In many ways the HomeEd project is laudable. However, the potential scale/density allowed by RF7 zoning is not - and should not be approved. Four storey apartment buildings with up to 100 units on a relatively small parcel of land are out of scale with the neighborhood’s character, as well as with the infrastructure and resources available in the immediate area.

We also question why RF7 zoning is even necessary. RF5 seems a more suitable zoning request.

From information available on-line (City of Edmonton’s SLIM maps website, General and Applications info for 6409 - LAUBMAN STREET NW), it appears the HomeEd Parkside North project in Griesbach (a site that, according to the Village at Griesbach lot map, is across from a planned school and therefore potentially well suited to young families) is feasible with 93 units on a 10,460 sq metre site. This is less than 80% of the potential density that would come with 100 units on our 2 acre (8,094 sq metre) site – a surplus school site which is (ironically) quite a distance from any school. A similar project density would be 72 units in Ogilvie. This is probably still more units than many of us in the community desire, but is more palatable than up to 100 units and a better starting point for future discussions around development.

If the Parkside North project is feasible with RF5, we would question why RF7 is needed here.

Bottom line – we are against RF7 zoning.

Removed by moderator.

Strongly oppose RA7 zoning proposed by HomeEd.

We chose to move to Ogilvie Ridge 2 years ago because of the quiet location, access to nature and green space. This proposal will literally wipe out half of the useful greenspace and will change a great neighbourhood, not for the better.

To consider adding a 4 story apartment into this neighbourhood just doesn't seem to make sense at all. The following issues have not been addressed and the density introduced by a low rise apartment with the option of commercial should not even have made it this far.

1. School capacity - we have 2 children under 4, even currently without the development their placement in a school nearby is not guaranteed because of the lack of space.
2. Parking and Traffic - there is not adequate street parking and crossing Ogilvie Blvd. is already becoming hazardous especially with any cars parked on the hill. On a weekend in the spring or summer if there's any sports or function at Whitemud Creek Community Centre street parking is already maxed.
3. Substation - the substation is very loud and living right next to it seems very undesirable.
4. Wildlife Corridor - this proposed land is used by wildlife such as deer, coyote, geese and more.
5. Green Space - removing a large percentage of usable green space and the only ball diamond in the area.
6. Public Transportation and proximity to resources - there are very few busses that come through this area. The closest grocery store is a 24 minute walk and no easy access to affordable options.
7. Community Guidelines - having just replaced our roof and having to abide by the Whitemud Creek Community Architectural guidelines I believe that any new development must do the same. It keeps the character of the neighbourhood which in turn keeps it a desirable area.


I share all the concerns of my neighbours and hope that the City council rejects the approval of RA7 zoning.

We have lived in Ogilvie Ridge for 17 years and oppose the RA7 zoning proposed by HomeEd (City of Edmonton).
First and foremost, if this site is not ever going to be used for another school (which is highly needed), the site should be kept as a green space for children’s sports and activities. Green spaces are environmentally friendly and are a form of mental healing for people. Cities all over the world crave green spaces like this one. Why would Edmonton be focused (obsessed) on destroying it instead of protecting it?
We too share the concerns of the untold number of community members who have expressed their opposition to this project and to the RA7 zoning. It is frustrating just to have to tell you (the City of Edmonton) yet again and again that this is not a good place for subsidized, affordable housing. Using this space to house people of limited means is not logical. The location is not served by social support networks, not well served by public transit, not within walking distance of shopping.
We do not support the RA7 Zoning Application. However, if a housing project must proceed, we would support RF5 zoning as outlined by the Board, and the project should focus on senior’s residences (AS WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE CITY OVER AND OVER AGAIN DURING THE CONSULTATIONS) and should conform to the community’s architectural guidelines and standards.
HRZ

We, as the residents of Ogilvie Ridge for 11 years, strongly oppose the proposed rezoning RA7, it should be rezoned as City originally promised RF5. As the fifth largest municipality in Canada, we respectfully ask the City to keep its promise to the residents in Ogilvie Ridge.

We live in Edmonton for 22 years, Michener Park (low income neighborhood) for 4 years, a bungalow in old neighborhood for 7 years and Ogilvie for 11 years. The reasons we moved out of the bungalow were not only some strange people wandering in the neighborhood, but also a bunch of young, unemployed people living in one of the rental house, often not properly addressed, sitting at the front door and smoking. We have two school-age kids, one of them went to school by taking bus. We had serious safety concerns about our previous neighborhood.

