LDA20-0343 Stoneriver Woodcroft

Removed by moderator.

We purchased our home in Woodcroft 20 years ago because it was a single family neighbourhood. The new development will block most if not all sunlight on our property and affect our privacy with multiple tenants above. As mentioned by others, the parking situation in the neighbourhood is already challenging and would only become worse, along with potential higher crime, and noise. We would be in favor of a duplex building or the like, with lower building height, less tenants and no storefronts, though the amount of rentals within the community is already very high.

Note to Mitch24 from below: The Woodcroft School site needs to become a dry pond asap. Check out the City of Edmonton flood maps. There are serious flooding issues in that area, haven't been really fixed with the drainage "upgrades".

I am a resident of Woodcroft since 1990. I do not approve of the proposed RA7 development for the following reasons:
1. The height and massing of an apartment building will block the sun and sky for adjacent neighbors.
2. There is sufficient commercial development surrounding Woodcroft - includes a full shopping centre and several strip malls. The old strip mall that was in the centre of the community could not survive the competition along the perimeter, and was demolished decades ago.
3. It appears that some of the responses to this feedback opportunity is from people who don't live in the area. If you lived here you would know that the 115 Avenue parking situation is bad - high rises further away and town-homes parking along the avenue is not sufficient for actual demand, so people living in houses along 115 Ave. can't unload their groceries to their front doors or get DATS to front of their houses. So much for "aging in place".
4. Some of the feedback speaks about "needing more of this type of housing" in the area. We haven't been told what the Developer will build here. You obviously know something we don't know. Maybe you work for the developer and are trying to pad the results in favor of the developer's cause?
5. Based on census stats: 53.90% of the housing in Woodcroft is affordable/subsidized - and the "allowable" or "desirable" City of Edmonton threshold is 16%. Does that sound like nimby? um.... no, really?
6. If the developer wants to build a multi-story mid or high rise apartment building then he should have bought land that had that type of zoning in the first place. It is grossly unreasonable to expect that the surrounding neighbors have to lose their access to sunlight and privacy to accommodate his wishes.
7. High density living isn't really all that great. I grew up in a big city, and most of the troubles (crime, drugs, gang wars, riots) that we had in our area were a direct result of high density and overcrowding. I was so relieved to move to Edmonton, and especially Woodcroft, but now the density zealots are threatening our peace and quiet here.

I feel that this is a great opportunity to modernize the area and give people/ families an opportunity to live in an area that they might not be able to afford a home in the area. Also it will bring in more revenue to the community as the families will spend money in Grocery stores, restaurants. Before the pandemic happened we have had numerous families moving into Canada and developments line this give them a place to start a life in Canada. We must allow this to be approved to secure growth in the community.

Removed by moderator.

Removed by moderator.

I think this is a fantastic way to add a new dynamic to the neighbourhood. I am a business owner and don't have time for yard work, this offers a great lifestyle option for someone in my position.I love that the transit is so close making for easy commuting. I think it is a great idea!

Removed by moderator.

I think this is a fantastic way to add a new dynamic to the neighbourhood. I am a business owner and don't have time for yard work, this offers a great lifestyle option for someone in my position. I think it is a great idea!

Removed by moderator.

This application for low rise apartment zone appears to be consistent with much of the increased density being developed in this neighbourhood. Multi-family housing has been built across the street from this application so I don't see an issue with the proposed application if it is done well. Adding higher density to these established neighbourhoods can be very beneficial in many ways especially in the current market conditions. It is difficult to find the right balance between single family and multi-family especially in these established areas but increasing available housing is a natural evolution for any community as our city continues to grow. Increasing options for potential buyers and renters is a good thing to keep our communities thriving.

There is an issue in this neighbourhood with parking. Due to the Brentwood Homes and Matheson developments which already exist, 115 Avenue from Groat Road to 136 Street is usually full of parked vehicles on both sides of the avenue. Therefore, parking becomes even more of an issue with this development and as I understand it developers no longer have to provide parking for tenants. There is a second concern and that is infrastructure. Some years ago the sewers in this neighbourhood were deteriorating and they required rehabilitation. The rehabilitation consisted of relining the sewers, a process that took over a year. It would seem to me that as the infrastructure was originally designed for single family residences and the sewers had to be upgraded already without this development it questions whether the sewer system will be able to handle a 16 to 20 times increase in use. Note: the previous numbers are a guesstimate as to the number of units in this development as it is not mentioned in the information provided. I question whether this development will result in taxpayers having to pay for sewer upgrades in the future.

