LDA20-0314 T5M Connect DC2- North Glenora

As a neighbour who lives on the street for this development, I am strongly in favour of the project for several reasons. First, I see this kind of middle scale densification as a positive addition to the neighbourhood that will preserve several things I value: 1) adding new neighbours to create more support for neighbour-owned businesses like Bliss Bakery among several others. I bought my own house based on walkability and given the challenging economic times created by the pandemic am even more committed to supporting neighborhood businesses. 2) preserving our school by adding more children. It was not so many years ago that Coronation was in danger of shutting due to low enrollment; 3)more foot traffic from neighbours so I will feel safer walking in the neighbourhood at night. Our neighborhood has a lower crime rate than many adjacent neighborhoods – the presence of neighbors walking and cycling in the neighborhood contributes to our collective safety; and 4) this development add more options for long-time residents to remain in our community when their single-family homes become too much to care for.

I welcome the prospect of contemporary housing options for people from diverse economic backgrounds and family-sizes to live in. I. have pride in the multi-family development on north/west corner opposite the school that resolved a sustainability challenge for the church, provided a day-care and quality housing for a group of our newest neighbors. One of the features I valued when I purchased in our neighbourhood is that various forms of multi-family housing occupied the middle ring of our community, rather than a kind of ghetto-like strip of apartments along the busy 111 or 107th ave. I have not been a fan of the garden suite apartments, not because of they are multi-family housing, but because of the inferior nature of the structures and the sub-standard living environment for the people living there.

I have lived in a neighbourhood in Ottawa with much higher densification in several forms (mid-size apartments, garden suites, re-developed housing into 3-4 units, etc) and saw several of the benefits I named earlier.

Living less than half a block from the school at the end where pick up and drop offs happen, traffic density is hardly an issue; nor is finding a place on the street to park. In living and working from home for the last 3 years, traffic noise and congestion hardly ever happens so I have no concerns about the additional density creating a level of traffic that will be a problem. I agree with comments to look at the bicycle storage capacity - I also saw in Ottawa that many people could live with 1 or 0 cars and an increase in car share cooperatives because it became possible in a walkable community to live without a vehicle.

I read with deep concern some of the objections made about this proposed re-zoning and development, seeing a preference by many to place property value above the value of the people who live in our community. I also am dismayed the privileging of people with the means to purchase a home over the value of people who have the means available to rent a home. I am also dismayed, at the mean-spirited attitude I see in some of the comments on what and who should be excluded from North Glenora and the proposal that as a long-time resident, someone should have the right to control who lives or doesn't live in this neighbourhood. Exclusionary classism at best and thinly veiled discrimination at worst.

I much prefer this proposed development than the prospect of 3-5 skinny houses in the same space; priced so only wealthy citizens can buy. I have talked with neighbours who are against this development; I cannot agree with the fear-based, suspicious mind-set that I have listened to. When I contrast the up-front, open communication strategies taken by the people who have generated this proposed development with the secretive, fear-rousing strategies taken by organizers of resistance against this development (e.g. my house did not receive a pink sheet about concerns), I cannot get behind the objections I see raised. What I do see in the striving to win against this proposed development, is a polarizing influence that will infect this neighbourhood, whatever the actual outcome for years to come.

I do not support the application and am frustrated with the confusion of comments that mix up the orange house proposal and the townhouse proposal.
Both are doing a disservice to the community and muddying residents' well thought out concerns. There is no need to change zoning to accomodate greedy unwanted development that negatively impacts safety, infrastructure, density, parking, etc. Please do not approve this application.

I strongly disagree with the re-zoning of this location.
This is already a high traffic area and safety is a major concern. Congestion from traffic and parking just simply doesn't make sense. There is other affordable housing in the area that is offered. The need for this rezoning is simply not the right decision. Where does all the traffic park? Street parking? That's concerning for sightlines/visual, noise and safety concerns for parent drop off, pick up at the school.
As a property owner in North Glenora, its very difficult to see the increased congestion occurring from the skinnies being developed. I feel this is not the best decision for the community, rather the developer looking to make the highest profit possible. We purchased in North Glenora over 15 years ago and continue to see changes that devalue and/or negatively impact our community.
Please do not approve this.

