LDA21-0330 Wadhurst Townhomes- Westmount

This rezoning is unnecessary to achieve the proposed density-increase on these lots. Indeed, such a rezoning is almost certainly going to result in decreased value and diminished quality of the entire area. An unbalanced approach to this project will negatively change the character of this unique neighborhood. That is, a rezoning from RF3 to DC2 would see developers being primarily concerned with maximizing the building’s footprint while *not* considering other essential considerations: a proper street set-back, safe accessibility in front and back (emergency vehicles, etc.), an already over-burdened sewage system, green spaces, etc.

Please choose to not change the zoning for this project.

We are opposed to the rezoning application. RF3 zoning already allows for multi unit residences. DC2 zoning will only allow for an out of scale development that is facing all too closely to our little road. As residents of Groat Estates, we see a multitude of problems with the rezoning. Increased height and reduced setbacks will contribute to:
- increased shadow, decreased sun for the residents at the north end of Wadhurst. This will impact their daily quality of life including their prolific gardens.

- decreased green space in an area that is already lacking in it. In addition, rare and old trees in the area will be impacted by both shadow and by reduced green space which allows for buildings and utilities to negatively impact root systems and ecosystems. We are already losing important 100 year old trees on 125 st.

In addition, the development will compromise safety in the area as regards traffic and emergency access. As it stands, emergency vehicles have difficulty accessing parts of our neighbourhood. The north end of Wadhurst Rd., directly impacted by the proposal, is a difficult corner to navigate and is also comprised of an adjacent bike lane. As for traffic, we are constantly having drivers driving speedily the wrong way on Wadhurst Rd. We can't even imagine how this will increase with the proposed development.

There are other ways to facilitate increased density in the area. Detached infill homes work well as do duplexes, and a smaller scale development that is more in line with the spirit, heritage, history, and scale of the community could also make sense here.

We request that the DC2 rezoning application be rejected.

We are opposed to the rezoning application. Why is it necessary that the city destroy this dense and lovely neighborhood with unnecessary rezoning?
The land can be developed and the density can be increased with the existing zoning. The neighborhood needs continued green space, sufficient set backs from the street, appropriate height. There is a lack of proper engagement with the surrounding landowners and residents by the City. We have not received adequate information from the city about what will actually be developed here and the changes. This area has substantial development but also character and is a neighborhood that will be diminished by this rezoning. Colleen and Colin

This rezoning is completely unnecessary and an assault on an already densely populated area.

There are currently 6 lots that have infill housing which have damaged and are destroying three 100+ year old mature trees due to their construction or addition of utilities. These properties were built under current RF3 zoning. We simply cannot allow another development to further reduce our inner city forest.

There are currently 3, 20+ storey high rise residences in our community periphery with an additional 2 more slated to be built.

11 units on the 3 lots would comprise an almost 4 times density increase with the loss of more of our heritage trees. This is simply against the city’s guidelines of protection and conservation of our urban forest. 11 units is simply overload for these 3 lots.

The developer and Stantec, both creative companies, should be able to come up with a development to fit with the current zoning. The total wall effect created by the very tall, unbroken mass, is definitely not a compatible development in this community. The shadow on our northernmost homes because of shallow setbacks and extra height is objectionable and unnecessary.

The setbacks from Wadhurst Road and 125 Street are far too shallow, and there does not seem to be any indication of sidewalks. This would create a hazard for the many pedestrians who frequent the area to appreciate the architectural heritage homes

As 48 year residents, founding members of the Groat Estate Association, and contributors to The GERA Implementation Plan, we find this intrusion to be completely against the spirit of that first community development initiative. That plan was developed solely by the citizens of Groat Estate, paid for by those same citizens, hailed as a prime example of citizen parcipitation, and served as a model for further area development plans.

We do not approve of this development or any change of zoning to accommodate a development which is already allowed under the current RF3 zoning. Please do not cede control to developers whose only interest is profit.

Eugene and Norma Jones
Residents on 125 St.

