Surplus School Sites To Be Developed in Ward 10 [Updated]
[Update, April 20, 2012: City Administration sent an email (quoted below) to the Blue Quill Community League yesterday indicating that the Skyrattler site is being put on hold for further review. I continue to press for more community involvement in decisions affecting all these sites, and will demand meaningful community input into the options for developing this site:
“The Skyrattler site included within the City of Edmonton First Place Home Ownership Program is being reviewed. The review will examine location needs, market potential and potential infrastructure requirements and connections.
“While the site was proposed for development in Phase 1, development will not proceed this year until the review is complete Once the review has been completed, the City will connect with the Blue Quill community league to discuss next steps. Development may take place at a later date
“The City will continue its Phase 1 development with the remaining three sites and also continue work on review and preparation of remaining First Place sites. For future program updates watch www.edmonton.ca/firstplace“
The ‘cloud’ shows the approximate location of the original Skyrattler school site which will host the First Place townhomes.
In 2006 Edmonton Public and Edmonton Catholic declared surplus 20 pieces of land set aside for schools. In many cases residents are unaware that these parcels were not meant to be park in perpetuity and in fact were always intended for development.
That same year City Council decided to zone these 20 sites to allow for townhouses as part of the First Time Homebuyers program, which is now called First Place. Two of the sites were advanced as pilot projects. A comprehensive review was concluded in 2011 and it was decided that the remaining 18 sites would move ahead over the next decade in phases (here is the schedule).
Last year when the pilot review and path ahead were being discussed I proposed a motion to review all 18 sites to see whether a different type of development might be more appropriate. It did not pass. (Minutes of the meeting are here).
The next phase of four developments includes one on Saddleback Road in Skyrattler. It will occupy 1.2 hectares out of the four hectare park, which is the same area the school development would have occupied. It will be developed with approximately 50 townhouses, which is permitted by the zoning Council applied in 2006.
I have heard loud and clear (and share) resident concerns about the process Council used to rezone these sites in 2006 and I do not think there was adequate public consultation about the change from school use to residential use.
However, I do support developing these school sites, and while I think other forms of development (e.g. seniors housing) might be more needed, I believe that the town housing will be built to a high standard.
The original 1978 Skyrattler park development plan (click to enlarge).
Residents of the Ward should be aware that in addition the Skyrattler site, that there are future First Place sites in Blue Quill (25 Ave & 112 St) and Bearspaw (16 Ave & 105 St).
More information can be found at www.edmonton.ca/firstplace.
In 2009 the school boards released another 20 sites. The City is exploring options for development on these sites as well. For Ward 10 these are in Blue Quill (Saddleback and 112 St), Erminskin (25 Ave & 106 St) and Keheewin (105 St and 20 Ave).
I have made it clear that I expect a more open process for decision making about this next round of surplus school sites.
13 thoughts on “Surplus School Sites To Be Developed in Ward 10 [Updated]”
Comments are closed.
Councillor,
I am a resident in your ward with a keen interest in this process as it relates to EPSB’s current school policy.
By what authority are the school boards releasing these to the city for development? What is done with the proceeds from the sale of the lands?
Are school boards presently engaged in community development decisions by the city such as the development of area structure plans or neighbourhood structure plans?
Does the city have a view of whether the EPSB is exceeding its mandate by making land use decisions that affect the market values of homes in communities, where those same homes were sold with an expectation by residents of a school being built in these reserves?
It is clear the city wishes to increase density and also cluster that around LRT routes. That makes sense. Why then are those sites not being considered by EPSB as solutions to their challenge of overcrowding in new neighbourhoods and aging schools in older neighbourhoods and why is the City not pushing the school boards to consider this option? Busing kids from old and new neighbourhoods to a central ring around our city seems to make more sense than having both groups of children suffer.
Given the lack of school sites in your ward (Rutherford, McEwan, Heritage Valley, etc.) and the already higher density in these neighbourhoods, EPSB is telling us that their priority is refurbishing older schools in less dense neighbourhoods over building new ones in overcrowded neighbourhoods.
My children and those they attend Johnny Bright appear to be paying the price of this lack of coordinated planning or land use.
With school boards wanting land use planning authority, what is the city doing to push school boards to make better use of the lands it already has to address its critical utilization issues? Please be careful about using school sites to increase density with more residential sites when they are needed for schools within reasonable travel distances from existing communities.
Councillor,
I am a resident of the Skyrattler neighbourhood, in your Ward. I am not happy that my city is about to allow Skyrattler’s average multi-family ratio to be so very high above the city average.
In Skyrattler, 70% of the homes are multi-family complexes (under 5 stories), 10% are row-housing, and 52% of the residents in Skyrattler are renters. [Source http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/PDF/Summary_Report_of_All_Questions_SKYRATTLER.pdf%5D
At the source it seems more an issue of priority in homebuying versus education. Encouraging lower and lower income families into home buying discourages higher-level education, which is what I believe Edmonton should be encouraging with GREAT universities. How about turning our field into an offsite science lab that encourages high-school students grow in science.