I am 93 and my husband is 91. We purchased our house in North Glenora in 1954. We have seen this community grow into a wonderful community to raise our kids in and our grandkids, and soon our great grand kids. I am concerned about this development on the corner by the school. I walk along this road to get to church and go to the mall for groceries. It is busy in the mornings with all the kids running around to get to school and parents dropping them off and picking them up. I was informed that there will be a 18 unit apartment building built on this corner, and I just can not fathom how it will fit. Where will all the green space go? will it infringe on the neighbors property? My husband always asked our neighbors and the city before he built anything close to the fence to respect our neighbors and the city rules, will this development do the same under the same rules as the other residences? My understanding is that this is why they need to change the zone, which is also the same reason why the zone should not be changed.
It is also my understanding that there will only be allowance for 8 cars, but there will be 18 units. we only had one car until the boys became of age, and then we had 4 cars for our place. I can not imagine where all these cars are going to go? where are they going to park these vehicles? A recent study revealed that the average family in Edmonton has 1.87 vehicles. This is reasonable, as it is very cold in the winter and hard to walk and bike with all the snow and cold to various destinations. I ride the bus often and I often have to walk a long ways to get to where I need to be for my appointments, so taking the vehicle is much nicer, safer and more convienient. The implications of this, however, is that this development can expect 34 vehicles, while only allotting spaces for 8. Even the streets in front and to the side of this complex would not accommodate the remaining 26 vehicles, especially considering you must not park within 10m of a corner and then there is the hydrant. This means inevitably that we could expect a line up of cars and walking traffic all around the surrounding neighborhoods. This street is already quite busy, it would seem like grand central station if we added this complex. This would not be the same neighborhood that I have lived in for the past 67 years. Why would you want to do such a terrible thing to this great neighborhood? I moved out west years ago to avoid the hustle and bustle of downtown, to settle into a peaceful quiet neighborhood for a safe place to raise our family. My kids went to the North Glenora school, it is a good place to send our kids and grandkids and great grandkids. I would hate to see the monstrosity that is proposed jeopardize the safety and wellbeing of the kids walking to school, dramatically increase the traffic in our neighborhoods, and enevitably litter our community with vehicles. I do not want the zone changed to accommodate this building.
Please do not allow this zone (RF1) to change from its current zone to (DC2).

I strongly oppose the change of re-zoning the properties (10904, 10906 & 10908-139St). for the following reasons:

1) It is a congested area already without these lots being occupied. Adding the additional 18 units without accommodating parking would only increase the congestion, decrease the visibility and increase the traffic. With the already high traffic and elementry school proceedings at this intersection, It would be a very dangerouse road for kids and intersection, and a major safety concern for the wellbeing of our kids, and our neighborhood.

2) There is already plenty of cheaper family homes in this community that are empty, if someone wants affordable living in this neighborhood there are plenty of options already available. Many skinnies are going up with basement suites, and there are plenty of garden suites that meet the current mature neighborhood overlay and current zoning bylaws. There is no need to change the zoning in this neighborhood to accomplish this. There is already apartment buildings that still have empty suites, so affordable housing in this neighborhood is not a problem that needs to be solved, never mind rezoning and changing the neighborhood to attempt to solve a problem that doesn't exist. There is no need to negatively impact the community in this way. Please, DO NOT approve of this rezoning request.

As a side note: It is quite obvious that the people commenting in favor of this rezoning do not live in the North Glenora neighborhood or they would see the obvious safety and logistical concerns that are repeatedly posted. This is not at all a preference issue, this is a safety and logistical issue, combined with bylaw infractions that are in place to protect our neighborhood. overlooking these are not in the best interest of our neighborhood or they wouldn't be in place in the first place. Please respect the current bylaws as they are in writing for a reason!
Thank- you for your consideration.
Amy

I strongly oppose the change of re-zoning the properties (10904, 10906 & 10908-139St). It is imperative that the rezoning remain under their current zoning (RF1) for the following reasons:

Safety Concerns:
Forced street parking, increased population density and vehicle traffic, and decreased visibility all at an already high traffic intersection for a mature residential neighborhood is a major safety concern. To overlook this fact alone would be a grave error, and simply irresponsible.
• The properties in question are directly across the street from the front door of Coronation Elementary School. The elementary school is a neighborhood school with significant pedestrian traffic to/from the school during daytime hours. There is also a Child Day Care and Out of School Care centre located within Coronation School. The proposed rezoning would create serious safety/traffic issues for the (1) young children who attend this school (2) residents who live in the area and (3) parents, volunteers and school support workers. The limited parking proposed (8 parking spots proposed for 16 residential units) would increase:
• Vehicle street parking: blocking access for parents picking up/ dropping off children and for emergency vehicles to reach residents’ homes;
• The number of vehicles idling on the street throughout the year and in inclement weather;
• Commercial vehicles; and
• Truck traffic for snow removal in the winter as there is not adequate space for storing of the snow.

