Edmonton (Alta.) - 1982 - Coliseum Station-Stadium Station area redevelopment plans_background... by Edmonton Tower Resource Centre Online Library

SD LIBRARY

II III III II II

12719003

9987 ,

COLISEUM STAT ON, STADIUM EDMONTON, PLANNING

enOLI3EU111 ILEIOWSIZADIUM IZAZIOrl Ares Redevelopmeri-L:

Background and Issues rSYCADiUM

ottv

D4valtitootaL4,

f3Rikst-4-41(

(f of EcITOrtttrt,

r--â&#x20AC;&#x201D;

1982

elinonton 1756.4a .E3 :2S77 1982

PLANNING

C080 9987 1982 c. 2 Ac. 12719003 COLISEUM STATION/STADIUM STATION AREA REDEVELOPMENT PLANS: BACKGROUND AND ISSUE PAPER -

Table of Contents CHAPTER 1 - BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1.1 1.2 1.3

Plan Structure The Study Areas Historical Perspective

PAGE 1 1 3

CHAPTER 2- PLAN CHARACTERISTICS 2.1 Existing Land Use And Districting 2.2 Residential Development 2.3 Commercial Development 2.4 Industrial Development 2.5 Transportation 2.6 Community Facilities and Infrastructure 2.7 Utilities

15 19 27 . 31 32 42 47

CHAPTER 3- ISSUES 3.1 3.2 3.3 3.4 3.5 3.6 3.7 3.8 3.9 3.10 3.11

General Land Use Issues Residential Development Issues Commercial Development Issues Industrial Development Issues Transportation Issues Community Facilities Issues Historical Preservation Issues LRT Station Access Major Facilities Issues Parking Issues Redevelopment Levy Issue

49 52 55 56 57 60 61 65 67 67 74

CHAPTER 4- SUB-AREAS 4.1 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

Introduction Sub-Area 1 - Eastwood Sub-Area, Coliseum Station ARP Sub-Area 2 - Coliseum North Sub-Area, Coliseum Station ARP Sub-Area 3 - Coliseum South Sub-Area, Coliseum Station ARP Sub-Area 1 - Stadium West Sub-Area, Stadium Station ARP

75 75 76 77 78

PAGE Sub-Area 2 - Stadium East Sub-Area, Stadium Station ARP 0 000 "00000 Sub-Area 3 - Viewpoint Sub-Area, Stadium Station ARP Sub-Area 4 - Cromdale North Sub-Area, Stadium Station ARP Sub-Area 5 - Cromdale South Sub-Area, Stadium Station ARP Sub-Area 6 - Virginia Park Sub-Area, Stadium Station ARP

79 80 BO 81 82

MAP 1 - Stadium Station ARP Boundaries MAP 2 - Coliseum Station ARP Boundaries —.000 ..... 0000 MAP 3 - NELRTC Study Boundaries •0•00000000•000 00 000 0000000000000 MAP 4 - Overlapping Plan Areas MAP 5 - Present ARP Boundaries MAP 6 - Coliseum Station ARP - Existing Land Uses MAP 7 - Stadium Station ARP - Existing Land Uses MAP 8 - Coliseum Station ARP - Existing Land Use Districts MAP 9 - Stadium Station ARP - Existing Land Use Districts MAP 10- Conceptual Density Distribution MAP 11- Stadium Station ARP - City-Owned Land and Major Private Consolidations ........................ ................ MAP 12- Coliseum Station ARP - City-Owned Land and Major Private Consolidations ....... ............... ................ MAP 13- Development Activity in Plan Areas ................... MAP 14- Coliseum Station ARP - Commercial and Industrial Areas MAP 15- Stadium Station ARP - Commercial and Industrial Areas MAP 16- Traffic Flows and Arterial Roads MAP 17- Stadium Station ARP - Parking MAP 18- Coliseum Station ARP - Parking MAP 19- Stadium Station ARP - Bus Routes MAP 20- Coliseum Station ARP - Bus Routes .... MAP 21- Location Community Facilities ............ 0 MAP 22- Stadium Station ARP - Sewer Relief Program MAP 23- Coliseum Station ARP - Sewer Relief Program MAP 24- Stadium Station ARP - Inventory of Pre-1940 Structures MAP 25- Coliseum Station ARP - Inventory of Pre-1940 Structures

2 2 3 9 10 15 16 17 18 20

4.6 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.10 MAPS

24 25 26 28 30 33 37 38 40 41 46 47 48 63 64

ILLUSTRATIONS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Population: Age and Sex Five Minute Walking Distance Around the LRT Stations Ormana Concept 120/121 Avenues Realignment Pre-1940 Construction Activity in Viewpoint LRT Station Access High Density Development Near Coliseum LRT Station High Density Development Near Station LRT Station Major Parking Facility Alternatives

FIGURES 1 2

FOLLOWING PAGE

PAGE

Chronology - NELRTCS, Belvedere ARP and Stadium/Coliseum Station ARP Housing Condition

APPENDIX

23 50 51 59 61 65 66 66 69

11 21

CHAPTER 1 Background Information

1.1

Plan Structure

The Coliseum Station and Stadium Station Area Redevelopment Plans (ARP) have been prepared for the purposes of directing future land uses and building densities in the Plan Areas as well as to protect and reinforce community facilities and residential areas thereby providing a good living environment. The Area Redevelopment Plans (ARP) are legally binding policies of Council empowered through the passage of Bylaw Numbers 6929 and 6931. These ARPs will direct the type and amount of redevelopment within the Plan Area, as well as identify policies for roadway and parks development. â&#x20AC;˘ (The latter policies will be described elsewhere in other City policy documents, such as the Transportation Bylaw and the Parks Master Plan.) The Background and Issues Paper is intended to provide information and analysis on demographic and land use characteristics of the Plan Area, identify issues in the Plan Area, and to provide a rationale for the Plan's policy framework. The information in the Background and Issues Paper will pertain to both the Coliseum and Stadium Station ARPs since the two Plan Areas have a closely interrelated history and many of the issues and community characteristics are evident in both areas.

1.2

The Study Areas

The Study Areas consist of two distinct communities along the CN/Light Rail Transit (LRT) line in Northeast Edmonton. The Stadium Station Plan Area contains a variety of land uses and physical features including an older industrial area and major recreational facilities (Commonwealth and Clarke Stadia) along Stadium Road, an area of medium density apartment buildings, between the CN/LRT right-ofway and 82 Street, north of Jasper Avenue, a substantial area of single family housing situated west of 82 Street and a large district park, called Borden Park. The Coliseum Station Plan Area is predominantly developed with small, single family homes east of Fort Road, with a considerable amount of property adjacent to the LRT line owned by the City of Edmonton. The remainder of the Plan Area west of Fort Road is a mixture of single family homes and medium density apartments. 118 Avenue on the south boundary of the Plan Area supports older commercial strip development, and there are some minor commercial activities along Fort Road and 82 Street. The Plan Area boundaries are shown on Maps 1 and 2.

91'

se!Jepunog dUV uopels wriesuoo dev\I

sepepunoe dFVelm uopeqs wil!PeaS dev\I

3 Both study areas have the distinction of being older communities and are unique in Edmonton due to the proximity of a number of city-wide facilities such as the LRT line, the Edmonton Northlands Exhibition and Coliseum, and the Commonwealth and Clarke Stadia. This collection of diverse land uses in and around the Plan Area has resulted in unsettling effects on the surrounding community in terms of increased redevelopment potential and loss of community integrity. The ARPs attempt to resolve the conflicts, where possible, through the application of new land uses and policies within the Plan Area. Both Plan Areas have been divided into Sub-Areas based on common characteristics. The Sub-Areas are discussed in Chapter 4.

1.3

Historical Perspective

The Plans have a long and involved history, initiated in order to direct the form and nature of development along the newly constructed LRT system. A full chronology of events for the Coliseum and Stadium Station Plans is presented in Figure 1. 1.3.1

The LRT System

The first section of a city-wide LRT system was instituted in the northeast area of Edmonton, utilizing the existing CN right-of-way. The LRT system began operation on 1978 04 23, in conjunction with the Commonwealth Games, hosted by Edmonton during the summer of 1978 in the Stadium facilities situated along the LRT line. Presently, the LRT line has six stations located along the 9.4 km system. Two are located in the downtown area, three stations are located in the inner city neighbourhoods, and the last is located in the proposed Clareview Town Centre. The LRT system operates in a short subway section through the downtown and then is at grade following the CNR right-of-way. Construction of the two new LRT Stations along the Jasper Avenue line, at 104 Street and 107 Street will be operational by 1983. Eventually the LRT line will be continued to the southern portions of the City, terminating at Mill Woods. 1.3.2

Northeast Light Rail Transit Corridor Study

In October 1976, City Council had indicated that higher density residential nodes around LRT Stations would be desirable to support ridership on the LRT system. Council directed preparation of Plans for the areas around the LRT

Map 3 Northeast Light Rail Transit Corridor Study Boundaries

Area of zoning freeze

5 Stations allowing for redevelopment. To enable consistent direction for redevelopment along the LRT line, the City of Edmonton initiated a study to determine the land use impacts to be generated by the introduction of Light Rail Transit. The study was also intended to develop a strategy that would promote redevelopment which will be compatible with the stable residential areas along the LRT Corridor. The study was awarded to a consultant, du Toit and Associates. The Study Area was placed under a zoning/redistricting freeze by City Council to prohibit premature redevelopment of the area. du Toit was directed to prepare the Northeast Light Rail Transit Corridor Study (NELRTCS) in April, 1977, and Earl Berger Ltd., was appointed as consultant for the citizen participation component in January, 1977. The Study Area for NELRTCS included three LRT Stations: Belvedere, Coliseum and Stadium (Map 3). The purpose of the citizen participation program was to develop contacts with community and city-wide interest groups and inform them about the proposed LRT line and the NELRTCS and determine the scope and extent of their participation. A series of public meetings were held in March, 1977, to provide general information on the operation of the LRT line and on the NELRTCS, and to inform the public of how to become involved in the Study. Two public meetings were held in December, 1977, to obtain public response to the planning strategy proposed for the Station Plans. In addition to public meetings, input to the Study was obtained through a Citizen Advisory Group, established at the initiation of the public participation process. The Group consisted of citizens who wished to assist City Planners in identifying community attitudes and concerns as well as developing recommendations to deal with their concerns. An informal Open House was organized by consultants to obtain reaction from business people and the Citizen Advisory Group members at the end of 1977. A final meeting between the Planners and the Citizen Advisory Group was held in April, 1978, before NELRTCS was submitted to Council in September, 1978. The principal objectives of NELRTCS were: -

to identify and assess the possible impact of the Northeast LRT line and potential redevelopment on the surrounding area;

to formulate planning guidelines which maximize the positive impacts and minimize the negative impacts. A review of existing transportation andâ&#x20AC;˘land use problems in the Northeast Corridor is, by necessity, a part of this objective;

to formulate detailed land use plans and urban design criteria in each station area which can.be used as a basis for future redevelopment;

6 -

to develop a land use planning process or methodology that could be applied to similar studies of future extensions of the LRT system; to involve concerned citizens, businessmen, landowners, City departments, and other interest groups in the process of formulating land use recommendations.

The main thrust of NELRTCS was to establish the general amount of redevelopment desirable in the corridor and station areas from both city-wide and local community perspectives. The Study outlined methods by which development could be integrated effectively into the existing community infrastructure and still provide a good utilization of land adjacent to the LRT. Some of the recommended strategies for redevelopment are summarized below: -

The heart of existing residential neighbourhoods should be preserved and protected from the intrusion of through traffic and new development which should occur at the edges of the neighbourhoods rather than the centre. Higher density redevelopment should concentrate around points of access at the stations, and scale down as distance from the stations increases. This transition of density minimizes the impact between different types of development. The most significant development component around the LRT Stations should be housing; adult oriented around the stations, family-oriented further away.

Pressure for land use change originates from the stations and begins to expire at.about a five minute walking distance away from them. Examples in other cities show that the furthest people will walk from their place of residence to the station is five minutes, therefore, the highest building densities should be within this area.

City Council reviewed NELRTCS at a special meeting held on 1978 09 19 and adopted the Study as the basis for the preparation for ARPs within the Study Area. 1.3.3

Council Referral of the Draft Coliseum/Stadium Station Plan

In response to Council's directive of 1978 09 19, preparation of two ARP Bylaws, one for the Belvedere Station area, and another for the Coliseum and Stadium Station Areas, commenced including the communities of Montrose and Santa Rosa, Eastwood, Parkdale, Cromdale and Belvedere. Both Bylaws were submitted to City Council on 1980 03 25 and received first reading. Subsequently, a discrepancy developed between the arterial road system proposed by the Transportation Systems

7 Design (TSD) Department through Parkdale, and that proposed by the Planning Department. While the TSD Department, in its Northeast Roadway Network Review, proposed that the arterial road system should continue down Fort Road and 86 Street, the Planning Department was proposing that arterial roads be located at the edge of the community to prevent its fragmentation. This discrepancy required resolution before the Coliseum/Stadium Bylaw was adopted, and on 1980 09 19, City Council struck first reading of the Bylaw and referred the unresolved issue back to the Public Affairs Committee, which in turn requested that the TSD and Planning Departments prepare a report on alternatives to the Fort Road/86 Street arterial road alignment. In addition to the unresolved transportation issue in Parkdale, City Council also requested in a motion that the Administration consider greatly extending medium and high density development to an area located between 112 Avenue, 120 Avenue, Fort Road and the railway tracks. Furthermore, City Council approved on 1980 09 09 a high density, four tower mixed residential/commercial development in a two block area bounded by 112 Avenue, 80 Street, 113 Avenue and 82 Street at a floor area ratio of 3.0 and building height of 20 storeys. This proposal exceeded the redevelopment guidelines set out in the draft Coliseum/Stadium Plan for this block and was contrary to some of the Plan's objectives. The draft Coliseum/Stadium Plan, as a result of Council approval of this development, required revision to reflect this redistricting. In addition, reconsideration of the residential districts proposed north of the high-rise site was needed to make development of this area compatible with the high-rise proposal. In response to the request of the Public Affairs Committee, the Administration submitted its report on alternatives to the Fort Road/86 Street arterial road alignment to the Committee on 1981 06 29 and received final ratification by City Council on 1981 09 09. The recommended arterial road network adopted allowed for the deletion of a portion of Fort Road, between 115 Avenue and 118 Avenue from the arterial road system. The density issue was addressed in a report to the Public Affairs Committee at its meeting on 1981 10 16 when. the Administration's recommendation to contain the highest densities within a five minute walking distance of the stations was supported.

