LDA20-0314 T5M Connect DC2- North Glenora

It is a great neighborhood to live in and I like the project. Some people think that families will never live in an apartment. My family is of 5 people living in a two bedroom apartment in the basement level of Mainstreet building. Some people don't realize that everybody is not rich enough to buy a big house.

I have to agree with the comment from 780789. This whole proposal is suspicious. This proposal is not scaled to fit the community. It's a multi-unit shoe box for each occupant. Are these units subsidized housing? That's fine, but say that it is and put in enough parking spots and some trees. Family friendly units are 2 and 3 bedrooms in size. This project provides 2, 3 bedroom units out of 16 and I'll bet those bedrooms are the size of a small walk-in closet. Whats the cost to rent these units? It has not been stated what it will cost to live in these units. So are the units really affordable? City goals around sustainability and densification? You mean like the latest Melcor developments in the city outskirts that require tax payer money to support the infrastructure once the developer has made it's millions? This project does not require the normally required number of parking stalls, nor the planting of any trees that would normally be required of new home owners. Why is that? I would like to see the technical review. I would like to know who okayed the project. I want to know about any conflicts of interest that the members on the city staff may have. I want to know who is going to pay for the repair of the streets and alleys after this construction is done, as well as the proposed patio home conversion. I do have a suggestion that may solve the whole issue. Have the city buy all the homes in North Glenora at market value. Put a dome over the entire area and then you can blow smoke into the dome, when ever the natives get restless. I know you have a smoke machine, because you're blowing smoke already.

my husband I have lived in this community for 45years we accept change to a point ,we have six skinny houses behind us witch is 135street so trying to get out of our garage at times are very frustrating .We also have skinny houses across the front of our house which on weekends there are more vehicles out front . .Im concerned how our city is being taken over with these type of housing ,i dont even recognize our community any longer. and now your planning to built this DC2 building for 16residential dwelling ,are you guys smoking something ,no concern or care for the people who have spent there lives making there place a family home ,the developer has no thought of who we are and what the cost is to us of our property and having peace in our own backyard .Let me ask you how you would feel if someone decided to build around your space called home and changed the whole look of your area sometimes even losing the sun because of these houses ,this might not even occur in your mind because all you care about is the money .Alot of us retired people do grow gardens and share with our neighbours thats what we call our community and we will fight for our homes .I worked as a nurse for 42 years now i would like to work in my garden without over seeing buildings that should not be there and ruining our neighbour hoods mary mullin let our neighbour hoods be ours .We should have a say we pay are taxes and love our communities we live in ,please give it back

The developers are back with another comment mentioning "middle housing", "family friendly" (what family live in a 2 bedroom basement suite lol), "Affordable housing" and "city goals around sustainability and densification" I'm a little surprised they didn't mention "net zero" again. The funniest thing is they wanted to "undertake community engagement". Its all here in black and white, we do not welcome this development. Instead of coming on here and making more fake positive comments perhaps you should be reading what your neighbors think of your proposal and go back to the drawing board.

I'm supportive of this project and would love to see this type of housing in communities across our city. This proposal is scaled appropriately to fit within this community. It's the family-friendly, missing middle housing that folks have been asking for. It's right across from a school and will provide new residents will more affordable housing options for young families to move into and join the community. This project is going to be great for the vitality and health of the community and supports the City's larger goals around sustainability, densification, and the revitalization of our mature neighbourhoods.

I oppose this project in the strongest on terms.
I sent my feedback to Mr Sherstone back in December, but since I don't see it here, I'll repeat it with additional comments after reading some of the other citizen comments.
Hello Andrew,
A public engagement session is warranted, if somehow the technical review passes.
Increasing traffic in front of the Elementary school(where drop off and pick up for buses) is a safety hazard. 16 residential dwellings with only surface parking for 8 vehicles will cause spill over to neighbouring home owners. Lack of surface parking will also cause a street crossing safety issue for the small children. Where there is not enough parking space, people always park too close to the corners. Illegal or not, parking too close to the corners(end of a block) will occur and a child will be injured or killed. Unless all parking for the new project is underground, then this project should be refused on this criterion alone.
This neighbourhood already has more than ample multi-family, and row housing. A major attraction of North Glenora is the mature trees and low traffic. Increasing the density, traffic and noise will decrease property values. Unless the city plans to compensate home owners for damages caused by decreasing the value of their major life investment, I strongly suggest this application for a 2.5 story, multi-family dwelling be denied.
There are few highly desirable, mature single family dwelling neighbourhoods close to downtown, why would you want to destroy one?
With a slow real estate market and an active pandemic(cheap properties), there are lots of other properties in the entire city that the developer could access.
Who is the developer?
A couple of high-end duplexes is about all the rezoning that could be reasonably defended for this site. A 2.5 story, 16 unit development is indefensible
To the person that said; "If I don't like it, I should move". I intend on moving. I can see that this project will go ahead, just like all the other dumb stuff the city has proposed, taken a skewed survey on and did want they wanted to do anyway. To those that are not aware of the high density development that is taking place in Westmount and still think that we need more high density, with the the existing infrastructure, I suggest you stop taking those mind numbing substances and take another look. Groat Road and 107 Ave are already traffic bottle necks. 107 Ave pre-pandemic rumbled like a freight train during rush hour traffic and was always busy during "regular" hours, with an increase of emergency vehicle sirens, from 5 AM until all hours of the night. The city will probably have to take out the traffic circle on 142nd street or make expensive alterations to accommodate the extra traffic that greater density will bring. The tax payer will pay for that, that means all of us, while the developer reaps the reward. Projects like this one and the patio home proposal that remove trees and/or add more traffic to the area chokes the air with more pollutants. More cars will idle at stop lights at 111 Ave and Groat Rd, 111 Ave and 135 St, Groat Rd and 114 St and any intersection attached to 107 Ave. This area has schools that serve all age groups: Public, Catholic and Jewish. This area is for families. When the rezoning is done, we will have an elementary school that has high density housing on 3 sides-2 sides of which we have no idea will eventually be: "Developer’s Stated Current Intent

