LDA20-0314 T5M Connect DC2- North Glenora

Consultation has concluded

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.

Consultation has concluded
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

If you're in favour of densification, more people in this neighborhood, more affordable housing, seniors, handicap accessible units, more children in the school, more rental suites in this neighborhood I have some wonderful news for you. The patio homes will be re developed and increase in size to 45 units. All of this will done without having to rezone a single family lot and upset existing neighbours on the site. Any argument in favour of this development is covered by the patio home project. The developers of this project were simply trying to slide this through. This is not required for any reason in this neighborhood.

MalcolmA about 3 years ago

Hey "North G". I think you've "cracked the code" The moderator deleted a comment last night and that comment pointed to a possible money grab. I will email this comment to Scott McKeen and Andrew Sherstone to make sure this comment is heard. If the developers are hoping to charge $1500.-$1900. a month then that surely would not be considered "affordable housing" unless the rent was subsidized by the government. I've gone back several pages on this comment site and I have not seen one resident make a negative comment about who might move into these suites, and yet objectors to the project have been called classist and been accused of discrimination. Resident comments have consisted of concerns that the zoning change will lead to; more behemoths being erected next to their homes, that block out the sun, which will reduce home value, because of lack of investment protection; small children getting run over; increased neighbourhood traffic, neighbours fighting over parking spots, increased air pollution, from increased traffic, idling at stop signs(mostly with the patio home reconstruction on the way), back alley noise from the commercial garbage truck; back alley light pollution from the project "parking lot"; where are they going to put the snow from the parking lot?; are they going to make sure the surface water runoff is going to be directly connected underground to the main, so a skating rink is not created in the streets, and alley during the "freeze thaw" season; concerns that the current drainage system will "backup" with the added density and cause water damage to other homes; the need for added traffic lights at the tax payers expense; the need to repair the roads and alleys from the heavy construction vehicles at the local tax payers expense; the noise that will be created in the alley from the parking lot; where are they going to put the no parking zones for emergency vehicles?; where are the "coming and going" tenant moving trucks going to park?- you have to remember there's an elementary school in the front and you can't block the alley and there will be no parking zones for emergency vehicles; possible killing the Blvd trees. These concerns have a high probability of occurring are foreseeable, predictable and preventable. The "fallout" of this 16 unit complex with 46 percent building coverage and another large percentage being covered with concrete and the removal of mature trees only to be replaced with some shrubs does not conform to community standards or the agreed upon Mature Neighbourhood Overlay. On page 8 of the Design and Technical Guidelines for Alberta Social Housing Corp., under "Goals and Primary Objectives", one objective states, "The design of housing is integrated and integrates with communities, education, health, and community-based supports". On this point alone the current T5M Connect proposal fails. Read the document category for multi-unit housing yourself. You will see that the community has not been given enough information to make an informed decision as to how bad this project could be for the community or for the tenants. Because of the lack of investment protection caused by rezoning from RF1 to DC2, we may find that most of the homes will turn into rental properties, because home owners won't be able to sell their homes at other neighbourhood market value. We may find that a lot of mature neighbourhoods will be taken over by big money corporations, that often offer poor quality accommodations, at less than "affordable" rates.
There is grant and seed money to build "affordable housing", as well as grant money available for upkeep for affordable housing.
https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/developing-and-renovating/funding-opportunities/seed-funding
https://www.edmonton.ca/programs_services/funding_grants/affordable-housing-investment-program.aspx
-to just name two sources
This is the "good neighbour" template from the City of Edmonton website:
https://www.edmonton.ca/programs_services/documents/PDF/GoodNeighbourPlan-Template.pdf
READ IT PLEASE
Here is the City's plan to supply much needed affordable housing:
https://webdocs.edmonton.ca/landsales/ici_catalogue/ogilvie/79161601222019104153545-affordable.pdf
To get grant money for new construction from the City of Edmonton, you only need to build 5 units, however profits increase with the increase in number of units. I thought one lot was rezoned RSL and the other lot is RF1. I don't understand why it is being said that 12 units could be built on this land without further rezoning. Rezoning the 2 lots to DC2 opens up the development to "site specific" regulations.The residents have been positive in their comments in regard to building a higher density project at this corner, but they are asking for something that keeps the community safe and is within scale of the surrounding homes and existing zoning. There is a document that the city has published to help those applying for DC2 rezoning. You might also find this document edifying.
https://www.edmonton.ca/documents/PDF/GuidetoWritingDC2s.pdf
The City of Edmonton has identified the gap in affordable housing down to the exact number of units:
https://webdocs.edmonton.ca/landsales/ici_catalogue/ogilvie/79161601222019104153545-affordable.pdf
Updated Affordable Housing Investment Plan- page 2 states about 50, 000 units are needed. T5M Connect are proposing to build 18 units and we don't know for sure if they are in fact "affordable housing". I submit to better meet the City's need for affordable housing that they look to areas that have better and more resilient and "younger"infrastructure than a 70 year old neighbourhood. Just as an aside; I wonder if it is not a conflict of interest that the president of the community association is one of the developers of this DC2 project. I wonder if the president of the community association should resign forthwith.
This is a small neighbourhood, flanked on all sides with very busy major roads. It is an "oasis" of sorts, and we are very lucky to live in an uncrowded area close to downtown, all levels of education, hospitals, grocery stores, recreation centres and the like. We also have mature trees and yards with grass that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Letting T5M Connect and other developers like them build projects like these is mature neighbourhoods will be detrimental on the city as a whole, by increasing pollution, chronic psychological stress and further emptying of central Edmonton of vibrant, resilient small businesses- all of which are in direct opposition to Edmonton' stated goals. This deterioration will take 10-20 years to happen, but it very likely will happen. The proposed T5M Connect project is too big for this corner of the neighbourhood. North Glenora will soon have 200 new apartments across from the school, and that's enough for now. Increasing density needs to go at a pace where we can adjust to unforeseen problems without flirting with disastrous effects.
This project needs to be scaled back to safely accommodate the environment, quality of life for the tenants, school children and other community members, and to instill investor confidence in Edmonton as a whole.