8 1.3.4

Area Redevelopment Plan Boundary Issue

On 1978 11 14, City Council authorized preparation of a Plan under the Community Services Program for the Parkdale neighbourhood, and, on 1979 10 16, City Council authorized the preparation of a similar Plan for the Montrose and Santa Rosa neighbourhoods. These Plans were encompassed by the Coliseum/Stadium Station boundary as approved by Council 1978 09 19 (Map 4). The Community Services Plans intended to identify deficiencies in community facilities and to obtain government funding for provision of new facilities. Detailed planning was also undertaken in these Plans, which attempted to deal with the redevelopment pressures exerted by the recent LRT construction near or adjacent to these communities. With the passage of the Alberta Planning Act in 1978, the ARP became the vehicle for implementing Land se Plans and ARP preparation for Parkdale and Montrose/Santa Rosa was undertaken. The community-related plans of Parkdale and Montrose/Santa Rosa were intended to deal, on a more specific level, with the issues inherent in the entire Plan Areas, not just the station areas as was the purpose of the Coliseum/Stadium Station Plan. The Parkdale and Montrose/Santa Rosa Plans were to amend the Coliseum/Stadium Station Plan, which was expected to obtain Council approval one and one-half years prior to their completion. Approval of the Coliseum/Stadium Station ylaw was delayed as a result of City Council's decision to strike first reading until resolution of the Fort Road/86 Street transportation issue. As a result, work on the Coliseum/Stadium Station Bylaw was delayed to the point where it was apparent that the three Plans would be completed within two or three months of each other. This presented a problem since two ARPs could not overlap. Amendment of the Coliseum/Stadium Station Plan to implement the approval of the Parkdale and Montrose/Santa Rosa Plans would be a costly procedure and confusing to affected property owners. Therefore, revised Plan boundaries were formulated and approved by City Council on 1982 01 12, creating four independent ARPs. These Plans are known as the Coliseum Station, Stadium Station, Montrose/Santa Rosa and Parkdale ARPs (Map 5).

Map 4

LILILII I;

Overlapping Plan Areas Coliseum-Stadium Station Area Redevelopment Plan (A.R.P.) boundary (1980) Parkdale A.R.P. Montrose/Santa Rosa A.R.P.

1.11;11.1.1111 IDI!IUI 131

I' Pk,

â&#x20AC;¢

Map 5 Present Area Redevelopment Plan Boundaries Montrose/Santa Rosa Coliseum Station Parkdale Stadium Station

LILI LJL -I lit

ill

1-1

11 FIGURE 1

CHRONOLOGY NELRTCS, Belvedere ARP and Stadium/Coliseum Station ARP Year Month Day

ACTION

1975 06 21

Commission Board directed that outline plans, containing land use and transportation recommendations be prepared for the areas around the LRT Stations.

1976 08 11

Alberta received from was commitment Funding Transportation to conduct a corridor impact study for LRT Station Areas.

1976 09 21

City Council's commitment for a citizen participation program was given, allowing local concerns to have input into the planning process. A zoning freeze was imposed on residential communities and industrial areas adjacent to the LRT line in the northeast sector of Edmonton until land use planning recommendations could be formulated in the Belvedere, Coliseum/Stadium LRT Station areas.

1976 10 12

City Council directed that outline plans, containing land use and transportation recommendations, be prepared for the areas around the LRT Stations.

1977 01 12

Earl Berger, Consultant, was appointed to undertake the citizen participation program part of the Study. This was an issue identification process which produced information which was utilized in the duToit Study shown below.

1977 04 14

The consulting firm of duToit Associates was appointed to prepare the land use and urban design component of the North East Light Rail Transit Corridor Study (NELRTCS).

1978 06 27

City Council reviewed the planning recommendations and land use plans contained in the NELRTCS. The Study was referred

12 FIGURE 1 (cont'd)

to the Public Affairs Committee to be reviewed and to make recommendations. 1978 09 19

City Council approved the planning recommendations of the NELRTCS as a basis for the preparation of ARP Bylaws for the Stadium, Coliseum and Belvedere LRT Station areas. City Council directed that a Roadway Network Analysis be undertaken by the Transportation Systems Design Department. City Council also directed: that sufficient commercial space to encourage transit passenger movement in both directions be planned for; -

that the parking at stations be reviewed as part of the Northeast LRT Evaluation Study;

that the redistricting freeze outside the immediate station areas be lifted and that development applications be accepted and considered on an individual basis; that the Exhibition Grounds and Edmonton Northlands' approved expansion area be deleted from the areas for which ARPs are to be prepared.

1978 11 14

Council authorized the preparation of a community plan for the Parkdale neighbourhood.

1979 10 10

Council authorized the preparation of a community plan for the Montrose and Santa Rosa neighbourhoods.

1980 01 24

The land use and transportation recommendations, from the Coliseum/Stadium Station ARP, were presented at a public meeting in the Cromdale Elementary School.

1980 03 25

City Council gave first reading to the Coliseum/Stadium Station and Belvedere ARP Bylaws (#5987 and #5988). Public Hearings were also held at this time.

13 FIGURE 1 (cont'd)

City Council approved the Northeast Roadway Network Review reaffirming Fort Road's arterial road status. 1980 09 09

City Council reviewed the Administration's report on land use and transportation issues, and responded by striking first reading of the Coliseum/Stadium Station ARP Bylaw. The unresolved issues concerning the arterial road system and land use densities were referred to the Public Affairs Committee.

1980 09 15

The Public Affairs Committee directed the Planning Department and the Transportation Systems Design Department to coordinate a response outlining alternatives to the Fort Road/86 Street arterial link.

1981 09 09

City Council approved the recommendations of the Public Affairs Committee to delete a portion of Fort Road between 118 and 115 Avenues from the arterial road system. Based upon the recommendations and findings of the Northeast Corridor Functional Planning Study, presently underway, the Transportation Systems Design Department will undertake a planning study to review the alternatives to Fort Road south of 115 Avenue.

1981 11 24

City Council adopted the recommended courses of action in the Administration's report, entitled, "Land Use and Density Issues in the proposed Coliseum and Stadium Station ARP Bylaw." City Council also adopted the Public Affairs Committee's recommendations that high density residential redevelopment of City-owned properties adjacent to the Coliseum LRT Station and the Stadium LRT Station be incorporated in the ARP Bylaws. A Park'n'Ride facility should be provided at each station. Council also directed that the Administration, while preparing the proposed Coliseum and Stadium Station ARP Bylaws, continue discussions with affected landowners, community groups and the general public.

14 FIGURE 1 (cont'd)

1982 01 12

City Council approved revised Coliseum/Stadium Station ARP boundaries, by allowing separate ARPs to be prepared for the neighbourhoods of Parkdale and Montrose/Santa Rosa, and the Coliseum Station and Stadium Station areas.

1982 02 23

City Council directed that the Stadium Station Plan incorporate a statement to indicate that Provincial Historic Designation for the Viewpoint area has been applied for by the Cromdale Community League.

CHAPTER 2 Plan Characteristics 2.1

Existing Land Use and Districting

Existing land use in both the Coliseum Station and Stadium Station Plan Areas are shown in Maps 6 and 7.

Map 6 Coliseum Station A.R.P. Existing Land Uses Family (low density)

121 Ave

Multiple family (low density)

â&#x20AC;˘ â&#x20AC;˘ 111111

Low rise apartment 120 Ave

Mixed residential (street related) commercial Convenience commercial General commercial

119 Ave

Light industrial Urban services (schools, parks, churches, institutions, utilities)

118

L_J

L_JLJ L_JH

E] Vacant km

I--1

21\

Map 7 Stadium Station A.R.P. Existing Land Uses Family (low density) Multiple family (low density) Low rise apartment Medium rise apartment High rise apartment

â&#x20AC;˘ 111111

Convenience commercial General commercial

Urban services (schools, parks, churches, institutions, utilities)

Light industrial

Major recreational facilities

Heavy industrial

Vacant

17 Until the approval of the Coliseum and Stadium Station Bylaws and amending Land Use Bylaws which are required to ensure conformity of the ARPs with the City's Land Use Bylaw, the present districting will continue to affect the Plan Areas. The existing districting is shown on Maps 8 and 9.

Map 8 Coliseum Station A.R.P. Existing Land Use Districts

0 OD

RF3 Low density redevelopment RA7 Low rise apartment RA9(p) High rise apartment (community housing) CNC Neighbourhood convenience commercial CSC Shopping centre CB1 Low intensity business IH Heavy industrial AP Public parks US Urban service 0C3 Temporary holding (refer to Land Use Classification Guide for existing zoning) (C-2A) Commercial Eastwood Elementary and Junior High School Grant MacEwan Community College

121 Ave

*WI

IN < CE

CO LL CC

CB1 US

120 Ave

Wâ&#x20AC;˘11.

119 Ave

( C - 2A), ye

Li km 0 5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Borden Park Rd

Map 9 Stadium Station A.R.P. Existing Land Use Districts RF1 RF3 RF5 RA7 RA7(p) CNC IH AP

Single detached residential Low density redevelopment Row housing Low rise apartment Low rise apartment (community housing) Neighbourhood convenience commercial Heavy industrial Public parks

US DC2 DC3

(C2) (R-5) (R-6) (M-3)

Urban services Comprehensively planned development Temporary holding (refer to the Land Use Classification Guide for existing zoning) Commercial Medium density residential High density residential Industrial

Commonwealth Stadium Clarke Stadium Cromdale Elementary School Borden Park Virginia Park Elementary School Concordia College

2.2

Residential Development

2.2.1

Composition of Existing Residential Development

Existing housing in the Coliseum and Stadium Station Plan Areas can be divided as follows: Coliseum Plan

Stadium Plan

Single family housing

Concentrated in the area bounded by Fort Road, LRT tracks, 118 Avenue and 121 Avenue.

Concentrated in the area bounded by 82 Street, 114 Avenue, the Capilano Freeway and the River Valley.

Walk-up Apartments

Concentrated in the area bounded by 82 Street, 121 Avenue, Fort Road and 118 Avenue.

Concentrated in the area bounded by 84 Street, 111 Avenue 82 Street and Jasper Avenue.

High-rise Apartments

None

Located along Jasper Avenue between 84 Street and 82 Street.

2.2.2

Residential Density

The proposed residential densities in the Coliseum and Stadium Station Plan Areas are shown conceptually on Map 10. Density Characteristics In the Coliseum Station Plan Area, the highest scale and density of development is west of Fort Road, with low density, single family homes found east of Fort Road. In the Stadium Station Plan Area, the highest scale and density development is east and south of the LRT line. Low density, single family homes are found north of 112 Avenue, west of 78 Street and south of 112 Avenue, east of 78 Street. 2.2.3

Housing Condition

A Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP) survey of housing conditions conducted in February, 1982, provided information as to the stability of the housing stock in the Plan Areas. (Does not include multiple family dwellings as program does not apply to these structures.)

Map 10 Conceptual Density Distribution High density

Medium density Low density

â&#x20AC;˘

121 Ave

120 Ave

119 Ave

118 Ave1

L_I km 0 5 1 15 2 2.5

21 FIGURE 2 HOUSING CONDITION Coliseum Station ARP SUB-AREA 1 # of Units To of Total

SUB-AREA 2 SUB-AREA 3 # of Units % of Total # of Units % of Total

58%

17%

12%

REQUIRE MINOR REPAIR

25%

64%

76%

REQUIRE MAJOR REPAIR

10%

18%

12%

POOR CONDITION

100%

GOOD CONDITION

TOTAL

143

. -

100%

Stadium Station ARP SUB-AREAS 1 and 2 do not contain low density residential structures and therefore were not included in the survey. SUB-AREA 3 % of # of Units Total

SUB-AREA 4 # of % of Units Total

SUB-AREA 5 # of % of Units Total

SUB-AREA 6 # of % of Units Total

GOOD CONDITION 17

25%

16%

21%

136

57%

REQUIRE MINOR REPAIR

46%

74%

49%

40%

REQUIRE MAJOR REPAIR

29%

26%

100%

242

100%

POOR CONDITION _68

100%

22 Housing Condition Characteristics To determine housing condition characteristics within a Sub-Area, the number of homes requiring major repairs (structural, foundation and roof) and the number of homes in poor condition were compared to the figures for the other SubAreas in the Plan Area. The Coliseum Station Plan Area has the highest concentration of poor housing and housing requiring major repairs in Sub-Area 2. The Stadium Station Plan Area contains the highest concentration in Sub-Area 3. It should be noted that SubArea 3 contains the largest percentage (76%) of housing requiring minor repairs in the Coliseum Station Plan Area and Sub-Area 4 in the Stadium Station Plan Area contains the largest percentage (74%) of housing stock requiring minor repairs. 2.2.4

Demographic Profile

Data derived from the 1982 Municipal Census indicates that the population of the Coliseum Station Plan Area is 1057 people and the population of the Stadium Station Plan Area is 2628 people. Both Plan Areas contain a higher proportion of non-family households than the City as a whole. There is a lower than average number of school age children in the Plan Areas and a high proportion of older and retired persons. It can be concluded that both the Coliseum and Stadium Plan Areas are composed mainly of an aging population group with a low incidence of children of school age. The following is a summary of the most notable demographic characteristics of both Plan Areas: Age Structure 13.6% of the population of the Stadium Station ARP is school age children (up to Grade 12). 21.4% of the population of the Coliseum Station ARP is school age children. The City average is 28%. -

12.2% of the Stadium Station ARP and 7.5% of the Coliseum Station ARP population is retired. Household Size

79% of the Stadium Station ARP's households and 67% of the Coliseum ARP's households are non-family (one or two people).