Privacy, Noise and Visual
This is neighborhood that already has issues with the increasing population density as a result of infill with skinnies, and recent subsidized housing builds. visitor street parking is becoming rare in a mature neighborhood.
• Privacy for neighboring houses will be significantly and negatively affected.
• Dumpsters will be located on a residential lane that is limited in size creating a driving hazard for residents needing to utilize the lane to enter/exit from their residences.
• Sixteen rental properties will generate moving trucks for incoming and outgoing tenants.
• It is an error to assume that with the new parking regulations in the Zoning Bylaw, which have no minimum parking requirements, would have no impact on neighboring residences. This will affect the use and enjoyment for neighboring properties by directing the parking to the street.

Density
• Sixteen residential rental units on two single family residential lots are too many for this location in consideration of the size of the properties.
• Site coverage is too high (46%); the proposed plan lacks adequate green space and landscaping.
• As per the “North Glenora Community Plan: A Vision for the Future”, approved by Edmonton City Council, August 1998, whereby it states: “Recommendation 1R: That the current residential zoning be retained to control land use density unless it can be demonstrated to the community that a rezoning would be in keeping with the Guiding Principles of this Plan as well as the goals and Page 2 objectives of residents and property owners who might be affected” (p.18, 3.2
Guiding Principles and Recommendations, 3.2.1 Redevelopment Guiding Principle 1: Redevelopment and Zoning).
• Residential density will be increased with the future development of the Glenora Patio Homes (109 Ave and 139 St) adjacent to this proposal, which is currently 14 residences. The current proposal for this site is for 45 suites with surface parking for 15 vehicles.
• This would not be a family friendly development as only two of the sixteen suites would be three bedroom units.

Setbacks
• The proposed setbacks on the West (facing the lane) and South (facing 109 Avenue) of this proposal are less than what is allowed in the Mature Neighborhood Overlay, which was created to ensure that development suits older communities. These proposed setbacks would have an adverse effect on the existing character of the neighborhood.

My family has owned our house in this neighborhood since 1953 and we have remained here and continued to invest in this community because of the Mature Neighborhood overlay. We have had to pour our own money into the revitalization of the sidewalks and lamps which we do not own, in order to continue with the mature neighborhood and increase our investments and standard of living. To allow these developments which contradict the current zoning bylaws would dramatically negatively impact our family personally, not to mention the rest of the neighborhood. honor the Zoning that people have invested into, do not allow this proposal for rezoning!!

I would like to add that we have been forced to accept changes in our small residential community that did not follow the vision that was put forward in the original city planning. It concerns me that we could be pushed in the direction of other communities where they had single family zoning changes that have changed the community completely contributing to the influx of high density areas where they did not exist before.

I strongly oppose the change of re-zoning the properties (10904, 10906 & 10908-139St). The size & location of these properties is not suitable for the proposed building of a rental development with 16 units.

If you approve a re-zoning change from RF1 to DC2, I feel you will be approving high density, noise, extra traffic, parking issues & the loss of each neighbours' privacy & sunlight. This will negatively impact the neighbours' quality of life.

Thank you for all the input.
I believe there is a lot of misconception with the city's intentions of densifying inner city neighborhoods and stopping urban sprawl.
We also have to come to grips that this is nothing more than a cash grab, we are fooling ourselves if we think this is better for the neighbor hood.
Yes inner city neighborhood rejuvenation is key but taking 2 single family developments and converting to an 18 unit multiplex is another.
What these developers are implying is that an 18 unit multiplex would be preferred on each and every corner of the neighborhood .
This is wrong.
This is not the intended vision for our city, yes we want to stop sprawl, but 18 units on 2 single family dwellings is not the answer.
The developers have a very short vision and a profit margin in mind, not what is best for a thriving community.

As a long standing resident of North Glenora I find these comments opposing this development to be silly. The current building has 14 residential suites. The proposed building development has 16 residential suites. Stop opposing good development simply based on the fact this is a ‘Mature’ neighbourhood. 2 extra families in North Glenora will not ruin our community from a density perspective. Fully support the project.

I believe that the properties under consideration for rezoning remain under their current zoning (RF1) for the following reasons:

Safety Concerns:
• The properties in question are directly across the street from the front door of Coronation Elementary School. The elementary school is a neighborhood school with significant pedestrian traffic to/from the school during daytime hours. There is also a Child Day Care and Out of School Care centre located within Coronation School. The proposed rezoning would create serious safety/traffic issues for the (1) young children who attend this school (2) residents who live in the area and (3) parents, volunteers and school support workers. The limited parking proposed (8 parking spots proposed for 16 residential units) would increase:
• Vehicle street parking: blocking access for parents picking up/ dropping off children and for emergency vehicles to reach residents’ homes;
• The number of vehicles idling on the street throughout the year and in inclement weather;
• Commercial vehicles; and
• Truck traffic for snow removal in the winter as there is not adequate space for storing of the snow.

