LDA20-0314 T5M Connect DC2- North Glenora

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

A colour rendering of proposed project, showing a multi storey building with trees in the boulevard surrounding.

***The discussion has concluded and a What We Heard Report will be posted here when available.***

Thank you for participating in engagement activities for this rezoning application.

The application is expected to go to City Council Public Hearing for a decision, with the exact date still to be determined. For more information, please visit these FAQs (External link) for Council meetings.

***The discussion has concluded and a What We Heard Report will be posted here when available.***

Thank you for participating in engagement activities for this rezoning application.

The application is expected to go to City Council Public Hearing for a decision, with the exact date still to be determined. For more information, please visit these FAQs (External link) for Council meetings.

Tell us what you think of the Application

Please let us know what you like and what could be better about this application. What should Council know as they decide whether or not to approve the rezoning? Other people that visit this part of the site will be able to see your comments.

CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

Submitted by: 119 residents (from 79 residences), all residing within North Glenora, in the City of Edmonton: that the application to rezone 10904, 10906 and 10908 – 139 Street, Edmonton to DC2 remain as they are currently zoned (RF1) for the following reasons:
Safety Concerns:
· The properties in question are directly across the street from the front door of Coronation Elementary School. The elementary school is a neighbourhood school with significant pedestrian traffic to/from the school during daytime hours. There is also a Child Day Care and Out of School Care centre located within Coronation School. The proposed rezoning would create serious safety/traffic issues for the (1) young children who attend this school (2) residents who live in the area and (3) parents, volunteers and school support workers. The limited parking proposed (8 parking spots proposed for 16 residential units) would increase:
. Vehicle street parking: blocking access for parents picking up/ dropping off children and for emergency vehicles to reach residents’ homes;
. The number of vehicles idling on the street throughout the year and in inclement weather;
. Commercial vehicles; and
. Truck traffic for snow removal in the winter as there is not adequate space for storing of the snow.
Privacy, Noise and Visual
· Privacy for neighbouring houses will be significantly and negatively affected.
· Dumpsters will be located on a residential lane that is limited in size creating a driving hazard for residents needing to utilize the lane to enter/exit from their residences.
· Sixteen rental properties will generate moving trucks for incoming and outgoing tenants.
· It is an error to assume that with the new parking regulations in the Zoning Bylaw, which have no minimum parking requirements, would have no impact on neighbouring residences. This will affect the use and enjoyment for neighbouring properties by directing the parking to the street.
· Sixteen residential rental units on two single family residential lots are too many for this location in consideration of the size of the properties.
· Site coverage is too high (46%); the proposed plan lacks adequate green space and landscaping.
· As per the “North Glenora Community Plan: A Vision for the Future”, approved by Edmonton City Council, August 1998, whereby it states:
“Recommendation 1R: That the current residential zoning be retained to control land use density unless it can be demonstrated to the community that a rezoning would be in keeping with the Guiding Principles of this Plan as well as the goals and objectives of residents and property owners who might be affected” (p.18, 3.2 Guiding Principles and Recommendations, 3.2.1 Redevelopment Guiding Principle 1: Redevelopment and Zoning).
· Residential density will be increased with the future development of the Glenora Patio Homes (109 Ave and 139 St) adjacent to this proposal, which is currently 14 residences. The current proposal for this site is for 45 suites with surface parking for 15 vehicles.
· This would not be a family friendly development as only two of the sixteen suites would be three bedroom units.
· The proposed setbacks on the West (facing the lane) and South (facing 109 Avenue) of this proposal are less than what is allowed in the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay, which was created to ensure that development suits older communities. These proposed setbacks would have an adverse effect on the existing character of the neighbourhood.

Cathie M about 1 month ago

In my opinion, this project appears carefully planned and that is why I am in favour. Although, there will be other multi-family housing going up in this area (that will also help with increasing densification), however, these projects have not shown interest in consulting NG community members. Also, this development is proposing an environmentally friendly approach and I strongly feel that as a community we should support this. The other developments that have been proposed in this neighbourhood have not been as transparent and do not address sustainability, it appears that many NG members are sadly not concerned by this. We should continue to encourage developers who are open and honest with communities.