September 6, 2021
City of Edmonton Development Services
Attention: Heather Vander Hoek, Planning Coordination
RE: PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT at WADHURST ROAD, EDMONTON; FILE #: LDA21-0330
To Whom It May Concern:
From as long as can remember, before I even had the language skills to express it, I have been aware of seeking sanctuary, nurturing and care in the natural spaces through which I traveled. Even back then at some subconscious level. I was aware on a deep & profound level of a web of connection between ourselves and natural space and a recognition that besides offering peace & comfort during turbulent & uncertain times, these green spaces were fundamentally critical to our well-being. Indeed, our fate is inextricably linked. In light of climate change related extreme weather conditions including wildfires with their more global impact on air quality, sustained extreme heat waves, seriously & irreversibly depleted ground water resources, there is growing recognition of this reality & the ability of these mature trees & natural spaces to mitigate these adverse climate circumstances even on a local micro-ecosystem level. The City of Edmonton has recently acknowledged and declared a climate emergency. While I am encouraged by the city’s recent approval of the public tree protection / preservation bylaw in part in responding to this globally acknowledged alarm, I am troubled by the continued erosion in practice of natural spaces and the protective diversity within these natural spaces by the city and developers. Every single tree in this city is precious in this era of climate and biodiversity crisis. In the face of these crises and the recognition that these demand of us a systemic response, where is the leadership, wisdom and vision on the part of our City councillors, administration and planning, and private (for profit) developers?
I am responding to the mailed notice of proposed land use changes and the online public engagement opportunity such as has been provided.
I reside at 10354 Wadhurst Road, immediately across Wadhurst Road to the west of this proposed redevelopment on the north end of Wadhurst Road, and along with my next door neighbor to the south Amal Al-Khedar, by virtue of our location with respect to this proposed development, we are the most directly impacted by this intended redevelopment.
I have reviewed Stantec Consulting’s proposed intentions as stated in the letter received from Elise Shillington and as indicated in the developer, Cantiro’s maps of this proposed development. As such, I have grave concerns regarding this proposed rezoning and this proposed redevelopment on this site and am opposed to this proposed redevelopment.
Firstly, as noted above, a key concern of mine is the environmental impact of this proposed development. Recent climate change related significant adverse weather (wildfires & smoke related air quality issues, extreme heat waves, severe water depletion already impacting food security) have brought home how critical acknowledgement of this connection with the natural space is for our best interests and sustainability. Trees/shrubs & other aspects of this natural space literally serve as our lungs, helping to mitigate air quality concerns against the increasing prevalence and extent of wild fires. Particular trees reflected in a diverse natural space in fact are recognized as serving as deterrents in the spread of these wild fires. And as we ourselves observed during a recent significant & sustained heat spell, trees are significant in creating a resilient local ambient ecosystem that is protective. Mature trees are critical to our well being in a way that no efforts to replant and grow to maturity on their removal can ever replace. Indeed, by the city’s own assessment, the value of these various mature trees in a local ecosystem ranges in the thousands of dollars and their benefit within that local ecosystem is irreversibly lost with their needless removal. We as a species are just becoming more aware of this, and as mentioned above the city recently approved a public tree protection / preservation bylaw in an effort to protect mature trees in the face of impact of redevelopment planning on city public natural spaces. Even single mature trees are significant in their contribution sustaining the diversity of life and natural space beyond on a much more extensive level. Quite simply, the development being proposed (under this rezoning application) with the size of it’s footprint (including very limited setbacks, etc.) provides for minimal to no natural space, & would require the removal of all mature trees in these yards/lots for building to this redevelopment plan. Along with light & shade factors impacting neighbors & their properties on the north end, to the immediate west of this development, additionally this implication for the health & viability of the trees, the diversity of life they support in the broader neighborhood & into the ravine (with river valley protection designation).
An additional concern I have with this rezoning application and the proposed redevelopment is regarding the adequacy of information of which this community has been provided regarding this proposed development and it’s impact. While there has been suggestions made by city planners and the developer regarding additional assessments that would be implemented (eg. a traffic study for purposes of providing a critical safety assessment of impact of this redevelopment plan, city planners assessment of alternative development options possible under the current zoning designation, etc.) in responding to earlier concerns with this proposed redevelopment as raised by the community, the limited information provided with respect to these and other matters has been insufficient for any reasonable and equitable community engagement in consideration and response to this rezoning application and redevelopment proposal.
Further, this rezoning proposal and the proposed density of development is inappropriate and out of place with any existing increased densification development parameters in this area. With this rezoning application, the developer appears to have made no attempt to comply with existing redevelopment parameters under the current zoning towards seeking a workable development for this community. The current existing zoning for this area should be the “go to” standard through which all proposed redevelopment proceeds without proof of demonstrable substantial grounds for justifying consideration in pursuit of varying this rezoning.
Some years ago, with considerable effort, and in good faith, many members of this community and the Groat Estates Residents Association engaged in planning with city planners of a stand alone Area Implementation Plan deemed in this community’s best interests. As a community, we recently became aware that this Area Implementation Plan was abandoned without recourse of adequate and sufficient notification, or opportunity provided to the community in engagement regarding this process. Regardless of this, this redevelopment plan impacts conservation, an expressed underlying priority of this community & city’s area development plan, a commitment to which both the community & city planners had engaged and with full consideration, committed to and entered together. Even so, the full extent of green space in this neighborhood under this mutual commitment was never full realized. Also, coinciding with notice of city planners abandonment of the Groat Estate Area Implementation Plan during this redevelopment process, and equally concerning, was the erasure in Cantiro’s Planning Map of this proposed redevelopment of the designated central “island” green space from what has been our community’s understanding of this natural park space, as developed and designated under the Groat Estates Area Implementation Plan. I have been informed that this natural area, previously designated as a community park, was subsequently otherwise designated by city planners in April 2020 as a “green space” without any notice, explanation or consultation with the community, it’s residents or stakeholders. This apparent erasure of this popular, well-used park space and the change in it’s protection designation by city planners, and the developer is simply unconscienceable on so many levels. Given the recognition of how critical natural space is to our common wellbeing, regardless of city planner’s intentions in this action taken last year in altering the designation of this well-loved community park space, we are not, and will not, consent to the sacrifice of this community’s limited natural space for a developer’s financial interest.
