SD LIBRARY
550
liii 6525
Riverbend Terwillega He ghts Edmonton. Planning D
) •
".74 fir
f, viro
Fon,
L'uo
r'
AN9 ;
4 Kt.!'
V"
485a .E3 2R74 I 1972
C77").". ** /2.1,e4A./.0//t/G
izp
- 1••
ta,
APPENDIX TO THE RIVERBEND/TERWILLEGAR HEIGHTS OUTLINE PLAN
INTRODUCTION The appendix provides a summary of events relating to the Outline Plan following its presentation at the Public Meeting on June 26th, . 1969, and is essentially a reprint of the report considered by the Municipal Planning Commission on February 16th and 17th, 1972. This appendix contains a brief history of the Outline Plan together with a review of submissions on the document received from the owners, with replies where appropriate. Also, following the presentation of the plan, a number of factors physical and policy - having a significant effect on the form of the plan and its methods of implementation have changed. These changes are described in the appendix and are reflected in the Municipal Planning Commission's recommendations of approval.to Council also included. The computations of developable area, public land requirements and public facilities indicated in the appendix supercede the requirements described under Item 'C' - Planning Requirements on page 12 of the original Outline Plan Document. Finally, as explained in the appendix, the form of the entire southern portion of the plan is dependent upon further study and annexation. The area affected is indicated in the Schematic General Structure Map, 1972 included in the appendix document.
AN Lw..4
4VISNUIL
Su TCR "Sk50 ''
:
4/04 y OF OUTLINE rsrAoLISHED
SCHEMATIC GENERAL STRUCTURE 11/'
RIVERBEND NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN EDM ONTON CITY PLANNIN8 DEPARTMENT i9 7 2 scote 0 1/4 V2 MILE
EXPLANATION:
History The Riverbend-Terwillegar Heights Outline Plan was presented to the Municipal Planning Commission on March 20th, 1969, when it was moved and passed: "that the Commission approve the Outline Plan in principle. That City Council be requested to approve in principle that part of the Riverbend-Terwillegar Heights Outline Plan within the existing City boundary.' That City Council be requested to seek the approval in principle of the Edmonton Regional Planning Commission to that part of the Riverbend-Terwillegar Heights Outline Plan beyond the existing City boundary." The plan was then submitted to Council as information on May 27, 1969, at which iime the following resolution was passed: "that City Council accept the Riverbend-Terwillegar Heights Outline Plan as information and instruct the Planning Department to invite submissions by any interested parties, and to report on such submissions when the plan and report are presented to Council for approval at a formal public hearing. That a public presentation be made of this Outline Plan and that all developers be notified, and that all developers, landowners and interested parties be invited to attend". As a result of this motion, a public meeting was held on June 26, 1969, and the main points raised at that meeting and the submissions subsequently received are summarized below. June 26, 1969 - Public Meeting held at Centennial Library. Approximately 200 persons attended. The Riverbend-Terwillegar Heights Outline Plan was well received by those in attendance. Little or no concern was expressed as to the principles, objectives or form of the plan. However, it was observed that questions of implementation were of key concern to those present.
1. Letter from Mr. Lee Yuen - 8915 - 140th Street, Edmonton, Alberta The writer owned land described as the N.W.1/4 Sec. 1-52-25-W.4 in the area proposed for the school and park campus. He objected to the location of the land in this area since its effect was to reduce his developable holdings from 160 acres to 51-5 acres and on the basis that a more appropriate site for the campus would be one more concentric to the development rather than on its eastern edge. He also submitted that the land had more potential for residential development and that the scenic value of the land was not essential for school location.
2. Letter from Mr. J. T. Sample - R. R. #3, South Edmonton, Alberta Mr. Sample approved of the plan in principle but was of the opinion that the high percentage of land devoted to circulation, schools and parks may make execution of-the plan prohibitively expensive. He did however express concern at the routing of a pedestrian walkway between his house at the corner of 45th Avenue and Whitemud Road and the river, pointing out that the land on which the walkway would lie was a steep gravel bank, giving rise to high construction costs, what flat land was available was not sufficient for a walkway and some of his own land would be needed. Further, a walkway in the location proposed could be a major fire hazard with the flames sweeping up the bank towards his house.