Wallace about 3 years ago

I support this proyect, not long ago I was an active volunteer for NG and I meet wonderful residents, and many seniors were expresing to the Comunity League their need of housing once they decide to downsize. This proyect resonate with that request.

Houses for rent plus utilities which ar around $400 Is expensive. Is fantastic to see a handicap speace on the plan. I think is a great proyect.
Not long ago we walk togheter to safe Coronation School, more children were needed to keep the school, density is necesary to keep this mature neighborhood and the wounderful vibe that it has.

Barb about 3 years ago

Removed by moderator.

Sergio about 3 years ago

I lived in front of the park in a crappy apartment with my mom for five years. They were the best years of my life. North Glenora is an ideal place to grow up. The neighbors are friendly, there's life all year round, and the people are always welcoming. Having more people in the community, especially younger ones, is only a positive. A higher population density will rejuvenate the neighborhood. It will be safer at night, as other have mentioned, and it will simply bring more life into this wonderful community. I would love to see more people enjoying the great park that we have, and it would be heartwarming to see new people make friends and grow here playing in the park, skating, dancing, and partying. I support this project

Sergio about 3 years ago

I am against this as it covers too much of the property and the setbacks are shorter than what is currently allowed. I don' t think it matters if these are rentals or condos. It is just too big of a building for that site. When the North set back is looked at, it is measured from the building. I just noticed (has any one else) that there are stairs on that side not counted and sidewalks. The green I am seeing is all City Property - what is this developer offering for green space? For this site a maximum of 12 should be the maximum.

J.R. Douglas about 3 years ago

If you read the website you’ll find out that the rates they’re hoping to charge for each of these 16 suites is $1500-$1900 a month. I’ve spoken with a few property owners in the neighborhood and they are renting out 2-3 bedroom homes with garages for less than this price range, about $1300-$1500. I’ve also called around to some of the other rental apartments and they’re also offering much more affordable rental rates. In addition to this I found out that there is about 25-30 vacant rental apartments available in North Glenora at the moment. This isn’t affordable housing, this won’t be any family’s first choice of rental, this isn’t housing that community residents are asking for, this isn’t the “missing middle”, what this is is greedy developers trying to cash in. Please Andrew, listen to all of the concerned residents in North Glenora and decline the re zoning application.

NorthG about 3 years ago

I hope the moderator isn’t fooled by the developers last minute push in the comments here. The community is not in favor of re zoning. Any argument made for densification is covered by the patio homes (45 units per), garden suites and skinny homes. We simply do not need this in our neighborhood. I’m ashamed the developers are hiding their greed behind a veil of inclusiveness, net zero, and densification. It’s insulting of them to think your neighbors are that stupid.

HankS about 3 years ago

I live in North Glenora and I support this project!!

Dragan about 3 years ago

My family and I have been homeowners in North Glenora for the last 11 years, we have also been renters in an adjacent neighbourhood. I am strongly in favour of this project and the developers. I believe this development will provide an opportunity for people of diverse economic status to be a part of this amazing community that we worked so hard to build!