In short, the proposed redevelopment is quite simply well beyond what was permitted under this Area Implementation Plan regarding appropriate development for this area. As a community, we have not opposed relevant and appropriate development serving to increase the density in the central Edmonton core. Right in this immediate neighborhood, (consisting of 2 blocks by 1 block), there are already a number of these developments that are consistent with this Area Implementation Plan, are not disruptive of the community’s nature and functioning, and still managed to do so under the existing RF3 zoning. Why is this developer not been held to the same standard?
Further, the existing redevelopment plan is a huge contiguous unit (in effect creating a 3 - 4 story extended wall) which will substantially block natural light to resident’s properties across the narrow laneway to the west of the development, creating serious shade issues that will impact the ecosystem well beyond this development, contributing to the degradation of the stability of the local ecosystem, and impacting the ravine, a designated protected area under the city’s river valley parks. When we consider health, livability and environmental sustainability, reasonable access to natural light is critical. As such, in this aspect alone, this redevelopment as proposed for this location represents an egregious, unprecedented impact and restriction especially for those of us who will be this redevelopment’s closest neighbors, and this planning would have been contraindicated under the previous the Area Implementation Plan. This proposed redevelopment has a large footprint that would, with the small set-backs from the street, take up most of the amassed lots & require the removal of all the existing mature trees on these properties. These include multiple healthy large mature Spruce, a rare Siberian Elm, mature Mountain Ash, Oak, Birch, Maple and Balsam Poplars, as well as Currents, Cedars and Lilac shrubbery, all of which contribute significantly to wildlife habitat and the local ecosystem in the area. As already noted, as a city, we are just beginning to recognize that when habitats are disrupted, the impact to the local ecosystem is unmeasurable and devastating and consequently, increased measures are being introduced by the city to protect mature neighborhood trees from this unnecessary removal. While property owners are currently permitted to remove mature trees and shrubbery, previous developers in this neighborhood have gone to considerable effort and managed to develop plans and practice under the existing RF3 zoning that have largely protected these mature trees that are a critical component in the preservation of this local ecosystem, contiguous with the river valley protection area. As this is entirely doable, why is this developer not being held to the same standard? Nor is there any room available or provided for "green space" or so-called amenities as proposed by the developer as given the size/configuration of the footprint of this redevelopment, there is no room for any landscaping to even attempt to mitigate the removal of these mature trees. We were informed of the intention to hire a certified arborist to assess these trees that are being slated for removal as part of this redevelopment requirement and the impact of their removal on other mature growth and local ecosystems in the immediate area. However despite the fact that this redevelopment represents a precedent setting development in many respects in this area with its potential for substantially expanding impact to this community, we have yet to see this or other assessment reports that are a critical part of information sharing and engagement with the community.
Additionally, I would like to briefly speak to safety considerations regarding this proposed redevelopment. I note, contrary to what is permitted under the current RF3 zoning designation, a front setback of 2 metres on the developer’s plans for this project. in this substantially increased residence density of additional 11 + units, there will be a requirement for the developer to provide front street parking to accommodate these resident’s guest parking beyond what street parking currently exists in accommodation of those along the narrow historic Wadhurst Road with no garage, driveway or other parking options. This will not permit the full city easement for sidewalks and bike paths for continued safe pedestrian and bicycle/skateboard travel (a community walkability city priority). Under current bike path designation, both sides of the central island green space and the narrow north end lane of Wadhurst Road, are bike lanes connecting with other designated bike routes including the “mini-pedway” park at the north end. These routes are popular, well used pedestrian and bike travel routes for many including young families with small children. This proposed redevelopment with it’s inappropriate degree of densification and the resulting added pressure on current extremely limited community street space would create a significant safety hazard for residents and current users (stakeholders). Currently, the hairpin turn from the east alley onto Wadhurst Road at the north end represents a significant hazard for pedestrian, bicyclist, and scooter traffic and is a challenge for larger routine city services (such as garbage/recycling to navigate) let alone fire or other emergency services vehicles. With the added parameters of this proposed density of redevelopment (11 + units on 3 lots with its limited front curb setback) and it’s related added demands on existing road space within the configuration of the existing community and street restrictions, safety concerns would be further compounded. While there have been indications that a traffic study would be undertaken for purposes of providing a critical safety assessment of the impact of this redevelopment plan with respect to this concern, there has not been any communication with the community regarding this serious consideration on the impact of this proposed redevelopment plan.
In short, I am opposed to this rezoning application and this redevelopment proposal on the following basis:
• The substantial environmental impact of this proposed redevelopment on this community and more broadly, as inconsistent with the city’s priorities in responding to the current critical climate emergency.
• On account of this redevelopment plan’s impact on conservation, an expressed priority of this community & city’s area development plan that was recently abandoned without recourse of adequate & sufficient notification or opportunity for engagement by this community.
• That the community has been provided with insufficient information re: this proposed development towards any reasonable and equitable community engagement in this process;
• I am opposed to this rezoning application in the absence of any efforts by the developer to attempt to comply with development parameters under the existing zoning in an effort to make this a workable development for this community. This is inconsistent with the standards managed by numerous other developments in the community to increase community densification. Additionally, I am opposed to this rezoning application because of height, density and set-back factors on account of compounding safety concerns of this redevelopment parameters on this area.
• given the available space for this proposed redevelopment, I am opposed to the number of units in this redevelopment & the resulting redevelopment configuration; specifically the height, the extremely limited set back from the street, and other configuration aspects of this redevelopment including the huge continuous 3 – 4 story wall like unit with it’s multiple impacts extending and jeopardizing the broader community’s and ravine natural spaces– not realistic, safe or sustainable.
Thank you for your consideration of these concerns raised regarding this rezoning application and redevelopment proposal.
Sincerely,
Heather Bessey
c.c. Heather Vander Hoek (heather.vanderhoek@edmonton.ca)
c.c. Cheryll Watson (info@cheryllwatson.ca)
c.c. Amarjeet Sohi (info@sohi.ca)
c.c. Kim Krushell (info@krushellformayor.com)
c.c. Gabrielle Battiste (gabrielle@gabrielle4yeg.com)
c.c. Ricm Comrie (rickcomrieformayor@gmail.com)
c.c. Gino Akbari (info@ ginoakbari.com)
c.c. Tony Catarina (tony.caterina@edmonton.ca)
c.c. Adrian Bruff (info@adrianbruff.ca)
c.c. Joshua Wolchansky (jw@joshuawolchansky.ca)

