of the area’s existing heritage and character, and assessment of the Strathcona Area Redevelopment Plan.”

These are the key reasons I believe this proposed change of land use is a bad fit for the community:

• Recent amendments to the Strathcona ARP were made to help preserve the character and heritage of this extremely unique community – including the corridor views that contribute. A building of this height would cut off all westward views of Old Strathcona currently enjoyed by residents of West Ritchie, and cast a massive shadow (quite literally) on the neighbourhood.

• This area is already disproportionately underserved by transit (find me the bus routes that serve Gateway Blvd/Calgary Trail between Whitemud and Downtown). Ironically, this specific chunk of land is currently identified as a potential facility for improved public transit and inter-community connections, which would be disrupted by this project.

While the developers have suggested that street and underground parking would be included in the project, I don't see how/where they would find room for enough parking to support the increase in users (there is not a lot of land to spare, and there is extremely limited street parking in the area other than Diamond's privately owned lots).

Old Strathcona is not similar to Downtown – which is rich enough in transit options and 'walk to work' opportunities that the lack of surface parking is not such a problem – or other neighbourhoods where minimal transit is offset by the availability of parking for personal vehicles.

• The skyline would be weirdly disrupted by the height of this building; it doesn't "fit" with the surroundings, and as I mentioned before, would bring an uncomfortable sense of encroachment to the area. (That’s the best word I can think of to describe it.)

• (After seeing the renderings, the encroachment and design of the building appear to be even worse than I first imagined. Why would you ever add a chunky glass mini-tower right between historic brick buildings?)

• This project would displace other ideas for the area that would offer a more community-oriented use of the land. Other zoning proposals put forth in recent years have included better plans for park/green space and mixed-use areas, for example.

• There would need to be a thorough plan for drainage servicing and potential need for upgrades to accommodate the increase in users as well as address flood risks in the area. (This is a known area of underspending by the City and the flood risks have been previously identified.)

• (On a side note, I’m also somewhat insulted by the developers’ lack of an attempt to understand our community, as is apparent by how obviously their proposal goes against the expressed plans and intentions of community members.)

JN about 3 years ago

I oppose the rezoning and development proposals. What makes Old Strathcona so unique are the green spaces with mature trees and light. The particular area at 8107 Gateway Boulevard NW is quite narrow, a bottle neck. The buildings would completely overshadow the Railway Station.
Both proposed buildings clash with the architectural style of the historic Strathcona Area.
Retail spaces along Whyte Avenue are suffering, adding more retail spaces makes no sense. Preserving the historical buildings in the area is an investment, letting them deteriorate and stand empty is short sighted.
Pedestrians enjoy strolling/browsing around Whyte Avenue. Adding more condos/apartments and density will eventually lead to decreased foot traffic, the area loses its uniqueness. One of the reasons that downtown needs to be revitalized is because it is not much fun strolling in between high-rises in the dark (lack of sunlight) with wind and dust flying around.
The City might want to consider better public transport accessibility to Old Strathcona, as parking is already a problem and would worsen with an extra 125 residential units.
Before approving any further development in the area the City could address the unused CN land. Converting it into a park with walking trails, skateboarding/rollerblading/ bike lanes, outdoor farmer's market, exhibits, festivals...

IH about 3 years ago

One of the main reason I do not go downtown is because of the absence of green spaces and the over abundance of high rise buildings. Whyte avenue has maintained a feeling of welcome and belonging because of the way limited retail business is mixed with green space. I do not support rezoning of the green space south east of Whyte avenue on Gateway boulevard. I also think building height should be kept to the same as the Strathcona hotel.

CTHW about 3 years ago

This looks like a good project to improve the use of that area. The small shop complex could be really nice - perhaps adding more seating/observation area on top of that complex would be a good idea.

The use of the park space looks like a better use of the area than currently.

Dave B about 3 years ago

I think the City should refuse the developer's request about the parkland and leave it as is until AFTER the development of the Strathcona Public Places Plan. It is the only green area right on Whyte Avenue that I can think of. Leave it be.

Kell about 3 years ago

I support this proposed development for what is currently underused space. It's nice to see plans to actually increase density in core neighbourhoods. The only thing I would like to see more of is better traffic (bike lane, multi-use path, and road) connections into and through the Station Flats area. Currently, especially as a cyclist, this area is hard to access -- you have to go to the bike lanes on 83, and then south on 100 St, which isn't ideal. It would be nice to see this area connected to the rest of Old Strathcona via 80th ave at least.

One of the other commenters mentioned pressing CN to release these lands back to the City, and potentially developing park space there. That's an incredible idea - this centrally located land is currently a dead zone in what should be the heart of our city. It's time to change that.

