If they haven't applied for a building permit yet can we approach council to lower the maximum height restricting them to a 2 level structure which matches surrounding structures. 13.2 meters is going to stick out like a sore thumb.
I agree, these are going to be bought by someone with lots of money and then rent them out to people who have none!
M
Mike Bauer
12 years ago
Featured
This is ridiculous. We bought here cause it was a quiet street. Totally unfair to us.
S
Sarah Quinn
12 years ago
Featured
The traffic down Coulee Creek is already insane during school hours, we dont need another 50 cars trying to get out onto the main road.
D
Dave Kelly
12 years ago
Featured
Too many condos going up in town lately, keep the neighborhood how it is please!
M
Melinda Kline
12 years ago
Also worried about our house value.
J
Jason Hueppelsheuser
· petition starter
12 years ago
all fixed up!!! Thanks
N
Natalie Bevans
12 years ago
Featured
I just noticed there should only be one Y in Lydia. Hopefully it's not too hard to change. Thanks for organizing this!
C
Clark Platt
12 years ago
To the decision makers regarding this development.
I own a home that backs onto the beautiful mature trees that add Beauty and privacy to my view. Behind those trees is the proposed condo development. (Lydia Condos). My address is 519 Couleesprings Crescent.
I have many complaints regarding this proposed condo development that I will outline in this email, but my first statement that I want to make is that this proposed condo development ONLY makes sense to the people who will profit from it. It's very "hypocritical" to me. The reason I say it's hypocritical is because, if any of the city council members that will decide on this matter, or the Thiessen's or any of the owners of the stranville group/Ken Harvie lived on any of the 4 streets surrounding this proposed development or even within 3 blocks I bet, everyone of these people would be against this development! I am positive! The people affected by this proposal should be the ones deciding like a democracy if this development should be allowed to happen!
* I could be wrong here, but I think the role of the mayor and the city council members and others who work within the city government is to look out and protect it's citizens and it's citizens property! (And Property Values!)
I pay a lot of property taxes to live in this nice high end area of town. If this development were to happen as is, I would expect a LARGE reduction in my property taxes for all the obvious reasons and reasons I state in this email. Also, I have heard this high density-3 story eye sore could reduce my property value more $80,000-$100,000 estimate. Thus making my home worth less than what I owe maybe? How is that fair? Isn't the city wanting to look out for its citizens and not allow something like this to happen? Wouldn't the city want to protects it's citizens property values?!
The builders / developers should care about his or her community! And if everyone that lives in this neighborhood is against this type of develo
J
Jason Hueppelsheuser
· petition starter
12 years ago
This letter is in regard to the proposed 41-unit apartment/condo development situated at 256 Couleesprings Terrace S, in Lethbridge.
There are a number of concerns shared throughout the surrounding neighborhood, but perhaps most concerning are those of infrastructure, environment and public safety. This letter will address aspects of the aforementioned and cite specific concerns.
Infrastructure
Civil planning requirements include adequate access and road capacity. A 41-unit complex size has been announced, consisting of a combination of 1, 2 and 3-bedroom suites; exact quantity of each is yet to be revealed. Based on an ‘average’ estimation of 1/3, 1/3 and 1/3, such a design might yield 13 1-unit suites, 14 2-unit suites and 14 3-unit suites – this would generate approximately 83 bedrooms. (Note: The R-75 zoning calculation, based on 0.55 hectare lot size, allows an occupation density up to 99 persons.)
Population Density
Working with the above estimation/calculation, a husband/wife bedroom would have two occupants in addition to the spare bedrooms found in the 2 & 3-bedroom suites; this generates a population density of over 111 persons, directly in contravention of the R-75 zoning limitations. For this reason, any design submission must be carefully scrutinized before approval, so as not to overload the site capacity.
Parking
Using a standard civil engineering calculation of 1.75-2 vehicles per suite, the development would require designated, off-street parking for over 80 motor vehicles. Visitor parking, bicycle and oversize-vehicle parking is yet to be added. Subsequently, it comes into question where potentially over 100 vehicles can be parked on this lot.
