LDA20-0343 Stoneriver Woodcroft

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

Engagement has concluded

a black and white map of the area around the property that is proposed to be rezoned (13512 and 13530 - 115 Avenue NW), with two grey boxes on the property, labelled "RF3 to RA7" and "RF1 to RA7".

***The discussion has concluded and a What We Heard Report is available.***

Thank you for participating in engagement activities for this rezoning application.

The application is expected to go to City Council Public Hearing for a decision, with the exact date still to be determined. For more information, please visit these FAQs for Council meetings.

***The discussion has concluded and a What We Heard Report is available.***

Thank you for participating in engagement activities for this rezoning application.

The application is expected to go to City Council Public Hearing for a decision, with the exact date still to be determined. For more information, please visit these FAQs for Council meetings.

Tell us what you think about the application

Please let us know what you like and what could be better about this application. What should Council know as they decide whether or not to approve the rezoning? Other people that visit this part of the site will be able to see your comments. Please don't include any personal information that you don't want to be seen by others.

CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

As a nearby business owner whose staff requires this type of housing, I believe affordable housing near the downtown area is vital! Not only for my staff but for many other people working in the downtown area. This project is much needed! Please consider this application as for MANY people affordable housing like this is essential.

Cathalin Burke 3 months ago

Removed by moderator.

Sabz22 3 months ago

I think this is a great idea, and a great opportunity to bring young and growing families from all walks of life into our neighborhood. It would be nice to be able to move into a mature area with such great amenities for families who can't necessarily afford the price of maintenance of a single family home.

Sabz22 3 months ago

Removed by moderator.

Nick J 3 months ago

Removed by moderator.

Nick J 3 months ago

As a home owner, I feel like the location and area are perfect for an infill location. This will boost the value of the area just like some of the other central neighbourhoods found in Edmonton. Commercial component will be great for adding more ameneties and convenince to the landscape.

Nick J 3 months ago

Removed by moderator.

JessicaM 3 months ago

What is the guidelines for parking spaces available in the proposed properties? I do support this development in principle.

House Owner 3 months ago

I do not support this current proposal as it stands, as it does not address some broader issues. This will result in a larger parking issue than currently exists. Narrow streets are already congested with parked cars; this creates safety concerns with many small children in the neighbourhood, narrow streets that frequently do not allow two-way traffic, and limited visibility for cars driving through. A significant increase in the number of residents will also contribute to increased parking concerns and heightened safety issues. Without a proposal to address these issues, I would prefer to see smaller projects being constructed, such as duplexes or a four-plex.

EJB 3 months ago

I am 100% against anythingvtalker than 2 storeys going in here. I live down the alley and purposely bought in a neighborhood like Woodcroft BECAUSE of the zoning. We are already encroached upon by the God awful Christensen building
The Matheson is enough height.
2 storey homes is all that is acceptable there.
I would most certainly leave the neighborhood if anything taller than 2 storeys is allowed in that space.

Sprout 3 months ago

I do not want to see businesses here. There is enough traffic already without adding parking/business traffic.
2 storey maximum housing would be acceptable but nothing taller. We already have the Matheson and that horrible Christensen closing in around us. We do NOT need/ want any more height in this neighborhood.
I live very close and it would 100% cause me to leave the neighborhood if anything over 2 storeys is allowed here.

Sprout 3 months ago

I think that as this is right in the residential area, that the development should not be approved as stated. This will tower over the character homes in the area. Also, there is already lots of space for businesses nearby. I feel it could bring significant traffic to the truly residential area.
I feel the zoning should stay as is, or at the most be put together with the RF3 that was granted on the one property already.

Julia 3 months ago

I’m not opposed to densification in older neighborhoods, including Woodcroft. However, as others have said, there is a wide variety of multi-family housing options in the neighbourhood, so adding another apartment complex isn’t necessary, in my opinion. A duplex or four-plex on the properties with parking on the lot would be more appropriate.

CMH 3 months ago

Infill is very important. I support this. It will bring residents to support our schools and shopping centre. Would be a great supportive housing complex

Shewlaur 3 months ago

There is a great deal of multi housing in woodcroft. More than in many neighborhoods. I do not think we should be adding to this. Traffic and speeding are huge issues and will only get worse with more multi housing and the new park development. 115 Ave is mostly a 30 playground zone and people fly down it. Unless you are going to address this , adding more traffic , is an accident waiting to happen ( probably a child , in a very busy Park area.

joan 3 months ago

Strongly oppose this rezoning request. I'm a homeowner in Woodcroft for over 25 years. Brentwood rowhousing / townhouses is huge enough in this tiny neighborhood. (Not to mention the Matheson, the Christensen, the Californian, and the Woodcroft.) Single family detached homes is all I want to see in this neighborhood going forward. How many thousands of property tax dollars have I contributed over the years???? My voice is important and so are the voices of the other homeowners opposed to this rezoning.

