LDA23-0233 Windsor Park Rezoning

A lot of long winded responses below. Definitely fair arguments to be made both for and against.

One question I have for those making the arguments of needing “family housing” for supporting the local school: do you have an issue with all the 1-3 person households that are 2-3 million dollar mansions? Do you think those are better off being 4-6 townhomes at 600k each so more families can live in the area?

As well, what is family housing? A single prof at the uni with 1-2 kids, they might love a 2bdrm close to campus, is that a family? Are the plethora of empty nesters and childless homes in Windsor park of concern to you? Or are they ok as long as they’re mansions?

If this apartment adds 8 kids to the area, which is likely more than the homes it replaces would have, is that then ok?

I oppose this development. It is not considering the vision set out by the Scona District Plan. Densification of Windsor Park can occur in a better way through duplexes and garden suites. The community has a good school, is inclusive and is vibrant and this should be encouraged through housing that accommodates a range of age groups.

I strongly oppose this development for the reasons outlined below.

As highlighted in the public hearing last year for the 118th Street development, Windsor Park residents support The City Plan and its goal of creating a more compact, climate resilient, city. The community has an important role to play. But the development process must involve respectful adherence to the actual principles and plans set out in The City Plan, and existing guidelines and policies that the City itself has established. Failing to do so, undermines public trust in the City for obvious reasons.

In this current application, LDA23-0233, citizens are invited to ADVISE the City of Edmonton Planning Department as part of an engagement process. Given that this process is reported to consume millions and millions of tax payer dollars each year, I participate with the expectation that it will be taken seriously and that community concerns will be given the attention they deserve (as noted in The City Plan). I therefore wish to ADVISE City Planning of the following:

1. Non-Compliance with City Policies: The rezoning application fails to comply with the City of Edmonton's District Policy and the proposed Scona District Plan which specify that a building on this site should be no more than four (4) floors in height, while the proposed structure is six (6) floors. The applicant provides no compelling reason why an exception should be made.

2. Non-Compliance with The City Plan: The rezoning application does not adhere to The City Plan, nor to the technical reports prepared for The City Plan, which includes a detailed map showing the University-Garneau node was intended to end on University lands on 116th Street. Information on this point was presented at the public hearing for the last Westrich development on 118th Street. Despite past efforts then by the Planning Department to assert that the area from 116 to 118th Street constitutes a so-called “edge condition” (as argued at the Public Hearing last year for the 118th Westrich development), the concept of an “edge condition” does not exist in The City Plan, nor in the technical documents for The City Plan. Indeed, even the developer, Westrich acknowledged in their original submission for the 118th Street development that sites west of 116th were “outside the node”. Likewise, this site is outside the node. Fictional concepts such as "edge conditions" do nothing to change the technical maps and reports for The City Plan, developed at taxpayer's expense.

3. Lack of Housing Diversity: The rezoning application does little to support a key goal of The City Plan: increasing housing ‘diversity’ and affordability’ in the community. The only new development that has come into Windsor Park since the passing of The City Plan has been rental units aimed at students. The proposed development simply repeats the same old, small unit, rental approach, with monthly rates likely out of the reach of the average student. Nor does the proposed development diversify housing stock for those who wish to settle long term and invest / purchase their housing dollars rather than enrich a developer ad infinitum through paying rent. Nor will it provide options for current homeowners who might wish to downsize in to a condo, free up an existing property, and age in place as was also discussed at last year’s public hearing concerning the 118th Street site. Instead of housing diversity and innovation, as promised by The City Plan, the proposal offers re-run development, aimed at minimizing design and development costs, maximizing profits, and contributing to financialization and housing unaffordability in Edmonton.

4. Excessive Pace of Growth: The rezoning application will accelerate an excessive pace of growth in our community, contrary to promises made in the Growth Management Framework set out in The City Plan. Of note, the primary purpose of the Growth Management Framework is to ensure that the laudable goal of building a more compact and sustainable city occurs in a way that is “manageable” for citizens and their communities. Concentrating yet another too large development in 116 to 118th Street blocks does nothing to accomplish this goal. Windsor Park already has seen three new developments in this part of our neighbourhood, creating significant disruption near the elementary school and early childhood learning centre. As the developer has made clear, they do not care about the impact on residents in our community. But City Planning does have a duty to consider whether residents in this particular corner of the world (116 – 118th Street) are being asked for too much, yet again.