As a resident of the Groat Estates area I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the proposed land use changes on Wadhurst Road.  The townhouse proposal seems to align with the city's new development guidelines to build up areas adjacent to transportation corridors.

It is no surprise that the developer is proposing infill housing.  This project would join other infill projects including new high-rises on 102 Avenue and new skinny houses on 125 Street.  We have been experiencing this increase in density along with a continuous parade of construction equipment and a symphony of construction sounds.  I know that this area is a target for such development and have expected that something would be proposed for the three lots on Wadhurst. 

What I did not expect was the scale of this proposed development and the need for rezoning.  While I am not an architect, engineer or planner, I do have some comments.  This is infill on steroids.  From the plans, the townhouses and their driveways will consume and cover all the available space on the three lots.  They will replace the existing trees and green space with solid blocks of housing. In total, this is nearly the whole of the northern half of the streetscape, or almost a quarter of the block between 103 and 104 Avenue. In itself, that is a massive change to the area. Injecting a development of this size into a small residential area will have a big impact not only on existing residents but also on new tenants.

From the plans,  the only vehicle access to the buildings is to be via alley as Wadhurst is one way.  The spur of Wadhurst where the proposed north building will be located is narrow.  It is one way, one lane, one bicycle lane.  It  connects to the alleyway at the back.  I have no idea how the extra density will effect use of that street but it seems likely that usage will increase.  New residents will have access through an alleyway only and may exit either through the alleyway or proceed to the narrow spur of Wadhurst. Alleyways aren't constructed to the same standards as streets and aren't often ploughed in winter so it is likely that some issues will arise from that.  I understand that there is/will be a traffic study.  As an aside, Wadhurst  isn't ploughed that often in winter either.  This area may be adjacent to a transportation corridor, but it is a residential area that has one narrow one-way street with no exit.

I understand that fire, police and EMS services are being consulted about access to these buildings given the configuration of the alley and the Wadhurst spur.  Perhaps the snowploughing people and alley repair department need to be consulted as well.

The height of the proposed townhouses appears to be three stories, higher than the other residences in the area. Plans do not show sidewalks so I assume that the north townhouses will be close to the Wadhurst spur with sidewalks directly accessing the street.  So, in addition to safety issues, this three storey building will create a canyon, not only for the new tenants of the building who will be sandwiched between the commercial buildings on 124 Street but also for the current residents who will face a solid and full frontal close-up view of their new neighbours. Shadow study aside both existing and potential residents will live in a fairly consistent shadow world.  There is no shadowing pictured from buildings on 124 Street.
 
So, while I agree that the city is moving in a reasonable direction with its development plan, I don't agree that rezoning is necessary to enable this specific proposal.  Current bylaws allow for infill and there are other, more appropriate options to increase density.  Plans can be modified: they aren't set in concrete like a large part of this area will be if the plan is approved.   So, for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.  Rezoning to facilitate this proposal, if approved, would result in  eleven townhouses. It would provide housing that currently doesn't exist, but so would other less invasive projects.  Conversely enabling the proposal would diminish the appeal one of the last downtown residential areas east of Groat Ravine south of the main area of Westmount.  Thank you for the opportunity to comment.  Citizen engagement is an essential part of the city's planning process. 
 

The two of us are residents of Groat Estates and while there are aspects of this development that I think are encouraging, including the addition of townhomes themselves, there are other components that we find problematic. However, we have a number of suggestions for the developer that we believe are reasonable and should not be difficult to accommodate.

First, I understand why the developer is asking for a DC2 rezone: it allows them for more freedom and independence for their project given the DC2 is approved specific to their application. But my understanding is that the purpose of DC2s are to grant exceptional or drastic changes where the existing zoning (in this case RF3) is not adequate. Further, they can be more expensive to the city given each change or adjustment is subject to city approval.