Having read the comments, I noticed that there are concerns about the setbacks of the development proposed. I have looked carefully at the proposed zoning and notice that the developer has suggested setbacks on the north and east sides of the property greater than what is currently required. It is clear that the developers are considering their northern neighbour. In return, they have asked for a slight shift west towards the alley. The south setback is proposed to be closer to the road than currently permitted. However, as the notes say, this assumes that the house is facing south. If the house faces east, the allowable setback would be much closer than what the developers are requesting. If I am interpreting this correctly, the "concern" about setbacks is really about a half meter shift towards the alley. In my opinion, this request falls within other similar variances that we have seen in the neighborhood and something that I am comfortable with. Furthermore, the developers have chosen not to build to the maximum height that is allowed under the current zoning, it is clear that they are considering their surrounding neighbours to the best of their abilities during this process.

I am also excited to see that local residents of North Glenora, who are raising their families here and have contributed nearly a decade giving back to this community, have a chance to create a project that will revitalize this community. Knowing that the developers are proud members of North Glenora gives me a sense of hope that they have the best interest of North Glenora in mind.

Lastly, North Glenora is adjacent to one of the district nodes mentioned in the new City plan. Much of the community will be covered by the Transit Oriented Development zone. We are going to start seeing more transit-oriented development occurring throughout this neighborhood, so this is just the start. I support this vision for the city, and I am thrilled about the prospect of North Glenora moving in this direction. I sincerely hope the city approves this forward-looking development.

Thank you for your consideration.

Fredi about 3 years ago

I love this development and hope to see more of it in the area. We need mroe density in the communities surrounding downtown so that there are more options for people of various incomes to live here.

d19953 about 3 years ago

I support this development. As a 15 year resident of North Glenora, I believe that the neighbourhood is perfectly situated to include more diverse forms of housing, to include housing density, and to make a very friendly and functional neighbourhood more inclusive.

EA about 3 years ago

As a 13-year resident of North Glenora with children at Coronation School, I strongly SUPPORT this development, which will bring:
-greater urban density in a low-density neighbourhood with an under-utilized park and green space
-high-quality rental housing for younger residents and families who would love to be part of this neighbourhood
-a mix of units makes for a more diverse and vibrant community
-a model of sustainable development at a moment when we MUST start building differently, for the health of our planet and our kids

As a mom who has both walked with my kids and dropped them off at the school by car, I simply don't share the concerns voiced here about increased traffic around the school. Come on, folks: there is ample parking space on our streets! The few drivers from this development who might happen to be leaving for work at school drop-off time are not going to cause a noticeable change in traffic flow.

Edmonton, and North Glenora within it, is an extremely low density area that is difficult for young families to get into since housing prices skyrocketed in 2007. As someone who has long lamented the dearth of people walking and biking on our streets, I welcome the chance to have a bit more life around here.

What some people who haven't lived in denser cities don't realize is that increased density = increased safety. There will be more people walking, waiting for buses, taking kids to the park, and just generally bringing life to the place and keeping an eye on things.

I applaud these developers' considerate approach to the project, and sincerely hope it can go ahead.

SK. NG fan, mom, and longtime resident. about 3 years ago

My concern is mostly the lack of parking that is proposed. There is no way to guarantee that anyone who moves into these suites would be interested in bussing or biking year round in our climate. I would love to know what research the developer has done regarding vehicle use of other renters in the neighbourhood, use of public transit, etc.
Increasing density is a great goal and solution for decreasing urban sprawl and saving our communities and schools, however I believe that it needs to be done with purpose and consideration. In combination with the redevelopment of the patio homes, I think this development would bring way too high a density to this corner right in front of the school.

K about 3 years ago

https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/521d8538-0fb2-4079-838b-52767fffd481/resource/c2dc26aa-86be-41f4-b9b7-7a2b826d790e/download/sh-design-and-technical-guidelines-ashc-2020-06.pdf
For those of you who are interested, this is the URL to the Alberta Housing Corporation Design and Technical Guidelines. There is good information as to the requirements and recommendations that Multi-Unit housing should conform with. Read it carefully, you may find that the current T5M Connect proposal is not fully compliant.

Wallace about 3 years ago

Removed by moderator.

Wallace about 3 years ago

Since we bought our house in North Glenora 13 years ago we visioned this area to be small, family orientated and safe community. We were hoping that Patio Homes would be renovated to luxury townhomes and community will improve it’s appearance. Since, we got more town homes on West side and new projects are coming in since developer moved into North Glenora.
The issue is that North Glenore is small square community between 107 and 111 avenue and 142 street and Groat road but amount of the houses and population has been increasing dramatically lately. We struggle with parking and increased pollution within NG area and safety becoming an issue. Living close to the community park area you could hear noise year around. In the summer especially, you could hear noise in the park throughout the night which jeopardises our safety as well. Car vandalism rates increased but those issues we cannot solve, only prevent.
One of the primary reasons for opposing this re-zoning is being the proximity of this property to Coronation school. The current zoning already is allowing to accommodate 12 potential units. The proposed change to 16 units will further exacerbate traffic in the school zone. Plus, the proposal does not include nearly sufficient parking space which increases street parking near the school. Currently, when kids dropped off or picked up from school there is no room to park, and increased traffic jeopardizes safety of our kids. My kids walked and still walking to and from the school. Each day, I worry with them crossing the street, but once traffic is increased in front of the school it will raise concerns not only for the parents, but for Coronation school as well. Increased dwelling in the community will put strain on sewer system which we know is already old and had a few sewer breakages in the past along 109 avenue. The last one was about 10 years ago.
I do not agree with this new proposal and staying with the same zoning would be beneficial for the North Glenora community. Thank you.

