The City is placing priority on densifying older neighbourhoods and wants to promote 10/15 minute walkable areas. As such, retail should be required (as laid out in the ARP) for the entire main floor of this development. The developer’s assertion that this isn’t feasible for the near term is not the City’s concern. The City’s concern should be that within the next few decades we have walkable neighbourhoods where people can have their needs met - without the need to drive a car or depend on individual household deliveries. If this space is not earmarked for commercial, then how does the City plan to meet the need of those who live in the neighborhood further west?

The height of the building is not in line with the ARP and should be reduced. Yes, we all know the City doesn’t care about height restrictions anymore, but the ARP is still on the books - and it does not provide for a 6 story building at this location. Part of my concern is that a 6 story building will shade my property in the cummerbund when I’m growing food for my household.

Regarding the ARP: the City should reach out to residents of this area (and others it’s made promises to) to get in front of the debasement of trust that occurring from the piecemeal decimation of the area plans. It appears that the City is approving applications while avoiding addressing the very real concerns of local residents on a holistic level - many of whom have lived in the area for decades. A planner or a councilor who could get a new job tomorrow should carefully consider how their actions can deeply impact those who have made a lifelong home where they live.

I am writing again to express my major concern over a proposal to build a 6 story building and a similar proposal to the aforementioned property is underway kitty corner! These proposals if given city approval are going to set a horrible precedent and leave home owners like myself holding the financial burden of falling property values for the neighbouring single and duplex family properties while the city gives the developers blank cheques.

The city needs to take our property value into consideration or offer to purchase out our properties adjacent to these new developments that are not within the zoning. If the City wishes to approve these developments than that decision cannot be made in a silo that only favors the city tax coffers and the developers pocket books.

I am strongly against this proposal as it will:

-Directly and negatively affect my property values

-There is no available parking already in the neighborhood

-The increase in traffic in front of McKernan school and down the back alley lanes is cause for serious concern

As a fellow Belgravian, I am all for the densification of our central neighborhood. But, the city must take responsibility by providing safe access for both people, current and future, who reside here as well as emergency services. There is a long history of poor decisions made by the City around the LRT development and also neighborhood renewal that has led to land locking McKernan/Belgravia and increased cut throughs. All of which have left inadequate road and path systems for both those who live in here and also anyone who accesses the community. Ie. Deliveries, business patrons, school attendees, family and friends. This pocket is unique in that there are only three access points in and out. This proposed development and the City are not taking into account the times that two of the three access points are backed up for up to 30+ mins. Which happens regularly. If the city is planning on building multiple developments in this small pocket, what are the road and access improvements as well? How are they improving access to service vehicles like garbage pick ups and emergency services? What stipulations are they insisting the developer integrate into the new building designs that will accommodate thousands of additional members of the community? The city’s agenda to increase densification is valid, but it has to be done responsibly. This proposed project has not addressed these concerns and should not move forward till they have.

I have reviewed the documentation for proposed development LDA21-0275 with particular interest in Section 5 of the Draft Direct Control Provisions.

For those unfamiliar with the history of this site, I built a net-zero home across the lane to the north of LDA21-0275 which I have occupied since 2011. The aim of net-zero housing is to produce onsite at least 100% of a building's annual energy consumption from renewable sources. In an urban environment, this usually involves installing enough photovoltaic modules (i.e. solar panels) to satisfy the home's annual energy use. Such homes rarely have a connection to the natural gas grid; appliances and space heating operate on electrical energy. This goes hand-in-hand with the concept of sustainability. I have heard of buildings that burn natural gas referred to as "sustainable", but any building that consumes an unsustainable (nonrenewable) resource such as natural gas is de facto not sustainable.

A common approach to net-zero is to overproduce energy in the summer, export the excess and receive a cash credit, then use that credit to import energy in the winter to cover the deficit in production in those months. You may notice on such a house that the solar modules are covered by snow for much of the winter.

My house stands apart from "conventional" net-zero buildings in the extent to which it utilizes solar access throughout the year. It has large south-facing windows glazed for maximum heat gain that produce about 50% of the annual space heating. Solar panels can be adjusted to the optimum angle for the low winter sun which also means that they clear quickly after snowfalls. By harvesting both heat and electrical energy, I can produce more usable energy on a sunny winter day than I can on a sunny summer day. By maximizing my energy production year-round, I can run the house on a smaller PV system than would be otherwise be required. This further enhances the sustainability of the house, because every building material, including solar panels, requires energy to produce and transport. This house is an outstanding example of sustainable design and construction and will be so well into the 22nd century.