From what I can gather, the major differences between the existing RF3 and proposed DC2 is a significant reduction in building setback (2.4 m from 4-5 m) and significant increase in maximum building height of 11.75 m(!) from 8.9 m. The argument that shifting from a DC2 to RF3 works to increase density in the neighbourhood does not hold water given it is now capped at 11 dwellings (vs. 33 as outlined by the city), and the maximum site coverage minimally changes (46% vs 45%... and this does not account for new driveway areas taking over green space).

The reduced setbacks and increased height allotments especially affect the three northernmost houses on Wadhurst Road, two of which do not have a garage or driveway. In the sun and shadow study, the new developments have shadows on those three houses (especially the two northernmost houses) in between the hours of 09:00 - 12:00 that span from the autumn to spring equinox. At present, these houses only are only shaded during these hours around the winter solstice. It seems somewhat cruel to be taking away sunlight from my neighbours’ mornings from September to March. We all know how limited a commodity sunlight is in the fall and winter months in this city.

These reduced setbacks and long driveways along the back lane also likely mean the destruction of the towering evergreens that are unique to our neighbourhood. Commuters and visitors often come here to appreciate and take in the feel of a village or oasis nearby a vibrant and bustling 124 Street.

One other concern we have is how the increased traffic coming out of the back one-way lane will affect bike lane and walking path utilization, and if it will affect EMS or fire access to the northernmost houses. I trust existing city bylaws and the ongoing evaluation by fire services will ensure their safety.

Our criticisms are not to say we are against development of these lots. The early house drawings themselves seem thoughtfully designed and townhomes would be a great addition to the neighbourhood… however, the aforementioned changes in the DC2 from RF3 seem somewhat self-serving in the name of square-footage and resale value rather than genuine concern for increasing density, showing courtesy to existing residents or helping transition this neighbourhood to a desirable corridor.

What adjustments could be made?
- Reduce the number of units to allow for satisfactory townhome square footage for the developer but also to fall in line with existing height limitations
- Maintaining the setback of 4-5 m that all houses in the neighbourhood are required to abide by (especially given the amount of rear driveway space currently granted). This could reduce the shadow impact on nearby houses but also allow to preserve some of the adjacent mature trees.
- Design the roofs of the northernmost townhomes to be sloped and/or orient the patios on the top, allowing for further sunlight to reach the existing houses across the street. I don’t understand why these houses are taller than the less impactful southern ones.

Removed by moderator.

This note is on behalf of neighbouring and local area residents who have regularly met regarding this DC2 rezoning proposal. It is intended to complement and support individual submissions and viewpoints and we believe it represents the vast majority of neighbouring and local residents.

We acknowledge there are at least a couple of residents of the area who support the DC2 application, and there may be a couple of others from outside Groat Estate who also are expressing support for the development. We understand that, in particular, they support greater density and the potential for more people (including young families) to have access to housing. We understand they have other concerns, such as more development in the centre of the city rather than even greater urban sprawl. We do not disagree with some of the specific thoughts they have expressed. However, they have not participated in our meetings.

Our end conclusion is that we oppose the rezoning and proposed development design. To sum up our views:

• As a neighbourhood we have already accepted significant change, including some densification.

• But with this development there are key design issues: the height is too high; there is the appearance of one continuous wall; there is excessive site coverage; and the changing setbacks result in the removal of mature trees.

• Because of these height and configuration issues, there is a human dimension to the impact of this development, in particular for the northernmost residents of Wadhurst Road. This is core to us. We do not know, for example, whether the light and shade drawings the City has posted account for the significant difference in elevation of the affected homes and this is a case where the specifics do matter. But even with the drawings as is, the impact on the northernmost residents is significant. Fundamentally we hope that human impact is still part of urban planning in our city.

• It is difficult to fully respond to the City on this rezoning because there are a whole set of inputs which we have not yet seen, and what information we have seen is insufficient on important details. Some of what we await has been undertaken by the City (for example, input from the Fire Department) and some by the developer (as an example, an arborist assessment regarding existing trees). As a further example, we understand the developer has provided the City with input regarding transportation but the City will be going back to the developer and that input will be revised. Safety remains a big question for us, related for example to congestion and other topics like bike lanes. Obviously there is a long list of technical reports but those will not be available to us before the deadline for input in this format expires on September 6th.

• As an old neighbourhood, we continue to advocate a balance between new development and conservation – for example, in the protection of old trees and green space, a particular concern with this proposal. Conservation has always been an interest we shared with the City until now with our previous neighbourhood plan and we would hope that would continue.

• We are truly concerned about precedent. This, in part stems from the removal of the neighourhood plan after 44 years, without any input from Groat Estate residents. For example, the City may say that historical homes in Groat Estate will remain intact with this particular development, but what meaning does that have when the next proposal comes along? Or is it essentially meaningless after this rezoning precedent? How can we have confidence given the City’s cancellation of our plan, along with potential new zonings, that all this will not result in open season on Groat Estate and leave it unrecognizable in a decade?

Given these factors, we cannot support the proposed rezoning. We also oppose the extent and form of the proposed development.

We ask that City planners not endorse this development.

On behalf of Residents of Groat Estate

frank c

We are Wadhurst Road residents in Groat Estate and strongly oppose the draft rezoning application and the proposed development for the Wadhurst Townhomes.