23 Demographic Characteristics Both Plan Areas are characterized by a larger population of individuals 40 and over than the City average. Both Plan Areas have a smaller household size than the City average. This indicates that new school facilities are not needed in these communities, unless an influx of families with school age children occurs. Community facilities and activities including parks and community halls should he geared to older persons, keeping in mind the main ethnic groups and their particular cultural and language requirements (see Illustration 1). Female Male

Age

, P11,

Illustration 1 Population: Age and Sex

65+ 55-64

Stadium area 1:1 Coliseum area

45-54 35-44

25-34 15-24 5-14 • "••

0-4 20

Percent of total population Source: 1982 Planning Research Information Systems

2.2.5

Ownership

Fifty-eight percent of the Coliseum Station ARP's households and 71% of the Stadium Station ARP's household& rent accommodation. Ownership Characteristics Many of the properties in both Plan Areas are owned by absentee landowners who in some cases have accumulated a number of properties under one ownership. This is evident in the Coliseum Plan Area where the City owns the property between the LRT line and west of 78 Street, south of 119 Avenue and north of 118 Avenue and west of 77 Street, between 119 Avenue and 120 Avenue. The Stadium Station Plan Area contains a six acre parcel of land bounded by 80 and 82 Streets and 112 and 113 Avenues which is owned by a private developer. Major property consolidations are shown on Maps 11 and 12.

Stadium Station A.R.P. City Owned Land and Major Private Consolidations

City owned lands (includes park and school properties) Major private holdings (does not include industrial assemblies or existing low-rise apartment sites). Edmonton Northlands

Alberta Housing Corporation

Map 12 Coliseum Station A.R.P. City owned Land and Major Private Consolidations City owned properties (includes park and school properties) Major property holdings â&#x20AC;&#x201D; consolidations (does not include industrial assemblies or existing low rise apartments) Alberta Housing Corporation

km 0 5 1

2.2.6

15 2 25

Redevelopment Patterns and Trends

The location of development permits and redistrictings that have been granted in the Plan Areas in 1980-1982 are shown on Map 13. Redevelopment Characteristics The redistricting freeze has created a disincentive for redevelopment to occur and therefore the number of approved developments is less than what may have otherwise been the case. Redevelopment has generally been in the form of higher density residential, multiple family dwellings. An exception to this pattern is in the Coliseum Station Plan Area, which has had some commercial development along Fort Road.

Map 13 Development Activity in Plan Areas • Land use redistrictings

MN NM RUH

IMO 0•11.1 •••

Approved development permit

MM. NMI =111 11.

New construction

i Zoning freeze lifted

.D, mmumium

-IHNHOMNHOF MOM N 11FiEN MENNO 11 7 EHEMI--. rE EHIU

V.11111

27 2.2.7

Proposed Housing and Population Increase

Housing Type

Coliseum Station ARP Existing Max Probable

Stadium Station ARP Existing Max Probable 698

419

1,173

118

1,311

130

4,630

2,966

2,176

883

6,501

3,503

195

699

445

753

Medium-rise Units

600

420

High-rise Units

3,279

TOTALS

195

4,578

Low-rise Units

Characteristics The projected housing types in each Plan Area shows an increase in the number of multiple family units and a decrease in single family housing. This is not expected to change the household characteristics presently evident in the Plan Areas as most households now consist of persons without children living at home. The maximum projected unit increase is the ultimate number that could occur if total redevelopment occurs to that permitted under the District regulations. In reality, this would not likely take place due to the economic situation and viability of existing buildings. The probable maximum listed above is a more realistic total, based on the likelihood of development on each parcel within the Plan Area, and taking existing uses into account.

2.3

Commercial Development

2.3.1

Characteristics Coliseum ARP

The Coliseum Station commercial areas are located on 118 Avenue and Fort Road (Map 14). Convenience and food related commercial development is most representative of the services provided, while the more recent commercial development is mixed use and/or neighbourhood centres where two or more complementary businesses have located. Most buildings are one storey and in good condition; a small minority require major improvements. On-site parking facilities are provided on approximately half of the commercial sites.

Map 14 Coliseum Station A.R.P. Commercial and Industrial Areas 1 Profit Pak Foods 2 J.W. Insulation Crown Plumbing 4 The Applianceman .5 Element Shoppe 6 Industrial Accounting 7 Shurgain 8 Fekete Construction 9 Turbo Service Station 10 Theatre Network 11 West's Meats/Grocery 12 A & W Drive In 13 Baaco Pizza 14 Video Arcade 15 Uncle Mike Grocery 16 Palace Submarine and Donuts 17 Framecraft Gallery 18 Bank of Commerce 19 Avco Finance 20 Midnight Sun Chinese Food 21 Busy Bee Drycleaning . 22 Mac's Milk 23 G. H. Wood 24 Sims Electronic Service 25 Denis Upholstery 26 Fun n' Sun Pools Fort Road Health Studio Happy Face Food Mart 27 Unleased space

29 Stadium Station ARP Stadium Station commercial uses are sporadically located along 112 Avenue and are mainly of a convenience store nature (Map 15). There are some automobile related uses also present, such as gas stations, an auto body shop and a bulk oil distributor. The majority of parking is exclusively on-site. Most of the existing commercial facilities serve the local market. 2.3.2

Problems and Commercial Demand Projections Coliseum Station ARP

Most of the commercial enterprises are in good condition and of relatively recent construction, with a small minority requiring major improvements. Lack of adequate parking facilities and poor access from 118 Avenue and Fort Road are cited by the East Edmonton Business Association as being primary problems for commercial facilities in the Plan Area. In addition, new commercial development is largely unleased. The application of urban design features (i.e., coordinated signage, proper lighting, landscaping, building materials) is not evident for many of the businesses and is desirable in high visibility areas such as Fort Road and 118 Street. A 118 Avenue Business Improvement Program is currently being prepared; this Program will address the problems of declining business, parking deficiencies and the streetscape. Stadium Station ARP Most of the commercial enterprises in the Plan Area are generally in an unimproved condition. A lack of urban design elements (as mentioned above) and poor upkeep are the most notable negative aspects of the buildings. 2.3.3

Commercial Demand Projections

The projected commercial demand in the Plan Areas will be accommodated through the provisions for commercial outlets as a component of mixed use development adjacent to the LRT Stations in both Plan Areas.

Map 15 Stadium Station A.R.P. Commercial and Industrial Areas 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Kentucky Fried Chicken Martex/Texaco Industries Paul's Auto Body Sportsworld Rollerskating X-L Signs Bills Esso Service Station Vacant Land Virginia Park Greenhouses Parkview Grocery Halters Auto Service Eastend Grocery Cedar Steak and Pizza Milk and Honey Foodstore De Fehr Furniture Muttarts Lumber Yard and Homes G.W.G. Canadian Pittsburgh Industrial Glass Hendersons Building Materials MacCosham Cartage Unicure Services Winner Jackets Coutts Machinery (non operational) Alberta Concrete Farmers Market Canadian Linen Supply Canadian Liquid Air

31 2.4

Industrial Development

2.4.1

Characteristics Coliseum Station ARP

Industrial development in the Plan Area consists in part of a recently constructed, small industrial plaza located between 120 Avenue, 77 Street, 121 Avenue and Mount Lawn Road (Map 14). Most of the industries in the plaza are wholesale/commercial enterprises oriented to building products and supplies. The remainder are of a service nature or involved industrial manufacturing. The majority of industries are small, employing less than 10 people. Parking requirements are provided exclusively on-site. Stadium Station ARP The major industrial area in the Plan Area is located along the LRT line and Stadium Road (Map 15). There are also some isolated industrial sites north of 112 Avenue. Development along the rail line originated from the need for rail access provided by spurs from the CN line which still exist. Accessibility resulted in the development of light and medium industries, coupled with ancillary services such as warehousing and machinery shops. As the City prospered, and improved road access developed, the early locational advantages declined in importance, with the large majority of goods now transported by road. The existing industries today generally employ fewer than 10 people; however, there are three major firms that employ between 200 and 500 people. These are Muttart Industries, GWG and Alberta Concrete. Most industries are of light to medium industrial nature, with the exception of Alberta Concrete which is classified as heavy industrial. The industries located along the LRT Corridor are fully operational, with the exception of Coutts Machinery, located on the southeast corner of 107A Avenue and 92 Street. 2.4.2

Problems and Trends Coliseum Station ARP

Given the relatively small amount of industrial space in the Plan Area, major problems have not surfaced in relation to the industrial plaza. Screening of the industrial plaza from the residential area opposite in the form of landscaping could allow for a more acceptable view.

32 Stadium Station ARP The availability of roads for the distribution of industrial goods has reduced industrial dependence on rail service. As a result, industrial development in the Plan Area is entering a transitional period, with some industries in the process of conversion to other land uses, or no longer in operation. This is evidenced by the closure of Coutts Machinery and the conversion of a warehouse to a roller skating rink. The pressure for more industrial land uses within parts of the Plan Area contributes to a lack of certainty that these existing industries will continue their operation in the long-term. Inadequate parking facilities to accommodate both visitors and employees and poor roadway access appear to be major issues for these industries. Some of the long established industries emit amounts of dust, noise and odour which do- not present a serious problem while the surrounding property is industrial area in nature, but which could pose a problem for nearby areas slated for residential development. 2.5

Transportation

2.5.1

Characteristics

The transportation network in the Coliseum Station and Stadium Station Plan Areas has a significant impact on the communities as a whole. Road access to the downtown from the northeast sections of the City is via arterial routes through the Plan Areas. The LRT system, a major transportation facility servicing the communities in the northeast, is an integral part of the Plan Areas. Transportation issues have been a major concern for residents in the northeast given the increased traffic through this part of the City from the newly developed communities of Clareview and Steele Heights. The limited number of arterial connections to these new areas cause increased traffic volumes on these arterials through the Plan Areas resulting in such impacts as noise and inhibition of pedestrian movement. Traffic flows through the Plan Areas are illustrated on Map 16. The northeast is also the focus of several transportation proposals, the most predominant being the Northeast Corridor Functional Planning Study. The following chapter entitled "Issues" discusses these proposals and how they impact the Plan Areas.

Map 16 Traffic Flows and Arterial Roads

Plan areas Arterial roads

000 A.M. peak hour volumes 00.0 P.M. peak hour volumes

34 2.5.2

Northeast Corridor - 115 Avenue to 134 Avenue Functional Planning Study

The Northeast Corridor refers primarily to the extension of the Capilano Freeway northward from 118 Avenue to connect directly with Fort Road. A draft report has been completed by the Transportation (TM) Management Department which is expected to receive Council review by the end of 1982. The most direct effect on the Coliseum Station Plan Area would be the realignment of 120 Avenue east of the LRT line with 121 Avenue. Fort Road presently accommodates much of the traffic traveling through the northeast and traffic flows as indicated on Map 16 shows the peak number of 800 vehicles/hour use Fort Road. The Capilano extension should increase this load on Fort Road slightly to a projected 1000 vehicles/hour. 2.5.3

Roadway Networks, Widenings, Closures, Proposals.

The roadway network in the Coliseum and Stadium Station Plan Areas is built on the grid system, with most streets aligned north-south or east-west. Arterial roads, as designated by Bylaw, are shown on Map 16. Road widenings in the Coliseum and Stadium Plan Areas which will affect the following roadways are currently proposed by the TM Department.

Coliseum ARP 118 Ave. - 6-lane undivided roadway 82 St. - 4-lane divided roadway

Stadium ARP 112 Ave. - 6-lane divided roadway 82 St. - 6-lane divided roadway between 112 Ave. and 114 Ave.

At this time, these proposals have no statutory status, as they are not on TMD's 10year roadway plan.

35 Street closures effective and proposed in the Plan Areas are as follows: Coliseum Station ARP Proposed

Existing

. 78 Street at 120 Avenue (cul-de-sac) . 77 Street and 78 Street north of the bus loop off 118 Avenue (dead end) . 121 Avenue between 80 Street and 81 Street (school site)

â&#x20AC;˘ 120 Avenue is proposed for realignment east of the LRT tracks (not within Plan Area) as a result of the TMD Northeast Corridor Functional Planning Study. The roadway is proposed to connect into 121 Avenue to allow the traffic to travel into the Coliseum Station Plan Area.

Stadium Station ARP Existing 81 Street, 112 between and 113 Avenues. Council approval of high density residential/commercial development at 82 Street and 112 Avenue required the closure of 81 Street. Street was closed by Bylaw No. 6194 by City Council on 1982 05 30. 111 Avenue (between 75 A Street and 76 Street) due to the Council approved Alberta Housing seniors' housing project, proposed north and south of 111 Avenue. City Council closed the road on 1982 02 09 by Bylaw No. 6783.

Proposed 113 Avenue at the LRT tracks (dependent on the construction of the DC2 development at 112 Avenue and 82 Street).

Roadway proposals in the Plan Areas are as follows: Coliseum Station ARP The TM Department, through its Northeast Corridor Functional Planning Study, is proposing a grade separated crossing of the Capilano Freeway and the LRT tracks, to allow for the uninterrupted flow of traffic at this location. The realignment of 120 Avenue should be accommodated in conjunction with the grade separation of the Freeway at the LRT tracks. 120 Avenue will continue to cross the LRT line at grade. The timing of these improvements is uncertain, since they are dependent on Council's action when it reviews the Study; however, they are expected to occur within the next five years. Stadium Station ARP The TM Department is proposing grade separated crossings at the LRT tracks at 112 Avenue and 82 Street, between 112 and 113 Avenues. These are not proposed in TMD's 10-year roadway plan; however, they are identified road improvements for the future. The development agreement for the high density proposal at 112 Avenue and 82 Street requires the provision of a left turn bay from the site, enabling the free flow of traffic south onto 82 Street. This is to be financed by the developer, upon the construction of the project, to the satisfaction of the TM Department. Special Events Timing Plan There is a special events signal timing plan operative in the Plan Area which gives preferred green times for traffic coming into the Plan Areas before major events and preferred green times for traffic leaving the Plan Area after major events. The result of this program is that the peak period congestion is reduced in duration. 2.5.4

Parking

The Plan Areas are affected by the Edmonton Northlands and the Stadium non-residential Parking Restriction Programs. The areas covered by these restrictions are shown on Maps 17 and 18.

