LDA20-0299 Garneau UCRH Rezoning

Removed by moderator.

Removed by moderator.

Removed by moderator.

I am a Garneau resident and I too oppose the rezoning of this property. I attended the developer's "public engagement" session on December 17 along with 13 other community members. This proposal is worse than the one we opposed a s few months ago, (ref SDAB-D-20-071).
Firstly, this is not small scale infill housing. Even the developer admits this will not be for families so this will not fit any "missing middle" criteria. The size of the proposed structure on this lot will be detrimental to the neighboring homes.
Secondly, there are plenty of lots on 87 avenue that need to be developed and I don't think anyone would oppose this on that avenue. We did tell the developer that some beautiful triplexes have been built in our area (84 ave and 110 st for example) A design more along these lines would be better suited to this site.
Thirdly, the developer's representatives described this as a transition from the student housing across the street; however, the diagrams that they presented looked more like a downtown street. I saw very little green space or set backs. North Garneau is single family homes and this should be kept that way.
Lastly, and most important, we need to respect the GARP.

Please add these two additional points to my earlier submission under #5 - 1.e. objection to the way the City has has misrepresented the application --:

5. (continued) ... Further, the City’s notice and explanation focus inappropriately on the “row housing” built form which is supposed to be a suitable comparison to the existing single detached homes of the area. In truth, the UCRH zone allows apartment housing as well, again as a Class A (cannot be appealed) Use, and with even less family oriented amenty. As I noted earlier, the City must inform the public of the FULL development potential of a proposed rezoning, and not understate the true potential simply because an applicant (who at any time is free to change his mind or sell the site to any other developer) says so.
The City’s contention that, “Based on the size of the site, the current (RF3) Small Scale Infill Development Zone would also allow up to three principal units of multi-unit or row housing and up to three secondary units” fails to say that (as the applicant readily admits) it would be extremely difficult if not impossible to build 3 principal units suited for family housing without substantial intrusions into the rear and side yards, which the RF3 Zone as modified by the MNO currently prohibits.

OPPOSED.
1. The applicant recently described this proposed development as a "transition" between the university housing site west of the ROW and the abutting single detached homes east of the site. That is misleading at best. In fact it would be an "expansion" of the university site's student housing built form into an area designated by City Council for low rise, low density homes and yards designed for family occupancy. True "transition" would be something part-way between the two, such as what the existing RF3 Zone already permits as Class A development - increased dwelling unit counts at a similar built scale.
2. The rezoning is so obviously contrary to the Garneau ARP I'm surprised it even got this far. The ARP requires the site to be zoned RF3 and limits the number of dwellings on the site to a maximum of four. The size and shape of the site already allow for 2 semi-detached dwellings with 2 secondary residences as a Class A (cannot be appealed) development, a development that would truly be a "transition." Unlike the RF3 zone, the UCRH zone allows 6 dwellings as Class A (cannot be appealed) development and therefore is contrary to City Council's explicite direction.
3. The ARP also stipulates a process for any development that exceeds the RF3 zone's regulations (density, built form, siting, etc etc). That process demands that the application be for a DC2 zone in order to allow for critical design impacts to be determined and mitigated based on a site's unique context and circumstances and compliance with City Council Policy in the ARP.
4. I also object to not being allowed to provide input on more than just the proposed zoning and prevented from commenting on the proposed amendment to the statutory plan. The proposed ARP amendment should also be reproduced here so citizens are able to review and comment on it too. The City should not withhold crucial public information from the public. I must also remind the City and applicant that, in the Garneau ARP, City Council requires that an ARP amendment of this magnitude must include an open, honest and transparent public consultation event before it can be submitted to City Council for consideration.
5. Finally I must object to the blatantly misleading information the City provided to the public. The Zoning Bylaw requires that the public be advised of the FULL development potential of a rezoning, and not what an applicant who cannot be bound by his statements says he wants to do. A 12m high building is NOT limited to "2-3 storeys" as stated in the City's notice - it can be as high as 3 1/2 to 4 storeys. Also, the UCRH zone would allow up to 6 dwellings on the site, not "3 dwellings" as stated in the City's notice. As a former Professional Planner myself, I fail to understand why the City cannot be honest with its citizens.

Removed by moderator.