The City of Edmonton Notice we received in the mail states “The current (RF3) zoning would allow for a maximum of 11 principal dwellings on the site, with the opportunity for each to have a garden and/or secondary suite.” The applicant is proposing 11 townhouse units under Site Specific Development Control (DC2) zoning. Please explain how the City of Edmonton Planning Department (“City Planning”) determined that the site would provide for a maximum of 11 principal dwellings under current zoning, that is, RF3 with Mature Neighbourhood Overlay. It appears to us that 11 principal dwellings of the size proposed would simply not fit in the building envelope required for setbacks under current zoning. One obvious alternative would be a development with fewer principal dwelling units under current zoning.

We understand the desire of City Planning to densify existing neighborhoods in an effort to avoid further urban sprawl. However we believe that neighbouring/local area residents’ views should also matter and carry weight. We are the ones that already listen to complaints of insufficient parking in the area, watch traffic travel the wrong way on our one way streets multiple times a day, and view the challenges that large service, construction, utility and emergency vehicles have with attempting to maneuver through narrow, blind alleys and around Wadhurst Road – especially when vehicles are legitimately parked on the street. This proposed development would only exacerbate these issues.

The draft DC2 Site Specific Development Control Provision outlines eight uses within the site. Does that mean that the developer may accommodate anything that is contained on the list of uses? What is the intended use of the 11 units in the proposed development? Are all the intended uses, including Supportive Housing, actually the intention of the applicant for this development? Is the list permissive or is it the actual intended use?

One would think that the potential uses impact parking requirements and traffic flow. If the intended use is to be determined by the developer after DC2 zoning is approved, that results in residents having no say. DC then becomes “developer control”. As residents, it is difficult to provide feedback if we aren’t aware of, or been provided with, specific (use) information for this proposed development.

We note that the list of uses contains Major Home Based Business and Minor Home Based Business. What is the distinction? Since the proposed development includes 11 front doors, 11 double garages for 11 units, does that mean that there would not be separate entrances for businesses? Or perhaps all the units will not be used for Multi-Unit Housing? Should the currently all-residential-neighbourhood expect Fascia-On-Premises signs if the DC2 zoning is approved?

Insufficient information has been provided to the public to provide feedback about the applicant’s development. What need is being addressed or met by the development? Is this development targeting housing for families? Is the housing stratified (i.e. studio, one bedroom, two bedrooms or three bedroom units)? Are the units of equal size? What is the price of the units? What is the plan for ownership for the units – rental, condominiums, or individual ownership? Will ownership be different for the north and south buildings (e.g. supportive and family housing in the north building, rental units in the south building, and major and/or minor businesses in both buildings)?

We oppose the extent and form of the proposed densification for this development. The three-story equivalent height of the proposed development compared to the single story or two story homes in the neighbourhood will result in nearby residences being dwarfed in appearance. The proposed minimal setbacks will result in significant building, pavement and concrete coverage on the site. The block-faced, front facade gives the appearance of one continuous wall. The removal of existing trees and vegetation on the site is in direct conflict with the City’s efforts to save mature trees. Why can’t some trees be preserved on the property for this proposed development?

We ask the developer to propose design alternative(s) for this development which would meet the existing zoning requirements.

We ask City Planning not to support the rezoning application and the currently proposed development for the Wadhurst Townhomes. Mature neighbourhoods should not become collateral damage in the city’s efforts to densify.

I am a resident of Wadhurst Road and I oppose the rezoning application.

The focus of the rezoning application is to increase height and reduce setbacks. The proponent has not provided any information to residents as to why either of these changes are necessary. Absent adequate justification, there is no reason to support the application.

The proponent has not provided sufficient information to allow a reasoned assessment of the impact that the increased height and reduced setbacks will have on our neighbourhood. Lacking such information, I am lead to assume the worst.

In addition to increased height and reduced setbacks, there are a number of concerns that many of the residents have about the proposed development. Unfortunately, most of these concerns are outside of the scope of the rezoning application and we have no ability to influence the decision making process. The comments below highlight many of our concerns. I would ask the City of Edmonton Planning Department to be mindful of the concerns of residents when assessing the rezoning application. We simply want the best for our neighbourhood.

Doug C

Rezoning should not be allowed. There is plenty of opportunities within the RF3. Urban Heat Island is a real issue with developments that removed all the trees and replaces them non-permeable materials - all of which absorb and retain heat. The percentage of land being covered by buildings and cement is not acceptable.

I am a resident of Groat Estates and am not at all in favour of this proposed redevelopment.

As the notice provided by The City of Edmonton succinctly outlines, the current Zoning of RF3 provides for eleven principal dwellings on this site, the precise number of principal dwellings the proposed rezoning to DC2 would also provide for. So in actual fact, with careful and thoughtful design, rezoning is not required or essential for the developer to meet their proposed number of units.

The developer can attain the number of units they are aiming for, creating an infill welcoming new families to our beautiful neighbourhood, while current residents will benefit from designs and land use that are sensitive to the scale of the existing homes as well as allowing for extremely valuable vegetation, trees and green space to be an integral part of a noteworthy, innovative infill project.

