LDA20-0314 T5M Connect DC2- North Glenora

Buildings to increase the density of this neighbourhood seem like a good idea to stop the endless sprawl of Edmonton. It’s close to the core & can be supported by good transit

It seems to be a great idea!

This seems wonderful. About time

Certainly in favor, the reality is our neighborhoods will evolve and space needs are changing. Adding density is welcomed IMO and brings more activity to the neighborhood.

I am not in favor of this development.

This is a beautiful high value use of a mature neighborhood redevelopment. By limiting parking, the city is executing on the new city plan and encouraging the use of transit, which is readily available and within walking distance of this project. If anything, this is not ambitious enough!

Lots of people are going to complain, please don't listen to them. Take this as an opportunity to execute the new city plan and make Edmonton better. This neighbourhood is too close to downtown to miss an opportunity for densification. It's easy to say "its always been this way", "why do things need to change", or "I like my neighbourhood the way it is". The problem with those sentiments is that the world is changing. The economic reality is that the city needs to densify because suburbs are bankrupting the CoE. Also, more inclusive communities are stronger, have lower crime and offer better amenities to their residents.

My only issue with this project is the low site coverage. This neighbourhood is up and coming and increased density will be good for everyone in the neighbourhood and for the city overall. Make this a transit first development and a 15 minute community.

For those of us that enjoy the canopy of the boulevard trees. The roots of these trees extend as tall as the tree (A tree that is 10m tall has roots that extend 10m). Reducing the South Set Back from what is currently allowed (4.5m in RF1 zone) to 2.8m will mean that the roots of those trees will be cut when the foundation is dug. The DC2 Provision that is provided on this website states: “If the arborist report indicates that the development will unduly compromise the ongoing viability and health of a tree or trees, each tree shall be removed and replaced by a new tree within an enhanced growing medium at the cost of the owner…”. If a tree is compromised, the replacement tree will be a very small stick of a tree that will take years to grow. Of course this will be very beneficial to the developer as then there will be no concerns of the boulevard trees blocking any solar panels. This is not an environmentally friendly development and I am opposed to the rezoning from RF1 to DC2.

All of the current mature trees that exist on these properties will be removed. They are proposing to cover 46% with the buildings and add to that percentage what will be covered by paved parking, patios, stairs and sidewalks. There will be no room on this proposal for any trees to replace the mature trees they will be removing.

"Net-zreo" projects like this are way too expensive and impractical to build without being subsidised. I bet they wouldn't be building something like this without a wheelbarrow full of grants. What a waste of tax dollars!

In my opinion, if this development application is approved it will be the worst single degradation the community of North Glenora has experienced in the 37 years we have lived here. Approval of this application will open the floodgates to multi-family apartment like dwellings anywhere in the community. Anywhere! Do you want an apartment building next to you? Property values next to projects like this will go down. Ask any realtor.
These multi-family dwellings are inconsistent with the character and nature of this community. We paid more for this property because it was surrounded by single family dwellings. That means more privacy, less noise, less traffic, ample parking and less blockage of the sun and sky.
Why should we lose what we have paid for? Right now the rules say a multi family dwelling is NOT allowed. Why should the rules be changed for these developers? Why should these developers be allowed to profit at the expense of the rest of us who are willing to live within the rules? It’s a disgrace and absolutely not justifiable. Please do not tear down the character of this lovely mature neighbourhood that has taken so long to build up

This project is worse than "skinny's". There are more than enough multi-unit buildings in this area. Better to build three (maybe four) single homes to encourage families to move in.  Eight parking stalls for 16 units? What do they expect people to drive half a car? Parking is going to be a nightmare especially with the school right there. Glad we don't live next door. Also the design is uninspired and does not fit in or add to the character of the neighborhood. We are not in favor. 

In order to maintain momentum and entice families to move into the inner city, we need to offer options that fit their budget, are eye appealing and don't have massive negative effects on the overall neighborhood. Although I agree there could be a couple more parking spots to help stop spillover onto the adjacent streets, I still feel the benefits out way the negatives. For those that say who will move in and there won't be any children in these cramped buildings, the same could still be said for any single family home in NG or anywhere. Bottom line is, for old neighborhoods to survive there needs to be incoming families/people to breath new life into them and support the services around them. I hope we all look past our perceived negative views and focus on the potential this brings to the area.