NG Resident. about 3 years ago

I consider the proposal from T5MConnect to be an excellent prospect for this community. The DC2 request shows more respect to the concerns expressed by the neighbour two the north than are required under the existing zoning. In particular, the total height is lower and the north setbacks wider than RF1 zoning requires.

It is more difficult to address how the proposed redevelopment may affect broader neighbourhood matters. There is no reason to assume that residents would be of any particular character different from the people who live in the neighbourhood now. Two three-bedroom units are promised, and that is a match for the number in the existing houses. some residents may rent for a short time, and others may remain for many years. Some residents may have children who attend Coronation school and play in the park; others will not. The nature of future residents is all unpredictable, and it cannot form the basis for approval or disapproval of a change in built form. If anything, the possible interactions of future residents with the surrounding neighbourhood imposes a need on the community and the Community League to seek positive interactions with those people.

Responses in this forum appear to generally include statements of bona fides. In this vein, my wife and I have lived in North Glenora for 28 years. One of our three children essentially grew up here and the others spent their teen years her. I have coached, served on the Community League executive and on its Planning and Transportation Committee. I have seen both homeowners and renters make significant contributions to the neighbourhood, and other people in both groups do nothing. I have seen single family dwellings here lived in by families, single adults, and various couples; and I have seen them used as common bawdy houses. Notably, in the years since they were last used by homeowners, the two houses to be replaced by this development spent at least one year as abandoned properties occupied by squatting, homeless drug addicts. So there is no magic housing form.


To sum up, I support this application and hope to see it approved with no changes.

CP in NG about 3 years ago

I am a North Glenora resident who has lived here with my family for over 14 years. All of my kids were growing up in a nice and safe neighborhood until now. Now everything is changing and not for the best. During this time, city planners are trying to destroy this great neighborhood and the community that we have. With this proposed plan for our neighborhood, our kids are not going to be safe and congenial. Our streets will be full of parked cars, busy roads, and uncomfortable noise throughout the neighborhood all day long. We will have more garbage in the park, school field, streets, and thus, more pollution. This is a community me and my family including other North Glenora residents are not comfortable living in. Instead of saving our planet, this proposal is doing the opposite and will destroy our neighborhood.
COVID -19 taught us that we should have less congested communities and this proposal will once again be doing the harmful opposite. By building more buildings, apartments, townhomes, and such, we will soon be losing population and the people who are considered to be the backbone of this neighborhood. Because of the global pandemic, plenty of people living in Edmonton, who have office spaces are starting to work from home, leaving their property empty, and for sale. This would be a greatly preferable and more efficient option.
I strongly oppose re-zoning 10904, 10906 and 10908 - 139 Street NW from the (RF1) to (DC2). Thank you.

NG family about 3 years ago

While we are appreciate the city of Edmonton's goal of expanding density in inner-city neighbourhoods, my wife and I believe that this proposal takes that mission a bit too far. One of the primary reasons being the proximity of this property to Coronation school. The current zoning already is allowing a large expansion to accommodate 12 potential units. The proposed change to 16 units will further exacerbate traffic in the school zone. In addition, the proposal does not include nearly sufficient enough parking space. This further increases street parking near the school, which will impair sight lines for crossing children.

The proposed rezoning will also put even greater strain on the infrastructure, and in particular, sewer systems, threatening potential floods.

However, perhaps most importantly, if the city aims to improve density in the core, one of the chief goals should be to improve access to families. This will require units with 3+ bedrooms. The unit style in this proposal does not fulfill the aims of facilitating the development of a family-oriented community as it only requires a minimum of 2 units to be 3 bedroom. There are plenty of one and two bedroom units to be found in downtown and Oliver, but for a family community such as North Glenora, we would benefit much more from affordable 3+ bedroom spaces. This dovetails with our concern regarding the move away from the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay. Part of what makes these older neighbourhoods so beautiful and desirable are the features mandated in this zoning bylaw. The movement away from this, as in this proposal, will serve to erode the desirability of North Glenora. The newer townhouses just north of Coronation school on 109A (directly beside the Presbyterian church) are in our view much more in line with the developmental goals of this neighbourhood.

Thank you for your consideration.

NG Resident about 3 years ago