As a homeowner on 88 Avenue, please be notified that I strongly oppose the request to rezone 8715-110 Street NW Edmonton from RF3 to UCRH.

This request is a continued attempt by the developer to overbuild on this site after being denied their initial request in July 2020. (ref SDAB-D-20-071).

I attended an information session hosted by the developer and his consultant GSA on December 17, 2020. The pictures at this session were of a large multi-storey, multi-unit structure which was completely out of place on this block of single family dwellings. The structure does not face 88 avenue, destroys the green space on the site, and isolates several houses to the east.

The purpose of this proposed structure is as it was in the originally rejected application. Namely, to board individuals in the way that a dormitory does; 12-18 single rooms served by common kitchens. It is designed in this way to generate sufficient profit for the developer and wishes to serve the adjacent University. This type of structure is well suited for existing zoned areas such as on 87 Avenue.

There is no need to rezone precious single family lots in Garneau.
1) there are so few remaining - North Garneau has already lost 70% of its historic homes.
2) there are so many underdeveloped locations in Garneau! The Garneau Area Redevelopment Plan (GARP) outlines many areas for multi-unit development, including nearby 87 Avenue, which is not yet developed. The City should only consider adding more multi-unit zones when the ones outlined in the GARP are exhausted.

Finally, I would like for you and the City to recognize that these repeated attempts are an assault on my family's well being. They bring needless uncertainty to our home and its surroundings. We enjoy the area and have been here for over 25 years. We have witnessed a wonderful rejuvenation of families on the block and community activities in the area. Currently there are three families with young children on the South side of 88 Avenue.

We need to act to preserve family homes and place large structures like this across the street or alley as is agreed to in the GARP.

I trust you will support my, the community league's, its membership, and residents' request to deny this rezoning request.

This application is a tiresome repeat of what has already been rejected by the SDAB. Instead of heeding the decision of the SDAB, the developer asks for spot zoning - the worst kind of “planning” for any neighbourhood. Bringing this second application is an abuse of process.
The two zones comparison shown on the public engagement page is poor background for any website-visiting public. How can they offer informed thoughts and ask questions if they are not told the background about the prior application? Where is information about the overriding Garneau Area Redevelopment Plan (the GARP) - and how the proposed development fits with or departs from its provisions?
And please stop referring to the municipal address as the developer has asked for it. Not only does it confuse the public which parcel is involved, it leaves an impression of bias – that the developer is running the rezoning show, not the City. This house is known to us as 10957-88 Avenue. Only if approved should it be changed to the developer’s proposed 8715-110 Street.
As part of the summary to go to the new decision-maker (now City Council in lieu of the SDAB) I expect the many community submissions in the prior application on this property will be provided to City Council. Many set out how completely unsuitable the proposed project is seen through the lens of the GARP.
As the community responses to that prior SDAB application showed, this is about much more than zone comparisons, it is about what is appropriate according to the GARP. Though general zone descriptions have changed over time, the community stakeholder bargain embodied in the GARP continues to provide a constant living vision for this community, and what is appropriate development. And also, viewing this application, what is not appropriate development. This application should be refused.
Doug G.

The "massing pictures" shared at the developer's public meeting on Dec 17 were horrifying! They are proposing a monster building, that faces the wrong way (street not ave), and towers over the neighbouring properties. That isn't family housing and is a horrible misfit on this beautiful historic block.
The building they want to build is row housing - you can't fit a row of housing on a lot that is designed for a single house! They need to move this idea to a zone that allows that sort of development - there are many UNDERDEVELOPED blocks in Garneau.
There is NO NEED for adding density on 88 Ave. The GARP outlines plenty of areas for multi unit development in Garneau. We as a community have already allowed for an appropriate amount of density in the GARP and most of it hasn't yet been built.
Please keep the BALANCE of history and density in Garneau. It is NOT appropriate to densify every lot.
Please DENY this rezoning. Thank you.

