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.

I appreciate that the developers are not proposing to build to the maximum height that is allowed under the current zoning. Nor are they building out to the maximum setbacks allowed on two sides. I also appreciate that where they are proposing to build past the setbacks that it is towards the lane or a sidewalk and not an adjacent homeowner's property. Having said that, I've seen with an infill by our home here in N Glenora how plans change and building heights exceed what is allowed under the zoning.

I do not appreciate that the City is being asked to change the current zoning for this site. I have concerns that the City of Edmonton put thought and resources into creating zoning and Mature Neighbourhood Overlays, setbacks, etc. and then are asked to throw it all out the window when requested by developers.

I do not support changing the zoning from the current to the proposed application.

I understand the need and support increasing densification within the City. However, I do not think matured neighbourhoods need to be the primary focus of this densification. When the City of Edmonton continues to approve the construction of strip malls that do not include at least one or two stories of residential housing then I question the City's commitment to increase density and to provide affordable housing. Two examples that are between N. Glenora and downtown which illustrate this are the Manchester Square development along 107 Ave and 120 St and the site of the old Molsen factory North of 104 Ave and East of 121 St. In both these locations there is good access to bus routes and ammenities as well as being a shorter route to bike or walk to downtown. Both these locations could have built up one or more stories to provide apartments or condos without blocking the sun of neighbours gardens/yards/houses or worry about windows peering into the neighbours and without taking out trees and lawns. Even closer to home is the new commercial development on the NE corner of 111 Ave and 135 St. Why isn't there some residential housing above the shops on that corner if we are committed to increasing density and providing affordable housing or rental accommodations? Who would have opposed those applications?

My point of the last paragraph is I don't see the need to throw out the previous work done by City planners. Stick with the current zoning and planning for this community which already for a good mix of housing (multi-unit, duplex, garden & secondary suites, and single dwellings).

In recent years the City of Edmonton has significantly changed what is allowed under RF1 zoning including allowing smaller lots through subdividing, reducing required setbacks, increasing maximum heights of building, and allowing garden and secondary suites. Given these changes, current zoning already allows the density of the two lots in this application to grow from 2 households to a maximum of 12 households. I think the current zoning allows for ample opportunity for the property covered by this application to increase the numbers of people in our neighbourhood either as renters or homeowners and of any age or income level.

I believe people that have chosen to buy or rent in N Glenora have done so because of the charm of the existing neighbourhood and because of the current mix of single residential and multi-unit housing. They did not buy with the expectation that the lots beside them, behind them, and in front of them could each be rezoned go from being one household to 16 households. It's enough that lots that haven't yet been subdivided could all go from one to 12 households with the current zoning.

For those that say that people who oppose this application are against change, I disagree. There is already change in N Glenora and given the age of this neighbourhood we know we will continue to see old buildings come down and new buildings go up - - like it or not. We know the patio homes are going to be replaced and if I understand correctly the existing zoning will allow the density of what replaces the patio homes to increase. While I personally would love it if all of those new buildings do not block their neighbour's sun, do not have windows looking into their neighbours, do not cut down every tree on their property, and do not eliminate lawns, I have next to no say over the new development. What little say I have comes through asking that the change in our neighbourhood respects the current zoning and planning.

As this application does not respect the current zoning and planning in place I do not support this application.

NGNeighbour about 3 years ago

I am strongly in FAVOR of this development. As a young resident of North Glenora, I am excited to see forward thinking, sustainable development that will provide a few lucky Edmontonians the ability to become part of our amazing community. However, it is saddening to see the hateful and inappropriate comments that are appearing in this consultation process. The so-called "Progress for Consideration" group, may have started out with legitimate concerns but the tactics have ruined the cause. Dividing the neighbourhood by dropping pink letters at every home but intentionally skipping people in the apartments, townhomes, or any known supporters. Secondly, its members clearly have received "talking points" that they copy and post (some don't appear to even bother changing the points). Sadly, some have been over-exaggerations or bordered on discrimination. To suggest that this building might result in more pedolphiles hanging around our parks just due to there being more parked cars is irrational and extremely inappropriate, especially when you suggest there is a correlation among these two variables without providing any research to back this up. If anyone reading this is part of the group, you need to seriously think about the harm and fear that you are creating in our neighbourhood.