Privacy, Noise and Visual
• Privacy for neighboring houses will be significantly and negatively affected.
• Dumpsters will be located on a residential lane that is limited in size creating a driving hazard for residents needing to utilize the lane to enter/exit from their residences.
• Sixteen rental properties will generate moving trucks for incoming and outgoing tenants.
• It is an error to assume that with the new parking regulations in the Zoning Bylaw, which have no minimum parking requirements, would have no impact on neighboring residences. This will affect the use and enjoyment for neighboring properties by directing the parking to the street.

Density
• Sixteen residential rental units on two single family residential lots are too many for this location in consideration of the size of the properties.
• Site coverage is too high (46%); the proposed plan lacks adequate green space and landscaping.
• As per the “North Glenora Community Plan: A Vision for the Future”, approved by Edmonton City Council, August 1998, whereby it states: “Recommendation 1R: That the current residential zoning be retained to control land use density unless it can be demonstrated to the community that a rezoning would be in keeping with the Guiding Principles of this Plan as well as the goals and Page 2 objectives of residents and property owners who might be affected” (p.18, 3.2
Guiding Principles and Recommendations, 3.2.1 Redevelopment Guiding Principle 1: Redevelopment and Zoning).
• Residential density will be increased with the future development of the Glenora Patio Homes (109 Ave and 139 St) adjacent to this proposal, which is currently 14 residences. The current proposal for this site is for 45 suites with surface parking for 15 vehicles.
• This would not be a family friendly development as only two of the sixteen suites would be three bedroom units.

Setbacks
• The proposed setbacks on the West (facing the lane) and South (facing 109 Avenue) of this proposal are less than what is allowed in the Mature Neighborhood Overlay, which was created to ensure that development suits older communities. These proposed setbacks would have an adverse effect on the existing character of the neighborhood.

This family has had possession of this house since 1960 and has stayed because of the award winning small community feeling. In closing I would like to add that we have been forced to accept changes in our small residential community that did not follow the vision that was put forward in the original city planning. It concerns me that we could be pushed in the direction of other communities where they had single family zoning changes that have changed the community completely contributing to the influx of high density areas where they did not exist before.

The re-development of a corner lot from RF1 to RF2 is reasonable. Front and side access make such a site appropriate for measured, proximal densification.
The proposed densification development for 10904, 06, and 08 - 139 Street exceeds this neighbourhood's norms. 16 dwellings where there are now 2 is exponential intensity of residents will devalue and/or negatively impact our community:
HEIGHT: 2.5 stories will overshadow RF1 to the north and west rendering homes and yards dark and require re-landscaping, window placement, etc. in order to achieve equivalent privacy and lighting as has been invested in by property owners to date.
DRAINAGE INFRASTRUCTURE: The proposed development will strain the recently upgraded (but still RF1 designed) sewage system. Site coverage does not respect setbacks for this mature neighbourhood and is too high for adequate green space.
VEHICLES: 16 units with 1 or 2 vehicles each plus room for delivery and/or guest parking cannot be accommodated with 8 surface stalls. Coronation School daily drop-off, pick-up (including the safety of little ones coming and going), and special events will be impacted.
ACCESSIBILITY: The multi-level units are not inclusive of tenants/owners with existing or developing mobility limitations. Curbside access will become unreliable at best, and impossible at worst, due to the number of associated vehicles.
RECYCLING/WASTE REMOVAL: The plan does not ensure sufficient ingress or egress for residents' vehicles or for large vehicles handling dumpsters in the narrow lane.
TRAFFIC: The now-emptied Glenora Patio Homes site on the SE corner of 109 Ave/139 St will be redeveloped soon. Concentrating even more "infill" density at this intersection of the community, next to Coronation School and greenspace is too intense.

I share many of the residents of North Glenora's concerns with this zoning application. This project is not appropriate for our community and this location. It is right across the street from an elementary school and the increased traffic and street parking will be a danger to the children and their parents trying to drop them off and pick them up from the school.

Additionally I am in opposition to the City constantly "changing the game" for residents who already own a home in a mature neighbourhood who think their investment is protected by zoning bylaws and the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay, only to have the City give exceptions to developers and builders who would like a change to the rules.