My suggestion to those who have authority is to look at what’s needed in our neighbourhoods from an education standpoint over the $$ and cents. I believe this to be a better strategic direction than currently being considered by those with the power, and I believe those who have authority have values that should not line up with just $$ and cents.
Respectfully Submitted,
Skyrattler Resident, Jeff Sieben
Mr. Iverson,
We are now seeing a move towards higher population density in established neighhoods which the Mayor so desires.
With this latest development (and others planned for Blue Quill and Bearspaw) and the future development at Century Park, the traffic on 111 Street and now , 119 Street, will increase enormously and to the detriment of property owners.
Your stated intentions: ” I continue to press for more community involvement in decisions affecting all these sites, and will demand meaningful community input into the options for developing this site” is much appreciated.
However, with 52% of residents as renters (and thus potentially first time home owners), the potential exists of little or no incentive for the renters to oppose the development. That leaves 48% or less who care enough left to express an objection.
An increase in 119 Street noise and traffic levels is going affect Greenfield, Aspen Gardens, and other communities nearby. Consultation should be opened up to other Community leagues and residents to express their concern.
I understand you support the development of these school sites but I would like to suggest that you also support residents in having Traffic Safety’s monitor 119 St where speeders and noise levels even now require some attention. Property owners have seen this year a change in their Property Assessment by the City’s addition of “Major Traffic Influence” labeled against their property, thus affecting re-sale values. Your support is also needed with this issue. It may be time for you to lend support to planning for Noise abatement on 119 Street.
Thanks for the comments, Chris. While there may be incremental traffic from these school site developments and the few hundred that might be developed all together, they are next to nothing compared to the pressure from new growth in the tens of thousands of units in the new areas. Our hope is that the school sites, many of which are located within a short walk of good transit service, will produce less traffic than new suburban units of growth.
As for noise levels on 119th Street: rightly or wrongly the City’s bar for noise mitigation (noise walls) is pretty high. Take, for example, the new walls on the Whitemud north of 53rd Ave – those just went in based on projected noise levels, not current – and that’s a freeway. But if you send me an email we can see about getting some readings taken at your location to see where it sits in relation to the Urban Traffic Noise Policy thresholds.
Tom: The School Boards conduct their own planning and forecasting exercises which I can’t comment on, but they are linked to the City’s pollution and growth forecasting (including the ASP and NSP process).
The lands are held by the City from the time of subdivision and reserved for a given school board until they either build on it or declare it surplus (more info on this here).
In the case of the first 20 site (from 2006) the proceeds from the sale are being split 50/50 wi the school board that declared the site surplus. My understanding is that for future sites the proceeds are being kept solely by the City.
I cant say Council as a whole has an opinion on the Public School Board’s comments about the City’s growth since we’ve never discussed their comments. It may come up when the Elevate report on Community Sustainability recommendations make their way to Council later this spring.
The City should raise its bar on noise mitigation. Berms make a huge difference. I have Calgary Trail literally next to my backyard but because of a huge grassy berm, you’d never know it. I can’t say that it stops the pollution from vehicle emissions and I hate to think of it. However there are many long term residents along this section of Calgary Trail because of the height of the berm. The same can probably be said for residents in Malmo along Whitemud Freeway. I imagine the earth berm wasn’t as pricey as the brick walls they build now but I can attest to its effectiveness. And unlike many communities, I don’t expect “traffic calming measures” on the busy street next to me. In fact, it irks me that residents further north on 106 St don’t care that my access street is 106 St – they think they own it and forget that it is a public street. It was never a quiet street. My parents lived there in the 50s and they say it was a busy street even back then.
We are reviewing the noise policy – it’s due back before Transportation Committee on November 20th (report should be released publicly Nov. 15th on the City’s website at http://www.edmonton.ca/meetings). That said, berms are good but pricey and tie up land – generally noise walls are all we can fit when the need arises.
Dear Councillor Iveson,
As a resident in the Skyrattler community, in your Ward I must express my frustration in the lack of transparency from the City. I purchased my property because of it’s location and greenspace. The park across the street and the ravine behind my condo. No where in my researching of this community was there mention of the development of a First Place Program. Had I known of this development I would have taken that into account prior to purchasing. If I wanted to live in a higher density neighbourhood I would have looked there. But I wanted my home to be in a nice quiet residential neighborhood.
As per Jeff Siebens comment: In Skyrattler, 70% of the homes are multi-family complexes (under 5 stories), 10% are row-housing, and 52% of the residents in Skyrattler are renters. [Source http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/documents/PDF/Summary_Report_of_All_Questions_SKYRATTLER.pdf
Hoping the City has an honesty consultation process, rather than a community engagement process that is done just to “tick off” the requirement.