3. Letter from Charles Hamilton - #601, 1209 - 6th Street, S.W., Calgary, Alberta, on behalf of owners of the following lands: W.11 of S.E.1/4 of Sec. 2-52-25-W.4 (80 acres), N.W*, of Sec. 36-51-25-W.4 (156.14 acres). The writer indicates a general approval of the plan but stresses that the time element is important to the City, the developers and the future residents because the faster the area develops, the lower the cost to all concerned. He therefore recommends the planning and budgeting for the early implementation of a bridge at Whitemud Creek and 45th Avenue, the southward extension of an arterial road to connect Whitemud Drive with 25th Avenue at the town core, the 25th Avenue crossing of Whitemud Creek and extension to the town core, the extension of services southwards to the town core and beyond.
4. Letter from J. Gregory - of Glomin Farms Limited, 6511 - 124th Street, Edmonton, Alberta. The writer expressed a desire to co-operate with the City for mutual benefit but had no specific thoughts on the plan at the time of writing. He did however note that a major thoroughfare was destined to be constructed through the midst of their property and requested information as to what compensation or exchanges could be expected.
5. Letter from Mr. Sam Ronning - Box 4222, South Edmonton, Alberta Mr. Ronning in his letter objected to the Walkway system on the grounds of extravagance in terms of use of land and its questionable value in terms of the prevailing climate.
6. Letter from Mr. B. Greenhill - R.R. 3, South Edmonton, Alberta Mr. Greenhill is owner of a small country estate of 7 acres and states that he has no intention of subdividing. However he expressed approval of the parks and trail areas proposed in the plan but questioned the feasibility of the bus walkway system. He also raised the matter of inequitable distribution of benefits arising from the development of the area and suggested City purchase of the land or an association of the involved landowners to combat profiteering
7. Letter from Ed Orlovsky - 9131 - 74 Street, Edmonton 83, Alberta Mr. Orlovsky wrote on behalf of owners in the area and expressed satisfaction with the plan presented but asked for early servicing of the property.
8. Letter from Walker, Newby & Associates Ltd. on behalf of Mr. E. C. Douglas, owner of Lot 3, Block 1, Plan 6135 K.S. The writer indicates that his client agrees with the general layout and nature of the Outline Plan but wishes to have it placed on record that he does not want a major pedestrian path or public viewpoint situated on his property on the grounds that they would detract from his privacy and devaluate his holdings.
9. Calgary Power The company expressed interest in the plan and requested an opportunity to discuss the plan in relation to any relocation of the utility and the costs which may be caused.
The following comments are offered on these submissions: 1. Submission from Mr. Lee Yuen The school-park campus site was selected primarily because of the opportunities offered by the ravine for integrating the district park with natural reserve area. Also a more central location in the plan would tend to separate residential areas from the Town Centre at a point where proximity and integration would be more appropriate in terms of convenient relationships to commercial and cultural facilities and the transportation centre. However there is some merit in his suggestion and it should be examined further. Mr. Yuen's concern regarding reduction of his developable land due to the campus location is legitimate and could be best resolved by spreading the load over a wider area of the plan through a replotting scheme and developers agreements.
2. Submission from Mr. J. T. Sample Mr. Sample's concern at the extravagant use of land for parks, circulation and schools is one which is often voiced but is not really valid since the overall population density of the area is much higher than in earlier subdivisions where public land requirements are little different. The problems relating to walkway implementation are valid and should be considered by the Parks and Recreation Department when detailed proposals are prepared. 3. Submission from Charles Hamilton Mr. Hamilton's concern for early implementation of services and facilities is shared by many owners and developers and can best be resolved by the owners themselves submitting acceptable plans and entering into appropriate development agreements with the City. 4. Submission from J. Gregory Mr. Gregory's concern at the major thoroughfare through the property in question can only be resolved at the detail design stage since the alignment may change drastically. In any event, circulation requirement apart from freeways will be obtained by dedication rep]otting methods and development agreements should safeguard owners interests in such situations where road requirements exceed dedications available from specific parcels. 5. Submission from Mr. S. Ronning The Planning Department does not agree with Mr. Ronning regarding the extravagance of the walkway system, in view of the relatively high. densities proposed, also properly designed walkways will reduce the length of necessary pedestrian trips in the winter. 6. Submission from Mr. B. Greenhill Mr. Greenhill's reservations as to the safety aspects of the bus walkway system proposed are understandable, but in the view of the Planning Department, can be dispelled. However the feasibility of the system must be confirmed prior to its implementation in the Outline Plan area. His concern at inequitable distribution of the benefits of development and excess profits are recognized but can be only partially resolved by replotting methods and in the case of the City's interests, through the application of developers agreements. 7. Submission from Ed Orlovsky Mr. Orlovsky's concern for early servicing is,as explained above, dependent to a large degree on the ability of owners to meet the requirements of the plan.