This looks amazing! There's such a need for places where people can live in their community at all stages in their lives. I can see this as invaluable for students leaving their parent's homes, young families, lower income and seniors.
In these early plans, I don't see any secure bicycle storage - that would be a valuable addition with the identified parking capacity. Not everyone has cars, but if they don't have a car, they often have a bike or three.
Energy wise - reaching the Pasivhaus standard is an important milestone for efficiency. I hope that the goal is achieved.
I really appreciate the attention to detail in the design, thus far - it's in keeping with other development in the community for scale, yet has its own character. Breaking the units into two blocks really allows the development to fit within the community, as opposed to a unified larger block. The courtyard doesn't seem to be won't get much sun, and appears to be relatively isolated - I'm curious about the CPTED response to it, and how it can be made into a vibrant, welcoming area for the residents to gather.
Looks good, thus far - I look forward to seeing the final buildings, and the enhancement it brings to the community.

The Application seems quite dense. 12 units is more fitting for the area.
I'm not objecting to the height of the Application.
There should be more parking required. At least one per unit.

I live nearby the proposed development and I don't think it should be approved, primarily because the North Glenora Neighbourhood plan agreed to by the city in the distant past approved 3 floor apartment style buildings on all of the lots currently named as North Glenora Patio Homes. They apparently are scheduled to demolish the old buildings which were built in the 1950's and erect new three story buildings which I approve of and that will be able to accommodate parking behind them for the residents.
The corner where the new zoning requirements are being requested is a busy corner directly opposite of the elementary school. This will cause more congestion and put the children at risk of vehicular accidents.
I strongly oppose the request for Re-Zoning on that site.
Respectfully yours, Barry Mohl.

This application misses the mark the developers propose if they are aiming to add livable accommodation that is a good fit to our existing neighbourhood and I believe the request for rezoning should not be approved. The City has rightly identified the need for high density, and affordable housing in the core of our city. And the decision to eliminate any parking requirements for new development should make much needed affordable housing more affordable. These are forward thinking ideas that I do support but only if administered with thoughtful consideration. I am unable to see how this tightly packed development of 16 units, mostly 1 and 2 bedroom, with gratuitous patches of green space is entirely family friendly or the right development for the location. And neighbourhood concern about parking is legitimate. Edmonton is not Seattle, it is a winter city and 8 parking spots for 16 units is insufficient and I believe will result in creating ongoing stress in the neighbourhood. This will be especially evident when the former Patio Homes are redeveloped with their minimal parking allotment. Change is coming and is inevitable, but it can be difficult to absorb and we need and expect our City decision-makers to be especially discerning in how they begin this reshaping of our neighbourhoods and communities. I applaud the persistence and follow through of my North Glenora neighbours who have brought their voices in support of our home.

Where in all the documents here does it state this application for rezoning will be net zero or environmentally friendly or affordable housing? The “Missing Middle” is a transformation between apartment living and living in a house – this is an apartment building. It shows a “Courtyard” that is a sidewalk between the two units. All the mature trees will be removed as coverage is 46 percent (not counting all the cement for parking, patios and sidewalks). The South setback will not blend in with the rest of the houses on 109 Ave. The West setback is shorter than what is allowed under the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay. I live in North Glenora and disagree with the changing of zoning for these properties as this proposal is too dense. The negative impact of replacing two residential homes with 16 suites is not appropriate for this location.

I am opposed. The neighbouring homes will be negatively impacted by the increase in noise, traffic and will lose their privacy. 16 rental suites is too many people for the small amount of land that they have. A change in zoning should not be considered at this time.

When I was young, we had 8 people living in a 3 bedroom house. When Celine Dion was young, there were 14 living in that 2 or 3 bedroom house. That's not the issue. The issue is, there is no grounds, other than the school grounds for the occupants to recreate-which would be fine if the patio home owner was not planning on building 45 units with only 15 parking spaces. There are not enough parking spaces. It is a great neighbourhood now, but it won't be after these cheesy developments are finished. What some people may think and what some people don't realize is not the issue. The issue is that people made life time investments in this community and now the city is going to wipe that all away for a couple of greedy developers. What ever you have Hussein, imagine that the city is going to take 1/3 of that away from you, just because they can. This housing is not appropriate for this site, because it negatively affects almost everybody in the neighbourhood, for the benefit of just a few.

Personally I don't like the plans at all. We were a very nice Community to live in and now that is not quite the same. The location you have chosen right at the school is horrible . It is not safe for the children or for the people living near the proposed renovation. One needs to think beyond the planning. The noise would be terrible, as would the street barking.