I am a Garneau resident and wish to record my opposition to the proposed rezoning at 11057 88 Ave. The design concept that was discussed at the developer’s Dec. 17 online meeting is even more intrusive than what was refused by the SDAB for the site in the spring.
While this part of our neighbourhood is adjacent to the East Campus housing area, it is distinct from it; North Garneau is comprised of detached homes, many of which have suites, with a small neighbourhood commercial area. There is no reason to try to duplicate campus housing off-campus.
The developer’s consultants justify the proposed zoning change by referring to the newly adopted City Plan, the City’s desire to limit urban sprawl, and the designation of our area as a Major Hub. Surely the City Plan’s provisions do not support a one-off single lot rezoning. Our neighbourhood is already one of the two densest and most populous in the city – it has been fulfilling the role of a major hub for many rears.
Garneau has an area redevelopment plan which allocates a number of sub-areas for continued densification and other areas for the preservation of the community's historic fabric. If changes are to be made to implement the direction of the City Plan this should be accomplished through a comprehensive review of our ARP and the related zoning provisions and not through a one-off rezoning of a single lot.

I have no concerns with this proposal, as the zoning change seems extremely minor. A 3 storey building seems like nice middle density at a reasonable height that would match well with developments across the street.

I do not support this proposal. My stance is two-fold. One, we should develop new buildings that fit with the character of the neighbourhood; and two we should develop buildings that will stand the test of time. Too often I see homes that favoured cheap architectural work and a popular design for the time that is no longer desirable. These homes are not worth investing in and are often the first to be torn down. To support neighbourhood growth, as well as the environment, we should be building homes to last.

I support infill, but I believe that in an historical neighbourhood such as Garneau, and effort to create a design that fits with the neighbourhood is necessary.

Removed by moderator.

Removed by moderator.

I am strongly opposed to the proposed development. It is an inappropriate design and does not suit the neighbourhood at all. I would consider supporting a more fitting proposal.

I am strongly opposed to the proposed development. I am a homeowner in Garneau. I live in a single-family home with my wife and two children. I have a vested interest in the character and quality of this neighborhood. Garneau has a community plan to shape development according to the interests of the people who live in the community—the GARP should be respected. Garneau is already the densest neighbourhood in Edmonton. Every time a developer is allowed to rezone to increase density—for the sake of density and/or private profit—both the affected community and the city of Edmonton lose. The first application to develop this site was declined. This second application is hardly new; the same significant issues remain. Here are a few: (1) It is not appropriate to rezone specific lots when the area plan includes structured areas to ensure a balanced approach to change. (2) The proposed building is too large for the area and especially for the street in question. (3) The orientation of the building would create various irritants (e.g., light, noise) and privacy concerns, thus impinging upon the quality of life for existing residents. (4) Garneau is not a suitable situation for row housing. A developer that does not see this clearly has no experience of the place or relationship to the people that make Garneau a unique neighborhood. (5) The description provided by the developer is not accurate as it does not fully describe the implications of rezoning in terms of density; such misleading representation should be enough to dismiss the application. Over the past four decades, the residents of Garneau have responded to weak, insensitive development proposals that threaten the neighborhood. This situation is no different. Density does not mask the inadequacies of the proposal. More importantly, the orientation of such a proposal is wrong. Garneau is not an empty lot next to the airport requiring rows of quick, cheap infill. Why not focus instead on ensuring that Garneau remains the beautiful, historic neighborhood that both locals and tourists like to wander through? Does anyone take a walk to get a look at row housing? I recommend leaving such architectural delicacies for England. If the city of Edmonton does not prioritize the safekeeping of its own history, as well as the cultural specificity of its historic communities, then such things will disappear. The city should make the following position clear: A proposal that does not meet the GARP will not be considered. This application is another opportunity to make that statement.

The reason that zoning exists is that it allows appropriate and planned growth. When it it used congruently with other redevelopment plans, the City can ensure that densification can occur while meeting the needs and expectations of the community. When areas are arbitrarily rezoned outside current zoning AND also don't meet the intentions of overlays (e.g. GARP in this case) they should be seen for what they are: opportunistic development that meets only the needs of the developer. This proposed rezoning contradicts the Garneau Area Redevelopment Plan (GARP) which suggests family housing (6 units of 125 m2 is not family housing) for this block. There is already zoning in place for appropriate densification (4 units) for this lot. As well there is opportunity for high development in many other areas in Garneau including the adjacent southern lots. As a homeowner on this block I support appropriate infill development that is congruent with the current zoning. I do not support this rezoning.
Also please fix this website so that when you click the submit button it doesn't give you an error.

Removed by moderator.