8. Submission on behalf of Mr. E. C. Douglas Mr. Douglas objected to the indication of a walkway and viewpoint on his property. This is a matter which is best resolved at the detail design stage. 9. Sumission from Calgary Power The relocation of the Calgary Powerline through the area is being negotiated at the Commission Board level.with the approval of City Council. Thus far the Municipal Planning Commission has agreed to the principle of relocation along with the municipalities through which the relocated line must pass (counties of Strathcona and Parkland). The Edmonton Regional Planning Commission Metropolitan Committee has also given its approval to the proposal. The concept has been presented to Calgary Power for their information and discussions are proceeding with the company and the City Commissioners. Preliminary land appraisals of the route have also been undertaken by the Property and Building Management Department. The latest situation is that Calgary Power require a new right-of-way immediately in order to construct their new line before the end of 1973. A review of these submissions indicated that the plan itself was generally acceptable but left many questions unanswered regarding its implementation. Also experience in the West Jasper Place Outline Plan area pointed to the need for more sophisticated examination of this aspect than the Outline Plan was able to give. The Planning Department accordingly reviewed the matter and evolved the Implementation Plan technique to resolve the problems raised. The resulting document covers only the area north of the proposed Town Centre and south of Brookside and Brander Gardens (Neighborhoods 3, 4 and 5). Further study will be required as development proceeds southwards. The Implementation Plan can-be regarded as a supplement to the Outline Plan and .has already been before the Commission in draft form on June 11th, 1970 at which time it was moved and carried: 1. the draft report be approved in principle and that the recommendations contained therein be adopted as part of the general adoption for the Riverbend-Terwillegar Heights Outline Plan and, 2. that this report be referred to the Commission Board with the request that the Public Works Commissioner discuss the report and its contents with the Public Works Committee."
The main points introduced into the draft report are as follows: the objective the physical boundaries of the neighborhoods school and park requirements circulation system density recommended staging recommendations for the methods of acquisition of lands for public purposes 8. a recommended standard format for area and population computations to be 'followed by all developers submitting subdivision plans.
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.
The Implementation Plan was accordingly presented at the Public Works Committee meeting of July 13th, 1970, when it was moved and passed:
"that Mr. Rcidgers meet with the developers and he arrange with the Chairman to meet again with the committee." Subsequently, all major owners were sent the draft Implementation Plan with the request that their comments be submitted to the City Planning Department by September 15th, 1970. A resume' of the owners submissions is contained in the Implementation Plan, beginning on page 37, Chapter 7. In determining the method of staging, a careful assessment was made of the potential public expenditures in servicing the Riverbend area with public facilities. Three obvious alternatives emerged; a. develop Neighborhood 3 first; b. develop Neighborhood 4 first; c. develop both simultaneously. All were analyzed and their advantages and disadvantages identified. These have been outlined in Chapter 7, pages 43 to 49 of the Implementation Plan under heading 'C', Resume' of Utility Returns and 'D' - Summary. An analysis of the relative servicing costs of the two neighborhoods indicates that it will be more economical to proceed with Neighborhood 3 first. However the major landowner involved (Western Realty) is not convinced of this and has retained the services of an engineering consultant to investigate this aspect further. At an earlier stage in the history of the Implementation Plan, this question was causing difficulties between the major owners concerned (Allarco - Neighborhood 3, Western Realty - Neighborhood 4) and was a major factor in delaying finalization of the Implementation Plan. However the Planning Department has been informed by Western Realty (see attached letter) that they now control themajor landholdings in Neighborhood 3. As a result it would be appropriate to allow development to proceed on the basis of the ability of affected owners to meet the servicing costs and public land needs applicable in each area. The most effective vehicle for this approach would be through developers agreements of a similar nature to those evolving in other areas of the City, e.g. Castle Downs and Clareview. Under these conditions it is possible that those neighborhoods could proceed simultaneously.