Additionally, I see that many are concerned for the safety of the school children. If I recall correctly, Coronation school uses the back door as the entrance to the school due to safety concerns raised a few years ago. If this is still true, majority of the parents do not park at the front to drop off their kids but rather on the North and South side of the school. This project is on the West side of the school and I personally have not seen many parents park there to drop off their children. Based on what I have witnessed, majority of the parents park on the North side, since the South side is where the staff parking lot is and kids are not encouraged to walk across this area. Lastly, there is a 30 km/hr speed limit on the grounds surrounding our school and park. With more residents in this area, drivers will be held more accountable. Coronation school also has a Patrol program that they utilize for the 109A & 138 Street cross walk, they could expand this program to all intersections surrounding the school. This program has been around for decades; not only does it teach children to be vigilant but it also encourages drivers to slow down.

I do think that some of the concerns raised are valid, and I believe these developers will take this into account. However, when voicing our concerns we can not invalidate the support of others, that diminishes what I believe is the purpose of this forum.

Something that is very clear and apparent from this forum is that many of us care deeply about this neighbourhood, even if we do not share the same opinion at times.

NG Resident about 1 month ago

Density and diversity are the future of cities. If we want North Glenora (and Edmonton) to thrive we need to adapt and plan for future generations vs. protecting the way things have always been. This type of development represents where we need to be thinking and going.


MK- North Glenora resident and ardent Edmonton supporter about 1 month ago

I live on 108 Avenue and 139 Street and am strongly opposed to the application however I support well designed low income development for families that fits in with the community; we should not blend the two, lots of differences.

Barbara Bishop about 1 month ago

To be clear, I live on 109 ave and 138 st. I’m close to the wonderful affordable housing project across from the school. Long time resident and fan of progress. No hidden agenda here.

KellyS about 1 month ago

Height is less but the length of the building is larger and so blocks more sunlight. How do you know if a skinny was built that it would have a garage? Why would they have garages when there are no parking requirements– and even if they did – at least there will be a space between the house and the garage. This is too large of a development for this property.
Passive house standards: They can build it with whatever materials or how they want. This will never meet passive house standards. This is a zoning application.
But having said this, I am opposed because of density. Too large for the space. Too large for current zoning. Please do not change the zoning from RF1

Fredrick about 1 month ago

I find it funny that the argument of depreciated home value is centred around a modern, environmentally conscious build vs. the row of abandoned 1950s walkups across from the school. The truth is, is that a 10 minute drive from downtown and major arteries that can easily take you to any part of the city is going to be desirable. Especially in a neighbourhood that is building for the future.

KellyS about 1 month ago

In regard to the comment that the patio home redevelopment may result in a net of 187 units based on a rezoning to RA7. I think that is the problem. We don't know what we will end up with. The owner of the patio homes may try to seek rezoning for even higher density. We know next to nothing, yet we are expected to accept it all without due consideration. Many of the objections to the T5M Connect project are legitimate. The technical review is judged on the built form of the development, existing infrastructure such as drainage and transportation, the neighbourhood context and City policy. You are free to believe that theT5M Connect project is just what we need, in the same way that many other community members are free to be skeptical, because we are being left in the dark as to what future high density developments will actually take place.

Wallace about 1 month ago

This whole thing smells a little fishy, the community league president is behind a development where the fabric of the community will be drastically changed. All of the obvious fake positive comments in support of the development, really seems as though this is an attempt to force this through without following the rules.

Bruce S about 1 month ago

I don't live in NG, but I live in a community that gets a lot of infill of all different scales (skinnies, duplexes, apartments, towers), much of which is less than stellar. In my opinion, this project ticks all the right boxes and is pretty much exactly in line with the new City Plan.

-Is it in an appropriate location? Yes, it's next to main street at the edge of the community, which provides a transition and minimizes transportation impacts inside the neighbourhood.

-Is it an appropriate scale? Yes, it provides a transition of density that's compatible with single-family uses, and doesn't fundamentally change the character of the neighbourhood.

-Does it have direct negative impacts on immediate neighbours (shadowing, overlook from balconies/windows)?  No, height is less than current zoning.

-Does it result in the demolition of a heritage, historic or architecturally significant building? No.

Is it well (aesthetically) designed - Yes, and an architect is engaged in the project.

-Is it increasing housing diversity and increasing affordable housing choices? Yes, different types of units, including some family-oriented units are provided

-Is it environmentally responsible? Yes, it's being built to passive house standards.

Bonus: the developer has proactively engaged with the community and is specifically addressing social environmental sustainability.

AV about 1 month ago

About sewer and drainage; some of the existing sewer in NG is very old some has been change but is important to mention older pipes will need replacement and new technologies are much better last longer so adding the sewer of this development shouldn't be an issue. Specially if we still have concrete drainage.