5. Demand for Housing: The City’s Engagement site for this proposal has been visited by many development enthusiasts who wish to emphasize the dramatic growth the University of Alberta is going to undergo. Claims about growth to 60,000 students by 2030 deserve scrutiny. They appear to be an aspirational goal of the University, designed to loosen funding from the provincial government—a strategy that doesn’t appear to be working in light of the recent provincial budget. Whether such growth will be achieved is questionable. Budget cuts from the province (past and ongoing) have seriously damaged the university, its reputation, and ability to attract students. International models of recruitment are also collapsing around the globe. If and when the University does grow, it will build more student residences because that is the main revenue line for publicly funded universities these days (along with parking and food services). The University has made grand promises like this before, such as the U of A being a top 20 university by 2020 ('Top 20 in 2020'). It is currently ranked 111th globally. Due diligence on growth arguments is thus required. In addition, consideration needs to be made of the fact that there is already new housing coming on stream in Windsor Park (e.g., Pagnotta building, Westrich 118st building when completed). There will also be a great deal of new development ongoing in Garneau, the actual centre of the University-Garneau major node.

6. Yet more Traffic Congestion: According to the City of Edmonton, 116th Street is a collector road which is intended to fulfill a special function in a community and "contribute to its quality of life". The road and bike lane provide a major route into the University. It is hard to see how a six storey building, complete with yet more cars and associated traffic (e.g., delivery, pick up) will contribute to the quality of life in our community when 116th Street is already busy and often congested. I understand that City Planning believes that tenants in this building will walk, bike and roll, year round, wherever they need to go. This is unlikely. Clearly the developer does not care about traffic impacts on our community. But City Planning does have an obligation to consider such issues.

7. Best Practice Development: I have observed this developer throughout the 118th Street planning process, public hearings, and their current management of the building site (where the sounds of concrete clattering into steel dumpsters could be heard from three blocks away, early on Boxing Day morning). Their genuine lack of consideration and interest in working in good faith with the Windsor Park community is disturbing.

As the decision-making process unfolds, I sincerely hope that City planners and Council members will approach their responsibilities with the utmost integrity and with a commitment to the long term well-being of our community. No one is suggesting that Windsor Park will not see higher density. The issues is how density will be achieved and whether the rules and vision set out by the City itself will actually be followed.

I am in opposition to this proposed Westrich development on 116th street between 87 and 89 avenue, and I fully support the online feedback provided here on March 7 by JVM. In particular, I share JVM’s concerns re “Public Trust”.

As clearly articulated by JVM, we face the situation where a proposed building meets neither the current nor the yet-to-be-approved new city development planning rules and standards. Before Council signs off on this non-compliant development, is it possible for them to stop to consider the impact such approvals of non-compliant developments have on Public Trust?

When development policies are followed Edmonton’s reputation as a trusted, professional, competent partner is enhanced:
• Development proceeds with clarity, consistency and certainty
• Stakeholders understand what can be built, and where
• Stakeholders know what to expect from each other
• Stakeholders who disagree have a reference point that fosters constructive dialogue
• The process is less adversarial
• The processes speed up
As a result, Edmonton attracts New Businesses and New People

When development policies are ignored, Edmonton’s reputation as a trusted, professional, competent partner is tarnished:
• Precedents are set
• Stakeholders no longer trust the process
• Consistency suffers
• Waivers and exceptions are expected and demanded
• Relationships become adversarial
• Favoritism is suspected
• Processes become bogged down in arguments, negotiations and appeals
As a result, Potential New Businesses and Residents go elsewhere