Understanding that within the RA7 Zone , as a standard zone, the developer will be able to finalize decisions on the following items at the Development Permit stage, they have provided the following information as to what their current plans are for the site. 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".
On the other side of the elementary school, we already have high density development and they might get the idea that if 4 story apartments have already been built, then there is a precedent and the city would have no reason to not approve more 4 story apartments without accommodation for sufficient parking spaces. The current patio home proposal has 15 parking spaces for "approximately 45 units!"Finally, in front of the elementary school, we will have a 16 unit complex, with insufficient parking for residences (they have visitors with cars even if the occupants don't have a vehicle), which will create a real safety risk for the youngest school aged kids. When you buy a home, you buy the community as well. When you buy that home you are aware of the zoning and make a substantial investment, perhaps the biggest financial investment of your life based on that information, and then for the city to come along and change the rules of that financial investment game is close to criminal. If your bank told you that you would get 10 percent on an investment product, and then decided, well things change and we are only going to give you 1.5 percent on that money that's been sitting in that account for 20 or 30 years, you would be right to feel cheated, and would have legal recourse. How is this situation any different? This situation is different in that you would not have any legal recourse-you've been cheated. The city is willing to literally "block out the sun" on one resident, put small children at risk, reduce the value of the other homes in the area, and generally reduce the quality of life for the area residents in general. Who are these developers? Why is the city willing to ruin a family neighbourhood? Why is there little transparency? Why is the city leaving the patio home developer so many "options". There are other neighbourhoods that are well connected to transit and other relevant infrastructure, that can better accommodate 4 story apartments and high density "infills" with insufficient parking facilities. We need more affordable housing-that's a fact, and the city can build that in this neighbourhood, but they need to have a plan that the majority of existing residences agree on. This is a democratic country still; "Is it not?" We need to know EXACTLY what is going to put in the place of the patio homes, with a guarantee of what commercial operations would be allowed. For example a childcare facility would be desired, but that's about all, because for one reason the traffic increase and lack of parking spaces for any other proposed business would be an additional hardship in the community. I implore you to say no to this development design as well as the 4 story apartments. After investing our lives in this neighbourhood we deserve better treatment from our city. For those of you who think, more density is not a problem, please pack your bags and move to downtown, where there is an overabundance of inexpensive apartments, traffic congestion, noise and exhaust fumes- downtown is close to many great amenities too! Stand up and say NO to these proposals. Say yes to more sound workable proposals that enhance the community; it can be done and should be done.

I oppose the rezoning of the property from a RF1 to a DC2.
Having 16 rental units on two properties is two many. I feel there will be concerns of Safety with the school there and the Patio Home Redevelopment.
I also have a big concern for the city too look at. There will be a lot more traffic turning off a107th Ave. onto a 139St. This turn is soon after 142St. circle. There will be more accidents on 107 Ave. at that location.

I'm excited about this development. As a central resident who doesn't own a car, this is exactly the type of housing that I would consider. Limited parking stalls are reasonable in my opinion as this area has other options like walking and biking. My one suggestion is to improve the bicycle parking. Outdoor bike parking does not provide the security or protection from our harsh weather to make cycling feasible. Please consider the below link for inspiration
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6yDFp0msbMw&feature=emb_logo)

We have concerns about the lack of parking spaces. With only 8 spaces available for 16 units there will be vehicles which will need to be parked on the street.
This will mean our roads will become more congested with more vehicles parked at the side of the road.
Coronation Public School is directly across the street from this development. There will be children walking to school and will need to cross the street to get there. If they cannot see around the cars they will have a more difficult time crossing the road safely.
There will be parents driving their children to school. If there are more vehicles parked on the side of the road where will the parents be able to drop off their children safely?