Adding to the existing traffic and parking congestion in and around this location is a terrible idea. This type of development would amplify the already huge safety issues on the surrounding roadways.
115th ave is posted 40KM but 60KM is not uncommon. The roadways within two blocks radius of the Matheson High rise and the Christensen High rise, which itself is set to double in size, are so congested with parked cars that they narrow to perilous passages- 135 Street being a prime example. Broken mirrors, collisions, speeding, upset cars and road rage incidents are a regular on 135 street (our bike lane). I doubt that the fire department has easy access the houses on this street.
Lets look at developing sites like the old Woodcroft school site. I totally agree with increasing density but lets spread parking into the neighborhood as a whole. Why put high density development only at your fringes? Three story walk-ups with parking provisions would fit nicely into this. A compliment to the neighborhood rather than adding to the existing issues.
I could easily see a three story age friendly walk-up with parking considerations working at your currently proposed location with some roadway changes.
135 Street one way north to south parking one side - With A Dedicated Bike Lane to go with our wonderful new Velodrome- and the first alleyway north of 115Ave (from Groat road to 142 Street) one way either east- west or west-east.
New development that fits the existing community is exciting. Building as big as you can, because it is vacant and fits the size of lot, not so much.

I hope more weight is given to those opinions of the actual residents of Woodcroft than those from outside the community.

Keep infill/high density projects to communities already under such "development."

I paid a premium to have a single family RF-1 home in this neighborhood. The rights that I paid a premium for are continuously being challenged and expropriated. I do not approve of commercial development within the community. I do not approve of tall buildings blocking my sunlight or my neighbors sunlight. I do not approve of developments that do not have provision for parking. I do not want more commercial traffic in the neighborhood. Look at the parking situation at this proposed development. The people in the vicinity already cannot park in front of their own homes because the high rises do not have parking for their staff and visitors.
PS. Your web page is too hard to read. The pale magenta and pale grey colours are too hard to read. It appears that your spell checker is American not Canadian. Scrolling up and down in this little text box to proof read is a challenge. Try it. The privacy policy of bang on the table provider seems invasive.
Kind Regards,

I am a resident of Woodcroft since 1990. I do not approve of the proposed RA7 development for the following reasons:
1. The height and massing of an apartment building will block the sun and sky for adjacent neighbors.
2. There is sufficient commercial development surrounding Woodcroft - includes a full shopping centre and several strip malls. The old strip mall that was in the centre of the community could not survive the competition along the perimeter, and was demolished decades ago.
3. It appears that some of the responses to this feedback opportunity is from people who don't live in the area. If you lived here you would know that the 115 Avenue parking situation is bad - high rises further away and town-homes parking along the avenue is not sufficient for actual demand, so people living in houses along 115 Ave. can't unload their groceries to their front doors or get DATS to front of their houses. So much for "aging in place".
4. Some of the feedback speaks about "needing more of this type of housing" in the area. We haven't been told what the Developer will build here. You obviously know something we don't know. Maybe you work for the developer and are trying to pad the results in favor of the developer's cause?
5. Based on census stats: 53.90% of the housing in Woodcroft is affordable/subsidized - and the "allowable" or "desirable" City of Edmonton threshold is 16%. Does that sound like nimby? um.... no, really?
6. If the developer wants to build a multi-story mid or high rise apartment building then he should have bought land that had that type of zoning in the first place. It is grossly unreasonable to expect that the surrounding neighbors have to lose their access to sunlight and privacy to accommodate his wishes.
7. High density living isn't really all that great. I grew up in a big city, and most of the troubles (crime, drugs, gang wars, riots) that we had in our area were a direct result of high density and overcrowding. I was so relieved to move to Edmonton, and especially Woodcroft, but now the density zealots are threatening our peace and quiet here.

I am currently a resident in the Ottewell area, unfortunately I have to relocate because as of April 25 the city will be decommissioning most of the bus routes in my area due to the lack of density, we need to start acting like a big city and allow development in these older centralized areas.

I am currently a resident in the Ottewell area, unfortunately I have to relocate because as of April 25 the city will be decommissioning most of the bus routes in my area due to the lack of density, we need to start acting like a big city and allow development in these older centralized areas.

I live nearby the other four storey build in the area, I wouldn’t want to live in its shadow if I had the choice ever again that’s for sure.
With this application Traffic and parking would be awful. Please do not allow development without off street parking. This application doesn’t add to the area. Applications for mass housing that are do not provide parking, or accessibility due to lack of elevators exclude access and have negative impact on neighbours. Please do not approve.