((S l Map 17 Stadium Station A.R.P. Parking il Edmonton Northlands parking restriction implementation area

E1 II

Stadium events parking restriction implementation area Off street parking

On street parking

Cs Map 18 Cm Coliseum Station A.R.P. Parking

tii re-

Edmonton Northlands parking restriction implementation area

121 Ave

L'OmMO

I—

Off street parking On street parking 120 Ave

119 Ave

118 Ày

L_I

LJIILJLJ

km 0

The Edmonton Northlands Parking Restriction Program applies from 8 am to 10 pm, seven days a week, year round. Residents in this area must obtain a parking permit for exemption from the restriction. The Stadium Parking Restriction Program is in effect only when a major Stadium event is held. Only those vehicles displaying a valid permit are allowed to park during these times. All other vehicles are not allowed to park in the area for a two hour period, starting at the beginning of the event. Vehicles in violation are tagged with a $25 fine and may be towed away. Regardless of the Parking Restriction Program, residents of the Plan Areas experience considerable problems with illegal parking on their streets. Enforcement of the Parking Restriction Program requires regular parking patrol of the area and cannot be totally effective. The lack of adequate parking facilities on the Commonwealth Stadium and Edmonton Northlands sites serves to increase the parking problem in the nearby communities. The City-owned property west of the Stadium LRT Station is currently being used as a bus parking area during Stadium events. The site accommodates 250 Park'n'Ride and shuttle buses, which transport Commonwealth Stadium patrons from various parts of the city. City policy provides for the operation of this service for crowd generating events at the Stadium drawing more than 16,000 people. This service was undertaken with the construction of the Stadium in 1978, given the lack of parking facilities in the area. 2.5.5

The Edmonton Transit LRT System

The LRT system has a capacity of 9,600 people/hour in both directions. During peak periods, there is a five minute headway between trains. There is a 10 minute headway after 8 pm and on Sundays and holidays. The trains are traveling at capacity in the morning and afternoon peak periods. Edmonton Transit ordered 20 new LRT cars, to be delivered January 1983, increasing the current two car trains to three cars. The stations themselves have a capability to accommodate trains up to five cars. The LRT system is presently operating at 50% ultimate capacity. The initiation of the three car trains will increase the ultimate capacity by another 30%. Increased demand to use the LRT, stimulated by redevelopment around the LRT Stations, could be accommodated by upgrading the LRT system with the purchase of more cars, more signals to allow the trains to travel closer together and through station improvements.

2.5.6

Public Transit (Buses)

Bus routes within the Plan Areas are shown on Maps 19 and 20. No route alterations are proposed at this time; however, scheduling changes could occur should passenger ridership support an increase or decrease in bus service. The realignment of the Capilano Freeway north to Fort Road could require some bus route changes, but this will be determined when the Capilano extension is completed.

c.S.5

Map 19 Stadium Station A.R.P. Bus Routes Basic bus service

â&#x20AC;&#x201D; â&#x20AC;&#x201D; Peak hour service Special events bus parking

L.R.T. station --- Sundays and holidays only

Map 20 Coliseum Station A.R.P. Bus Routes

cr) t•-•

Basic bus service

121 Ave

Coliseum bus transfer loop 70 L.R.T. station 70,23 1•4u

120 Ave MN Mini MINI NM NMI MIN MIN EMI MN OM =II MIMI IMO Ella Milli mar MIMI Mill

32 132 119 Ave

NOM

11111111 11111.y _

LJL

Ii En gime

11; 18, if 11

2.6

Community Facilities and Infrastructure

2.6.1

Schools Coliseum Station ARP

The Public School located in the Plan Area is Eastwood Elementary and Junior High School, 12023 - 81 Street. Students within the Plan Area also attend Eastglen Composite High School located outside the Plan boundaries at 11430 - 68 Street. Enrollment figures and trends over a 10-year period are as follows: Oct 1972 Eastwood

517

Eastglen

1,068

Oct 74 480 1,197

Oct 76 427 1,168

Oct 78 372 1,052

Oct 80

Oct 81

Sept Capacity Jan 82 82

358

294

267

540

1,006

918

855

1,195

Characteristics It is apparent from the above figures that school enrollment figures are declining and that the school population should be stabilized or increased to ensure the continued operation of the schools. At this time, the enrollment figure for the Eastwood School is high enough to ensure continued operation of the school. Grant MacEwan Community College is also located in the Plan Area at 8020 - 118 Avenue. This is one of the three city campuses of the college, Grant MacEwan offers communications, library technician and audio-visual courses as well as general interest courses. The programs attract people on a city-wide basis. The 1982 fall enrollment figure is 330 in credit courses and 120/week in non-credit courses. The Cromdale campus is operating at capacity, utilizing the present facility and eight attached portables. Stadium Station ARP There is one public school located in the Plan Area, the Virginia Park Elementary at 7324-109 Avenue. Cromdale School has been closed since 1980 and is presently being used for storage purposes by the Edmonton Public School Board. Virginia Park is a Fine Arts Core Elementary School, based on the concept that the arts can be used as a vehicle for learning in other subject areas. Registration is open to all elementary aged children within the jurisdiction of the Edmonton Public School Board. The program was introduced in 1977, doubling the school's enrollment from 75 to 147 pupils.

43 Three other public schools service the Plan Area: Alex Taylor Elementary, 9321 Jasper Avenue, Highlands Junior High, 11509-62 Street, and Eastglen Composite, 11430-68 Street. These schools are all located outside the Plan Area (Map 21). Enrollment figures are as follows: Oct 1972

Oct 74

Oct 76

Oct 78

Oct 80

Oct 81

Sept 82

Capacity

147

173

154

153

200

Alex Taylor

284

241

215

183

157

166

173

400

Highlands

579

509

533

507

453

480

454

710

Virginia Park

Characteristics Enrollments for the above schools are declining in numbers; however, the present enrollments are sufficient to support the schools and there will not be a need for closures in the foreseeable future. Concordia College is located in the Plan Area south of 112 Avenue, west of the Capilano Freeway. It is affiliated with the Lutheran Church and offers threeyear high school matriculation courses (Grades 10, 11, 12). Concordia has an enrollment of 200 students and about one-quarter of the students live in residence. The College also offers first and second year University of Alberta transfer courses, directly affiliated with the University of Alberta. The College is also used by a variety of groups in the community for workshops. Presently, there are approximately 425 first and second year students. The College plans to expand on its present site to allow degree granting programs with a projected enrollment of 750 university students and 250 high school students, attracted from a city-wide area. The College has recently completed construction of a new gymnasium facility. 2.6.2

Parks and Open Space

The Coliseum Station Plan Area does not contain any formal park space. The only recreational facilities available for use by area residents is a play area and three baseball diamonds on the Eastwood Elementary School site and the Eastwood Park at 86 Street and 118 Avenue. Both these facilities are outside the Plan Area. Based on the present population in the Plan Area of 1,057 people, there is a park deficiency of 1.9 acres. A maximum potential population of 4,656 people-in the Plan Area would create a park deficiency of 8.4 acres, less any new space developed in the Plan Area.

44 The follipwing recreational facilities are located within, or adjacent to, the Stadium Station Plan rea (Map 21): Stutchbury Park

3.28 acres

Ornamental

Cromdale Playground (adjoining Kin aird Ravine) outside Plan Area

0.66 acres

Climbing apparatus slide

Bellevue Community League Site (adjacent to Borden Park)

L28 acres

A building containing one large auditorium, two pottery rooms, kitchen, upstairs meeting room and games area.

Borden Park

52.55 acres

Intensively landscaped District Park with mature trees, four tennis courts which convert to a skating rink during the winter months, an outdoor swimming pool with the necessary change rooms and showers, two children's play areas, a spray deck. wading pool, three baseball diamonds and an assembly area, often used for teenage activities.

Kinnai g; Ravine outside Plan Area

14 acres (approx).

City level facility containing bicycle, ski and fitness trails, an associated amenities building and some picnic sites.

Commonwealth Stadium

City level facility which has several meeting, lounge or conference rooms, a combatives area used for marshall arts or wrestling, three tennis courts, a field area soccer, for used football and a track. Seating capacity 60,000 people (recently increased from 43,346. No additional seats are the for planned immediate future).

Clarke Stadium

Outdoor athletics facility seating 19,000 people.

Based on the current population of the Stadium Station Plan Area of 2,628 people, there is currently no neighbourhood park deficiency. A maximum potential population of 9,657 people would create a deficiency of 17.4 acres, less any new park space developed in the Plan Area. Both the Coliseum Station and the Stadium Station ARPs intend to partially alleviate deficiencies by indicating areas of the community that would be suitable for park development. Park space can be purchased upon collection of the Redevelopment Levy. The amount of park space provided will be determined at the time of its purchase, depending on availability of land, needs and property purchase price.

L.__

Map 21 Location of Community Facilities

â&#x20AC;˘ â&#x20AC;˘ LI

Plan area boundaries Schools Community league halls Open space Major sports and entertainment centre

Eastwood Elementary and Junior High School 2 Grant MacEwan Community College 3 St. Alphonsus School 4 Parkdale School 5 Cromdale School 6 St. Michaels School 7 Virginia Park Elementary School 8 Concordia College 9 Eastglen Composite High School 10 Eastwood Community League Hall 11 Bellevue Community League Hall 12 Norwood Legion Hall 13 Borden Park 14 Stuchbury Park Kinnard Park 16 Kinnard Ravine 17 Viewpoint Park 18 Capital City Park System 19 Highlands Golf Course 20 City of Edmonton Health Centre 2 1 Santa Rosa Arena 22 Northlands Coliseum 23 Edmonton Northlands 24 Commonwealth Stadium 25 Clarke Stadium 26 Farmers Market

BCE

47 2.7

Utilities

The Coliseum and Stadium Station Plan Areas are presently serviced by combined services where sanitary and storm drainage are collected and conveyed by a single sewer system. These sewers are presently at or below required capacities and are subject to back up conditions which create basement and road flooding. Therefore. the sewer capacities will be upgraded to the five-year design storm level for existing land use conditions under the ongoing 22-year Combined Sewer Relief Program. The Plan Areas are presently scheduled for completion of these improvements by 1995-2000 (Maps 22 and 23). A major impact of redevelopment will be to increase the sanitary discharge volumes which will overburden the already inadequate sewers. Redevelopment in the Plan Areas must not impose further pressures on the system and costs must be borne by the developer to ensure that sanitary discharge is adequately disposed of.

Map 22 Stadium Station A.R.P. Sewer Relief Program Source: Water and Sanitation Department

Analysis and design scheduled in 1983 Construction scheduled in 1994 â&#x20AC;&#x201D; 1995 Analysis and design conducted in 1980 Construction scheduled in 1983-1985 Analysis and design scheduled in 1985 Construction scheduled in 2000

Borden Park Rd

Map 23 Coliseum Station A.R.P. Sewer Relief Program Source: Water and Sanitation Department

'310

Analysis and design conducted in 1982 Construction scheduled in 1990-1991 Analysis and design conducted in 1981-1982 Construction scheduled in 1 989-1 990

CHAPTER 3

Issues 3.1

General Land Use Issues

3.1.1

To what density, height and extent should redevelopment occur in the immediate vicinity of the LRT Stations?

It is City policy to encourage density nodes in the vicinity of LRT Stations to promote greater ridership on the LRT and allow for the convenient use of the LRT to discourage reliance on the automobile. The General Municipal Plan sets a guideline in Policy 5.B.6(a) for the scope of redevelopment around LRT Stations (in the General Municipal Plan) - See Illustration 2: "an increase in the density of development should be limited to a radius of 365 meters (1200 feet) or 3 blocks, whichever is greater, from the centre of a Light Rail Transit District, or downtown/inner city activity centre as outlined in Chart 5.2." Further factors which should be taken into account when determining the extent of redevelopment are: -

the elimination of conflicting land uses the elimination of obsolete land uses the improvement and upgrading of residential areas the optimum utilization of City-owned property for municipal needs.

The height and densities cf redevelopment that may be allowed around LRT Stations have been addressed in the General Municipal Plan: Maximum Density Nearest Primary Access Points

At Intermediary Points

U.P.H. HEIGHT FAR U.P.H. 325 225 45 M 3.0 (131.5 (91 (147.6 ft.) u.p.a.) u.p.a.) U.P.H. - Units per residential hectare FAR - Floor Area Ratio

HEIGHT FAR 23 M 1.25 (75.5 ft.)

Furthest from Primary Access Points U.P.H. HEIGHT FAR 65 14 M (26.3 (45.9ft.) u.p.a.)