When we bought the house in Ogilvie we checked the crime rate of Ogilvie and it was zero for straight 11 years (2000-2011). We also like the ravine, the large open green space and all of the well-maintained, customer-built, big and nice houses in the neighborhood. We paid a big price for our home as the same quality same size house in some areas of Edmonton will be $100K to 200k cheaper because every house in their neighborhood has surveillance cameras and break-in is very common. We paid for the neighborhood absolutely. We paid for so many years and paid so much and got nothing eventually because the City broke its promise and took away the green space without support of our neighborhood. We don’t feel we are living in a city of a democracy country. Did City get any support from our neighborhood for the proposed development?

We heard from one public meeting that City used to have a “buyout” policy or agreement or commitment whatever for Riverbend: home owners pay high house price and high property tax to exchange with the City not putting the developments that the residents do not want into the neighborhoods of old Riverbend area. At the time of Councilor Bryan Anderson’s late term, City broke its buyout commitment and started to put the affordable housing in this neighborhood. Initially, City promised that the development will be ownerships of mixing of at market price units and under market price units for low income families, and the under market price ownerships are not more than 5-10%. The targeted buyers for the under market price units would be low income working class families in order to solve the affordability issues for these low income families to own their homes. Over time, regardless the strong objections of the residents in the neighborhood, city changes the development to RA7 with 100% rentals, furthermore, we heard that the development will be for women and children fled from their homes due to domestic violence. This is a real problem because these very very violent family members of these women and children will come and wandering in our neighborhood, and nobody can predict when and how they will attack the innocent people in our neighborhood.

We ask the City to read the following newspapers to understand how violent these domestic violence family members can be. These innocent citizen in the newspapers already paid the price with their blood and lives to domestic violence, we DO NOT WANT these situation happens in our neighborhood!!!

https://edmontonjournal.com/news/local-news/swearing-and-screaming-why-mother-of-slain-seven-year-old-takes-stand-in-david-moss-murder-trial
https://edmontonjournal.com/news/crime/broken-pieces-a-year-after-edmontons-worst-mass-murder

The best place for these women and children is the City supported social services facility Days Inn on University Avenue (furnished suites with grocery stores and restaurants within walking distance) and this hotel is much more easier to be secured in case these women and children need to be protected from their violent family members.

City should also remember that the City's bus driver at Millwoods station was stabbed by a person who wanted the bus driver to drive him to downtown.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/bus-driver-assaulted-edmonton-mill-woods-1.4838808

City should take a look how many school kids in our neighborhood and we are surprised to see so many kids waiting at bus stations or walking on the streets before and after school. While the City moves forward with its preferred initiatives, City is also obligated to keep these boys and girls safe. We formally ask the City to rezone the development for RF5 and put the normal working class families or seniors to our neighborhood as the city originally promised.

City also needs to keep in mind that if the problem is spreaded all over the city by the development policy knowingly or unknowingly, and no neighborhood is safe in Edmonton, the City will have problem to attract the people who are needed to develop economy or provide essential services in this City, for example, professionals for health care, education, business, industries, etc.

If a proposed development is not supported by any residents in the neighborhood and not supported by the local councilor, if the project is approved to go ahead by other councilors who has no connection with the neighborhood, that would be very unfair to the local community.

We don’t want to see the friendly, peaceful and quiet city becomes a messy City with crime and violence all over the City.

My wife and I have lived in Ogilvie Ridge for the past 16 years. We were attracted by its quiet atmosphere and well-kept community. We feel the RF5 zoning proposal by our board was a reasonable request to maintain the community's character and accommodate the need for densification.

Edmonton to be a successful city needs to build strong communities where people want to live. Ogilvie Ridge is been one of those though the one thing that it lacks is a public school. A school on the site would achieve that in the community as it has many homes suitable for large families that are affordable for larger families as they become available as long-term residents move to retirement homes. This would increase the population density in the community.

The school site program seems to operate with the concept that free land makes a good location for subsidized housing. As many people have already mentioned, the location does not have good public transit, is not within walking distance of shopping, has no available elementary school space, has no social support network, and has few nearby large employers for less skilled workers. It is hardly a suitable location for people with limited means.