LS 3 months ago

Removed by moderator.

JessicaM 3 months ago

Removed by moderator.

JessicaM 3 months ago

I oppose this development in our neighbourhood.

JessicaM 3 months ago

KEEP INFILL AND “HIGH DENSITY” DEVELOPMENT OUT OF WOODCROFT

I oppose the rezoning and development of 13512 & 13530 - 115 Av NW properties beyond the original RF1 zoning for the following reasons as well as those mentioned previously in this forum (ie., parking, aesthetics, etc.). Woodcroft (north of 115 Av) is a mature neighbourhood characterized by 1 to 2 storied, single family houses. Except for one multi-storied condo complex in Woodcroft north of 115 Av, more developed, and dense housing structures are south of 115 Av. The above mentioned condo is “grandfathered” into the community only because it was built prior to the rash of infill development, its facilitation of its own parking, its construction adjacent to an open park area, and its lower visibility from the major roads in Woodcroft. The very reason that this area is sought after is for the affordable, family housing in a classic, mature neighbourhood NEAR, but not in, developed areas.

Indeed, there is no proof that infill and “high density” development actually increases the population in neighbourhoods adjacent to the urban core; rather, it drives small to large families further out into developments that require increased bus routes, more road development, and transport to schools. The apparent tax benefits to mature neighbourhoods are, also, circumspect since taxes vary according to area property values. If a house valued at $350,000, is replaced by 2 skinnies valued at $600,000, those values will drive up neighbourhood property values. Thereby, despite the threat of the City Government to raise taxes for communities resisting infill development, our taxes would rise anyhow. In addition, the building of these properties require destruction of sidewalks and roads for which many of us are still paying for these “local improvements” on our yearly taxes.

I argue that infill development is the destruction of mature neighbourhoods. For example, North Glenora, overpriced “skinny-houses” occupied primarily by single people, or couples which have demolished viable, single family homes in the name of urban sprawl and sustainability (I don’t know how filling landfills with old homes may be viewed as ecofriendly). Even more abhorrent, is the destruction of 2 viable houses for the construction of huge, 3 bedroom houses selling for 1 million-“ish” dollars (e.g., 10820 134 St). The character of this neighbourhood has forever changed by trendy housing.

Some developers have justified the destruction of older homes as “derelict,” “abandoned,” and “unliveable.” Granted this may be the case for some older houses, but not most. Indeed, families found these homes very liveable until they sold. This might have actually been the case for the 13530 property that has already been torn down, but the 13512 house is liveable (occupants there as I write). Furthermore, $600,000 or even $400,000 (i.e., the going rates for infills) would go a long way in renovating these homes, or even, rebuilding single detached RF1 homes.

Anyone observing the feeding frenzy by developers on newly listed RF1 properties can only assume the financial benefits for said companies. Properties, often, are sold before prospective residents can see the property. Some of these developers, and people benefitting from this kind of development, claim homeownership in these neighbourhoods, and are stated to be proponents of infill/high density development, but for obvious reasons. That the City Government has supported this kind of development, similarly, demonstrates their agenda for increasing city coffers.

The backing of developers by the City over the residents of the neighbourhood is evidenced by the constant re-adjusting of building codes (e.g., building easements and allowances, parking requirements, lot rezoning, etc.). All the while neglecting the infringements and property damage made to properties adjacent to infill construction (see Dustin Cook, Edmonton Journal Jan 15, 2021 - not the first article of its kind).

Granted the City did concede some allowances to mature neighbourhoods by instituting guidelines for mature tree replacement. Although on the 136 St/115 Av property, 5 mature trees were cut down even prior to rezoning notices were placed. I’m not sure how effectively these guidelines have been enforced to date, but, given the dimensions of the usual RF3 nor the RA7 developments, little room will left to comply.

In summary, any development above 2 stories north of 115 Av requiring rezoning of a RF1 lot would be effectively out character in Woodcroft. Once infill development has started in a community, it is almost impossible to stop since one infill can be seen as a change of character for that area. The reason people wish to live in this area, is in great part that it provides single families reasonably priced housing with yards big enough for their children to play.

Woodcroft resident, Denise 3 months ago