Coliseum

Arterial roadways Five minute walking distance L.R.T. station

118 ave 411E8E11'25mo' mmm m

â&#x20AC;˘

o co A

11111111111

111 11 11111.11 1173

Illustration 2 Five Minute Walking Distance Around L.R.T. Stations

Stadium

41....mohmar

immamsonsie

112 ave

Illustration 3 Ormana Concept

These density guidelines may not be sufficient in today's economic climate to encourage the redevelopment of residential areas near LRT Stations. Such densities may not take full advantage of the development opportunity that exists around LRT Stations. City Council has displayed its interest in allowing development to occur at high densities beyond the "Nearest Primary Access Points" as shown with the approval of the Ormana development at 112 Avenue and 82 Street. The maximum density of 3.0 and building height of 20 storeys certainly exceeds the guidelines set out in the GMP (see Illustration 3). A more recent example of the City's support for redevelopment excessive of the GMP guidelines is illustrated by the Municipal Planning Commission's support on 1982 08 12 of a high-rise, high density development in an area bounded by 118 Avenue, 117 Avenue, 78 Street and 79 Street (Parkdale ARP). This development consists of two high-rise apartment towers at a maximum height of 57 m (20 storeys at an FAR of 4.5). The complex also contains two four storey stacked townhousing developments, a four storey parkade and a free standing commercial building. Therefore, it is suggested that the guidelines for density nodes provided by the GMP may require amendment to be consistent with current City Council policy and market situation. How can redevelopment be integrated into the community with minimum 3.1.2 impact on the low density, single family character of the Plan Areas? The introduction of high density development in the Plan Areas could have a negative impact on the low density, residential areas as a result of overshadowing, increased traffic and other changes. The General Municipal Plan provides guidelines in Policy 5.B.6 to govern the form and composition of housing types in density nodes: u(i)

The highest height, dwelling unit density, and building intensity to occur within or adjacent to the centre. These residential developments are likely to be part of mixed use buildings or projects totally or predominantly oriented to non-family households and childless couples; and

(ii)

The development at the edge to be integrated with the residential development adjacent to the activity centre, if any, in terms of building height and intensity, dwelling unit density, and the provision of dwelling units with family suitable characteristics."

In summary, a transition of height and density should be applied in the Plan Areas where the greatest building heights and densities situated around the LRT Stations. Development should scale down towards low density residential areas. In

52 addition, the architecture, urban design and building materials of new development should be compatible with surrounding buildings. Development applications will be reviewed by the Planning Department to ensure these criteria are followed.

3.2

Residential Development Issues

3.2.1 Do certain residential areas no longer contain the most appropriate form of development? The Plan Areas are inner city neighbourhoods, developed mainly with older single family homes, with a substantial number requiring major repair. These neighbourhoods are typified by such characteristics as high traffic volumes in or near areas of low density residential development and a growing rate of absentee ownership. In particular, the residential neighbourhood of Cromdale North has indicated a need for a review of its present land use pattern. The causal agents for this instability include the approval of a high density, high-rise development (on two blocks bounded by 112 Avenue, 113 Avenue, 80 and 82 Streets), and a high rate of absentee-ownership (including many properties owned by the City and by Edmonton Northlands). Other factors which have affected the Cromdale North neighbourhood were the removal of the redistricting freeze on the Sports World roller skating rink (82 Street and 113 Avenue) setting the stage for a high-rise development on that site, and the closure of the Cromdale School in 1980 as a result of drastically declining enrollment. Given the instability of the Cromdale North area, it was evident that the community required some analysis as to the type of land uses that would best suit the surrounding conditions. Three basic land use scenarios were analysed:

53 Alternative 1 - high-rise, high density development throughout the entire area, except for the blocks bounded by Borden Park, 79 Street, 114 Avenue and 112 Avenue which is developed with commercial/office land uses. Traffic generation during the peak afternoon traffic flow is estimated at 544 autos into the Sub-Area and 406 out of the Sub-Area, for a total peak flow of 950 automobiles. -000--000-000„Exhibition Grounds 00°°000__ . 0 :-; :00o noo,. 000 :. :0 oo

114 a v e

:0 0 g 000 oo

oo 0 oo

0 ° f381- ctell' PSrk FToacf

113 a v e

112 a v e

(t)

"-u)

0 CO

N-

Alternative 2 - high-rise, high density development is allowed throughout the Cromdale North area except for the blocks immediately west of Borden Park (as described in Alternative 1) are developed for park space. Traffic generation during the evening peak hour is estimated at 517 automobiles into the Sub-Area and 244 automobiles out of the Sub-Area, totalling 761 automobiles. •0 0.0%;‘,-0 ;0°Exhip_itio n Gr ounp 0-000-00c o o :on

0. 0 .0 0 00 0 0 : 0 0 :0 0 °: .00 0 .0...00 .. 0 0 0 ..00 ' 0 0 0 007000° °000°.°00:0°00:0°000° . 00 gOrd P°a°rk tfoaas

54 Alternative 3 - A transition of building heights and densities from the Council approved high density development (82 Street and 112 Avenue) and the proposed RA9 redevelopment of the Sports World roller skating rink site (82 Street and 113 Avenue), scaling down towards Borden Park. Traffic generation during the evening peak hour is estimated at 443 automobiles into the Sub-Area and 220 automobiles out of the Sub-Area, totalling 663 automobiles.

The objectives of the Stadium Station Plan require that most redevelopment near the L T Stations should be adult oriented while medium to low density housing further from the Station would provide a transition in height, scale and type of development that would be more closely associated with existing low In terms of the Cromdale North Sub-Area, total density residential areas. redevelopment to high density apartments and commercial/office towers would not allow for an adequate transition of heights and densities to surrounding areas. High density development cannot be justified on the grounds that there is good access to the LRT Station, since the eastern portion of the Cromdale North Sub-Area is well beyond the five minute walking distance from the Stadium LRT Station.

55 Alternative 3 was determined to be the most appropriate development option for Cromdale North. It would allow for a transition of development heights and densities from the proposed high-rise development along the LRT line, decreasing to low-rise apartments towards Borden Park. Low to medium density apartment forms could be oriented away from Edmonton Northlands and the parking lot on the western boundary of Borden Park. Low-rise apartment development could allow for a greater mixture of housing types in the Cromdale North Sub-Area. It would also allow for redevelopment which would be more compatible with the apartment projects proposed along the LRT line. 3.2.3 How does the fact that the population of the Coliseum and Stadium Station Plan Areas consists of predominantly older, retired persons, or childless couples, affect planning for the area? Residents of retirement age are likely to sell their homes in favour of other forms of accommodation. Since maximum value is demanded for these sales, pressure occurs for redistricting of lands to allow low-rise apartment development to occur. In the interim, these homes tend to be purchased by absentee landlords as revenue properties. Rental properties of this kind tend to deteriorate faster than owner-occupied structures. Landlords anticipating short-term redistrictings in these areas are reluctant to carry out major improvements on older homes, and so further deterioration results. In addition, schools in neighbourhoods with the type of age and family composition tend to have poor long-term viability. The application of an ARP, by providing policies regulating the type and location of redevelopment within an area, helps to remove the uncertainty which exists where redevelopment possibilities are not established. The amount of speculation could decrease and a more stable situation would result. The Plans also ensure that redevelopment occurs in a manner which would be beneficial and appropriate to the Plan Areas as a whole.

3.3

Commercial Development Issues

3.3.1

Are existing commercial facilities in the Plan Areas economically viable?

This problem relates more to the Coliseum Station Plan than to the Stadium Station Plan, which has few commercial outlets. The commercial and office enterprises located along.118 Avenue and on Fort Road are affected by significant vacancy rates and difficulty in competing with other business areas in the city. This can be attributed to a number of factors:

56 -

Poor access to outlets located along Fort Road and 118 Avenue. Lack of adequate on-site parking facilities. Loss of clientele due to the changing population (smaller household size) in the Plan Area. Difficulty in competing with the attraction of enclosed shopping malls, from the standpoints of the range of goods and services, convenience, adequate parking and climate control.

These problems can be relieved somewhat by upgrading the 118 Avenue commercial strip with improved urban design, increase in local population through redevelopment and by limiting the commercial area to that presently in existence. Urban design measures should be applied to new commercial development in the Stadium Station Plan Area, incorporating such features as landscaping, paved parking areas, suit ble lighting fixtures and street furniture (benches, waste containers), and attractive and coordinated signage.

3.4

Industrial Development Issues

3.4.1 Is the existing industrial development in the Plan Areas obsolete and ready for redevelopment? In the Stadium Station Plan Area, the proximity of the industrial area to the LRT Station, the City Centre and the Stadia, has created pressure for redevelopment of certain industrial sites. An example of this pressure is a request made to City Council to lift the redistricting freeze on the Coutts Machinery site so that a redistricting application permitting residential development could be made. The request was referred to the Public Affairs Committee and was the subject of a report to the Committee by the Administration. The recommendation to retain the site as industrial was ratified by the Public Affairs Committee at its meeting of 1981 10 16. The report also indicated that the industrial character of the Stadium Road industrial corridor should be maintained, given that the presence of Alberta Concrete and the adjacent Stadia do not provide for a suitable residential environment. Other factors adversely affecting the residential development potential of the industrial area include fragmentation and isolation of these lands by Stadium Road and the CN/LRT right-of-way, and the distance of the area from the LRT Station. Finally, the industrial corridor provides employment to many local persons who rely on a place of employment within close proximity to their place of residence.

57 In light of these factors, the industrial corridor should remain, although with some variation in its industrial nature. This area should contain industries which provide a buffer between the adjacent residential land uses and medium and heavy industries. Business industrial development would be appropriate for the portion of the corridor immediately east of 92 Street, allowing light industrial, quasicommercial or showcase industrial uses. Medium industrial uses are appropriate for the remainder of the corridor, with the exception of Alberta Concrete, which is a long-term heavy-industrial facility. There are certain industrial sites in the Stadium Station Plan area which can be justified for redevelopment on the basis of size and locational characteristics. The Muttart Lumber Yard site and DeFehr's Furniture Warehouse constitute approximately a 3.4 ha (8.5 acre) parcel of land immediately east of the Stadium LRT Station. The lumber yard property has significant locational advantages for mixed residential/commercial land uses. The furniture warehouse is surrounded on three sides by the lumber yard and to retain the present use on this site would not be conducive to residential development on the lumber yard property. Comprehensive residential/commercial redevelopment of both the Muttart and DeFehr sites would constitute the most appropriate land use of this property. The Sports World roller skating rink, located at 113 Avenue and 82 Street was formerly a warehouse. City Council lifted the redistricting freeze on this site on 1982 03 01 allowing a redistricting application for high density residential development to be made. No development application has been made to date. The owner has indicated that he wishes to develop the site as a high-rise apartment development. The greatest building heights and densities of apartment structures on this site should be located adjacent to the LRT line; building heights and densities adjacent to 81 Street should be of a lower scale. Landscaping should be provided along the LRT line to buffer the development from the tracks.

3.5

Transportation Issues

3.5.1 Will the proposed widening of 112 Avenue have any impacts in the Stadium Station Plan Area? The proposed widening of 112 Avenue has been perceived as a serious problem by area residents, from the standpoint of children's safety and isolation of the Borden Park from the residential areas. During the preparation of the Stadium Station ARP, area residents voiced concern repeatedly over the widening of 112 Avenue and its arterial road status. While 112 Avenue was initially developed as an arterial road and is a major east-west

58 thoroughfare in the city, removal of its arterial road status would not be an appropriate action. However, widening 112 Avenue to a divided six-lane arterial roadway will serve to encourage greater traffic volumes along 112 Avenue which would make pedestrian crossings more difficult, thus reducing the accessibility of Borden Park and the LRT Station to community residents. The proposed widening would cause fragmentation of the community. In addition, uncertainty as to the timing, extent and even the need for the widening remains uncertain. A study should be undertaken by the TM Department that will address the widening of 112 Avenue and include community input. However, the widening of 112 Avenue is not proposed to occur in the TM Department's 10-year roadway plan and study of 112 Avenue will not receive priority until more definite timing of the 112 Avenue widening is made. 3.5.2 How will the severe traffic congestion at the intersection of 32 Street and 112 Avenue be dealt with? Traffic backs up along 112 Avenue from 82 Street as traffic flow to the City Centre must wait for the traffic signal to advance. This situation will worsen with the potential increase in population, as a result of redevelopment. Improvement of traffic flows will be included in the TM Department's study of the 112 Avenue widening, which will assess such improvements such as signaling, left and right turn bays and additional traffic lanes. Will the present at grade crossings of 112 Avenue and 82 Street at the 3.5.3 LRT tracks, which create traffic delays and safety problems, be resolved? The Transportation Management Department is proposing grade separations at the LRT line and 82 Street and 112 Avenue. The timing of construction is undetermined. As redevelopment occurs, the need for the grade separation will increase. The design and timing of the grade separations at the LRT line will be considered in a TM Department functional planning study, including 112 Avenue. The timing of this study has not yet been determined. 3.5.4

Should 120 Avenue remain as a 24 hour Truck Route?

The 120 Avenue 24 hour truck route has negative impacts (noise and reduced safety) on adjacent residential properties. The Yellowhead Highway should attract much of the truck traffic when improved to a six-lane freeway, in 1983. Completion of the Capilano Freeway extension which will connect to the Yellowhead and to the Manning Freeway will also alleviate the truck traffic on 120 Avenue. As a result, a reduction or elimination of the truck route function of 120 Avenue may occur (see Illustration 4).

Illustration 4

LJLJ L_JL_J L_JL_I LJL_I e.:1/ l2

AVF

120- 121 Avenue Realignment

122 AVE.

121 AVE.

120 AVE.

A4 '

119 AVE

•••••••

118 AVE.

60 3.6

Community Facilities Issues

3.6.1

Is the current provision of parks and community facilities adequate?

Both Plan Areas will be deficient in park space as redevelopment occurs. In the Stadium Station Plan, the presence of major city-wide recreation facilities such as Borden Park, the Capital City Park System and the Stadia, allows Stadium Station Plan residents to enjoy more park space and community facilities than most inner city neighbourhoods. The locations of park space, rather than the amount, is the issue in the Stadium Station Plan Area. For example, the area west of 82 Street does not have any park development, and 82 Street presents a barrier for residents to reach the nearest park facilities. The population of existing apartment development in Sub-Area 2 of the Stadium Station Plan, coupled with the future population of the proposed high density development west of 82 Street, will create a significant demand for park space in the immediate area. Therefore, development of a public park is proposed in the vicinity of the Stadium LRT Station, on property which can be subdivided in the future from the total area of the Muttart Lumber Yard. The site converges into a point on the southern portion of the site. Public park use may be the most suitable use in this area of the site. Park development is also proposed on the City-owned property now leased by the Order of the Eastern Star for five semi-detached dwellings in Sub-Area 6, south of 112 Avenue South. These are older buildings and can be accessed only by a lane. Given the property's location on the Kinnaird Ravine bank, redevelopment of this property for public park is appropriate at the time when the Order of the Eastern Star does not wish to renew its lease with the City. Cromdale School, which is presently closed and being used for storage, could be renovated so that the Stadium Station Plan Area's residents could use for cultural purposes, meetings or as a recreation facility. The Edmonton Public School Board does not wish to redevelop the property or have it developed as a public park should the need for its reopening develop; however, the Board does not object to its use for the above mentioned activities. The joint use of the school grounds for park purposes will be pursued. The Coliseum Station Plan Area does not have any park space located within its boundaries. The proposed population increase will substantially increase the demand for parkland. As a result, new park development is proposed, on Cityowned property within the Plan Area. In addition, the joint use of the Eastwood Elementary and Junior High School grounds for park purposes will be considered.

