LDA20-0026 - Former St. John’s School Site Rezoning (10231 - 120 Street NW)
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.
Stay Informed
Click here to share your email address to stay up to date on this application! Your email will be used to inform you about this zoning application in the future.
For more information about registering to stay engaged with other City projects and initiatives, visit the Engaged Edmonton FAQ page.
Who's Listening
-
Phone 780-496-2939 Email andrew.mclellan@edmonton.ca
Documents
- LDA20-0026 What We Heard Report.pdf (205 KB) (pdf)
- Rezoning Map - LDA20-0026 - Former St. John’s School Site Rezoning (10231 - 120 Street NW) (download) (59.2 KB) (pdf)
- PDF of Video Slides - LDA20-0026 - Former St. John’s School Site Rezoning (10231 - 120 Street NW) (download) (2.8 MB) (pdf)
- Video Script - LDA20-0026 - Former St. John’s School Site Rezoning (10231 - 120 Street NW) (download) (91.3 KB) (pdf)
- Sun Shadow Study - LDA20-0026 - Former St. John’s School Site Rezoning (10231 - 120 Street NW) (download) (746 KB) (pdf)
Site and Application History
This property was once the site of St. John’s School, built in 1939 and operating until 1983. The Edmonton Catholic School Board then leased the space until 2014 before putting it up for sale. In 2016, it was sold and has been privately owned ever since, with the building demolished in 2017.
In late 2016, the City received an application to rezone the site to allow for a 14 storey building. Challenges were identified with this application due to the proposed density on the interior of the neighbourhood, and the proximity to, and associated shadowing impacts on Peace Garden Park, directly to the north.
In the fall of 2017, during public engagement for that application, a member of the public suggested a potential swap between the north east corner of Oliver Park and the former St. John’s School site to resolve these challenges. The application was modified to pursue this course, which would have led to an expansion of Peace Garden Park, while allowing a portion of Oliver Park along 104 Avenue NW to be a high-rise tower development site. This application was refused by City Council at a Public Hearing on April 29, 2019. The City’s full report as well as minutes and video/audio of the Public Hearing can be found here (If the link doesn't work, navigate to the April 29 - City Council Public Hearing Minutes, items 5.3, 5.4 and 5.5. The video of the Public Hearing will queue up to the correct spot in the top right corner). You can access the website for the previous application here.
The landowner is now pursuing development opportunities on this site again and this has led to the current rezoning proposal for the Medium-Rise Apartment Zone (RA8).
FAQs
- What is the difference between a Standard Zone and a Direct Control Provision?
- Does the City have standards/regulations for how much shadow can be cast by a building onto a parks or community garden site?
- Which document takes precedence, the Oliver Area Redevelopment Plan or the Transit Oriented Development Guidelines?
- Where will the parking be for this development?
- Can the water and drainage network here accommodate this proposed scale of development?
- Why did City Council refuse the previous version of this application?
Timelines
-
January 27, 2020 - Complete Application Accepted for Processing
LDA20-0026 - Former St. John’s School Site Rezoning (10231 - 120 Street NW) has finished this stage -
February 10, 2020: Notification postcards mailed
LDA20-0026 - Former St. John’s School Site Rezoning (10231 - 120 Street NW) has finished this stageReceived by property owners within 100 metres of the site and the Community League providing information about the application and inviting feedback.
-
June 2020 - Engaged Edmonton Page launched to gather feedback
LDA20-0026 - Former St. John’s School Site Rezoning (10231 - 120 Street NW) has finished this stage -
October 20 2020: City Council Public Hearing
LDA20-0026 - Former St. John’s School Site Rezoning (10231 - 120 Street NW) is currently at this stageApplication approved by City Council
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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.
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.
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?
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!
I support this building. Will bring more living options to the area, which is missing (lots of old, dumpy construction)
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.