LDA20-0111 114 University2 McKernan

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

***The discussion has concluded and we have written a "What We Heard" document that will be shared with Council when they make their decision at Public Hearing.***

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

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

***The discussion has concluded and we have written a "What We Heard" document that will be shared with Council when they make their decision at Public Hearing.***

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

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

Tell us what you think about the application

Please let us know what you like and what could be better about this application. What should Council know as they decide whether or not to approve the rezoning? Other people that visit this part of the site will be able to see your comments.

CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

Think it is a great idea, that whole area is strapped for accomodations. Should be a lot more higher density housing going in there. It has the LRT as well which is what we want to build around these stations.

dickaur 26 days ago

Think it is a great idea, that whole area is strapped for accomodations. Should be a lot more higher density housing going in there. It has the LRT as well which is what we want to build around these stations.

dickaur 26 days ago

I am exited about the new project alongside the University Ave. With the University and Whyte Ave in walking distances, there is not question that the McKernan Area calls for multi family development.

My main concern with the proposed development is the increase in traffic in the neighborhood. Many people in the neighborhood who need to go south on 114 Street are forced to go south on 112 street and make a left on 76 Ave NW. Turning left on 114th is a nightmare as it is. Nearly every day I have to wait 5 minutes to turn left on the intersection, and in rush-hour it takes a lot longer. Traffic often gets backed up to 112 Street and blocks the very active fire hall. Everyone that I have talked to has the same issue and the increase in traffic will make the problem a lot worse.

During the hearing I would appreciate discussion on ways to mitigate this issue, as this directly affects community members. if you need any clarification about my concerns, don't hesitate to get in touch.

Durell Lefebvre - REALTOR®
(780) 307-6298

Durell Lefebvre 28 days ago

It is suspect that this highrise -and over 4 storey's is a highrise to me is compatible with the surrounding neibourrs. Why must most multi-unit apartments resemble soviet union-era gulags - square rectangles with uninteresting roof lines. This building and any that are built right next to mature housing shouldn't be any taller than four storeys. I have gone to most of the open houses in the area and have opposed most of this type of infill. It is bad enough living next to a 3,000 sq/ft behemoth that replaced a 700sq/ft house it is another thing living next door or across the street from an infill highrise. i see that a the complete application is only two months away. Good try City of Edmonton indicating public consulatioin - you are proving again you are only going veiled motions of "public consultation".

JPG about 1 month ago

Removed by moderator.

vchowdhu about 1 month ago

Good initiative - glad to see a developer interested in this project. High density housing options in that area are definitely desirable as the city population grows. I do agree with an earlier comment on parking; certainly there will be units with residents who do not have vehicles, especially with the accessibility to the LRT and the proximity to the University and Whyte Ave. However, I'd think that adding additional capacity for parking would make sense so as to not impose a negative externality (too many additional vehicles in the area) on existing households in the community.

vchowdhu about 1 month ago

Will there be eco-friendly initiatives matching other builds in the area? In particular structures like solar panelling or rainwater collection?

Hanna about 1 month ago

I think it is an exciting sensible project. It will improve usage of the McKernan LRT station and serve the needs of University and hospital with affordable housing.

Terry Martin about 1 month ago

If I understand correctly, there will be only 85 parking stalls and 132 units. Which means an additional 47 (at least) vehicles using on street parking which is simply not available given the current usage in my neighbourhood. The parking is restricted to those of us living here with a residential permit and for short term visits of 2 hours or less Monday to Friday for non-residents. There is a reason for that as this is a prime location for people seeking free parking such as University students, staff/visitors at the University Hospital, people seeking to do park and ride with the LRT etc. I live only a few blocks away and on my block during the evening there is often only one or two parking spots available along the whole block. In addition, due to limited streets providing access to the complex there would be shortcutting through the neighbourhood and significantly increased volume of traffic. As mentioned in the traffic assessment, the intersection at 76 Ave and 114 Street is already causing significant delays and this would surely increase. There are very few options for me entering or exiting the neighbourhood to reach my house and it would be the same for residents of the proposed complex. I am not in favour of allowing this new development unless there is significantly increased underground parking and more direct access to the complex by road which does not affect traffic flow at the intersection of 76 Ave and 114 Street as well as University Ave and 114 Street. Thanks!