A couple of years ago I had the privilege of running the North Glenora summer camp. We spent an entire summer providing a safe and welcoming environment for all North Glenora children. During my time in this position, it became apparent that the North Glenora park spaces were extremely underused. Were it not for the amazing children and families in the 109A & 138 Street building (rentals), there wouldn't be many people utilizing the park/field for ~80% of the day. To suggest that our park spaces may endure overuse is simply false. I welcome anyone to spend an entire summers day observing how many people use our park space (hint: not many). In my opinion, it would be a shame to continue watching our park spaces being underutilized. I can only hope that the new residents of this building will want to enjoy our beautiful community grounds, however, I suspect that many of them won't be sitting around the park , just like many of us current residents.

I know that some of the most active community members in this neighbourhood (those that actively volunteer to make it a better place, not ones that only speak up to oppose change) are renters. Therefore, I am thrilled to see projects like this that will allow individuals from all walks of life to join us in making North Glenora a welcoming, vibrant, and diverse community. Support developments like these to see positive change.

Fio about 3 years ago

This isi a great proyect, I am glad to see brave committed people to start the change, we need high efficiency buildings, we need a new way of living, we need to start thinking out of the box and this is what each generation does, I am extremely excited about getting to read more about this project and I am sure the new residents will be a great addition to our neighbourhood and it is very possible that it becomes more appealing for younger adults that are moving out of their parents’ houses, small families & seniors, congratulations for taking the challenge and desire for something better, a more sustainable way of living.

Barbara U about 3 years ago

Removed by moderator.

Barbara U about 3 years ago

Mob mentality does not only refer to the number of people but also to it being an irrational, emotional, decision that is influenced by ones peers.
I also classify these comments as mob mentality because what I see here is the same tired excuses for why this project should not go on, but they are all extremely classist and narrow minded views. This is on top of having received letters to our homes telling us to speak up and reject this project. How is that not mob mentality? When a group of people actively works to influence what this neighbourhood should look like? You are not working towards saving something of value, you are working towards not allowing change based on misplaced worry and fear.

For one, I do not think it is our place to worry about how far the renters will have to walk to their car in the winter, or their living conditions. We do not get to, nor have we had the chance, to critique most existing buildings. As for the parking, most residents have garages or back alleys. If they need more than one parking space in the front, and have so far had the luxury to park as many vehicles in the street as they can, that speaks of privilege to me. Also, worrying about congestion is ridiculous as we barely have any movement or life in our neighbourhood for at least 6 months of the year. All those rejecting the project are acting as if these renters will spend half their time in their cars, working towards endangering the students.

Also, with my comment, I am not trying to dictate what the neighbourhood should look like as this is not my project. I am merely not opposing an idea that is being presented based on concerns that revolve only around myself and my perceived personal comfort. If this project didn’t exist my life would be the same and if it does go on it will be the same as well and perhaps better. We will get the chance to welcome more people to the neighbourhood and show them why people would want to move here…not for the monetary value of homes but for the warmth and friendliness that can be found in many North Glenora families. I truly find it exhausting how often new ideas for community expansion are rejected based on, what are in my opinion, elitist beliefs and I stand by what I have said.

R.P North Glenora Resident about 3 years ago

Removed by moderator.

R.P North Glenora Resident about 3 years ago

Removed by moderator.