61 Historic Preservation Issues

3.7

What will the Plans do to identify and protect structures with historic 3.7.1 and/or architectural significance? At this time, there are no buildings in either the Coliseum Station or Stadium Station Plan Areas which have received provincial or municipal historic designation. Maps 24 and 25 indicate properties with pre-1940 residential structures. Illustration 5 represents this graphically.

Illustration 5 Pre-1940 Construction Activity in Viewpoint

Number of buildings constructed 40 35 30

774

25 20 15 10 5 0

TAWC.ms. 1910

1915

1920

1925

1930

1935 1940

Years

The Stadium Station Plan Area contains an area of particular historic character known as the Viewpoint Sub-Area. The Cromdale Community League, acting as representatives of the Viewpoint community, initiated an application to Alberta Culture in 1979 for Provincial Historic designation of the Viewpoint subdivision, which contains many homes of architectural or historic interest. Of the 74 homes existing in the Viewpoint area, about 42 were constructed prior to 1930.

62 The Provincial Historic designation of the Viewpoint Sub-Area would prohibit demolitions and regulate alterations to existing structure. The application to Alberta Culture also included a request for Provincial Historic designation of 10 homes in Cromdale, given their architectural and historic significance. These properties are: 8134 Jasper Avenue 8120 Jasper Avenue 7870 Jasper Avenue 7866 Jasper Avenue 7852 Jasper Avenue 7824 Jasper Avenue 7832 Jasper Avenue 7696 Jasper Avenue (outside Plan Area) 7721 112 Avenue South 7847 111 Avenue A Provincial Historic designation assigned to these homes would enable the owner to acquire a matching grant of up to $75,000 from Alberta Culture to improve and renovate the home. To date, Alberta Culture has not processed the application for historic designation. The Cromdale Community League must complete a survey of home owners to determine support for the designation as well as buildings before Alberta Culture will continue with the designation procedure. An application is being prepared by the Community League to the Alberta Historical Resources Foundation for a grant in order to conduct a detailed study of the Viewpoint Sub-Area, including the owner and building survey. The study will be submitted to Alberta Culture after its completion. Some isolated redevelopment proposals have been submitted to the City, such as the proposed Redemptorist Fathers' Residence at 8106 Jasper Avenue. The development permit application was refused by the City and was subsequently appealed to the Development Appeal Board. The hearing took place on 1982 10 05, when substantial representation from the community was present to oppose the application. The appeal was allowed by the Development Appeal Board. This indicates that redevelopment pressure is beginning to encroach on the Viewpoint SubArea. The Coliseum Station Plan Area does not contain any structures of notable historic significance or unique architectural character. A municipal heritage survey has been completed for the Plan Area. An evaluation of this survey will be carried out by the City's heritage officer. Once the evaluation is completed, a better understanding of the historic importance of buildings in the Coliseum Station Plan Area can be obtained.

mill

Stadium Station A.R.P. Inventory of Pre-1940 Structures

0 Pre 1920 111 1921-1930

111 1931-1940

64 Map 25 o Coliseum Station A.R.P.

of Pre-1940 Cos Inventory Structures •

Pre 1920

121 Ave MEI MEIN M•1111

1921-1930

MEI NMI

III1931-1940

MIN =MN

▪

120 Ave

119 Ave

118 Ave

L_JLJ LJLI

Illustration 6

LRT Station Access Scenarios for Comprehensive 3.8 Development Will convenient and safe access to the LRT Stations, from nearby 3.8.1 Coliseum residential areas, be ensured by these Plans? One of the major reasons for proposing high density development in the vicinity of the LRT Stations is to enable a significant concentration of people to effectively utilize the LRT by living within walking distance of the Station. However, people may be discouraged from walking to the LRT Station if direct and weather protected connections are not available. In addition, 112 Avenue may be widened to a six-lane divided roadway. High density development will only be justified if residents are able to reach the Stadium LRT Station without much difficulty. At this time, there are no direct pedestrian connections to the LRT Station, only signalized crossings at 82 Street and 112 Avenue and 86 Street and 112 Avenue. Pedestrian walkways should lead from the perimeter of high density residential and mixed use developments to the LRT Station. Direct connections between the high density buildings and the pedestrian walkway should be provided for each major development near the LRT Stations. This would apply to both Plan Areas (see Illustration 6, 7 and 8).

Scenarios for Comprehensive Development Stadium NEP R1567

11.44w-

Low RIO':

i1141-/R156:

1414ii RI1â&#x20AC;&#x2DC; grv5IDEM77At it-crirfeRei

I 12 AvE

56,11001.. 6aVINE77.4,,Ac,. 5-72.170N.

Illustration 7 High Density Development Near, Coliseum LRT Station Cot/5E01-f

57-A-rioN,

Illustration 8 High Density Development Near Stadium LRT Station

3.9

Major Facilities Issues

How can the impacts of major facilities in the Plan Areas be reduced to 3.9.1 achieve a more compatible relationship with surrounding residential areas? The Northlands Coliseum and Exhibition Grounds, and Clarke and Commonwealth Stadia all impact the surrounding community in terms of traffic, noise, littering and overflow parking. These problems are accentuated during crowdgenerating events at the Stadia and Edmonton Northlands facilities. A residents group was formed in 1981, consisting of representatives from five Community Leagues in the area, in response to these negative effects. This residents group, the Borden Park Residents Association (BPRA), prepared a report in 1982 which outlined their concerns and made a number of recommendations to alleviate the problems. The report was submitted to the Public Affairs Committee on 1982 07 03 and later tabled. The concerns raised in this report are expected to be dealt with by joint cooperative action between Edmonton Northlands, the City of Edmonton and the BPRA. This may include preparation of an ARP for the Northlands' grounds. Edmonton Northlands, located on the boundary of both Plan Areas, operates a number of events on-site. These include Coliseum events, consisting of approximately 40 hockey games per season, rock concerts and special shows, various events at the Sportex building, 91 days of harness racing and 85 days of thoroughbred racing at the race track, and the operation of the Exhibition for Klondike Days, lasting 10 days each summer. Edmonton Northlands commissioned a parking study undertaken by DeLCan Associates to determine the parking shortfalls as a result of their facilities and propose methods to rectify the situation. This report recommended the construction of a parkade on the Mount Lawn Water and Sanitation yard, the provision of on-site parking and staggered event programming of Edmonton Northlands activities.

3.10

Parking Issues

3.10.1

What can be done to alleviate the demand for parking in the Plan Areas?

Both Plan Areas experience overflow parking on residential streets, particularly during events at the major facilities. The introduction of high density development could accentuate this problem unless parking facilities are provided in new development that completely meets tenant and visitor parking needs. A separate parking facility that would accommodate patrons of the LRT as well at attendees of major facility events is also needed.

68 The City's Engineering Department has recognized the parking problem in the Plan Areas and completed a survey in February, 1981 of residents in areas affected by parking bans. The purpose of the survey was to determine whether people wanted to see a continuation of the parking ban. Approximately 75% of those surveyed considered non-resident parking restrictions necessary. A total of 45% wanted the parking restrictions operating 24 hours each day, with 67% indicating a need for parking restrictions to operate all year. Further survey comments provided included the need for major events parking restrictions for Klondike Days and the provision for visitors to use guest permits. Two possible means of accommodating the demand for parking have been investigated, surface parking and a parking structure. There is a parking facility proposed near the LRT Station in both ARPs. An analysis was conducted to compare the relative advantages and disadvantages of surface versus parkade parking in both the Coliseum and Stadium Station 'Plans. The intent of the proposed parkade facility would be to provide a Park'n'Ride function for LRT patrons and to provide some additional off-street parking for major facilities events at the Stadia and Edmonton Northlands. Option One listed below is the parkade alternative and Option Two is the surface parking alternative. The number of stalls to be provided for either option for the purpose of this analysis is 600. Option One - Parkade Structure To obtain cost estimates, the parking structure at the Edmonton Municipal Airport was identified as a model. This parkade was constructed in 1979. Since then, construction costs have escalated by 40% to 1982 (10% in 1980, 15% in 1981 and 15% in 1982). The total cost of the Airport Parkade, escalated into 1982 dollars, would be $7.5 million. A breakdown of floor space in the airport parkade is as follows: Ground Floor Second Floor Third Floor Fourth Floor Fifth Floor Total Floor Space

10,090 sq. m 8,504 sq. rn 7,522 sq. m 7,277 sq. m 2,690 sq. m 36,083 sq. m

230 stalls 222 stalls 188 stalls 244 stalls 140 stalls 1,024 stalls

At a total cost of $7.5 million, the Airport Parkade would therefore cost $208/sq. m of floor space, or $9,023/parking stall. The average stall size is a gross figure of 35 sq. m, including all ramps, lanes and other functions in the

structure. These figures provide a basis for calculating construction costs on a parkade near the LRT Station. Figures provided to the City by a local construction company indicate that construction of an open parkade is approximately $6,250/stall, including plug-ins. For the purposes of this evaluation, it was assumed that $6,250 represents a minimum cost per stall and $9,023/stall represents a maximum cost. A five storey parkade structure designed to contain 600 cars would require a ground floor area of 4,200 sq. rn. Assuming setback requirements, this parkade would require approximately 0.5 ha of lot area. The lots which were chosen for a parkade location in this analysis in the Stadium LRT Station vicinity are Lots 1 to 10, Block 96, Plans 50L and 231 K.S. (see Illustration 9).

Illustration 9 Major Parking Facility Alternatives

-7=1_

:71=

Parking analysis site: Option one

Parking analysis site: Option two

â&#x20AC;˘

City owned properties Privately owned properties Edmonton Northlands properties

III

AVE

l-7177171

70 It should be noted that the lots selected have been chosen for the sole purpose of conducting this analysis, and that this should not be construed as a final site selection. Final site selection will be a detailed procedure involving in-depth input from the Transit, Transportation Management, Real Estate and Housing, Parks and Recreation and Planning Departments as well as the services of consultants as may be required.' At this time, the City has acquired all of the above noted properties at a total cost of $280,500. A summary of the range of total costs for the proposed parkade is as follows: Minimum Cost (Based on $6,250/stall) Land acquired by the City to date Land yet to be acquired Demolition Costs (Pavement Removal) Parkade Construction Costs Total Costs

280,500 Nil

38,374 3,750,000 $ 4,068,874

Maximum Cost' (Based on $9,023/stall)

280,500 Nil 38,374 5,413,800 5,732,674

Option Two - Surface Parking Lot It was assumed that the site selected for Option One would be inappropriate for Option Two, given that a structure would be integrated with other uses 'on the 4.2 ha City-owned parcel west of the LRT Station. Use of this land as surface parking would eliminate space needed for other more important land uses, such as the existing bus parking and transfer facility and the proposed commercial/residential development. As a result, the nearest available area of land is in the Cromdale North Sub-Area (between 78 and 80 Streets north of 112 Avenue see Illustration 7 This site was selected for Option Two, given proximity to Edmonton Northlands and the LRT Station. As with Option One, the lots selected do not represent a recommendation, but were chosen for the purpose of this analysis only.

71 The amount of land required to provide surface parking for 600 stalls is approximately 21,000 sq. m or 2.1 ha, based on 35 sq. m. gross per stall. The properties chosen to fulfill requirements in this analysis are as follows: Plan

Legal Description

5850 AJ Block 5850 R Block 5850 R Block 5850 R Block 5850 R Block Total

25 25 24 15 15

Lots Lots Lots Lots Lots

Lot Area (Total) 1,751 sq. m 4,599 sq. m 4,139 sq. m 4,047 sq. m 4,047 sq. m 18,383 sq. m

1 to 5 5 to 14 1 to 9 5 to 15 16 to 26

An additional 2,600 sq. m would be included by closure of portions of the laneway in Block 15, 79 Street and 113 Avenue, for a total area of 20,900 sq. m. This would be sufficient to accommodate 600 parking stalls. In determining costs for this parking lot, the factors that were considered included land acquisition, demolition, excavation, paving and relocation of services and utilities. Land Acquisition Of the 46 lots proposed for acquisition, the City currently owns 19 lots, and two half lots. Six and one-half other properties are owned by Edmonton Northlands and the other 191 lots are privately held. The following table indicates the history of City-owned lands: Plan

Legal Description

Acquisition Date

6806 AJ 5850 R 5850 R 5850 R 5850 R 5850 R 5850 R 5850 R 5850 R 5850 R 5850 R 5850 R 5850 R Total

Block 25 Block 25 Block 25 Block 25 Block 25 Block 24 Block 24 Block 15 Block 15 Block 15 Block 15 Block 15 Block 15

80 07 30 75 04 02 74 12 16 81 08 11 82 05 21 74 08 15 78 09 28 74 10 31 79 09 28 77 10 12 76 05 27 76 11 10 73 07 05

Lots 1 to 5 Lot 5 Lots 8 and 9 Lot 10 Lot 11 Lot 8 and of 7 Lot 9 Lot 6 Lots 10 and 11 Lot 12 Lot 15 Lot 17 Lot 21 and of 22

Acquisition Cost $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $

308,150 21,600 51,000 93,000 40,000 23,500 50,000 16,000 65,000 42,000 33,000 47,000 28,000 818,250