In approving these non-compliant multi-tenant, multi-story developments, City Council essentially expropriates the sunshine, privacy, peace and wealth of adjacent residential properties. And there is no avenue of appeal! What is most upsetting is that these expropriations are not to accommodate civil works that benefit the population as a whole like LRT extensions, street widenings or bridge approaches – they are expropriations to accommodate non-compliant multi-tenant dwellings. The people living adjacent to the 116th street proposal, if is approved, and others impacted by other anticipated non-compliant developments, will lose all trust in the City Council and the administration. And how many of those homeowners negatively affected are business owners or senior executives, or have friends or associates running businesses? These business leaders look for stability and predictability when they contemplate where and when to establish or expand a business? How confident will these business leaders be that the City of Edmonton is the right place to operate a business when individual homeowners have been treated so unfairly? Not confident at all, I suggest!

The City of Edmonton has put a high priority on mitigating the economic and social causes and impacts of climate change. Significantly increasing housing density is a key pillar in the City’s strategy. But City Council cannot focus only on achieving our climate change long-term goals while ignoring other near term needs of its businesses and its citizens. To successfully achieve its strategic goals, the City Council needs the buy-in, the support and, in particular, the trust of its citizens and its businesses. One of the ways the City Council can earn this trust is by being fair and consistent in its assessment and approval of new developments.

W.J.Jamieson

I agree with a fellow resident: "The primary concern I have is that under the District Policy and the proposed Scona District Plan the building should be no more than 4 floors in height (this one is proposed to be 6 floors). It is simply too big for that part of our community. If the clear provisions of the City's own planning documents (the District Policy and Scona District Plans) are going to be ignored why have any such plans in the first place. Residents of any community in Edmonton should be entitled to know what can be built in their community and where.

The District Policy and Scona District plan are still in draft form but are expected to be passed this year. The law of Alberta is that draft policies and plans should be considered by council in making their decision. This development proposal does not meet the existing Residential Infill Guidelines. However, City Planning basically ignores those arguing that the City Plan (endorsing densification) supersedes the Residential Infill Guidelines. The problem is that the City Plan does not provide any specific guidelines but rather endorses the District Policy/Plans approach. So, City Planning and no doubt a number of councilors will say that the Residential Infill Guidelines do not apply (because they have been superseded by the City Plan) nor do the District plans apply because they have not been passed. The end result, using their logic, is that virtually any development that adds to densification complies with the City Plan and should be approved.

This does not make sense nor is it fair to those living in a community. "

There are 4 huge ELM trees along the front sidewalk on 116 Street that need to be pre served.
. Furthermore, in the front yard of 8730, right on the property line there is a very well-cared-for Colorado Blue Spruce tree that should be kept as a centrepiece to the apartment building.

I am an area resident.

I think this would be good redevelopment for the area. In University, I wish this side of campus had more to it other than just low-density housing. With this building, there will be more opportunity for small businesses to flourish, especially being so close to campus and residence.

The 6-storey height appears to be good missing middle housing, especially going from the large buildings at the UofA to the rest of this neighbourhood. This isn't, as far as I am aware, mentioned in the Scona District Plan, but I think it needs to be understood that redevelopment happens naturally and happens everywhere. People want to live in this area and have businesses close to them in this area, let them.

I think this area should be kept to a lower density than Garneau but at least have some new small to mid-rise apartments be built. Having a corner store or grocery store here would also be really useful.

Submission on LDA23-0233 Windsor Park Rezoning

Introduction

I oppose the proposed rezoning of lots 8726, 8730, and 8734 – 116 street. The City of Edmonton has spent considerable time and resources over the years to develop planning guidelines from the Residential Infill Guidelines to the City Plan to the new Zoning Bylaw and now to District Plans and Policy. Any proposed rezoning must comply with these guidelines established by the City. This proposed rezoning does not.

Public Trust

It is important that the City ensure that the public has trust in its institutions and, relevant to this issue, the fair and orderly development in mature neighborhoods. The planning process must be transparent. It is particularly important that guidelines, policies and plans (collectively referred to as guidelines) prepared by the City following public input, be followed.