Barbara about 1 month ago

On further review I should retract my previous comment about putting the vehicle access on the north side, because there is an alley! So it makes more sense to have the vehicle access on the south side as the plans are drawn.

JJ about 1 month ago

Will on-site parking be increased?

PeterR about 1 month ago

Additionally -- I believe an earlier version of this plan called for height to increase gradually from the south to north sides of the building, which would be much preferable to the 'big cube' appearance of the current plan. Starting at a height of 3 storeys at the south end and rising to 6 storeys at the north end integrates better into the adjacent streetscape and allows multiple suites to have sunny south-facing terraces, increasing values of these rooftop units and resulting in a really attractive development, better than a "Soviet-style" cube.

JJ about 1 month ago

The height and size are better than before.

However, speaking as a resident of 79 Ave with 3 small children, I am strongly opposed to having the pickup/dropoff/parking area on the South side -- this is directly opposite a row of houses with multiple young families. This block is currently filled with small children on bikes, scooters and playing. Putting the parking access, truck loading zone and garbage dumpsters for a 120+ unit development site on the south side will dramatically alter the character of 79 Street and make it a dangerous place for children. Could the developers please put the vehicle access, garbage bins and truck loading area on the NORTH side of the lot, where there are no neighbors, only University Ave. This will also be more pleasant for the unit residents, whose 'amenity patio' will be separated from the garbage and vehicle-related noise and fumes.

JJ about 1 month ago

Removed by moderator.

sharmavishal21 about 1 month ago

Removed by moderator.

sharmavishal21 about 1 month ago

I am glad the City / developer did not recommend the 30 m high proposal and that the developer now has proposed a 23 m high building. This is aligned with the McKernan-Belgravia Area Re-Development Plan. There needs to be a balance between city densification goals and community quality. The east-west alley needs to be upgraded to accommodate this proposal and the others. I would like the developer to consider taking advantage of the City's new open parking policy and to propose a building with as little underground parking as possible (none would be best) so that auto traffic is not increased in the core of the neighbourhood. The City is emphasizing pedestrian traffic and LRT use in this area and having little parking is consistent with that idea.
I also like the commitment to bicycle parking. The potential roof top amenity would need to constructed to limit noise and ensure privacy of abutting houses.

sharmavishal21 about 1 month ago

Removed by moderator.

City of the Future about 1 month ago

I'm delighted to see redevelopment that is consistent with the McKernan-Belgravia Station Area Redevelopment Plan. The plan only calls for a relatively modest amount of transit-oriented development in the two neighbourhoods, so it's great to see sites planned for this development actually redeveloping. Since there is a train in place here -- the Health Sciences Station just to the north -- this is exactly the kind of place where we need development to go. The fact that any shadowing from the development would go onto a wide roadway (University Avenue) is bonus.

City of the Future about 1 month ago

I think that the original proposal should have been approved with a height of 30m.

I grew up in the neighbourhood and have seen almost every childhood friend I had move away due to the cost of housing. I have also seen small business after small business close due to the difficulty of operating a business in such a low density environment. E.g. Hulbert's, or the small convenience store that preceded it.

I think that we should be encouraging every developer to build the densest housing that is financially feasible in these areas. The development is very close to multiple LRT stations. It's really disappointing that we are encouraging the developer to reduce the maximum number of dwellings, the maximum height, and the maximum floor area ratio. We should be encouraging developers to expand all of these things to produce a denser, more populated neighbourhood with more neighbours to befriend.

If we want to meet the climate goals we have set for ourselves, or realize the goal of a "15 minute city", we should be encouraging density, and not restricting developers. This latest change reduces the number of dwellings by 38%. That's quite unfortunate and should be reconsidered.

Finbarr Timbers about 1 month ago

As someone who has grown up and lived in this neighbourhood for 30 years, I’m saddened at the number of towering infills that do not fit in with the neighbourhood. They take away light and privacy from neighbouring homes and honestly it’s a giant in your face eyesore. I’m sad that my childhood neighbourhood is being over developed with compacted housing. There is a reason why people love this neighbourhood..... and it’s not for tall towering skinny infill houses or “mid rise” apartments. These neighbourhoods are loosing their charm.

Elamoureux about 1 month ago