R.P North Glenora Resident about 3 years ago

When R.P. called, almost all the commenters on this site the"C" word (classist), I wondered why that was. I thought we were critiquing a building proposal, and giving feedback concerning; the breaking of existing by-laws, safety and noise issues; making renters walk a block or more to their car in winter; packing the renters in small quarters, with no outdoor privacy; killing Blvd trees; covering the majority of the land with building or cement so that water run off would create ice problems during the freeze thaw season; wondering where the developer was going to put the snow that is taken from the parking area, and willingness to block out the sun from one longtime resident. I think these are fair concerns that should be taken into account, before this oversized project be allowed to break ground. I would not consider the safety of children "petty". We are not projecting our "privilege", when we look at the big picture and see a 200 rental unit project on the horizon, when the first part of that project consists of 45 units, but only 15 parking spaces. We are concerned that neighbours will be fighting each other over a parking space. At the end of a hard work day, people want to "go home" and relax. People should not have to rush home to make sure they get a good parking spot day in and day out. These things are small on a world scale, but it is "death by a thousand cuts". It's not necessarily the big life events that affect us negatively long term, but rather the daily smaller frustrations. Research from Bolger, DeLongis, Kessler, & Schilling, 1989 states: "daily minor hassles, especially interpersonal conflicts, often lead to negative and distressed mood" (https://courses.lumenlearning.com/wsu-sandbox/chapter/stressors/). Many commenters have said they welcome development in the area, but want it to be more in scale with the existing infrastructure and other homes, so that a good quality of life is enjoyed by all. It's not a "mob mentality" that you are experiencing. You are getting feedback from the people that will be affected by this project. Consider it a performance evaluation and go back to the drawing board, is what is being said here. "Having purchased a home in North Glenora does not give the right to dictate what the neighbourhood should look like moving forward" is what R.P. has said, but that is exactly what R.P. is doing. The commenters are not saying "no" to infills, but they are saying no to this one, and for legitimate reasons.
Project Summary
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a7b5df8f09ca4e43d8b4379/t/5fd9003ef690d060ff558d67/1608056895594/SSRIA_GBTN_Project+Summary_T5M+NGI_Final.pdf
This an exert from this website about the T5M connect project here in North Glenora:
"To ensure that our model is replicable in other areas, we aim to undertake a pilot project in one of Edmonton’s mature communities as these neighborhoods are plentiful and are in need of densification. We will replacetwo existing 1950’s style residential homes with a multi-family rental complex consisting of 8 units plus 8 secondary suites structured in a courtyard style design.
On the second page of the document is a "Project Summary", which I ask everyone to go read. I find the Project Summary "Skinny" on details and in fact it sounds like the project is going to use existing building materials of which much is already required in new builds. To sell a great idea; first you have to have a great idea; T5M Connect does not. T5M wants to break a bunch of bylaws and norms so they can build their little "Borg" units all over the city , while hiding behind words like "environmental goals" and "green build technology". There is nothing in the Project Summary about providing affordable housing. No proof of this has been presented to the community, and even if it were, the project still is unsuitable for 2 residential lots. Buy the next lot over, and build this project or scale down your project. Be reasonable, and don't call us anymore names. BTW, if a small number of people are leaving a lot of comments; it's not a mob.

Wallace about 3 years ago

I have seen the inside of both these homes and they are beyond the point of repair. The best thing would be to demolish these homes.
The proposed multi resistance units look great, I like the concept. It will bring new life and value to the neighborhood.

Noel about 3 years ago

I have seen the houses that are on the site and they are not live able and it would cost to much to renovate. they should be demolish

Claire about 3 years ago

As a current resident of North Glenora and former renter I am strongly in favour of this project. I think there is nothing greater than bettering our community by providing the chance to people of diverse economic status to be able to live in this beautiful neighbourhood. I find all the comments against this project borderline classist and close minded. Housing is a human right and it is appalling how a number of people who claim to be residents of North Glenora think we already have enough rental opportunities in our neighbourhood, as if there should be a limit. The issues that are being brought up are petty, such as the possible number of cars that will need to be parked in the neighbourhood streets. We have current residents that own more vehicles than the number of people living in their household. They park their cars in the street and somehow think this is their right but then go ahead and complain about the massive issue that the renters cars will be. This seems very hypocritical, because they are projecting their privilege on to the project and using it as a reason to oppose it. There really does seem to be a mob mentality in those that oppose this project. This is evident as a small number of the same people are repeatedly leaving negative comments in order to flood this page. Having purchased a home in North Glenora does not give the right to dictate what the neighbourhood should look like moving forward. I really hope people can focus on how great this project can be when it comes to community growth, sustainability and inclusivity, and ignore the classist privilege that some comments are exhibiting.

