LDA20-0026 - Former St. John’s School Site Rezoning (10231 - 120 Street NW)

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

Consultation has concluded

** The discussion has concluded, and the What We Heard Report is available for viewing. This application was approved by council October 20, 2020.**

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

** The discussion has concluded, and the What We Heard Report is available for viewing. This application was approved by council October 20, 2020.**

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

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.

Good missing middle infill proposal, but at 6 stories, such a mid-rise building should have more articulation on all 4 side elevations, as not to appear as massive monolith.

David 12 months ago

It is disingenuous to say that the previous zoning application would have resulted in expanding the park, as this was not in the rezoning application.

This RA8 rezoning application is preferable to the two previous applications by this developer. However, the minimum setback requirements must be respected by the developer and the Development Officer (and SDAB, if it comes before them) as both the park to the north and the residential units to the south require significant setbacks. The massing should also respect the surrounding land uses, namely the park.

GoingGreen 12 months ago

We need more green-friendly space. If you're right next to a community garden, of all things, I want to see monumental effort put in place to make this building as close to carbon neutral as possible.
There's no shortage of rentals in Edmonton and this new building honestly seems silly, but y'all are probably gonna build it anyway, so at least be earth-conscious about it and appease us mouthy hippies. The current proposal looks "fine." It's ugly, but not too tall. Parking will probably continue to be an issue but living downtown it's to be expected. If it were up to me I'd just expand the garden out because the wait list for a plot there is longer than a bureaucrat's shitlist.

S. 12 months ago

I believe turning that lot into another gardenning space is a lot better option and it will directly benefit oliver residents than a private owned apartment building that brings more traffic and pollution.

Kameran 12 months ago

It seems like this building doesn’t block the light in the garden so I don’t foresee that being an issue. I’m also not concerned about parking if the goal is to encourage more transit/bike use. The whole reason I love living in Oliver is how little a car is actually needed

But, I am concerned about the building itself. We need to encourage more “green” builds. Will the building have solar panels? A rooftop garden? A rooftop green space would benefit the residents and lesson the utility demands of the building. Green roofs are proven to help keep buildings cool thus reducing the demand for energy sucking a/c units. And they beautify the neighbourhood!

Ideally I’d like to see the City take over this space to expand the garden but if that can’t be done then I think the building should include some greenery on the roof

NA 12 months ago

As a resident of Oliver and a long-time applicant for the garden, it saddens me to see profits and corporate interests being put before community. Oliver and downtown in general is in no need of yet another (shoddily built) condo building. Condos struggle to sell and fill these days. Regardless, please do not allow yet another condo to come in and block the light of our beautiful community garden. This is the only garden Oliver has and the only access to having a tiny plot of land for so many of us.

Katie 12 months ago

I would hope that City Council would step back and take a look at what is happening all over Oliver (or even just in the immediate area of this proposed development) before allowing this to go forward. For example, a block or two away from this site, across from Paul Kane park, there is another application for a mid/high-rise development. What are the combined potential traffic impacts of that application along with this one? The former St. John's location is two blocks away from Oliver School. It seems that this is a great opportunity for the City to encourage families to live walking distance from a school. Will this development have apartments / condos that can truly accommodate families, or will it be yet another one of many around here that consists of only 1 and 2 bedroom places?

That said, I would much rather see this land become a playground, park, or other managed green space. One of the wonderful things about Oliver -- indeed, what makes it a desirable place to live for people of all ages -- is the combination of green space with reasonably dense buildings in relatively close proximity to downtown. But that balance has to be maintained, and green space is increasingly hard to come by in Oliver. In particular, interior green space -- land that is not on either 104th Ave or Jasper, but in between -- is important, especially for those of us with younger children.

But I also appreciate that the developer here seems to be caught between a rock and a hard place, given the recent history around previous attempts to develop or swap this land. It seems that the application rejected by City Council in 2019, or something like it, might want to be reconsidered, given that it solved or mitigated at least some of the problems brought up above.

RB 12 months ago

Given height of the surrounding buildings in the immediate area of the site, I feel that anything above 4 stories would mean too much congestion and too much traffic/parking issues. It would also cause sight line issues for surrounding buildings and to the park.

shelbyae1 12 months ago

I live directly across 120 Street from this proposed development. The sidewalks in the area are in varying states of disrepair with water & ice issues in winter/spring. Would the city/developer be willing to fix the sidewalks during the construction of a new building?

shelbyae1 12 months ago

I fully support this application. It is an extremely reasonable size and scale for the interior of Oliver. Obviously, the general RA8 zoning leaves a lot of unanswered questions as to the specifics of the design and layout, but the RA8 height maximums undoubtedly fits with the context of the existing neighbourhood. This is exactly the kind of height reduction that the community was asking for from the previous application. I personally think the previous application with a setback tower would have been better for street level engagement, but there is a lot of merit to RA8 at this location. Overall, it will add terrific density and vibrancy to a highly desirable part of the core. I'm looking forward to seeing it built!