Barb about 1 month ago

It is absolutely ridiculous that people who are in support of this project are viewed as suspicious. It might be hard for some to believe, but yes there are many of us who accept change and are looking forward to seeing new projects in this community. To believe that “no one in this community supports this rezoning” is simply false. Unless you have conducted a survey on who opposes this development, you do not have the right to suggest that these supporters are suspicious. We are community members, just like you.

I ask that the city please consider the negative impacts that these accusations have.

F.A about 1 month ago

I wonder why not to be open to the idea of not dropping kids right on the entrance of the school insted of using all the park around, I live now in a block with 3 schools abou 500 vehicles comes and goes infront of our home and every school and parents cooperates to go one way only and so on. 25 resident in townhouse are right infront of two of them, no one see us as the problem. Love the idea of this new development.

Barb about 1 month ago

I don't see any comments from the developer. If you are referring to me, check down below my first comment, where I clearly state I am a new immigrant to Canada.

It's kind of insulting that someone actually taking the time to research something, finding all the existing information and making an informed decision is seen as a fake comment and "branded" as "the developer".

BernieC about 1 month ago

Is the intent of this forum for the developer to respond to other commenters in an effort to change their mind? Is it an acceptable use of this forum for the developer to be commenting at all?

Bruce S about 1 month ago

There seems to be widespread misinformation in this forum about the redevelopment of the "patio homes". Let’s break this down into parts.

1. Current situation

The patio homes development is split into 4 areas, with letter designations from A to D, moving counterclockwise around the park starting from the corner of 139 st and 109 ave, which is the area of interest for T5MConnect, and ending at the corner of 135 st and 109b ave. This is the current dwelling distribution of the patio homes:
- Area A, corner of 139 st and 109 ave: 14 units, 2-bed
- Area B, corner of 135 st and 109 ave: 14 units, 2-bed
- Area C, along 135 st: 14 units, 2-bed, and 1 1-bed
- Area D, corner of 135 st and 109b ave: 16 units, 2-bed, and 1 1-bed

That means there are a total of 60 units in existence right now. However, as people have mentioned, the current zoning approved for the patio homes, is a DC2.307 from 1993, which imposes the following maximum dwellings:
- Area A: 36 units (127 dwellings/ha)
- Area B: 36 units (127 dwellings/ha)
- Area C: 36 units (120.6 dwellings/ha)
- Area D: 42 units (121.0 dwellings/ha)

Assuming the maximum number of units would be built, this would yield a total of 150 units, an increase of 90 from the current 60.

2. Future situation
It is my understanding that the owner of the patio homes attempted to start redevelopment last year, but was blocked by an appeal from the North Glenora community. Because of this, now the owner is attempting to rezone the patio homes to a newer RA7 zone, which would further increase the potential density of the developments. The following is a direct quote from the zoning comparison document provided by the city:

It is important to note that if the zoning is approved, they would not be obligated to follow this intent exactly should things change for them later on.
An entirely residential building, not currently contemplating any commercial uses.
If the RA7 Zone is approved, they would seek the maximum build out of the RA7 Zone, but no variances to it would be sought and it would be followed exactly.
Number of units - Approximately 45
Size of units - Approximately 50/50 split between 1 and 2 bedroom units
Parking - Approximately 15 spaces total (see Open Option Parking)
In addition, because the same developer owns all 4 Patio Home sites, they have shared their intent to redevelop all 4 over time. If the RA7 Zone is successful for Area A, they would likely seek this zoning on the other 3 sites as well. City Administration has advised the developer to deal with each of these sites separately.

3. RA7 Zoning considerations

I see many comments being made about how the patio homes will be adding “200 units” to the community. It is easy to see that this is pure speculation and completely wrong based on the aforementioned quote.

First of all, the proposed RA7 zoning has NOT yet been approved, and the city will still be seeking community feedback on this proposal.

Secondly, even if RA7 is approved for area A, which is the area closest to T5MConnect, this doesn’t guarantee that the other areas will get the same approval. The developer will likely wait to see what happens to this proposal before submitting the remaining ones.

Thirdly, assuming the same density, if all four areas would be approved for RA7, and taking the comments of the developer in good faith, one would expect the number of units to be 45, 45, 45 and 52 for areas A through D. This would total 187 units, which would be an increase of 37 units from the currently approved zoning.

Lastly, it is interesting to note that RA7 zoning is VERY flexible, it doesn’t even impose a MAXIMUM limit of units, so we simply have to believe that the developers will indeed build 45 units, while nothing is stopping them from building 50, 60, etc. after getting approved...