While I am all for increasing the density of our inner city neighbourhoods, I am not in favour of the current proposal. As has been previously mentioned, there are attempts to vastly increase the density of our neighbourhood, between this project and the adjacent project. I think this will take away from, rather than add to our neighbourhood. The increase in density is likely to not include many children, which is something we need to keep our local school open. It was already on the chopping block once and I would hate to see it there again. The parking is inadequate and this will spill over onto the street, which is right beside the school. I feel our neighbourhood had done its part in terms of increasing density - how many other mature neighbourhoods have two apartment buildings and five sets of row housing?
That being said, if we are forced to try and fight two battles, this is the lesser of two evils that are being proposed in the area.

Great idea, unless you happen to live nearby, in which case I'd suggest that it's over built. It would improve on the current situation, but has its own drawbacks in terms of an increase in the allowed number of units. Twelve should be sufficient and doable.

I am reading these comments and find it funny how many people are against the building assuming that it may drop our property values. The irony here is that the only thing dropping our home value are the buildings they are proposing to replace. Those patio homes have long been the eyesore of NG and I am happy to see modern design grace our community. I totally agree on the parking, only a few spaces for potentially 30+ cars simply isn't enough and will eventually spill over into the neighborhood. I think there is a fair compromise here, seeing other developments in the city this one is something I'd welcome. DC

My primary concern is the proposed density of this development. The 16 units + parking stalls + street parking that will be required + garbage bins and everything that is associated with small apartment building is significantly busier than 2-3 single family dwellings permitted under the current zoning. This busy development abuts RF1 housing. This is significant disruption to those single-family dwellings co-located on the same block or across the alley. If this proposed development was located next to other apartment buildings or commercial buildings, I would be less concerned. If this was a more temperate 4 plex, I would be less concerned. However, this is a proposed 16-unit dwelling! The associated documentation does not identify how many bedrooms will be in each unit, with the exception that 2 of the units will be 3 bedrooms. When I calculate on the density side – this would be 3 (bedroom)+3 (bedroom)+14 (single)=23 residents. When I calculate on the high density side – this development could accommodate 3+3+14(2 bedroom)= 34 residents.
Is it really fair to ask residents who abut this development to accept that they are now living next door to 34 residents? I think this is a fair question.
Additionally, a second development currently in process is for an RA7 with 42 units. This development is adjacent to the T5M Connect development. The Patio Home Building A is under rezoning right now, and this development is kitty-corner to the T5M Connect development. That increases the density of this specific corner of the community significantly. We need to look at the developments holistically, not in silos. Can this particular corner of the community sustain over 100 people (400% increase in density) without significant disruption to those residents who have paid their property taxes year after year, and have some rightful expectation to the benefit and enjoyment of home ownership?
I believe the T5M Connect project would benefit from a reduction in density, or a relocation to a higher density street or commercial mixed-use area

Net-zero or close housing should be encouraged throughout our community, new builds have the potential for newer technology and infrastructure that older builds don't have as much potential for.

People have mentioned that parking is an issue, but I feel that the adjacent transit and relatively close biking infrastructure, this is not as much as an issue as perceived. Keep in mind that net-zero housing will attract residents who are also interested in other environmental actions like reducing driving. To really make sure that parking isn't an issue, the city could implement a parking zone to ensure corners are clear and visitors are parking appropriately.

I chose to live in this neighbourhood as it had a good mix of single family homes and multi family apartments. The apartments were centred around the school and community league and that has worked well. Building 16 units on 2 single properties will change the quality of life for home owners nearby with increased noise and traffic. The approval of this project will open the doors for similar projects in our neighbourhood, which will not maintain the livability of the neighbourhood for home owners. Future changes to Glenora Patio Homes will increase the population significantly. Along with that -there will be parking challenges especially if developers don't provide enough parking for tenants. North Glenora is one of the few neighbourhoods left in the city where you can enjoy a lovely walk with gorgeous trees and tolerable traffic. I object to this rezoning especially to the number of suites and inadequate parking for them on these 2 lots.

The rendering above looks nice, but this just isn't a suitable location. Too much traffic, not enough parking, not enough space for 16. Also, what need does this fill? There are rentals all around this park already. All in all, I think this was wasted effort on a bad idea and I hope the city can see through the transparent marketing of the proposal.

What a great addition to the neighbourhood! Sensible developments like this are what keep neighbourhoods vibrant, bring in new people and help to add needed density.

This project is attractively and efficiently designed, and will add to the overall street appeal of the neighbourhood. There are other areas of the city that are not seeing this kind of redevelopment and it shows.

Lol at the developer posting all their buzzword comments on this.