Housing is a key initial step to stabilizing less fortunate people but the above-mentioned drawbacks do not set up the people to easily launch into sustainable independent lifestyles. A lot of money is going into subsidized housing but unless they are in an area where they can flourish, it is not very effective.
A better use of the site would be to sell it to a developer for a market-priced development, ownership, or rental, that meets community criteria and use the profits from the sale to buy land or existing rental property for subsidized housing where the necessary amenities are more readily available. Combining the appraised value of the site and the servicing cost, 3.35 million would go a lot way to procuring land for more subsidized housing elsewhere.

The success of social housing is enhanced by community engagement and acceptance. The city has had open houses to get feedback from the community and we appreciate the fact that the site has been relocated. However, it appears that once the initial engagement was performed, the developer treated it as a checklist box, that once checked off, our concerns could be ignored. The developer did not accommodate the availability dates of key community members for community workshops. This is creating a toxic environment that is not conducive to a smooth integration of new housing into the neighbourhood.

Bottom Line; No RA7 zoning

I share concerns of overwhelming majority of my community:
- the whole infrastructure of the area can not support such project (narrow roads with limited traffic and speed zones, absence of supporting facilities, long commute to any major transportation hubs, etc.)
- excessive noise from the located nearby power substation make this place even less attractive for market buyers. As a result the proportion of 50% market units in the development won't be achievable.

For multiple years of discussion around this project the community concerns haven't been taking into consideration by city planners. My family and I strongly opposed to the proposed rezoning of this site.

We have lived in the Ogilvie Ridge community for over 30 years. We built our home here under high architectural standards and an overall master area plan for the community that was agreed to by the developer and the city. All the residents of Ogilvie Ridge have had to maintain this standard over the years. We do not support the city trying to sneak in the RA7 zoning to downgrade our community. Any development on the surplus school site should have to maintain the same architectural standards as the existing community. The city should be selling this property at fair market value under the existing architectural building standards that we have all lived under for decades. Watching the city budget process this week, it is obvious the city could use the funds from this sale. This location would be ideal for a seniors living development.

I highly support this proposal and hope it is approved. The RA7 zoning request in and of itself is fairly reasonable given the relative proximity to a secondary corridor in the City Plan, and the reasonable access to transit for the site. However, the proposal is made far, far better given the affordable housing component associated with the proposed mixed-market project.

We will need many, many more projects like this to hit our infill and density goals. We also need far, far more affordable housing options in the city. This excellent proposal goes a small way to satisfying both.

We have been living in Whitemud Creek/Ogilvie Ridge area for over 15 years. We fully understand the desire of the City of Edmonton to use the surplus school sites for housing purposes and support this initiative.

We have similar concerns in the increase in traffic on Ogilvie Boulevard and the added stress to the road system in our area and the adjacent neighborhood of Hodgson.

The messages conveyed at the previous public meetings by members of the Board and residents were thoughtful and took into consideration the desire of the City and the residents. The new proposal being provided by the City ignores the previous discussions and the desires of the residents of Ogilvie Ridge.

We do not support the RA7 Zoning Application, but would support a RF5 Zoning as outlined by the Board.

I have lived in olgilvie ridge for 26 years and continue to enjoy all that this community and city has to offer. The changes to surrounding land and community growth is remarkable in this time and I support and recognize the need to take advantage of available land to meet housing demands.

I do not feel that the density supported by an low rise apartment (especially one with commercial units) could be safely supported by the current infrastructure in this area. With only one narrow road serving this site and a busy daycare already next door to the proposed apartment, I do not feel that the increase in traffic would be safe. Especially considering the amount of on road parking that already occurs during community events, the visibility for drivers (of cars and buses) would be negatively impacted once this parking inevitably rises with the addition of a high density unit and commercial employees and customers. Given the advantageous use of the surrounding area for children's events (soccer, baseball and the fulltime daycare) I am convinced the added impact of traffic from the proposed RA7 development would impact the safety of all users of the surrounding area and should not proceed.

I agree with others on this site suggesting lower density RA5 townhome style residences to strike a balance and maximize the benefit of this unused land for all.