4. Direct comparison of both projects

T5MConnect is a project with well presented ideas and a concrete plan with a maximum of 16 dwellings. Furthermore, the DC2 zoning being applied for is very restrictive, as it only allows the developers to build exactly within the specifications of their proposal. This project is also providing a shadow study and a traffic study, which both show no significant negative impacts, contradicting what many comments are stating. This project would be replacing the current 2 dwellings with 16, so adding 14 units to the community.

On the other hand, we have the proposed “patio homes” project which has NO concrete plan, is seeking a VERY unrestricted RA7 zoning, and hasn’t commissioned any kind of impact studies, as far as I know. This proposal would be increasing the current approved zoning from 150 units to a planned (but not fixed nor limited) 187 units. However, keep in mind that currently there are only 60 patio homes, so the already approved zoning would lead to an increase of 90 units, with the developer seeking to add an extra 37 to that number.

5. Comparing comments on both project

It seems very ironic to me that commenters opposing T5MConnect are name calling the developers and their “cash grab” strategy, by wanting to add 14 units to the community. Meanwhile, they have no concerns about the proposed patio homes development, which is seeking a minimum extra of 37 units, DESPITE already being approved to add a net 90 to this community.

Many comments are stating the number of proposed patio home units to be 200, not 187. It is very funny to see that the proposed 14 units added from T5MConnect is basically the same as this rounding error. So essentially we shouldn’t care if patio homes are 150, 187, 200 or even more, as they are solving the density issue. However, we should be very worried about the 14 extra units from this local based proposal, addressing the exact same issue on a smaller and much more efficient scale.

To sum it up, I believe that T5MConnect is a great project that is solving the density issue and addressing the lack of modern affordable rentals in this neighborhood in a sustainable way. I also believe that many of the negative comments towards this project are being made with the assumption that the rezoning of the patio homes is already accepted, while the same level of criticism is not being applied to that proposal.


BernieC about 1 month ago

Removed by moderator.

Arte about 1 month ago

To reiterate, the patio home redevelopment - which does not require rezoning - will add 180 rental units to this neighbourhood. New and modern rental units to choose if one wishes to rent in this community, which I hope people do, because it's a great community! But 16 more units crammed into a corner, across from an elementary school with absolutely inadequate parking? No thank you. Not a big enough lot for all of those people, not enough green space on the property. I could go on and on. But plenty of others already have. Interesting all of the support coming out of the woodwork on the last day, makes you wonder!

jnelson about 1 month ago

As a resident, I support this project. Frankly, townhomes and apartment buildings surround the majority of our park and neighbourhood. To me, it makes complete sense to build a multi-housing project here as it fits with the current character of our community. What I really appreciate is the design that has been proposed. It's modern, environmentally conscious, and will allow people the opportunity to live in a brand new sustainable building with modern amenities. Those who are suggesting that the Patio Homes will meet the need for densification are not considering the fact that these Patio Homes have been an eye-sore for over TWO decades. The individuals who own these properties are not residents of this neighbourhood and how can we be so trusting they will follow through with their plan after so many years of empty promises. I am sure people will oppose that development as well so we will continue to deal with that issue in the years to come.

I have just recently been informed that the developers of this project are local residents of this community. These are the type of people we should trust to develop in our community. I hope that more residents all over the city take the personal initiative to develop beautiful, modern, efficient properties in their community to create diversity and vibrancy in this city, it is desperately needed.

Lastly, there have been suggestions that there are enough rentals available in this community. Have you seen the state of these rentals? I have been inside of the Patio Homes & Mainstreet Building and they are a complete disaster, I feel sorry that people have to pay so much money to live in these decaying buildings just because they want to be in such a desirable neighbour. It is unfair, and if history is any indication of when these townhomes will be complete it is clear we should not rely on these to densify this area.

Although it might be hard for some to believe, renters have the right to live in this neighbourhood. Most importantly, they have the right to have different options in what type of rental they live in just like many buyers have an option of what type of home they purchase in this neighbourhood. Some want to live in brand new housing and they should have the option to do it!

If anything, we should be encouraging all of the apartments and townhomes surrounding our community to modernize and renovate their properties. The 109A & 138 Street building is an incredible example of what a positive change these multi-family housing have on this community. As you can imagine, once upon a time there was a huge push to oppose this building as well (shocker..not). Let change happen and have trust in this city and its vision!

Walter A. about 1 month ago

A lot of commenters have suggested there will a drop in taxes if projects like the go ahead, I'm wondering when we can expect a drastic reduction to our taxes in North Glenora, will this be an immediate thing or will it drop over the years? I am also wondering if the drop in taxes will be enough to offset the reduction in our property value.

Bruce S about 1 month ago