WESTERN REALTY PROJECTS LTD. 505 PARKINGTON PLAZA, 10408 - 124th ST., EDMONTON, ALTA. • TEL. 482-6060
January 18, 1972
Planning Department, City of Edmonton, City Hall, Edmonton, Alberta. ATTENTION: Mr. R. Spencer Dear Mr. Spencer: RE: Land Ownership - Neighborhood #3, Southwest Edmonton This is to advise that Western Realty Projects have recently purchased 99.33 acres in the N.W. of 11 - 52 - 25 W. of 4. Allarco Developments Ltd. agrees to co-operate and permit Western Realty Projects to connect with existing services to the North in Brander Gardens. It has been mutually agreed between the two parties that Western Realty Projects will be the co-ordinating authority for subdivision planning and implementation in this area. As indicated to you earlier, we are presently reviewing the engineering problems associated with servicing Neighborhood #3. Upon completing this review we should be in a position to determine a logical staging program for the two neighborhoods in which we are involved. We hope to be in a position to review the program with the City and achieve agreement on implementation plan very quickly. Yours sincerely,
• "T-
E. Willems, Edmonton Area Manager.
(Applications for approval of the Outline Plans of subdivision for Neighborhoods 3 and 4 have been submitted and approved by the Municipal Planning Commission. Town Centre:
The Riverbend/Terwillegar Heights Outline Plan proposes a single major Town Centre intended to serve as the commercial, cultural, recreational and transportational focus of the plan. The Centre is described in Chapter 6, Section 'D' of the Outline Plan but due to the complexity and importance of the Centre in relation to the Outline Plan area and the southwest area generally, it is the view of the Planning Department that a detailed study of the Town Centre should be undertaken prior to any development taking place in and around the Centre area. Such study to take into account: a. b. c. d. e.
retail and office space needs school campus and district park medium and high residential uses transportation requirements relationship to these elements to and their implications on Neighborhoods 4 and 5 to the north and the as yet undesignated neighborhoods adjacent to the Town Centre to the south.
The terms of reference of such study, the degree of detail required and the method of participation of affected owners should be reviewed by the Municipal Planning Commission and the Commission Board prior to any planning work being undertaken. General:
South of the Town Centre the Outline Plan indicates a more schematic framework due to its relatively long term nature and the fact that the final alignment of the Outer Ring Freeway has not yet been determined. Current studies being carried out in conjunction with the Provincial Department of Highways and Transport indicate a significant change from that shown in the Outline Plan Document. The plan also proposes a full busway-walkway system, the feasibility of which has not yet been finally established. It is therefore proposed that further study and review of that portion of the plan south of the Town Centre area be undertaken prior to any development taking place. Recent resolutions of Council and experience gained in other Outline Plan areas has focused attention on the need to identify, prior to approval of the Outline Plan, the following additional uses not specifically covered by that plan: 1. public housing - "that 5 per cent of the population of future subdivisions be made available for public housing in new areas".
2. Mobile homes - Council resolution dated October 25, 1971 "1. the City express its Willingness to favorably consider proposals for mobile home parks and/or subdivisions which are located within Outline Plan areas and which are designated for integration into the comprehensive development of these areas; and that the Municipal Planning Commission be directed to consider the provision of mobile home sites in its consideration of Outline Plans; 2.
The City be willing to zone areas under the RM11-1 category in advance of other residential development, and to extend services to such locations provided that the developer is prepared to bear the additional costs of municipal and school services resulting from a departure from the normal staging of development, and provided that the location itself and the extension of such services is in accord with recommendation #1 above; and,
3.