As a homeowner in Whitemud Creek, I am totally OPPOSED to RA7 rezoning in this area. City of Edmonton has stretched the boundaries once and once again. Are you really listening to people who live in this neighborhood? People bought properties in this area with higher price for a reason. NO RA7 zoning!

We are home owners and residents of the Whitemud Creek community and have been living here for 11 years. We are STRONGLY OPPOSED to this proposed rezoning to RA7. NO apartment buildings and NO commercial units, please. We feel betrayed by the city as in previous engagements we were given to understand that the site will be developed into affordable housing units (i.e., townhomes and/or rowhouses) for sale, with at least a portion of the units designated for seniors. This is not what's happening now and it is just wrong! We support RA5 zoning; definitely not RA7. Thank you!

We have lived in the area for close to 10 years and had no idea that there is a surplus school site until about 4 years ago. The meeting at that time indicated that the school site will be developed to housing. There is no changing this, ACCEPT IT. As a home owner in the area you will have input into what the development is.
We strongly oppose the proposal to RA7 rezoning. This was not even discussed at any meeting we attended. Home owners reluctantly accepted a town home development. A seniors type development was hope and thought of those attending.
Many seniors in the area would like to transition to a town home in the area we are accustom to and enjoy.
Obviously some type of development will be done. Please consider a 3rd party traffic and parking study be completed before building. Enforce all current home owners obligations ie: HOA fees, fencing, roofing ect

As a resident of 13 years in Whitemud Creek I strongly oppose RA7 zoning. The traffic now is busy, I can’t imagine more cars on the road in this area. Parking would be an issue. We are losing the only baseball diamond in this immediate area. A school would be useful ; all the neighbouring schools are at max capacity.

Our young family moved to this neighborhood in the fall of 2020. Moving from a higher density neighborhood, which appears to be the new normal, the Ogilvie Ridge community was a welcomed change of pace. Traffic on the inner community roads, although notably busy during peak commute hours, has seemed acceptable for a community of this size. With that said, there are choke points as well as blind corners near the entrances which would pose serious concerns if this volume were increased – which would occur with the proposed zoning change and subsequent development.

It is confounding how the city can both ignore and fail to work with tax paying residents within a mature community. The lack of transparency during the bidding process is similarly concerning not mentioning the successful bidder was essentially the city of Edmonton. One only needs to drive around the peripheral of Edmonton to observe the current rate of expansion with all of the new developments that appear never ending. The city needs to focus its efforts on working with these developers to better incorporate projects of this scope at the design stage rather than strong arming mature communities of its green space (which will be lost forever). Rental companies such as Boardwalk have actually purchased failed low-rise developments and converted owned units to rentals. Taking advantage of opportunities such as these have limited impact on surrounding communities as zoning and infrastructure have already been appropriately established.

We are fervently against the rezoning to RA7 and prefer the lower density RF5 with emphasis on senior mixed market housing. This would serve both the community and future occupants well.

I have lived in this community for 20 years and am absolutely opposed to the proposed HomeEd development. This community has the smallest population and land area of all the surplus school sites it was grouped with in 2009. It also has an unsightly detraction in the substation. It also borders a nature reserve to the north and a sensitive wetland to the south, which bring much wildlife into the community and excess traffic through this sensitive nature area will mean untold accidents and unnecessary death to wildlife – and potentially, citizens. For all of these reasons, HomeEd’s planned development is not the right fit for this community.

The City’s stated intent in changing the bylaws to allow surplus school site development was that any development would fit within the community, maintain its architectural integrity and enhance our enjoyment. When discussions first began, we were led to believe the development would be homes for purchase (I believe the exact line was that teachers and nurses need help purchasing a home). The community was clear in what we wanted, and we provided a questionnaire which showed an overwhelming desire for for-purchase seniors’ housing. The City dismissed our questionnaire and negotiations continued behind closed doors, with the end result that is counter to everything we told the City that we wanted.

The City now has a density formula, which is flawed in that it takes no factor other than site size into consideration. Per the formula, our community would have imposed on it a minimum of 31 units (45 units per hectare) – roughly 10% of the current structure in our community. That 31 units has now shockingly more than tripled to 100 units – in a neighbourhood that currently only has 329 units in total, including existing multi-housing. Increasing this community’s structure by 30% and nearly doubling our population overnight will devastate it and everything we love about it. It is inconceivable to me that such a thing would even be entertained and runs contrary to what the City promised us.