If the developer feels the 11 units designed under the current zoning do not allow for the square footage they want to offer future home buyers, then they can always reduce the number of principal dwellings in their proposal. Increasing overall allowable heights and decreasing existing setbacks as they are proposing, will negatively impact the friendly scale of existing homes and streetscapes, sunlight penetration, and existing vegetation and trees.... by erecting very tall, site hogging, flat vertical facades, belittling the homes and nostalgia of one of Edmonton's precious, inviting mature neighbourhoods.

Established neighbourhoods are one of Edmonton's most valuable assets and need to be protected and cared for by welcoming new residents using the existing zoning which allows for many types of more affordable housing.... example, semi detached homes and skinnies. These and other design ideas following the current zoning are wholeheartedly welcomed and already happening here because the current scale, streetscapes, and massing are being respected, as they should be.

The application is to change the zoning NOT to allow multi family units. This is already in the current zoning. The request is to give development control to the developer. This should not happen. The developer should be told to colour within the lines like the rest of us. The current zoning allows 11 units and garden suites or secondary suites. The developers proposal does not include any of that. The densification envisioned by the city in the downtown area has already been zoned. 2 things: 1) developers are NOT accountable to the residents, they are not elected officials or planners who answer to council. 2) their motivation is profit. The are not benevolent providers of homes to the poor. Giving them control is a mistake.
With respect to the project itself there is no need for it to be almost 3 meters taller than already zoned except to maximize profit. There is no claim these units is an “affordable” housing project. They need them big enough to charge/sell for more. Some more naive people call residents names like NIMBY and other derogatory terms. They are simply uninformed. The application is not to increase densification. It reduces it and allows the unaccountable developer to build a monstrosity to maximize profit, destroying all the greenery in the process. Again for the people who don’t actually live on the street the lots they propose to clear out for their project contain many rare and old trees. Doubtful any will be kept. Developers in mature neighbourhoods who are given free reign are generally unwelcome bedfellows to the better stewards of that neighbourhood. This isn’t about resisting change it is about the city ceding control to for profit.

City of Edmonton, do not approve the rezoning, it is not necessary for this project. Listen to the residents and the feedback they are supplying to you, they are the area experts more-so than anyone else commenting. This is not a NIMBY situation the residents are presenting. We are only presenting facts and observations from LIVING in this small community and this should be gold information for you. This community has welcomed other lot development such as duplex and skinny homes and are open to the townhouse to increase area density for all the reasons mentioned in other postings, but it has to be safe and logical for the infrastructure. These streets and alleyways are already stressed to maximum capacity. We watch daily from our front window, over and over, the city ticketing cars parked illegally because of the lack of parking space for the popular shops, restaurants and office buildings. Visitors park anywhere they can find, legal or not and the City of Edmonton is making great money from the parking tickets on 103 Avenue due to cars parked by the fire hydrant and no parking zones all day long. This should be a red flag! The alleyways are literally falling apart due to the garbage bin trucks, delivery trucks, resident and business usage on a daily basis. To add approximately 22 or more cars to the daily traffic is a disaster and we know because we LIVE here. Most people whether they work downtown or not have a car, sometimes two per home or more and will have visitors also trying to find parking space. How can these small streets and infrastructure literally hold up to the increased traffic and parking? Bottom line is the proposed density is too high for the area and will be a mistake. Build it but with fewer units so the infrastructure and area design can safely support it. To ask the developer nicely to please build nice structures and respect the land is naive. I'm sorry but this application is all about maximizing profits and they won't be taking into consideration your family, children or your day to day life in the community.

Removed by moderator.

People seem confused as to what is being requested. Read the comparisons and what is being applied for.. Rezoning is not necessary to accommodate or build multi family, duplexes or skinnies to accommodate increased densification. The existing zoning allows for that already. The only thing the rezoning accomplishes is that it will give the developer direct control. This isn’t about the derogatory term “NIMBY” used by some. It is about changing the zoning from that already in place without reason or necessity.

I am a resident of Wadhurst and opposed to the proposed change and application of the Developer.

In response to the request for feedback regarding the proposed rezoning on Wadhurst Road, I would first inquire as to “Why”? “Standard Zoning” should be exactly that, “standard”. There should be proof of an exception which justifies deviation from standard zoning.

Standard Zoning promotes consistency and allows for the City to execute its policies and planning. It provides citizenry with reasonable expectations. Standard Zoning should not be deviated from without a reason for making it the exception to the rule.

We have been provided the barest of information of the Developer’s plan, but not why there should be direct control over the development. There is nothing so unusual or unique that justifies direct control to the developer which has been cited as the reason to provide development control and a change to the existing zoning. There are generally the four reasons to do so, none of which apply. We know “what” they want but not why they should be allowed to do it. If the rationale is our plan does not work with the current zoning, one would have thought the answer was obvious; change the plan not the zoning. Allowing developers to ignore the standard zoning and routinely apply for development control may well undermine the City’s policy and planning over time and create a floodgate of applications to ignore or re-zone simply because they have a plan that does not comply, instead of trying to comply.

Indeed, according to the comparison provided by you, 11 units (8.9 metres high with 4 metres set back) are already allowed with garden or secondary suites. Clearly, this addresses the City’s agenda to increase densification in the corridor areas. No change is required. There is no plan proffered which complies with current zoning, so I will refrain from further comment until one is proposed.