Every exception to the City’s guidelines used to approve a development erodes public confidence in the planning process. It is not lost on the public that every exception to the guidelines that is allowed is in favour of more intensive development; it is never less.

The erosion of public trust, in general, has far reaching consequences beyond the scope of these submissions. The erosion of public trust in the planning process results in citizens in neighborhoods having to resort to alternative methods to influence development in their neighborhoods including restrictive covenants, which, in many cases are far more restrictive than the guidelines.

Zoning Bylaw Renewal Initiative

This publication by the City describes zoning as follows:

Why Zoning Matters:

Zoning is everywhere – from parks and playgrounds to garden suites and the downtown core. Zoning determines what can be built where. It sets the rules for where new buildings should go, what types of buildings they can be and what types of businesses and activities can happen on a property;

Zoning guides growth in an orderly way to minimize conflicts between different activities and can improve the safety, public health and welfare of its citizens and the environment.

The Engaged Edmonton Notice for LDA 23-0233

In the Engaged Edmonton notice there is a reference to the City Plan and that the University of Alberta is identified as a Major Node where mid- and high-rise developments can be supported. The reality is more nuanced.

The proposed development does not fall within the boundaries of the University-Garneau major node. It is not within that node in the City plan nor the draft Scona District plan. The technical reports prepared for the City Plan includes detailed maps. These maps clearly show that the University – Garneau node does not extend west of 116 street.

The draft Scona District Plan also has detailed maps showing clearly that the University-Garneau node does not extend to the site in question.

Further, the applicant through its representative Green Space Alliance in their letter of July 26, 2023 concede the lots in question are not in the University-Garneau major node.

The next point is that the applicable part of the University node east of the proposed development does not support High-Rise development:

Major nodes are described in the District Policy 2.5.3. The Policy reads:

2.5.3 Major Nodes:

Major Nodes are large-scale urban centres anchored by large public institutions and employment centres that serve multiple Districts. These areas provide residents a diverse mix of housing and employment opportunities, travel modes and connection to other Nodes.

2.5.3.1 Support Low Rise and Mid-Rise development throughout Major Nodes.

2.5.3.2 Support High Rise development within Major Nodes:

● along Principal Roadways and Arterial Roadways, or

● where site size and context allow for appropriate transition to surrounding development and where adequate site access can be provided.

2.5.3.3 Support Tall High-Rise development along Principal Roadways and Arterial Roadways within Major Nodes where site size and context allow for appropriate transition to surrounding development.

116 Street is not, by definition, a principal roadway or arterial roadway. This means that even if the City did have jurisdiction over University developments within the University-Garneau Major Node, the developments would be limited to Low Rise (4 stories) or Mid Rise (5-8 Stories). High Rise development at this location would not be possible under the District Policy as 116 street is not a principal or arterial roadway and as the site size and context would not allow for appropriate transition to the single-family homes on 116 street.

Guidelines

The Residential Infill Guidelines (RIG) provided certainty to citizens living in mature neighborhoods on what could be built and where.

The City Plan was passed in 2020. It appears that City Administration is of the view that the City Plan supersedes the RIG.

As noted in the City’s Zoning Bylaw Renewal Initiative “while the City Plan is a big – picture – vision for the City, District Planning and the Zoning Bylaw Renewal Initiative are about implementation.”

Thus, in order to properly consider how the City Plan is to be implemented in any given situation, it is essential to consider the District Planning and the Zoning Bylaw.

The new Zoning Bylaw came into effect this year. It was a long process to develop the new Bylaw with significant Public input for and against the Bylaw.

The draft District Policy and District Plans have also undergone a long development process involving senior City planners, businesses and the Public. It is expected that the District Policy and 15 District Plans will come before council this year.

It is clear that the draft District Policy and Scona District Plan must be given proper consideration for a number of reasons:

a. the courts of Alberta have consistently held that draft policies must be considered when making decisions:

In Funk v Alberta (Planning Board), the Court of Appeal determined whether the Alberta Planning Board erred in relying upon an unadopted draft General Municipal Plan. Mr. Justice Clement wrote:

[14] We come to the issue: whether the Draft was irrelevant to the considerations of the Board. I am on the opinion that it was clearly a relevant planning consideration in the circumstances of this case.