If necessary, the City effect land exchanges using its various land holdings to provide future mobile home developments dispersed throughout new residential areas, where financially feasible."
It is therefore proposed that the approval of the plan include conditions as to the integration of these uses into the area. Computations:
1. Developable area Due to the fact that the alignment of the proposed Outer Ring Freeway has not yet been determined, it is not possible to establish with any accuracy what the gross area available for development will be. However a tentative alignment .has been evolved in conjunction with the Roadways Branch and the Provincial Department of Highways and Transport. This revised route, when compounded with a more precise calculation of the topof-the-bank line at Whitemud Creek and the River Valley, results in a total gross developable area of 4,310 acres compared with 4,103 acres originally calculated in the Outline Plan Document.
2. Population Based on the originally proposed population of 24 persons per gross acre but accounting for Brander Gardens which is already developed at 13 persons per gross acre, a total population of approximately 101,000 persons will be generated. 3. Public Land Requirements Assuming neighborhood populations between 5,500 and 6,000 persons, eighteen neighborhoods would be required. These would generate the following school and park requirements including schools already committed in Brookside and Brander Gardens: 18 9 6 3 18 2 1 1
public elementary schools separate elementary schools public junior high schools separate junior high schools neighborhood parks public senior high schools separate senior high school district park and recreation center
These generate a total requirement of approximately 600 acres or approximately 13.7% of the gross developable area. However this is a theoretical calculation only since the actual number of schools required will depend on the organization of the neighborhood structure which will be rather different from that indicated in the Outline Plan Document because of the new configuration of the southern portion of the plan caused by the changes in the Outer Ring Freeway Alignment. Further, it is proposed that the preparation of a revised neighborhood structure should await, or proceed simultaneously with, the Town Centre Study, since any significant change in organization of the Centre will have a major bearing on the area to the sOuth. In light of this situation, it is apparent that precise area requirements are only available for the area north of the Town Centre, therefore meaningful developers agreements can only be evolved for this area. Further planning Work must consequently be undertaken before detailed plans and developers agreements can be considered for the remainder of the area. The following additional public facilities have been identified:
a)
Public Housing 5% of population = 5,000 persons. Average public housing accommodates 80 persons per net acre therefore land required = approximately 62.5 acres net or approximately 107.0 acres gross = 2.45% of the gross developable area.
b)
Hospitals Hospital requirements have not yet been determined but it is likely that the area will require one active treatment hospital requiring approximately 15 acres and one auxiliary hoppital requiring approximately 10 acres, therefore land requirements = approximately 25 acres net and approximately 42 acres gross.
c)
Nursing Homes Current studies indicate one nursing home per 30,000 persons is required. Assuming 4 such facilities for this area with a site requirement of 2.5 acres each, total land required would be approximately 10 acres net and approximately 17 acres gross.
d)
Miscellaneous The following additional facilities must be accommodated: Branch Library Regional Health Clinic Police Station Fire Station Telephone Exchange Power Sub-Station Area requirements have not yet been established. Assume 10 acres net or approximately 17 acres gross. The above facilities therefore generate an approximate total requirement of 186 gross acres or approximately 4.30% of the gross developable area.
e)
Freeway and Major Arterial Requirements The current proposals indicated in the Outline Plan indicate an approximate requirement of 455 acres or approximately 9.54% of the Outline Plan area. However this requirement may be reduced following completion of the City transportation plan.
The following additional information regarding the status of the transportational elements of the Outline Plan has been gathered subsequent to the document being presented to the Municipal Planning Commission in February 1972. 1. 60th Avenue bridge over the South-West Freeway No construction date has been established for this facility and it is unlikely that it will be constructed until the need for it has been firmly established. 2. 170th Street river crossing No decision regarding this crossing can be made pending completion of a City transportation plan. Present indications are that it may be abandoned. 3. South-West Freeway The ultimate form and right-of-way requirements of the South-West Freeway running through the spine of the Outline Plan must be determined by the City transportation plan. 4. Rapid Transit The future of rapid transit to the Outline Plan area must be determined by the City transportation plan.
' -
-