To this, the developer has indicated an intention to provide underground parking; this brings two potential issues:
1. Given the existing trees and old growth, the earth removal to accommodate such a large amount of motor vehicles will endanger the tree root systems not only of t
If they haven't applied for a building permit yet can we approach council to lower the maximum height restricting them to a 2 level structure which matches surrounding structures. 13.2 meters is going to stick out like a sore thumb.
[email protected]
I agree, these are going to be bought by someone with lots of money and then rent them out to people who have none!
This is ridiculous. We bought here cause it was a quiet street. Totally unfair to us.
The traffic down Coulee Creek is already insane during school hours, we dont need another 50 cars trying to get out onto the main road.
Too many condos going up in town lately, keep the neighborhood how it is please!
Also worried about our house value.
all fixed up!!! Thanks
I just noticed there should only be one Y in Lydia. Hopefully it's not too hard to change. Thanks for organizing this!
To the decision makers regarding this development. I own a home that backs onto the beautiful mature trees that add Beauty and privacy to my view. Behind those trees is the proposed condo development. (Lydia Condos). My address is 519 Couleesprings Crescent. I have many complaints regarding this proposed condo development that I will outline in this email, but my first statement that I want to make is that this proposed condo development ONLY makes sense to the people who will profit from it. It's very "hypocritical" to me. The reason I say it's hypocritical is because, if any of the city council members that will decide on this matter, or the Thiessen's or any of the owners of the stranville group/Ken Harvie lived on any of the 4 streets surrounding this proposed development or even within 3 blocks I bet, everyone of these people would be against this development! I am positive! The people affected by this proposal should be the ones deciding like a democracy if this development should be allowed to happen! * I could be wrong here, but I think the role of the mayor and the city council members and others who work within the city government is to look out and protect it's citizens and it's citizens property! (And Property Values!) I pay a lot of property taxes to live in this nice high end area of town. If this development were to happen as is, I would expect a LARGE reduction in my property taxes for all the obvious reasons and reasons I state in this email. Also, I have heard this high density-3 story eye sore could reduce my property value more $80,000-$100,000 estimate. Thus making my home worth less than what I owe maybe? How is that fair? Isn't the city wanting to look out for its citizens and not allow something like this to happen? Wouldn't the city want to protects it's citizens property values?! The builders / developers should care about his or her community! And if everyone that lives in this neighborhood is against this type of develo
This letter is in regard to the proposed 41-unit apartment/condo development situated at 256 Couleesprings Terrace S, in Lethbridge. There are a number of concerns shared throughout the surrounding neighborhood, but perhaps most concerning are those of infrastructure, environment and public safety. This letter will address aspects of the aforementioned and cite specific concerns. Infrastructure Civil planning requirements include adequate access and road capacity. A 41-unit complex size has been announced, consisting of a combination of 1, 2 and 3-bedroom suites; exact quantity of each is yet to be revealed. Based on an ‘average’ estimation of 1/3, 1/3 and 1/3, such a design might yield 13 1-unit suites, 14 2-unit suites and 14 3-unit suites – this would generate approximately 83 bedrooms. (Note: The R-75 zoning calculation, based on 0.55 hectare lot size, allows an occupation density up to 99 persons.) Population Density Working with the above estimation/calculation, a husband/wife bedroom would have two occupants in addition to the spare bedrooms found in the 2 & 3-bedroom suites; this generates a population density of over 111 persons, directly in contravention of the R-75 zoning limitations. For this reason, any design submission must be carefully scrutinized before approval, so as not to overload the site capacity. Parking Using a standard civil engineering calculation of 1.75-2 vehicles per suite, the development would require designated, off-street parking for over 80 motor vehicles. Visitor parking, bicycle and oversize-vehicle parking is yet to be added. Subsequently, it comes into question where potentially over 100 vehicles can be parked on this lot. To this, the developer has indicated an intention to provide underground parking; this brings two potential issues: 1. Given the existing trees and old growth, the earth removal to accommodate such a large amount of motor vehicles will endanger the tree root systems not only of t