[16] It must be obvious that in a planning concept for orderly development, the course of future development is of paramount consideration.

b. It is acknowledged by the City that the City Plan was a big-picture vision with the implementation to be guided by the District Policy and Plans. In other words, the interpretation and implementation of the City Plan is to be done through the District Policy and Plans. The two are inextricably connected.

c. The District Policy and Plans were developed by experienced City planners over a number of years with input from the public and businesses. The Policy and plans are carefully thought out.

d. The District Policy and plans will be coming before council within the year. The expectation is that within the year the District Policy and plans will be in force.

District Planning:

The latest version of the Scona District Plan identifies Windsor Park including the proposed development site as urban mix.

The latest version of the District Policy reads:

2.4.2 Urban Mix:

Urban Mix combines housing, shops, services and offices into one land use category. This provides opportunities for a mix of housing types close to businesses and services that meet the daily needs of residents. It includes stand-alone residential and commercial development as well as Mixed Use development.

2.4.2.1 Direct vehicle and servicing access to be from the alley, where alleys are present and access can be practically accommodated, except as otherwise provided for in the Zoning Bylaw.

2.4.2.2 Mitigate the impacts of non-residential development on adjacent residential areas through planning and design.

2.4.2.3 Support Small Scale housing in the interior of neighbourhoods.

2.4.2.4 Support development at the edges of Nodes and Corridors that provides transition to the scale of the surrounding development.

2.4.2.5 Support Small Scale and Low-Rise development (residential, commercial or mixed use) in the following locations outside of Nodes and Corridors.

● On corner sites at the edge of the Neighbourhood where the block face fronts onto a Principal Roadway, Arterial Roadway or Collector Roadway,

● On and adjacent to sites zoned for Low Rise, commercial or Mixed-Use development and along a Principal Roadway, Arterial Roadway or Collector Roadway, or

● Within 400 m of Mass Transit Stations and along a Principal Roadway, Arterial Roadway or Collector Roadway.

Small scale is defined as buildings three stories or less in height. Low Rise is defined as buildings four stories in height.

The proposed rezoning is not on a corner site. It is not on or adjacent to sites zoned for Low Rise, commercial or mixed use. It is not within 400 meters of the LRT. It is on a collector roadway.

The proper interpretation of the District Policy is that not only is mid-rise development not allowed neither is Small Scale nor Low Rise zoning, unless the zoning is changed to Low-Rise, Commercial or Mixed Use.

Transitional Area

The applicant, in the Green Space Alliance letter of July 26, 2023 introduced the concept of a “transitional gradient of height away from 116 street and the large institutional buildings directly east and south of the site.”

This is factually incorrect. There are no large institutional buildings “directly east” of the site. It is vacant land without any buildings. There are no large institutional buildings directly south of the site. The lands from 87 Ave to 89 Ave east of 116 street are all vacant undeveloped land including a surface parking lot. The lands from 87 Ave to 89 Ave on the west side of 116 street include the Church of the Latter-Day Saints Building, a vacant parking lot and then RS zoned residential lots.

The argument that there is a transitional area between a Major Node and an urban mix community is flawed:

1) The City Plan, the new Zoning Bylaw and District Policy were developed over a long period of time by highly experienced planners with input from the public and business. There is no category of land within the City Plan, the Zoning Bylaw or the District Policy/Plan defining an area bordering a node as a transitional zone with specific guidelines as to what zoning is appropriate within that area.
If the intention was to have a transitional zone between a major node and urban mix lands (or any other land designation) there would have been a specific zone created for such lands.

2) If there is no designated “transitional zone’ can there never-the-less be a transitional area undefined in any City guideline plan or policy? The answer must be no. As noted earlier, the very purpose of zoning is to determine what can be built and where. Certainty is the key.