As someone else mentioned, the community next to ours, with a much larger population base and greenspace, has one third the density imposed on them in the form of 100% market value, for-purchase housing. Brookview has 76 townhouses on two surplus school sites totalling 1.64 hectares. In other words, it matches exactly the City’s minimum density formula (1.64 x 45 per hectare = 74). However, per available data, they had approximately 1,131 existing homes, making the impact of adding 76 properties negligible.

While the City has portrayed this surplus school site policy as carved in stone, there have been a number of exceptions made for one reason or another. For example, a massive southwest greenspace was exempted from surplus school site development entirely; a west-end site was turned into a storm pond, etc.

If the City is serious about the affordable housing situation, does it have policy in place so that all new development must have a percentage committed to it? And if so, what is that required percentage? Certainly not the 30 percent it wants to impose on this community. If the City does not have a policy in place, why not?

If we must have development, it is imperative that the City’s own density formula be observed and owing to the minimal size of the site, and the small population base, the minimal density be applied. We do not want a revolving door of short-term rental in this community. We do not want the zoning changed to allow a four-storey structure – there is no need to change the zoning if HomeEd has already said they don’t need it!

We as homeowners via our HOA, must also have input in any direction moving forward with whatever development is put here. If the development is not dictated by the free market, then we must be allowed to determine the direction it takes and any changes that HomeEd or the City or anyone else wants to make. We all purchased in a community with homeowners’ association fees in order to ensure we have a community that we want to live in. The City, in changing the bylaw to take that school site land, promised the enhancement of our community and our continued enjoyment of it.

We strongly oppose the proposed RA7 zoning, and instead support RF5 zoning for this site.

We moved our family into Ogilvie Ridge in 2021 to get away from the many neighbourhoods that already have apartments and commercial spaces. Ogilvie Ridge stands out as a unique community that is mature and quiet, well looked after by its HOA and homeowners, and free from the cookie cutter apartments and the problems they bring. City Council needs to listen to those they are elected to represent, act in concert with their input, and in turn protect this neighborhood’s character and value. For years this community has been clear that should a development go forward it should be townhomes for seniors to own - not low income rentals.

Approving the proposed RA7 Zoning would be contrary to what has been clearly requested, and would have a negative impact on this community. There are plenty of other sites in the city that would be more suitable for HomeEd’s development.

We urge City Council to reject the application for RA7 and instead approve the RF5 zoning so that an appropriate seniors development can be built on this site.

First and foremost, Id like to express our extreme disapointment with the city of Edmonton , Homed and the decision to even consider this site for such a project . The members of the community have been forced to defend our virtually unanimous position on the potential developement on this piece of property every step of the way and yet our concerns continously go unheard.

Our family has lived in the community since 2015 and strongly oppose the rezoning proposal wholeheartedly.
We trust the city of Edmonton and planning department will reconsider and at the very least listen to and work with the citizens of the community to create a REASONABLE solution to satisfy both parties.

I could certainly go into more detail regarding wildlife disruption, increased traffic , noise, transients , etc however I doubt this will make any difference in the cities attempt to generate more tax revenue off of a small , peaceful green space in an established , desirable community.

We do not support the RA7 zoning but would support an RF5 zoning.

1. I want to make sure the zoning is appropriate for the neighbourhood and the space the new building will be occupying. If the building is too densely occupied it will overwhelm the location.

2. I see some wild life such as coyotes and rabbits and deer travel through the area and I'm wondering how they
will be impacted.

3. I'm wondering about the available services such as the bus route 724. That is the bus route on Ogilvie Blvd. It goes to South Camps LRT but takes over 30 minutes due to its circuitous route up Riverbend, soit's not a great commuter line. It's a 20 minutes walk to the bus stops on 23rd Ave or Rabbit Hill Rd which is a long walk especially when it's very cold outside.

4. I'm wondering how the parking will work and if enough spots will be put into the build design as with a proposed 100 units that seems like not enough space. There can be no on street parking due to it being a main route.

Summary:
1. There will need to be enough parking inside the building plot.

2. The density will be a big issue and I would suggest not making it too high density. 100 units seems much, much greater than the resources the location can handle, such as public transit and parking, etc.

3. Please focus on family development for children to be in the area as I have 3 children and it would be great to have more families.