R.P North Glenora Resident about 3 years ago

12 units. Are you out of your mind. This is way too dense for this corner particularly as it sits right across the street from the school. The traffic would be horrendous.
Please if you want to do something, anything, consider the low housing units to the south of the school. These should be definitely torn down if you want to improve the neighborhood. At least it has a proper alley for vehicles to come and go. This is where your focus should be.

If you want to build something on that corner the maximum should be a one story 4 unit and that is all. Unfortunately, we may not be able to attend a meeting this week but we are clearly against this.

liz about 3 years ago

Just wondering what the actual water drainage system will be with all the building and concrete coverage on the land. City Drainage Bylaw states:
SURFACE DRAINAGE CONNECTION REQUIRED 9
(1)The owner of premises other than single family or duplex residential premises shall provide a private drainage system for subsurface water and for storm water from:
(a)roofs; (b)parking areas; (c)storage areas; (d)paved areas; and (e)courtyards.
(2)The owner of a premises requiring a private drainage system pursuant to this Part shall not release subsurface water or storm water from the private drainage system to any location,
PART III - RELEASES8 unless that location is designated on a lot grading plan or approved by the City Manager.
You can't dump all that water run off to the north of the development. The owner of the house could sue for a whole lot of damages .Is it smart to dump the water in the alley? In winter, during the freeze thaw cycle, the run off could create a "skating rink". Same issue in the front and side of the development. Try to stop your car from running over a child crossing the street after the road has been flooded, and then frozen overnight, because the street drains are still frozen shut. The whole thing is just stupid. I don't think the developers want to make a lot of money, I think they want to go to jail for negligence. Three "squares" a little bedroom, no parking issues, and a little place for recreation. It's just what the developers are offering their tenants, only the tenants have to take the bus to get their food and pay for their "affordable housing". Oh and the noise? In jail, it doesn't sound like little kids playing- just so you know...

Wallace about 3 years ago

How do you get away with calling that a courtyard?

Olivia about 3 years ago

I have lived in North Glenora for over 25 years and raised my family here . I am fully against this proposal. This is way too many units on two house lots. The developer is not being realistic with the parking issue (especially across street from an elementary). The patio homes already provide a lot of rental opportunities. I have talked with every neighbour (at least a dozen) I know and not one is for this proposal. This will give developers going forward the right to buy a house or two and build
Big apartment buildings in their spot and take over with way too many units. Please do not allow this to go through.

K. B. about 3 years ago

I looked at the drawings and just can't imagine 16 units on such a small piece of property. All of this comes times sixteen: heating, dryer vents, furnace vents, vacuum vents, hot water vents, cars, bikes, noise etc.
When I downsize from my house - I do not plan on moving into a basement suite with stairs and tiny windows or a two bedroom unit with stairs and my car parked who knows how far away. The re-development of all the patio homes will offer many options for rentals in North Glenora. Each one of those four complexes will become homes for over 40 suites (with elevators and lots of green space). Anything that is built should have an outside "green" area and not just masses of cement with a building. This proposal is just too dense. I am very against the rezoning of these properties.

AndyS about 3 years ago

I live a couple blocks down and I am very against this. At first I didn’t follow what was going on as I assumed just a skinny house or two - I would have NEVER guessed someone would throw this many units on Where ONLY 2 houses were prior. I own several rentals in Edmonton over last 30 Years and everyone always averages 1 car per adult (sometimes more ). To say people will walk or take transit is a joke with that many units , our transit system is horrible to boot. I worry about it being so close to the school and crosswalk, I’ve seen couple close calls over the years due to that the amount of kids crossing as it is! I’ve also come to find out the “developers” are first timers who clearly in it just for the money let’s not kid ourselves . They will probably up and sell the unit once sold ! Please cast my vote against this ridiculous idea!