I do not support the removal of the municipal reserve designation for the park space north of Whyte Ave. I am not clear on why this is necessary, when there is already an abundance of commercially available spaces in and around the area.

LMC about 3 years ago

I do not support loosing the green space. Those blooming trees are pretty. We should name this park and keep it for public seating and private programming. It is at such a epicentre of east-west and north-south traffics. It is a place marker that announces that this is a unique small community within the city. It helps slow down traffic. We will need more park spaces when the Street Cars and Sky Gondolas arrive on the street just north of this space. It does not make sense to develop this space without addressing the railway lands which could also be an amazing park space. Pressure should be put on CN to release this crown land back to the city of Edmonton. I own a business and property on 81 & 100st before the long row apartments walled off our street from Gateway. All development to the south of the railway station should have plans to reconnect east and central Old Strathcona with West Ritchie community.

The design of glass and black beams is oppressive, impersonal, and out of character. It is too industrial. Lighting at night may be pretty but due to high traffic in all directions it will be dusty and grimy most of the days.

I appreciate that this space is being considered. It can be done better.

PS about 3 years ago

I do not support this proposal. As noted by other commenters, there is a high commercial vacancy rate in the Whyte Ave area. As a small business owner who is priced out of traditional and contemporary retail spaces along the Ave already, I don't want to see more corporate and high end commercial businesses continue to drive lower income community members and small local businesses out of the Whyte Ave area. We need more green spaces, not fewer - removing the municipal reserve designation does not serve the citizens and patrons of this area.

Parker L about 3 years ago

As a business owner and resident of the Whyte Avenue community, I firmly object to the proposed MR Removal Plan that would result in the elimination of the unnamed community park and green space in the southeast corner of Whyte Avenue and Gateway Boulevard.

The main reason for this objection is the harm it will do to the primary users of this space - our local homeless community. Taking away this green space (situated in close proximity to the public washroom facilities located at the northeast corner of the same intersection) without any consideration for these main users would be an offensive gesture.

Furthermore, considering that there are few public green spaces left on Whyte Avenue and the commercial vacancy rate in the area is rising significantly, removing any green space for such commercial purposes is shortsighted and unacceptable.

With respect to the rezoning and commercial development plans both north and south of the historic CP Train Station, I welcome new development in this area, however there is ONE very important consideration that has not been addressed:

What are the plans for the unkept and under-utilized vacant space between the Station on Whyte building and the proposed project?

I am referring to the vacant CP land and unused train tracks. This narrow space will be borderline useless for any reasonable future development if this current development proposal fails to incorporate them into the final plans.

If the city and developer are serious about revitalizing this corner, failing to address the unused CP train track land in this current proposal will be extremely disappointing. My suggestion is that the proposed development project be expanded to incorporate these unused CP lands and leverage them in the final project. If these lands are incorporated, the developer should be able to maintain the unnamed green space (plus ideally invest more into it to better support our local homeless community) and expand the scope of their whole project even further.

Finally, I hope the city investigates the opening/connection of 80ave between Gateway Blvd and 102st for vehicle and foot traffic based on how much this general area South of Whyte Ave and East of 102st has and will be developed heading into the future. I imagine the CP lands will be sold and developed at some point, so having this 80ave access incorporated now seems like it would make sense. This new connection would be especially important for the local foot traffic forced to walk two blocks North to Whyte Ave to cross Gateway Blvd or trespass on CP land, as there is no safe South access point to do so.

Thank you for considering.

Dominic about 3 years ago

I do not support the seven-story building proposed in this plan. Three or four, maybe, but not seven. The high rise buildings stand out in an area of smaller, older building. I do like the sea can idea, though. Good use of existing materials.
Thank you.

Jillian about 3 years ago

I highly support the DC1 rezoning portion of the application - this creative, attractive proposal will bring much needed vibrancy and density to an otherwise difficult location. The height variances are minimal and entirely reasonable given the benefits of this development.

While I personally believe this developer has an impressive track record of creating desirable public spaces in their projects, I can see why some might have an issue with removing the municipal reserve designation. However, on balance, I would support this element of the application as well.

Great proposal - excited to see it built!

GG about 3 years ago

Do not make MR designation more tenuous. It is hard to get and easy to lose. Parksprescripton.ca is a growing trend as doctors and planners increasingly value green space as a way to ensure our cities are healthy and valued and not a place to escape.

Raquel Feroe about 3 years ago

Unless traffic volumes are lowered, with significant removal of traffic lanes and better cyclist & walking connections I can't support this area being used for residential purposes. Residents would be exposed to major road noise and pollutants as well as increasing traffic conflicts. Without safe connections, most residents wouldn't be able to use cycling or walking as their transportation either. I'm also concerned that this will prevent future biking/walking connections along 80 ave

yegdweller about 3 years ago