Colleen – Thank you for your comment last week. I agree the City has not handled this well – starting with the 2006 shotgun process to rezone the 20 sites, including Skyrattler. With this history it is much harder to have meaningful engagement with affected communities. There are important lessons for the City here that, at my urging in part, are being applied to future surplus school site decision making processes.
I continue to think there are several of those sites that should be re-evaluated, including Skyrattler, to see whether there’s a more apporpriate form of development, like secondary suite housing for example (e.g. like the La Perle development on a West End suplrus school site: ). That remains a minority view on Council.
Dear sir, I suspect that the reason for building on a playground/park /soccer/baseball field is because of limited urban space. Yet we allow the building of huge shopping areas where at one time we accessed by foot in Malls, now we drive. I think our thinking is a little backwards. With the development of Century Park and now with the planned development of our green/play space traffic will be very high. Not to mention the increase in vandalism and theft that has increased in the Sky-rattler area from the current low end rentals and the introduction of the LRT.
Concerned
I have lived in Skyrattler for 13yrs I love my home and our school it’s a good neighborhood or it was. There were 2 liquor stores open until 11:00pm now there are 5 open until 2:00am. The traffic on 111st and 19th Ave is crazy, it is the main road use to get to Ellerslie’s neighborhoods and the Anthony Henday. Century Park is huge and still only 4 of 16 complexes completed. 23ave and 111st is one of the city most dangerous and busy intersections. The LRT station and it’s parking lot are always busy. My home is west of 111st, the park is across from me along with low income housing. Our park is all the Green space we have. The Whitemud ravine is lovely, but it is not a Park. There is a problem with homeless people living under it’s bridge, it’s not where I would allow my child to play, would you? We have Townhouses, condo’s, apartments, single family homes, LRT station, strip malls, restaurants, grocery stores, gas stations, fast food,5 banks. The LRT is under construction to build a 7 story parkade. 12 High Rise Building not yet built (4) 24 stories, (3) 20 Stories, (2) 18 Stories, (1) 16 Stories, (2) 12 Stories, when Century Park is completed.This will add some 5000 more people to our area. Our Crime rate has risen ,Traffic is beyond crazy, and NOW the city wants to take our Park !!!! and build more…….WHAT? Please leave our Park alone! Go somewhere else!
“In 2006 Edmonton Public and Edmonton Catholic declared surplus 20 pieces of land set aside for schools. In many cases residents are unaware that these parcels were not meant to be park in perpetuity and in fact were always intended for development.”
At no point in time prior to the 2006 MGA alterations was it permissible to rescind the publics right to rezoning notice and the right of appeal to the same. Prior to the secret 2006 “lets get the MGA altered so we don’t have to tell the public that we are up to” deliberations, it was not permissible to rezone school sites without public notice and allowance for public recourse. Further, C468 directs the proceeds of sale in very specific directions, none of which include subsidizing home builders.
“… I do not think there was adequate public consultation about the change from school use to residential use.”
Would this be because in 2006, council secretly asked for and obtained alterations to the MGA that removed the requirement for public notification related to rezoning of school sites and did away with the public’s right to recourse of the same? How is it possible to issue a statement concerning “adequate public consultation” while possessing full knowledge of the process by which these rights were rescinded, in secret?
Lessons do not need to be learned, they need to be taught.
“In the case of the first 20 site (from 2006) the proceeds from the sale are being split 50/50 wi the school board that declared the site surplus. My understanding is that for future sites the proceeds are being kept solely by the City.”
How does this align with the mandate of Policy C468 which states that proceeds are to be governed by Parks & Recreation and used for very defined purposes, none of which include throwing subsidies at preferred home builders?
Answer: It does not.
Don,
I am a Twin Brooks resident opposed to the proposed in-fill that is scheduled to take over the school sports field. As I am sure you have indeed been contacted from many residents about this, I just wanted to share my concerns. I have no agenda, no politics, I just wanted to understand the logic. I am a young father, with two daughters, living in our ‘forever’ community. I would indeed invite you to Twin Brooks, to look at the field to see how intrusive it would be to the community. I encourage healthy living, sports, being outside rather than in front a mobile device or TV. This green space is the main gathering spot in our area. Kids soccer, various fundraisers, winter festivals will all be relocated because of this. I could talk about property taxes, noise, crime, traffic – common worries of all of us, but I think this is one of those choices that looks good on paper, but in reality holds no merit. When I do the pro’s and con’s, and i understand the view of the COE, taking such a small space to build condos just does not seem prudent though. The only social issue I would like to bring to you is child care. It is literally impossible to get into SW child care, we have been on wait lists for years (I know this is not a big issue, but it effects my family greatly). Increasing housing, right next to a school that already bursting at the seams, with no plans to ease that again seems odd.