Mrs Winters about 3 years ago

There is one more thing, which I am loathe to mention, but I think it is important. People who don't have parking stalls are going to park their vehicles on the park perimeter. I worked at the Remand Centre and my uncle was a pedophile. There's a lot more predators out there that you know. These predators hang around parks where kids play already. When the street is lined with vehicles, it's easy, for these people to blend in and sit there in their van and wait. You might think that because there will be more people about, that a child would not go missing or be abused, but you would be fooling yourselves. This is an elementary school with a playground for small children that we are going to put at risk. We need to keep the perimeter clear of an overabundance of vehicles. It's for the good for everyone. Everything is connected.

Wallace about 3 years ago

I also wonder where people who come to the park to play baseball and such; Where they are going to park, when the park area will be packed on all available sides by patio home renters and this 16 unit complex renters vehicles. With the large added population, the park grounds may endure overuse and may have to be shut down for a time so the grass can rejuvenate. We need grass to help purify the air. Grass is vitally important. It would be a shame to see the park be ruined by too much densification. What makes a good quality of life entails many things. Worrying about where you are going to park when you come home everyday, is another added stress that's going to pit neighbour against neighbour. I hope the city increases the police budget in the coming years. I just don't see any good coming from not providing enough room for parking. Yes, I know not everybody has a car, but everybody needs "their space".

Wallace about 3 years ago

I'm looking at the pictures of the development and wonder if they are fire code compliant in regard to sufficient egress in case of fire. Will there be an on-site manager to ensure all fire prevention mechanisms are always in working order? Fire Code States:
2.5.1.5.Maintenance of Fire Department Access
1)Streets, yards and roadways provided for fire department access shall be maintained so as to be ready for use at all times by fire department vehicles.
2)Vehicles shall not be parked to obstruct access by fire department vehicles and signs shall be posted prohibiting such parking.
With 2 separate buildings, I suspect the developer will have to provide 2 separate "no parking zones" for emergency vehicles.
Will there be a sufficiently sized "drop off" zone for persons without vehicles for Taxis, and delivery, like UPS, food, or moving vans, DATS or a home care nurse? I see there is a "handicapped" parking stall provided in the back. Is there a unit or units that are designed to accommodate a wheelchair? How would this person vacate the building in case of fire? How wide are the parking stalls? Who will clear the snow in the parking stalls and where will that snow go? Who will maintain the sidewalks in winter and cut the grass in summer? Has the Arborist stated that the development will kill the Blvd trees yet? Isn't there a large fine or even jail time as a penalty for damaging the Blvd trees?
I can't imagine living somewhere, where the parking in winter could be a block or more from where I live. This is a northern climate and can be miserably cold. If you had to park your car, a block away from where you live and in the winter not have it start before you go to work. I'm not sure how long I would stay at that unit, before I moved out. It may appear like the city is doing the developer a favour by not requiring a minimum number of stalls per unit, but in the end the developer may have empty units. It would be a bummer if you forgot something in your car and had to "parka up" and trod through the snow to get back to your car. I was also wondering how much sun the courtyard will actually get. The people living in the north unit are not going to get much sun. I don't think I would want to live in that building. The south building is so close to the street. That little patch of personal patio or grass the developer has provided, probably will only get used for smoke breaks. If I didn't have a vehicle, I would at least want to live in an apartment that was away from the street and away from a lot of kids from morning till night. at least during the summer. The units are probably pretty small too. I could live in a small apartment if it had a private balcony, high enough that I wouldn't have every passerby within in ten feet of me. I think it would be like living in a loud fish bowl, only with lots of stairs. The community doesn't seem to want it and it doesn't sound like a good investment either. I wonder if the developer shouldn't provide "more" for the prospective renter, just for his own sake, let alone for the good of the community.

Wallace about 3 years ago