72 The remaining 191 lots to be acquired could be expected to cost the City approximately $1,540,500 in 1982 dollars, based on an average price of $79,000 paid for properties of this type in the general vicinity, including a 15% escalation factor for 1982. In addition, the six and one-half properties presently held by Edmonton Northlands or its representative would have to be acquired. These properties had cost Northlands a total of $375,500. Demolition Costs According to the Real Estate and Â°using Department, an average cost for building demolition, including backfilling and tree and material removal, is approximately $2,000/house. Thirty-eight structures would have to be removed, at a total cost of $76,000. Excavation and Paving Costs Costs are estimated based on the 1983 costs for the Westwood Garage, southwest lot. This includes surveying, installation of concrete pipes, catch-basins, excavation, gravel, ret I ing walls, curbs, and power poles, but does not include any related landscaping or fencing costs. These costs would be as follows: Preparation and Excavation Paving Total

$24.00/sq. m $13.45/sq. m $37.45/sq. m (1981)

This cost would escalate to $43.06/sq. m in 1982 dollars. With a total area of 20,900 sq. m to resurface, the total cost would be $899,954. In summary, the total costs for the surface parking lot would be as follows: Item Land acquired by the City to date Land yet to be acquired by the City (1982 base year) Demolition Costs Excavation and Paving Costs Total

Cost $

818,250

1,916,000 76,000 899,954 $3,710,204

Analysis Option One, the parkade structure, would cost between $4 million and $5.7 million to complete. Option Two would cost $3.7 million, a difference of between $0.3 and 2.0 million, or 91.0% to 64.7% of the amount of Option One. Due to existing City land holdings, Option One would require a capital expenditure of between $3.8 million and $5.4 million, which is 93.1% to 95.1% of the total project cost, compared to $2.9 million required for Option Two, which is 77.9% of the total project cost. The parkade structure is a more efficient use of space, requiring only 20% of its total floor area at grade. Surface parking, obviously, has 100% of its usable space at grade. Option One would be a more convenient site for Park'n'Ride and Stadia functions, whereas Option Two would be more convenient for Edmonton Northlands parking and would only be filled to capacity during Edmonton Northlands events. Option Two would reduce the remaining housing stock in the Cromdale North Sub-Area by 66% (this excludes the remaining structures on the Ormana site). The Cromdale North Sub-Area is recommended in the Stadium Station ARP as a logical site for medium to high density residential development. Option Two would greatly reduce the viability of this area for residential redevelopment, and would conflict with this recommendation. As a result, Option One is the recommendation which is made in the Stadium Station ARP, since the opportunity costs for this option appear to outweigh its increased capital cost.

3.11

Redevelopment Levy Issue

3.11.1

Should there be a Redevelopment Levy imposed in these Plan Areas?

Payment of Redevelopment Levy may be required by the City in areas covered by ARP. The purpose of the Levy is to provide funds which will contribute towards the cost to. the City of acquiring land for schools, parks and recreation facilities, either the Coliseum nor the Stadium Plan Areas are deficient in school facilities, as evidenced by the decline in school enrollments. However, the existing park deficiency in both Plan Areas indicates that park facilities are required, particularly with a increase of population. The rate schedule, outlined in the City Redevelopment Levy Policy, applicable to new residential development is as follows: "A Redevelopment Levy of $800 per dwelling unit will be imposed on all residential developments approved by the evelopment â&#x20AC;˘ fficer, within the area redevelopment plan area. Where a ch nge of use or a change in intensity of use of an existing building takes place, the Levy will apply to the number of Idditional residential units created."

Information on the implementation of the Redevelopment Levy will be collected by the Planning Department as part of the monitoring procedure for the ARPs and a coordinated report will be produced five years after Plan approval. An estimated figure for the total amount that can be collected from developments through the Redevelopment Levy for each Plan Area has been calculated. This figure is based on the assumption that total redevelopment will occur according to the new densities proposed under the proposed districts for each area. It is estimated that the Coliseum Station Plan could produce a maximum of 1.7 million dollars in new revenue and the Stadium Station Plan could produce 4.1 million dollars in new revenue. It is probable that the actual amount collected will be considerably less, as total redevelopment to higher densities is unlikely to occur.

CHAPTER 4 Sub-Areas

4.1

Introduction

The Coliseum Station and Stadium Station Plans have been divided into Sub-Areas on the basis of similar characteristics or problems, and natural or arterial road boundaries which define these areas. This section defines the Sub-Areas and describes the main characteristics and impacts these Sub-Areas are experiencing.

4.2

Sub-Area 1 - Eastwood Sub-Area, Coliseum Station ARP Characteristics

Sub-Area 1 consists of the western portion of the Plan Area and is bounded by 82 Street on the west, 121 Avenue on the north, Fort Road on the east and 118 Avenue on the south. The area contains a diversity of commercial, residential and institutional activities. The area is developed predominantly with walk-up apartments, with some older interspersed single family and duplex housing. This area is in transition, with about 62.1% (Table 1) of the area having been redeveloped to low-rise apartment buildings. Â°rant MacEwan Community College operates a campus at 118 Avenue and 81 Street, which offers day and evening programs, workshops and seminars available to persons on a city-wide basis. Eastwood Elementary and Junior High School is located at 120 Avenue and 81 Street and services the Coliseum Station Plan Area. A redistricting has been approved by City Council for the block bounded by 118 Avenue, 82 Street, 119 Avenue and 81 Street to allow a high-rise, high density seniors housing and community housing complex. To date, a development permit has not been applied for by the Alberta Housing Corporation, owners of the site.

76 Impacts Impacts on this Sub-Area include: The high volume of through traffic on 82 Street, Fort Road and 118 Avenue, creating considerable noise and barriers between the residential areas and community facilities such as schools, pools and the Coliseum LRT Station. Redevelopment of single family housing to apartments and other higher density forms of land use has had some negative impacts.

4.3

Sub-Area 2 - Coliseum North Sub-Area, Coliseum Station ARP Characteristics

The boundary of Sub-Area 2 is 118 Avenue, Fort Road, 121 Avenue, Mount Lawn Road, 76 Street nd 77 Street on the east. The area is generally developed with older single family homes, with some duplex and semi-detached development. Presently about 88.5% (Table 1) of the existing dwelling units are low density family housing. The Sub-Area also contains strip commercial development, located along 118 Avenue. This is an older commercial strip with problems endemic to such areas, including parking deficiencies, uncompetitive businesses and traffic problems. Impacts The impacts in this Sub-Area are: 1. Proximity to the Coliseum LRT Station which causes pressure for redevelopment to higher densities. 2. Area is bounded by heavily-traveled arterial roads such as 118 Avenue and Fort Road, which fragments the Sub-Area from the rest of the community, making it difficult to reach community facilities such as parks and schools west of Fort Road. Noise caused by heavy traffic and difficult crossing conditions are also negative features of the arterial roadways. 3. Many low density family homes are owned by absentee landowners, which are generally purchased for speculative purposes. As a result, the general upkeep of these homes may not be as good as owner-occupied homes.

77 There is no park space in the Sub-Area and access to park space 4. outside the Sub-Area is difficult due to arterial roads bordering the Sub-Area. 5.

4.4

There is a lack of parking space to service commercial property.

Sub-Area 3 - Coliseum South Sub-Area, Coliseum Station ARP Characteristics

This Sub-Area consists of lands which are owned wholly by the City of Edmonton. The boundaries of this area are 118 Avenue on the south, 78 Street on the west, 120 Avenue on the north and the LRT line on the east. The Sub-Area contains primarily low density housing. The Mount Lawn Water and Sanitation Department pipe storage yard, which is to be relocated, is also in this Sub-Area. A bus turnaround loop is located at 118 Avenue and the LRT Station, which allows buses traveling down 76 and 77 Streets to turn around and transfer passengers at the LRT Station. The Coliseum South Sub-Area is suitable for intensive redevelopment, given that the property is entirely owned by the City and is located in very close proximity to the LRT Station. Impacts The impacts in this Sub-Area are: 1.

Very close proximity to the Coliseum LRT Station and LRT tracks.

All the property is City-owned and suitable for redevelopment.

Lack of parking space to service commercial property, LRT patrons 3. and Coliseum patrons. The bus loop brings bus traffic through the Sub-Area and restricts 4. access to the community off 118 Avenue.

4.5

Sub-Area 1 - Stadium West Sub-Area, Stadium Station ARP Characteristics

This Sub-Area begins at the lane west of 91 Street, continues north and then east on 111 Avenue, north on 99 Street to 112 Avenue, east on 112 Avenue to the LRT line, south on the LRT line to 106A Avenue, east on 106A to the lane north of Jasper Avenue, west to 92 Street, north to 108 Avenue and east to the lane west of 91 Street. The Sub-Area contains institutional and industrial facilities. The Commonwealth and Clarke Stadia are situated in the western section and a parking area is located between Stadium Road and the LRT tracks which accommodates both bus parking during Stadia events and a Park'n'Ride lot servicing the LRT. The SubArea also contains the major industrial area within the Stadium Station Plan, which straddles Stadium Road and the LRT tracks. Impacts The impacts in this Sub-Area are: The Stadia events impose overflow parking 3nd traffic congestion 1. onto neighbouring streets. 2.

The industrial area is experiencing parking shortages.

Proximity to the Stadium LRT Station is exerting redevelopment 3. pressure in some portions of the Sub-Area. Some of the industries are older and, in certain cases, obsolete, 4. making redevelopment a favourable option. Certain industries emit noise, odour and dust which are not 5. compatible with nearby residential development.

4.6

Sub-Area 2 - Stadium East Sub-Area, Stadium Station ARP Characteristics

This Sub-Area is bounded by the LRT tracks on the west, Kinnaird Ravine on the north, 82 Street on the east and Jasper Avenue on the south. It is developed mainly with three storey walk-up apartments, except along Jasper Avenue and 82 Street which are developed with higher density apartment buildings. Industries in the Sub-Area include the Muttart's Lumber Yard and a small parcel of land, occupied by a furniture warehouse, which is surrounded by the lumber yard on three sides. sides. Impacts The impacts in this Sub-Area are: 1. Proximity to the Stadium LRT Station which causes pressure for redevelopment in the area to higher density land uses. 2. The industrial area is occupied by only two industries and is located in close proximity to the LRT Station, making comprehensive development of these properties desirable. 3. Many of the walk-up apartments located in close proximity to the LRT Station are older and in poor condition and have potential for redevelopment. 4. The area is close to the City Centre and is well serviced by the LRT system, buses and the road network. 5. There are no public facilities such as parks or recreational facilities to service this population-intensive area.

80 4.7

Sub-Area 3 - Viewpoint Sub-Area, Stadium Station ARP Characteristics

The Viewpoint Sub-Area is bounded by 82 Street on the west, Kinnaird Ravine on the north and east, and the North Saskatchewan River Valley on the south. The area contains a large number of pre-world war two single family homes, many of architectural and historical interest. The area is also well treed and affords an attractive river valley view from Jasper Avenue, which adds to its unique character. Impacts The impacts in this Sub-Area are: 1. Proximity to the Stadium LRT Station which causes pressure for redevelopment to higher densities. 2.

Proximity and good access to the City Centre.

River Valley views and older housing stock make redevelopment to 3. higher density forms of land use attractive to prospective developers.

4.8

Sub-Area 4 - Cromdale North Sub-Area, Stadium Station ARP Characteristics

The Cromdale North Sub-Area is bounded on the west by the LRT line, on the north by 114 Avenue on the east by Borden Park and on the south by 112 Avenue. The area is mainly developed with single family housing. Much of the property is owned by the City of Edmonton or Edmonton Northlands. The stability of the area is further affected by City Council's decision to permit a large mixed use development on a six acre parcel of land north and east of 112 Avenue and 82 Street. The SubArea is also the location for Cromdale School, which is closed and used for storage due to lack of enrollment in the area. The Sub-Area is, to a large degree, occupied by older adults without school-aged children.

81 Impacts The impacts in this Sub-Area are: Proximity to Edmonton Northlands and associated impacts such as 1. noise, overflow parking and traffic congestion. 2. Proximity to the LRT Station, which causes pressure for redevelopment to higher densities. Many of the properties in the Sub-Area are absentee-owned. This 3. situation results in property maintenance which is not up to the standards of owneroccupied dwellings, since many of these properties are purchased for speculative purposes. 4.

There is considerable traffic congestion at 82 Street and 112

Avenue. Many of the properties purchased for the location of the high 5. density development at 112 Avenue and 82 Street are no longer occupied and are very poorly maintained. This condition serves to create an unfavourable environment for residents in the Cromdale North Sub-Area.

4.9

Sub-Area 5 - Cromdale South Sub-Area, Stadium Station ARP Characteristics

The Cromdale South Sub-Area is bounded by 82 Street, 112 Avenue and Kinnaird Ravine. The area is developed with older single family homes and also contains a convenience store at 112 Avenue and 82 Street. Impacts The impacts in this Sub-Area are: 1. Redevelopment pressure due to close proximity to the Stadium LRT Station and good access to the City Centre. 2. There is considerable traffic congestion and noise from 112 Avenue. Left turns onto 112 Avenue are difficult to achieve since left turns at 82 Street are not permitted. 3.

Some of the housing is not well maintained and has absentee owners.

82 4.10

Sub-Area 6 - Virginia Park Sub-Area, Stadium Station ARP Characteristics

The Virginia Park Sub-Area boundaries are 78 Street on the west, north to Borden Park Road, south on 74 Street to 112 Avenue, west on 112 Avenue to the Capilano Freeway and the east along the River Valley. It is the largest Sub-Area in the Stadium Station Plan, and consists of stable, low density residential housing. The Sub-Area is experiencing some redevelopment, in the form of low-rise apartments on 112 Avenue. A redistricting at 111 Avenue and 76 Street will permit an Alberta Housing Corporation Senior CitizensÂ° Complex. The Sub-Area also contains Borden Park, a City-wide facility and two schools, Virginia Park Elementary and Concordia College. Impacts Impacts on this area include: 1. Edmonton Northlands and Stadia events generate noise, overflow parking and increased traffic flow in the residential area. 2. The approved RA7 District to accommodate the Alberta Housing Project represents an intrusion of higher density Rand use into an area of stable, low density single family housing.