A “transitional area” undefined in any City guidelines, plans or policies creates uncertainty. There are no guidelines on when the concept of transitional area is applicable: is it only with major nodes? What about district nodes or corridors? There are no guidelines on what constitutes a transitional area, its length or width. There are no guidelines on where the transitional area is supposed to be-is it all on the urban mix side, is it all on the major node side, is it both.

The ad hoc use of a “transitional area” creates uncertainty in the planning process contrary to the very purpose of zoning in the first place.

3) The District Policy 2.4.2.4 indicates urban mix for housing that meets the daily need of residents to “support development at the edges of Nodes and Corridors that provides transition to the scale of the surrounding development.” This is accomplished via the small scale and Low-Rise development described in 2.3.2.5. If more intrusive development was intended, the Policy would have said so. There is no bylaw, policy, plan or guidelines that purports to categorize urban mix lands at the edges of a node as transitional lands supporting development in excess of 4 stories.

4) As noted earlier, the land immediately to the east of 116th street across from the proposed development is university land. It is a vacant piece of undeveloped land. The land is not available for private development and, while it is true that the University could build on that land, it has not and there is no indication that they will. Thus, the concept of transition at that location is inapplicable. It is illogical to describe placing a 6 floor building in between single family residential west of the site and a vacant field east across 116 street as “transitional.” In reality it is the opposite.

5) The City’s designation of the University as a major node suitable for more intensive development, is, in reality, meaningless. The City’s zoning or major node designation means nothing to the University. The University can choose to build or not build anything on the vacant field. They have chosen not to do so to date and there is no indication that they intend to do so in the future.

6) The relevant University “major node” lands fall between 111 and 116 street and 87 avenue to Saskatchewan drive. The land between 111 street and 116 street is 5 blocks wide and from 87 avenue to Saskatchewan drive is 4 blocks (on the east) and 7 blocks on the west. Within that very large tract of University lands there are only two residences-St. Joes and Hub mall. There are no other residences. Most of the university lands has zero densification. There are no mid- and high-rise residential buildings on those University lands.

7) As noted earlier, the District Policy restricts development within major nodes along collector roads to low and mid-rise development. Therefore, even if the City’s designation of the University as a major node is relevant to this discussion, the east-west transition would be from low to mid rise in the University major node transitioning down to RS single family residential west of 116 street.

8) The concept of a transitional gradient in height is much less significant considering the set back of University buildings east of 116 street and where 116 street lies between the University Buildings and RS housing.

9) If transitional gradients are to be considered for east-west development, there must also be a consideration of north-south transition. The houses to the immediate south of the proposed development are zoned RS as is the zoning to the immediate north where a four-plex will be built. It is not appropriate transition to go from a RS single family home to a 6-floor apartment and then back down to a RS four plex within the space of 5 lots.

The District Policy 2.1.3 Built form section does address transition to adjacent properties. The problem is that it is very difficult, if not impossible, to create any type of effective transition going from a six-storey building adjacent to buildings 2-3 stories in height. It would obviously be less difficult to transition from single family residential at 2-3 stories to a low rise at four stories and back down to the four-plex with RS zoning.

Conclusion

The Scona District plan identifies the vast majority of Windsor Park including the location of the proposed development as urban mix. The district policy provides guidance on what can be built at that location. The proper interpretation of the District Policy is that the zoning should remain RS. If some change is warranted, it should be limited to zoning for a four-storey building.

City Administration has an obligation to use intellectual honesty in its assessment of this development and not merely support the development because it increases densification. Densification has already doubled in that block with the lot splitting for the skinny houses and the proposed four plex on the corner of 89 Ave and 116 street. It would be intellectually dishonest to support the development based upon the argument that it falls within a transitional zone or area which has no foundation in the City’s own plans, policies or bylaws and is actually contrary to the District Policy. The District Policy and District Plans are the means by which the densification goals of the City Plan are to be implemented. It would be intellectually dishonest to simply reference the densification goals of the City Plan to support the proposed rezoning while at the same time ignoring the very mechanism by which the City Plan contemplated would be used to guide such decisions.

Densification has taken place and will continue to take place in our community. We are not opposed to densification and even with this proposal there would be community support for further densification by way of lot splitting or by a 4 Storey building built in compliance with the District Policy.

