LDA21-0544 Woodcroft RF5 Rezoning

Please reject this application. I would support a duplex or triplex on this property however, The site in question does not have appropriate parking, laneway access or street access for the proposed number of units. I'm quite concerned that street parking for these units will impair bus access and cycling access along this route which is already poor. In addition, there is no laneway space to accommodate the current garbage/waste program as designed by the city.

I do not support the rezoning of this property. I think infill and higher density properties are an eventual aspect of growing and aging cities. In my opinion, this property doesn’t have the space to support a property of 10units, both in parking availability and general lot build space. It is also important to achieve new community goals (higher density, infills, environmentally friendly, etc) but it comes at a cost, that needs to be balanced with maintaining certain aspects that already draw people to the area. Higher density and infill can be achieved without changing the zoning of this property. A duplex or 4plex would be much more positively received and supported.

Reject this. 5 units is too many and there is not enough street parking.

It’s not the right lot for a multi family 5 unit complex. Woodcroft already has the row houses a block from there. That kind of development doesn’t belong amongst those houses. I do believe in infills, just not that size on that lot. The value of all surrounding properties would be grossly affected.

Reject this proposal 100% This is a pathetic attempt by one landowner with zero consideration for surrounding neighbours or neighborhood. Stacking human beings on top of each other is not a Canadian way to live life. The dream of a nice home should be preserved. There are plenty of apartments in Edmonton duplexes etc. North Glenora has duplexes and they’re not maintained. Devalues the community devalues the neighbourhood. Lower income there is a correlation to increased crime with increased population density. Devaluing properties in the neighbourhood I’ve lived here since 1975 Inherited family home and completely reject this delusional thinking of a way to make money. The issues with this will affect homes Within any visual distance!!!!

I am strongly opposed to this development. This lot is too small for 5 dwellings, possible 3 storey? On the corner? How do you see the traffic coming around the corner? Where would all of these people park not to mention any visitors that they have? There is already a ton of cut through traffic on this road, its a bus route and snow route. This development is not suitable for this neighborhood, its not hard to see that this does not make sense.

I do not support this rezoning proposal. The property is not large enough for this. A duplex or triplex gives ample opportunity to the developer without the parking issues and general traffic this would bring to the street. The neighborhood has lots of housing, in fact we just got a vacant lot approved for a large housing development which has been sitting unused since it's approval last year. Let's use that before approving more.

COMPLETELY OPPOSED to this development!!
Covid has financially ruined many families. If anything, new development should be aimed at MORE BEDROOMS per unit to house multi-generational families forced into living together just to get by!
-this is right on both a bus route / snow route and school zone which will not accommodate such density
-residents already fail to have alternate places to park for snow removal & street cleaning
-if you are trying to attract families, then you must build 3 or more bedroom homes!
-It is right near an intersection which will impede the flow of traffic greatly
-the City needs to revamp min. requirements just to submit for a rezoning, based on this application!! How ridiculous!!!

We have lived beside this property for 22 years. We are strongly opposed to this rezoning. Not only are we concerned about parking, the building proposed will run the entire length of our property and block the sun from our back yard. In addition there will be an invasion of our privacy as the upper storey windows will look directly into our back yard. During the summer months, we spend most of our time on our deck and in our hot tub which will be in clear view from the proposed building. As mentioned in other comments, parking and increased traffic on an already busy street & bus route will also be a problem.

A strong NO to rezoning for this lot!

As a 22 year neighbour to this property we are strongly opposed to this rezoning application. Not only is the lot too small for the number of residences proposed, but the lack of parking will be a problem for the entire area.
The zoning criteria states parking access off the alley, which is the narrowest part of the lot and only feasible for 1 or 2 vehicles, not 5 or more as allowed by RF5. We
have the Woodcroft Languages Center on the opposite corner to this lot and when classes are in session, there are upwards of 30 or 40 cars parked on Woodcroft and
139 St causing parking issues for the residents on both streets. Adding the vehicles from 5 more residences in this area will be a major issue. NO to this rezoning.

This development should not go forward. It is not suitable for the neighbourhood. The lot is too small for the level of density proposed.

Woodcroft has a lot of high density housing as it is. The size of this lot, the size of the proposed amount of housing and the increase of parking needs simply do not match. I am a long term resident of Woodcroft and there are better options than what is being proposed.

I am opposed to the rezoning. The lot is too small for the proposed number of suites and the parking needs of the proposed development would be problematic.

I am opposed to the application for two main reasons: (1) the property is too small to accommodate 10 families considering lot size, and parking availability, (2) without access to any drawings it is difficult to see how such a structure would would accommodate aesthetic value, and adequate green space to suit the neighbourhood. Woodcroft already supports the City’s need for affordable housing and there is no need for this rezoning.

The owner already has the ability to build housing for up to 6 families (according to the RF1 zoning comparison table) seems completely acceptable to add density while keeping a family friendly neighbourhood.

oppose this proposed development. I’m a supporter of adding density in existing neighborhoods but this proposal is way to big for this lot. I would support infills/duplex but not 10 units.

This proposal is too big for the lot. 5 units with garages and suites. Problem1 access to garages: 5 cars can park inside. Garage suites will have another 5 cars parking on the street is not recommended because of the bus route. Th building will be 2.5 to 3 stories high. Why not built this on 115 avenue and 136 street, that lot is bigger and can accommodate this plan. Place a duplex here. It fits better and allows for some green space on the property. Have a look at the rental units on 115 ave and imagine garages with it. Do you see the potential problem?

I am in favour of infill. The proposed rezoning and specifically the attempt to shoehorn in up to 5 units into this space is completely inappropriate for this location, lot size and community. The developer should be ashamed of themselves, but they rarely are, that is the purpose of city administration. Your job is to protect communities from developers engaged in predatory land and value grabs with no concern of building a liveable city based on cohesive communities. Edmonton city government has a track record of doing this poorly, hopefully this time you step up, and say no to what clearly is an attempt to maximize return on investment, with no regard with adding value to the community.

Current Zoning allows an adequate increase to housing density (up to six) on this property. Parking is an issue as this is on a snow route. Also, when in use, Woodcroft Languages Centre uses both sides of Woodcroft Avenue for parking, as well as 137 Street. If approved, on site parking for tenants and visitors must be a requirement. Row housing is not a good option for this small lot.

We strongly disagree with this development for the reasons listed below:

1. There can be up to 5 principal dwellings with the option for 5 more secondary suites. Too many people on one lot.
2. Parking would be a problem along with increased traffic flow.
3. As we understand, the intention of the Developer is to make these units rental based.
4. If the Developer constructs up to 3 stories, the occupants can view us in our back yards. Not acceptable.

I am opposed to the proposed size of this development. When I first saw the sign regarding the development I tried to imagine how something that big would fit on that size of lot and especially where would all the cars go? Do some infill.. but make it smaller. The people in the lovely house behind this lot must be terrified of what might be built if it's RF5... I know I would be!