LDA19-0568 Cromdale RA8 Rezoning & Road Closure

I am against the rezoning.
The area is primarily single family homes with 2-4 story small apartment complexes.
I don't agree that the rezone is a "moderate increase" in building mass. • Report summary states the site is already zoned primarily for low rise multi-unit – this was a result of rezoning in 2007 but never materialized. NO structure exists – it is a huge increase in mass compared to what is currently there – it does not meet the definition of “moderate increase”
• 2 additional floors is at least 10-16 units, 10 -16 balconies viewing my yard, 16-40 people, 10-20 cars all in addition to the approved 4 floors of units/balconies/people/cars

I don’t agree that the rezone is “Generally compatible with surrounding context”
• The context of the neighborhood is single family homes, Stutchbury Park, Janes Salisbury Park, Borden Park, soccer field, Kinnaird Ravine and 4 low rise apartment buildings – a massive 6 story, 8 lot building does not fit that context
• 4 apartment buildings within the pie shape of 112Ave S (within 2 blocks), one is 3 story, 3 are 4 story:
o 7911 – 112 Ave is 3 stories & older,
o 8025 – 112 Ave is 3 stories & older,
o 8119 – 112 Ave is 4 story & newer,
o Councillor stated was 6 stories but is 4 --11214- 80 St is 4 stories with massive footprint next to Savon & no single family dwellings.
o Health Centre is kitty corner and is 2-3 stories
• Two sides are single family homes
• Privacy – balconies looking into our front and back yards – 2 more floors of people looking at you at an even higher & further view
• Sight lines & livability & feel of single family neighborhood
• States the building is close to Stadium Yards – those buildings are almost a km away, across busy 82 St, across LRT tracks – totally separated from our community and not visible from my house – would be from a 6 story building. Stadium Yards is very different and out of context with the surrounding 3 block community in the bylaw
• Increased traffic and congestion – neighborhood has children playing.
In my view a 4 story, 8 residential lot is the maximum that should be built here, is a transition to the large buildings proposed on the Exhibition lands– it meets the city goal of densifying existing residential and keeps the neighborhood closer to its general context.
Whether this is a senior's residence or any type of residence it is too large for the site. When the developer bought the land, they needed to consider how they were going to recoup their investment within the zoning. Many other developers are able to make a profit on a 4 story building - perhaps they need to re-evaluate their profit margin.
The developer has owned the land since 2007 and no development – seniors residence sounds noble, but will this be the end use – or a ruse for rezoning thereby increasing land re-sale value? Or increase units to more than 62 units? I would welcome a 4 story seniors residence – they would love our community

I highly support this proposal and look forward to the vibrancy it will bring to the area. It is conveniently located to a variety of transit options, park space and commercial spaces. It's location on the North edge of the block limits shadowing issues.

This level of densification will - and should - continue to occur along 112 Ave as an important corridor in the City. Our infill goals are critical specifically because so much of our city is low density and simply can't generate enough tax revenue without driving up tax rates. Projects like this will begin to address that issue and bring density into reasonable locations.

Overall, this is a reasonable proposal in terms of height and intensity, and the proposed use of affordable senior's housing fills an important need.

I prefer to keep the current zoning. The proposed development is massive, doesn't fit the neighbourhood. 6 floors will result in a lot of shade in this northern city. I approve of building a seniors' residence, but at a more modest scale.

The plans submitted are not what was presented by the developers representative at the last city meeting I spoke at in May. The building is a big block that would destroy the landscape of the area it is proposed to be built in. The large unit is typical of a low income poorly designed and a big square. The drawing presented prior were at least attractive. This is a poor rendering of low income apartments in an area that abounds with such. In fill is not the issue, the issue is the lack of trust and engagement with the developer. There is no reason to trust that this version will be even built. The developer quotes statistics on parking which is not referenced stating that less than 60 stalls would be appropriate for a development of 7 storey with >75 units. Canadian transport statistics show that person over age 55 travel further distances than most demographics. They own recreational vehicles and do drive during the hours of 8 am to 9 pm,. There is no parking for visitors, not enough for each resident. This then means residential street parking in an already restricted area. The parking would extend all over the street of 112S avenue which hosts 2 dead end streets. We apply yearly to park in front of the house. My residence at 7737 -112S Avenue does not have back access nor do I have a garage. Where would I be parking should this move ahead? 4 blocks from my home? On my front lawn?
The amount of garbage, street noise, pedistrian traffic, emissions would be detrimental to the adjacent ravine. The City bought the land behind my home to develop a walk path, that has not happened still. We have continual upgrades to the street on 112 due to vehicle volume, poor construction materials, and very poor sewage/water drainage. How would the current sewer system support this huge development?
There is absolutely no need for convenience stores due to 3 strip malls within 500 meters of this development. The existing retail stores are suffering in this economic state, Specialty food service does not specify type . The land has sat since 2007 and the developer mentions they could have built town houses or a apartment complex of 4 stories in the past. So why did they not do this? I question the vaildity of the proposal. It seems to be slapped together to maximize the most units at the cost of everything in the infrastructure around it. I am in full oppositon to this moving forward.
Here are the apparent issues: The lights at 112 S will have to be changed to allow crossing. 13 seconds is not going to be sufficient. The parking stalls at 60 are far too low, does not even cover visitors or staffing. The building butts right against the street which is across from the park on 112 on the south side. Safety for seniors, increase of crime is not addressed. This is supposed to be a bike route, that will be destroyed by this development.

The residents are not in favour, we keep opposing this and we see worse and worse proposals or they change so only the city planner sees it and the council members. I received this in my mailbox on Friday June 18th. Wow, it is truly shameful to see what is happening in residential Edmonton. This is a big box of shadow, full of people without enough parking, no curbside appeal, no thought to the residents who purchased homes and pay taxes in the city. The developer has maximed his profit margin. It is apparent that we, who have to live with this big eyesore that overshadows the entire neighbourhood and put up with traffic, increase break ins due to vehicles on street and balaconies full of property visible to the incredible amount of street people in the area have only the right to complain. We point out obvious problems. Here are some more facts: The jockey quarters across in Bordan park is a permanent homeless shelter. This is an attractive feature to encourage destruction of a beautiful mature area. Bordan park has relocated most of the statues to reduce damage now that it is opened to the homeless. Is this developer helping to pay for the damage to property of the homeowners and loss of resale value? Does the city developer review the progress trend we see which mirrors Chicago? Detroit? what happened to attracting people to the area for concerts? families to play in the park? Look at my other letters, they argue valid points against this.

My family have lived in this area since 1930. We need to change our city zoning laws and the process of how to defend against developers buy up land to build more of the same low quality housing. These poor choices are made for the future of the residents here which are entirely based on maximizing short term profit. Impact statements seem to have no validity. The revenue from this development will not offset the cost of the upgrades to the city infrastructure to support it. This development does not increase any value to the existing neighbourhood. It welcomes negative, impactful change. I am wondering where all the construction vehicles are going to park?

Lori Rackel Resident and family homeowner since 2011.