LDA20-0343 Stoneriver Woodcroft
Engagement has concluded
***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.
Engagement has concluded
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.
Tell us how we did!
Provide your feedback on digital public engagement activities.
Stay Informed
Click here to share your email address to stay up to date on this application! Your email will be used to inform you about this zoning application in the future.
For more information about registering to stay engaged with other City projects and initiatives, visit the Engaged Edmonton FAQ page.
Who's Listening
-
Planner
JBPhone 780-496-5672 Email jeff.booth@edmonton.ca
ADVISE
ADVISE
This means the City asks the public to share feedback and perspectives that are considered for policies, programs, projects, or services.
ROLE OF THE PUBLIC
Timelines
-
November 2, 2020
LDA20-0343 Stoneriver Woodcroft has finished this stageComplete application proposing RA8 zoning accepted for processing.
-
November 9, 2020
LDA20-0343 Stoneriver Woodcroft has finished this stageNotification postcard mailed out to property owners within 20 metres of the site and the Community League providing information about the application and inviting feedback.
-
November 22, 2020
LDA20-0343 Stoneriver Woodcroft has finished this stageApplication revised to propose RA7 zoning rather than RA8.
-
January 18, 2021
LDA20-0343 Stoneriver Woodcroft has finished this stageLaunch of Engaged Edmonton webpage. Feedback accepted until January 31, 2021.
-
To Be Determined
LDA20-0343 Stoneriver Woodcroft is currently at this stageTarget date for City Council Public Hearing and decision by City Council is still to be determined.
How Your Feedback Will Be Used
We appreciate your feedback and will use it to:
- inform the City’s planning analysis and ensure all factors are taken into consideration;
- help inform conversations with the applicant about making revisions to address concerns; and
- summarize feedback for City Council so that they know your perspective prior to making a decision.
A summary of what we hear from this engagement will be posted on this webpage and provided to City Council when the application advances to Public Hearing for a decision. When the applicant is ready to take the application to Council, notices of the Public Hearing date will be sent to surrounding property owners. You can register to speak at the City Council Public Hearing or listen online. Click here for more information about how to speak to Council. You can also submit written comments to City Council through the Office of the City Clerk (city.clerk@edmonton.ca).
Information about Rezonings
Zoning regulates what types of buildings are allowed on a site (eg. residential or commercial) and the basic size and shape of those buildings. It does not control who can live or work in the buildings or whether the property is rented or owned.
The City's Development Services Branch reviews the rezoning application based on:
- Approved policies, plans and guidelines;
- Planning analysis (how the proposed zone fits into the neighbourhood);
- Technical information (traffic impacts, water and sewer capacity, etc.); and
- Public input (feedback from the public will be summarized in the final report to Council)
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.
Removed by moderator.
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.
Removed by moderator.
Removed by moderator.
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.
Removed by moderator.
What is the guidelines for parking spaces available in the proposed properties? I do support this development in principle.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Removed by moderator.
Removed by moderator.
I oppose this development in our neighbourhood.
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.