Although I agree with an increase of the Density in the North Glenora neighborhood, I think the proposed Rezoning is going beyond of what I would consider reasonable. First of all, due to a drastic increase in the density, and the reduced setbacks, it will appear a congested space. Secondly, 8 parking lots are not enough for total of 16 Residential Units. Considering minimum of 1 vehicle/ unit, It should be considered a minimum of 16 parking spots.
Also, I am curious how the City of Edmonton will reduce the impact in the potential decrease of the value of the houses in the surroundings of the Rezoning Area, more taking into account other Rezoning proposals in North Glenora. This will put a lot of pressure over the neighborhood, and to avoid this I think the City of Edmonton should establish some strict limitations over those Rezoning Proposals (1 Parking spot/ Residential unit, allow a minimal decrease of the setbacks, etc).

I feel so bad for people living in the houses around this proposed development. This is certainly not what they expected when they bought in an area zoned for single family development, and to think it’s people that live just down the road that are behind all this.

I find the common language used by many commenters curious. But I also find the priority many give to those who choose to drive to drop kids off at the school misplaced. You have correctly identified the issue - vehicles driving to and from school. The new residents are not the problem. I have not noticed complaints in the past about the “heavy traffic” generated by the school.

Adding livable spaces to neighborhoods is a benefit. This is a sound proposal.

Setbacks should be no more than 1m from property line. All units should be visitable with complete ground level accessibility and all doors in all units should be 36” wide. Accessible parking needs a functional access aisle around the whole designated stall with direct curb access at the end of each aisle.

Due to the reduced setbacks and 46% coverage I don't think this will be a welcome addition to our lovely neighbourhood. I oppose the rezoning of these properties.

I certainly do not agree with this, will be way too much traffic especially with the school right there. Seems like a money grab.

I strongly oppose the application for the following reasons - it compromises the safety of children in a school zone with the high increase in the number of vehicles parking and driving at the front door of the school; density - the approval of the Glenora Patio Homes (45 suites) will meet requirement for higher density in the neighborhood on a reasonable amount of property. The neighbors around the location have the expectation that any proposed development will be in keeping with maintaining the integrity of the neighborhood as much as possible as has happened in the past. With this development integrity is definitely being impacted and needs to be compared to the long term city plan for North Glenora to confirm that this particular proposed development would be considered an expectation of the surrounding neighbors. The location and small amount of property for this particular development doesn't lend itself to any positive benefits.
Thank you.

We live next door to this proposal. For the past 47 years, we have enjoyed living in our North Glenora home, working in the flower beds, tending the shrubs, fruit trees and backyard vegetable garden.
We are OPPOSED to the rezoning of the properties next door to the South of our home. We are OPPOSED because of the DENSITY. Sixteen rental units are too many for the size of the property, which is in the middle of our RF1 zoned street.

Having 16 rental units next door to us would mean loss of privacy, more noise, as well as the loss of sunlight and sky.
We also have concerns that our property value would definitely be affected. We bought our North Glenora home because of the location (an RF1 zone).

A CHANGE IN ZONING OF THESE PROPERTIES SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED.

I do not support this application and hope the authorities see this as an accommodation to the developer not the residents. Safety, density, parking, sewage, infrastructure, and greed, not considerate of the character and spirit of this neighborhood are some of the overt concerns. We already have appropriate guidelines that are adequate, so there is no need to change the zoning to accept a project that only serves and benefits a few, not the current residents. Please do not feed into the limited scope of presenting this as a need for the community; we do not need this development, especially across from an elementary school.

I oppose the application to rezone the property to increase the density from the existing 2 single family homes to 16 apartments, far too great a density to comply with the North Glenora Community Plan: a Vision for the Future approved by City Council August 1998. The application to rezone the Patio Home across the street is for a 4 storey 45 unit 15 parking stalls complex. I am extremely concerned the existing sewer system installed in 1955 cannot handle this increased density resulting in numerous flooded basements in the community. Both this application and the Patio Home development provide parking for less than half of the residents, resulting in dozens of vehicles parked on the streets across from the elementary school.

Since this development is across the street from a school, the increased traffic and increased street parking create potentially dangerous situations for the children in the school and for parents dropping off or picking up children. Access to the school by volunteers and others would be affected also. The neighbourhood has some 3 story apartments and row housing along the street just north of the school. However, these are all along one block so visually they don't seem out of place. The proposed development would put a 3 or more story building right beside 1 story bungalows, adversely affecting access to light of the current housing and presenting a chopped up appearance not in character with the neighbourhood.