GG 12 months ago

I support this application to rezone the subject site to RA8. The maximum 6-storey height fits well with existing condo developments in Oliver and the proposed zone fits well with the planned and existing surrounding land uses and also with the City's plan and intention to increase density gently in our mature and core neighbourhoods. I agree that during the development and building permit phase that consideration should be made for how the future building will interact with the townhouses to the south and the garden to the north, but that is not a part of this specific application. I appreciate the sun/shadow analysis and agree that it has a manageable and limited impact on the garden space.

KP 12 months ago

While I applaud the developer's earlier attempts to address community concerns through a land swap, I am not supportive of the proposed rezoning on this parcel of land. The minimal setbacks do not appropriately address the existing townhouses immediately to the south.

Christopher about 1 year ago

Please do not okay this development. We need room to breathe. Shadows and impact aside, I would like to know if any of the decision-makers have spent any recent efforts to park on 120 St.
Or tabulated how many other buildings are being constructed within a two-block radius. Or how long it would actually take to get a garden plot in Peace Garden. (a funeral plot is more likely).
The public needs to know that you have done your due diligence.

#1. Council should do a traffic study. Today, Friday, June 12, every possible street parking space between 104 Ave. and 102 Ave. on 120 St. was occupied. I saw a very near accident this morning with a vehicle turning right from 120 St. onto 104 Ave. and a person in a motorized wheelchair who was on 120 St., and intending to cross 104 Ave. to go to Oliver Square.
#2. Council should tabulate how many new multi-story buildings are being developed within a 2-block block radius of the proposed 6-story building. To the best of my knowledge, there are 3 other major developments.
#3. Peace Garden has 100 plots and 200 names on the waiting list. This year about 10 plots were taken up late so potentially the last name on the list will get a plot in 20 years. Any attempt to satisfy the current gardeners is catering to the elite and/or lucky.
We need a "people's park" on the St. John's school site. It doesn't have to be as pretty as Paul Kane park, or recreation-oriented like Oliver Park, or as exclusive as Peace Garden. Now that COVID 19 restrictions are being lifted, quality of life is becoming critically important.
Here is my example: I don't live in the "bubble houses" on the southern border of St. John's lot and I have observed their enjoyment and creation of a community. They bring out their lawn chairs, and they are a family. The person who plays the trumpet in front of the Allin Clinic adds to the community. Your proposal will encourage none of this.

What is the vision for the City of Edmonton? I see only dollar signs. I do not see a focus on life and living. This means more space and greenery, not less. I moved here last spring just before the park exchange was turned down. What a difference it might have made to my quality of life. It was a bonus to move here. Now, everything is rather sour and lonely. Thank you for reading this. I hope you will reconsider and look at the big picture and ask yourself, what will matter more in the future? - community or money?

M.L. deZwart about 1 year ago

I support this, and very much agree with Morgan. It was so disappointing that Council voted down the vastly superior previous application, but this is an acceptable Plan B.

It is also the perfect area to test the removal of minimum parking standards, as the proximity to downtown, bike lanes, and the future ETS (as well as existing transit) make it very convenient to move around without a vehicle!

Please make this happen!

PCzech about 1 year ago

I support this building. Will bring more living options to the area, which is missing (lots of old, dumpy construction)

Morgan about 1 year ago

A building of this size and capacity would not benefit Oliver in anyway. Parking in this area is limited with many streets where there is only enough room for one car to go through at a time. The road in front of the proposed building has parking on both sides of the road which will make that road even more difficult. With more people comes more traffic, this could also result in more accidents, back ups and pedestrian incidents. The surrounding buildings with private parking for their tenants will have to deal with people visiting the commercial portion of the proposed building and feel it is okay to park in these private spots because they couldn't find street parking and "they were only popping in and out".  Aside from traffic, the size of the building doesn't fit the neighbourhood. It would tower over all of the surrounding buildings ruining any privacy that currently exists. It would block the sun from both the garden and the buildings around it. Sun light is already limited, this building would shade the building I live in and block the sun from my buildings garden as well. Currently Oliver is open with a welcoming feeling, this building would be a wall in the community and make it feel small and cramped. The seniors home would not appreciate the increased traffic going up and down the road. The 4 way intersection at 103 ave and 119 st could become more more dangerous as people already don't pay attention when they are driving let alone have the patience for a slow moving senior to cross the road. The building would bring more people which brings more noise. This is a quite and peaceful area that should be allowed to stay that way.

NL about 1 year ago