Appendix 1 Demographic Profiles

TABLE 1 NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS Y HOUSING TYPE AND TENURE

SUB AREAS STADIUM AREA

1 Stadium West

2 Stadium East

3 Viewpoint

4 Cromdale North

5 Cromda1e South

6 Virginia Park

Totals

Single Detached

Rent Own Vacant

0 0 1

1 0 , 1

24 34 2

47 21 16

20 27 2

52 153 12

114 235 34

Single Detached (with suite)

Rent Own Vacant

a 0 1

2 a 1

10 4 2

12 3 12

5 2 1

11 6 3

40 15 20

Semi Detached

Rent Own Vacant

2 ED

1 0

3 0

0 0 0

0 0

Rent Own Vacant

0 0 0

a 0 0

1 1

0 0

1 0 1

0 0 0

2 1 1

Rent Own Vacant

682

702

Walk-Up Apartment Rent (Condominium) Own Vacant

0 0 0

21 0 1

13 0 0

0 0 0

211

0 0 0

74 0

0 0 0

31 0 21

Duplex

Walk-Up Apartment (4 Storey or Less)

High-Rise Apartment (5 Storey or greater)

Rent Own Vacant

High-Rise Apartment (Condominium*)

Rent Own Vacant

a 0 0

31 21

0 0 0

One & Two Storey Commercial/ Residential

Rent Own Vacant

0 0 0

a 0 0

a ED 0

0 0 0

1 0 0

0 a 0

1 0 0

Senior Residence

Rent Own Vacant

0 ED 0

0 ED

36 0 6

Rooming, Boarding and Collective Residence

Rent Own Vacant

10 0 I

26 5 6

Other

Rent Own Vacant

Totals

o 0

0 0

0 0 0

3 0 0

9 3 3

4 2 2

o a 0

2 0 2

0 1 1

4 1 19

871

126

304

1482

(1982 Planning Research Information Systems) Note these figures do not include the newly constructed River RI a Apartment

TABLE 1 NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS BY HOUSING TYPE AND TENURE

SUB AREAS 2 Coliseum North

1 Eastwood

COLISEUM AREA

3 Coliseum South

Totals

Single Detached

Rent Own Vacant

21 42 6

51 83 12

14 1 1

86 126 19

Single Detached (with suite)

Rent Own Vacant

2 2 1

0 6 3

4 0 2

14 8 6

Semi Detached

Rent Own Vacant

0 2 0

2 0 0

0 0

2 2

Duplex

Rent Own Vacant

6 4 0

1 0 0

0 0 â&#x20AC;¢0

7 4 0

TriPlex

Rent Own Vacant

0 0 0

3 0 0

0 0 0

3 0 0

Walk-Up Apartment Rent Own Vacant

145 1 3

1 0 0

0 0 0

146 1 3

Walk-Up Apartment Rent (with a secondary Own use) Vacant

2 1 0

8 0 2

0 0 0

10 1 2

0 0 0

13 15 4

2 1 0

0 2 1

0 0 0

2 3 1

12 1 30

3 0 5

0 0 1

15 1 15

296

191

)

Walk-Up Apartment Rent (Condominium) Own Vacant Rooming, Boarding Rent and Collective Own Vacant Residence Other

Totals

Rent Own Vacant

13 15 4

(1982 Planning Research Information Systems)

510

TA LE 2 POPULATI*N BY SUB AREA

SUB AREAS

STADIUM AREA

1 2 3 4 5 Stadium Stadium Viewpoint Cromdale Cromdale West East North South

6 Virginia Park

Totals

MALE

767

110

123

286

1352

FEMALE

706

103

107

290

1276

TOTALS

1473

213

230

136

576

2628

SUB AREAS

COLISEUM AREA

1 Eastwood

2 Coliseum North

3 Coliseum South

Totals

MALE

279

216

519

FEMALE

284

224

538

TOTALS

563

440

1057

(1982 Planning Research Information Systems)

TABLE 3 POPULATION BY AGE AND SEX STADIUM AREA

Age

Female

% of All Persons in That Age Bracket

Male

% of All Persons in That Age Bracket

Total

% of Total Population

0-4

47.0

53.0

117

4.4

5-9

39.7

60.3

3.3

10-14

41.6

58.4

2.9

15- 19

105

59.0

41.0

178

6.8

20-24

296

52.9

264

47.1

560

21.3

25-29

186

42.6

251

57.4

437

16.6

30-34

40.0

126

60.0

210

8.0

35-39

35.3

64.7

119

4.5

40-44

48.6

51.4

109

4.4

45-49

48.3

51.7

3.3

50-54

43.7

56.3

103

3.9

55-59

58.5

41.5

3.6

60-64

55.1

44.9

107

4.0

65-74

125

53.0

111

47.0

236

9.0

75-89

58.8

41.2

102

3.9

50.0

0.1

1276

48.6

1352

51.4

2628

90+

Total

(1982 Planning Research Information Systems)

100.0%

TABLE 3 POPULATION BY AGE AND SEX COLISEUM AREA

Age

Female

% of All Persons in That Age Bracket

Male

% of All Persons in That Age Bracket

Total

% of Total Population

0-4

54.0

46.0

7.2.

5-9

55.3

45.7

4.4

10 - 14

50.0

5.3

15 -19

56.6

43.4

9.5

20-24

44.2

106

55.8

190

18.0

25 -29

47.0

53.0

134

12.7

30-34

43.4

56.6

7.9

35 -39

53.0

47.0

4.8

40-44

38.9

61.1

3.4

45-49

61.2

38.8

4.6

50-54

49.2

50.8

5.7

55- 59

56.8

43.2

4.2

60- 64

56.1

43.9

3.9

65- 74

61.7

38.3

5.7

75 -89

60.7

39.3

2.6

50.0

0.1

49.1

1057

90 +

Total

538

50.9

(1982 Planning Research Information Systems)

519

100.0%

TABLE 4 OCCUPATION PROFILE

STADIUM AREA Number of Persons

COLISEUM AREA

% of total

Number of Persons

% of total

Pre Schooler

148

5.6%

8.1%

Student (Kindergarden to Grade 6)

117

4.5%

6.8%

Student (Grade 7 to 9)

1.8%

3.4%

Student (Grade 10 to 12)

1.7%

3.1%

Student (Post Secondary)

3.3%

2.7%

217

8.3%

9.0%

Employed Full Time

1429

54.4%

498

47.1%

Employed Part Time

3.3%

5.8%

Unemployed

108

4.1%

5.0%

Retired

320

12.2%

7.5%

0.8%

1.4%

2628

100.0%

1057

100.0%

Homemaker

Other

Column Totals

(1982 Planning Research Information Systems)

TABLE 5

HOUSEHOLDS BY NUMBER OF PEOPLE

Household Size

Coliseum Area

Stadium Area

Number of

% of Total

Number of

% of Total

Persons

Households

Jouseholds

Households

542

40.496

148

32.296

522

38.996

158

34.496

145

10.896

16.396

6.696

9.896

1.9%

4.1%

0.8%

1.796

0.296

0.796

0.196

0.796

0.2%

1341

100.0%

459

100.0%

Totals

(1982 Planning Research Information Systems)

TABLE 6

TYPE OF DWELLING UNIT BY HOUSEHOLD SIZE

STADIUM AREA

Household Size - Number of Persons

Percentage

Type of Dwelling Unit

Row

Total

Totals

Single Family Dwelling Unit

186

381

28.4%

Two Family Dwelling Unit

4.4%

372

272

776

57.9%

Collective Residence

5.0%

Condominium

3.9%

Other

0.4%

Totals

542

522

145

40.4%

38.9%

10.8%

6.6%

1.9%

Multi Family Dwelling Unit

Percentage of Total

(1982 Planning Research Information Systems)

0.8% 0.2% 0.1% 0.2%

1341 100%

TABLE 6 Y HOUSE OLD SIZE

TYPE OF DWELLING UNIT

COLISEUM AREA

Household Size

Number of Persons Percentage 8

Total

Totals

214

46.6%

Two Family Dwelling Unit

7.6%

Three and Four Family Dwelling Unit

0.7%

158

34.4%

1.1%

6.1%

3.596

148

158

459

Type of Dwelling Unit

Single Family Dwelling Unit

Multi Family Dwelling Unit Collective Residence Conominium Other

Column Totals

32.2%

34.4%

(1982 Planning Research Information Systems)

15.3%

9.8%

4.1%

Row

1.7% 0.7% 0.7%

100%

TABLE 7 STRUCTURE TYPE DWELLING UNITS BY TENURE

STADIUM AREA

Rented Units

Owner Occupied Units

Vacant Units

Total Units

Percent of Total

Single Detached

144

235

413

27.9%

Single Detached (with suite)

5.1%

Semi Detached

0.1%

Duplex

0.3%

731

49.3%

Walk-Up Apartment (4 storey or less)

702

Walk-Up Apartment (Condominium)

1.5%

High Rise Apartment (5 storey or greater)

5.3%

High Rise Apartment (Condominium)*

3.5%

2 Storey Commercial/Residential

0 1% .

Senior Residence

2.8%

Rooming, Boarding and Collective Residence

2.5%

1.6%

Other

Column Totals Percentage of Total

1084 73.1%

257 17.3%

141 9.5%

1482

(1982 Planning Research Information Systems) * Note these figures do not include the newly constructed River Ridge Apartments.

100.0%

TABLE 7 STRUCTURE TYPE DWELLING UNITS BY TENURE

COLISEUM AREA

Single Detached

Rented Units

Owner Occupied Units

126

Vacant Units

Total Units

231

Percent of Total

45.3% 0.0%

Single Detached (with suite) Semi Detached

0.4%

Duplex

2.5%

Triplex

0.6%

146

150

29.4%

Walk-Up Apartment (with a secondary use)

2.5%

Walk-Up Apartment (Condominium)

6.3%

1.5%

5.8%

Walk-Up Apartment

Rooming, Boarding and Collective Residence

Other

Column Totals Percentage of Total

298 58.4%

(1982 Planning Research Information Systems)

161 31.6%

51 10.0%

510 100.0%

TABLE 8 GENERAL LAND USE BY LAND USE DISTRICT *

STADIUM AREA

Rooming Boarding & Collective Residence

Undeveloped Land

Other

Row Total

349

57.5%

0.8%

0.5%

10.9%

0.7%

3.5%

4.0%

0.5%

0.3%

8.2%

13.0%

1 0.1%

3 0.5%

45 1 7.4% 0.1%

3 0.5%

1 0.1%

3 0.5%

1 0.1%

3 0.6%

HighRise Apt. Condo

Single Detached

Single Detached (with Suite)

Semi Detached

RF1

301

RF3

RF5

RA7

CNC

DC2

DC3

LAND USE DISTRICT

Total % of Total

387 63.9%

40 6.6%

Duplex

WalkUp Apt.

WalkUp Condo

HighRise Apt.

(1982 Planning Research Information Systems) * Note - The calculations are based on individual property tax parcels.

1 Storey Retail

2 Storey Retail

2 Storey Com/Res

Seniors Res.

11 1.9%

62 10.3%

44 606 7.3%

Percent of Total

100%

TABLE 8 GENERAL LAND USE BY LAN USE DISTRICT *

COLISEUM AREA

LAND USE DISTRICT

Single Detached with Single Suite Detached

Semi Detached

Duplex

Triplex

WalkUp Apt.

Walk-Up Apt. with Secondary Use

Walk-Up Apt. (Condo)

Rooming Boarding & Other Collective Resident

1 Storey Retail

1 Storey o ff ice/ Residential

Undeveloped Land

Other

Row Total

Percent of Total

248

73.8%

15.8%

, 3

0.9%

CSC

1.2%

CBI

0.6%

2.1%

0.6

0.3%

DC3

2 0.6%

2 0.6

4 1.1%

3 0.9%

1 0.3%

RF3

193

RA7

CNC

Totals % o f Total

220 65.5%

15 4.5%

2 0.6%

12 3.5%

1 0.3%

11 3.3%

(1982 Planning Research Information Systems)

* Note - the calculations are based on individual property tax parcels.

47 (14%

4.8%

16 337 (4.8%

100.0%

TABLE 9 DECADE OF CONSTRUCTION BY LAND USE TYPE

STADIUM AREA

MultiSingle Two Family Family Family Condominium Collective DU DU DU Building Residence Commercial Industrial

Institutional Community and Health Services

Recreational Row % of Utility and Use Entertainment Total Total

Decade 1900 - 1909

9.2%

1910 - 1919

8.1%

1920 - 1929

13.1%

1930 - 1939

9.3%

1940 - 1949

181

211

36.5%

1950 - 1959

10.9%

1960 - 1969

8.8%

1970 - 1979

3.8%

1980 - present

4 0.7%

3 0.5%

2 0.3%

Totals % of Total

390 67.6%

43 7.4%

48 8.3%

(1982 Planning Research Information Systems) * DU - Dwelling Unit

2 0.3%

48 8.3%

24 4.2%

14 2.4%

0.2%

578 100.0%

TABLE 9 DECADE OF CONSTRUCTI•N BY LAND USE TYPE

COLISEUM AREA

Single Family DU

Two Family DU

Three/ Four Family DU

Multi Family DU

Condominium Building

Collective Residence

Commercial

Industrial

Institutional Community and Health Services

Utility Use

Row Total

% of Total

Decade 1900 - 1909

2.8%

1910 - •1919

11.1%

1920- 1929

15.656

1930 - 1939

12.5%

1940 - 1949

24.9

1950 - 1959

5 •

17.656

1960 - 1969

4.256

1970 - 1979

11.1%

1980 - present

2 0.7%

4 1.4%

3 1.0%

4 1.4%

2 0.7%

Totals % of Total

224 77.5%

26 9.0%

1 0.3%

(1982 Planning Research Information Systems * DU = Dwelling Unit

13 4.5%

10 3.7%

0.3%

289 100.0%