Where the Developer’s plan raises extreme concern is the size, height, set back and complete loss of the mature trees and green space in this very small mature neighbourhood.

The plan shows that the two buildings overlap. This creates the effect of one continuous wall blocking light and severely limiting green space and trees. Visually, there is one building from the north all the way to the south end.

The height is higher than all other dwellings in the neighbourhood by almost 10 feet. The proposal would see the set back on the front of the project reduced over five (5) feet on the North road, which has a multi-direction bike path, single one way traffic, a blind alley turn and no sidewalk. The front steps, by code, would allow only approximately two (2) feet between the steps and the curb and bike path. There are no public sidewalks on their plan. This will cause dangerous conditions for children/dogs exiting the property and for users of the bike path and for vehicles. Shrinking the setbacks directly compounds sight line problems which already exist in the alleys and roadways. It is a safety issue as well as unpleasant congestion. Currently, emergency vehicles cannot easily access the north end and the proposal would see from the proposed development, the buildings are higher than the power lines and its proximity would further obstruct access to the north end, jeopardizing all including residents across the street.

Next, by increasing the height and moving the object closer, the shadow grows and loss of light to the residences across the street is much greater (basic high school geometry). The loss of light affects more than people’s quality of life, it affects the ecosystem across the street. The west side of Wadhurst Road is on a ravine. Erosion control is a serious matter. There are a significant number of mature trees including a number of elms, which are generally protected in the City. Great lengths have been taken by the neighbourhood to protect the mature trees in the area. The conditions that support those trees and their undergrowth, which, in turn, supports the ravine stabilization, will be drastically changed. If the ravine becomes destabilized and erosion control lost, the entire area of Wadhurst and Villa is endangered. No studies or even consideration of these facts are evident in the limited information provided.

Finally, the “site coverage” of 46% does not include the driveways on the rear of the project or the walkways and front access. Each of the 11 units will have paved driveways in the back and front entrances. There will be less than 10 – 15% of the entire area for any green space or landscaping. Visually, this is inconsistent with past approaches valuing and encouraging green space and protecting the mature neighbourhood. Again, no information or calculations of these factors are evident in their plan.

In Summary, there is no reason to change the existing zoning. It is already consistent with the City’s policies. There is no proffer from the developers of a “need” which would justify them having direct development control, or that their proposal fills a need not otherwise being met by the current zoning, or really any attempt to comply. The plan itself is inappropriate as to design, size and effect. Furthermore, its appearance, overall, is not aligned with the neighbourhood.

The $22,000 capital contribution that the neighbourhood would receive would not even cover the replacement of one or two of the mature trees lost - hardly a worthy consolation.

Other re-development in the area has been supported and has stayed within existing zoning. The other developers have also taken pains to protect the trees and flavour of the neighbourhood. This developer should do so as well. Their plan, as it has been provided, is not consistent with the existing neighbourhood, nor is it necessary to fill a City mandate. Their application should not be approved.

In response to your request for feedback about the proposed rezoning project, we would like to express an opinion of support.

We do recognize that this parcel of land, like all land in Edmonton, has been inhabited for centuries by our predecessors, including the Cree and Assiniboine who signed Treaty 6 in 1876. We also recognize the generous nature of people in Alberta who have welcomed as neighbours newcomers from throughout the world. Recent events do serve to remind us that while our time on this land is brief, the decisions we make in how it is shaped will endure.

We do recognize a critical need for housing in our community. As housing prices continue to rise, we applaud the efforts of private developers to provide additional supply. While we can understand the apprehensions faced by some our neighbours in view of a change in this community, it is clear that the benefits of expanding housing supply and offering a greater variety of housing options serve a significant benefit to future residents and neighbours. As our city continues to grow, we can no longer yell “not in my backyard” and expect that those who choose Edmonton as a place to live will simply sprawl out into farmland. We can no longer promote the unsustainable and exorbitantly expensive premise that only a single large house for one family can sit on a parcel of land.

In view of an emerging crisis of climate change, we do perceive the benefit of promoting the option of living closer to the city centre. We do look forward to living in a city with a greater density of population, including new families who will patronize the many small businesses and restaurants along 124 Street. We do expect that many families will be able to minimize automobile travel by making use of the West LRT soon to begin construction. A higher density of living, as in most great cities thought the world, will improve sustainability, livability and safety for all, including that of our 4 children.

Our support in principle is however conditional. Stantec and Cantiro do have a reputation for quality construction; this is an essential prerequisite. We would expect that any project built by Stantec and Cantiro exceed all necessary construction codes, worker safety and environmental requirements. We would encourage building with high quality materials to adequately blend into the neighbourhood. We would encourage the builder consider registration with LEED (or equivalent) and promote net-zero energy consumption in each housing unit.

Ultimately this proposal does provide a significant opportunity to improve our city and neighbourhood We will expect that Cantiro and Stantec fulfill their promise by acting as good stewards of land accorded to them.

John and Sylvie

This is an absolute no-brainer for the location and I highly support it. Honestly, the only thing I don't like about this proposal is the fact they didn't double the density with a stacked townhouse concept, or at least squeeze a few more units onto the site - the location could easily support higher densities, particularly with its proximity to future transit. This is still a great option though, and suspect it will be in high demand.