Thank you for your consideration of these submissions.

I support this development as it will allow more people to live in this beautiful, central area, which is close to many amenities and allows for diverse transportation options.

I do not support this application. This is not consistent with the District Policy and the Scona District Plan. I strongly prefer affordable family friendly housing on this residential street, such as attached townhouses. The six story building on 87 Avenue is at least on a through street and is already adding to local density. Another 6 story apartment building with 105 units is not appealing to families or medical centre workers, and is oriented to student housing. The six story apartment buildings near University Ave and 112 Street are adding dense student housing along the edge of campus; this is not a needed solution. We should be encouraging families to live in the city, not forcing them to the outskirts.

I completely support this application. It's right by the University and hospital and is in a district of Edmonton with the highest rents. We need to allow more people to live car light or free and building apartments right next to a major employment area is the way to go. Please approve this application.

I am in support! We desperately need more densification around the University as they look to grow to 60k students in the next 10 years. I echo sentiments below that 3 bedroom units would be very valuable here. highly needed!

This application should not be approved. Doing so would make a mockery of the Scona District Plan which was to guide zoning decisions. Allowing up to a four story building would accomplish the goal of increasing density, provide for family friendly housing, and be more compatible with the soon to be built multifamily housing just next to the site. There would also be less impact upon the homes immediately west of the site. The developer is incorrect in saying that a higher building is appropriate in this location, as per the zoning rules.There is no "transition area" in the definitions the City provides, and this term seems to be used in order to get around obstacles to developer wishes. The City assured us that "gentle densification" was the way they would be proceeding, and residents of mature neighbourhoods are not seeing this happen recently. Instead, there is a race to acquire and demolish mature homes (along with their mature trees and landscaping, which contribute so much to our ecosystem and esthetic) and replace them with cheaply built, non-green apartments for maximum developer profit and minimum consideration of community impact. City planners and councillors seem willing to sacrifice almost anything in the name of densification. Sticking to the rules the City designed would be a great step in restoring confidence in the process of zoning for the average citizen who cares about their home and neighbourhood and reasonable densification measures.

I'm concerned about the inconsistency of this planned development with the District Policy and the Scona District Plan. The height of the proposed building far exceeds what is specified for this area in those documents. Can't the city's desire for greater density be met without blatantly disregarding the principles that guided the creation of the new Policy and Plan, which are expected to be approved this year? Why not build a 4-story structure that conforms to the guidelines? What was the purpose of drafting this plan if it can be ignored at will by influential developers?

I think this is a great place for this kind of development. Central, near numerous transit lines. A fantastic location for people looking to live a lower-impact lifestyle.

I fully support this change. It allows for student/family housing in a major student/work location near the university, LRT, hospital, park, Jubilee, and others. It's a family friendly development.

The only disappointing aspect of it is there aren't more housing units. It would be good to accommodate more housing by adding more floors in this development. Why not make it 6 or 7 floors? It's a high-demand location. It's better if more people had access to living here.

This application should be denied because in its current form 4 stories should be the limit. According to the City and Scona District Plans the site is outside the University Node (not on 87th Ave.).
Granting the application would mean breaking your own rules, causing more cynicism regarding the consultation process.

Seems like an appropriate location for this scale of development, especially considering this block has already started shifting away from SFH use.

116 St is a great location for density and housing intended for students. It's right on the edge of the neighbourhood and immediately across from major engineering buildings and recreation facilities on campus. The neighbours won't be happy, but it's a location where hard decisions will need to be made in the coming years, especially with the U of A looking to grow its student population to 60,000 within the next decade. That increase can't be captured just by dorms. I'm supportive.

116 St is a great location for density and housing intended for students. It's right on the edge of the neighbourhood and immediately across from major engineering buildings and recreation facilities on campus. The neighbours won't be happy, but it's a location where hard decisions will need to be made in the coming years, especially with the U of A looking to grow its student population to 60,000 within the next decade. That increase can't be captured just by dorms. I'm supportive.