The shadow study for project LDA21-0275 shows that my property would be shaded for a significant portion of each day throughout the heating season, when my house is particularly effective in harnessing solar energy. The energy the proposed structure blocked from my use would be reflected away and wasted. Guiding principle #7 of the proposed amendment to the ARP includes the sentence - "Explore new green infrastructure and building technologies, and encourage LEED-certified buildings, the incorporation of green roofs, the use of renewable energy sources and innovative wastewater technologies." This proposal does none of those and compromises a development that does most of those (I did not pursue LEED certification).

The proposed development will burn fossil fuel for space heating and domestic hot water. At least, there is nothing in the application to suggest otherwise. Developers are not shy about claiming credit when incorporating technologies such as heat pumps, even if there is no on-site renewable energy generation to power them. It will likely become too expensive to operate long before it has reached the end of its design life. The city has its HERA retrofit program and the federal government also has similar programs, but these are for older buildings. It is insane to be constructing new buildings to obsolete standards while retrofitting older buildings built to similar standards.

This potential development presents a unique opportunity to discuss adding density while limiting the impact on an existing sustainable development. I'm looking forward to the city council public hearing and presenting alternatives to this proposal.

* Note that the Sun Shadow document contains an error. The shading for March/September 21st 14:00 has the correct shading for surrounding buildings but incorrect shading for the proposed development. The shadows from all surrounding buildings point north-east while the shadow from the proposed development points slightly west of due north. The shading for the proposed development is actually the shading for June 21st 12:00 as can easily be seen by comparing the shadow diagrams for those two times. The creator of this document should review it for other errors.

I understand the need for redevelopment in this neighbourhood but have concerns about the proposed LDA21-0275 Belgravia Heights DC2 Rezoning. I am concerned that the small setbacks with the weather protection elements and balconies projecting into the setback will make the building footprint too big for the site leaving little greenspace. I believe the setbacks should be wider and not allow the weather protection elements and balconies to project into them. I am worried about the health of the mature trees along 76th Ave. I would like to know when the Commercial Alley will be developed. I believe the East-West and North-South Commercial Alleys should extend the full length of the block, not end partway through the length. That is because residents coming from the North often enter the neighbourhood at 115th then travel the length of the East-West Alley to their Driveway or turn early onto 77th Ave and turn into the North-South then East-West alleys to avoid traffic. I am hoping that the homeowners along the block will be consulted about the margins of the alley since there are often height differences at the border and some of these should have retaining walls added when the alley is put in. I would be interested in seeing a Sun-Shadow study for 8:00 am. I would like to know how many parking spaces will be in the underground parkade and how many exterior stalls for a loading zone there be for delivery drivers, dropoffs, etc.

This is an exciting project and a great example of transit oriented development. I am excited for the hundreds of new people who will get to call the Belgravia/McKernan area home.

It is definitely a bit of a change for the neighbourhood, but increasing density in our mature neighbourhoods is necessary for our city to grow sustainably.

It will be great for the neighbourhood to have increased commercial activity as well and it will add to the area’s vibrancy.

I’m excited to see this project develop and our city continue to grow in a forward looking, more sustainable way.

I just recently purchased a house a block away from the proposed plan. Our decision was based on the City approved ARP which is not to exceed 4 stories for new development. How can people take the City seriously if you decide to change plan approved by local residents any time somebody asks for amendments. Here are some additional problems with this development:
1. 6-story building would limit amount of sun not only for our house but for surrounding properties.
2. In its proposed location it would stand out like a sore thumb. Why not continue with the same architectural and height theme of townhouses already built along 76 Ave. This would provide architectural harmony in the neighborhood.
3. Residents in this neighborhood already have to face nightmare of turning onto 76 Ave from 114 St. This is a significant problem already. The proposed plan has no solution for the access of emergency, delivery, and other vehicles to the proposed building. Back ally would not be able to provide sufficient access for a project of this magnitude. Vehicles turning onto 76 Ave right after crossing LRT lines would immediately form another traffic jam should a vehicle need to stop outside of this proposed development.

Thus, this new development needs to be cut down to 4 stories and get slimmer in order to "fit" into the neighborhood. It also needs to have at least half of new units to be 3-bdrms, to keep its desirability as a family friendly neighborhood.

Very disappointed that this is even being considered.
Thank you.

JL

Hi,
I’m very worried about this as the traffic and congestion in Belgravia is already becoming unbearable especially to get in and out of the neighbourhood. It used to be just during peak rush hour but now the congestion is becoming an ongoing issue throught the day. There is also an increased number of traffic accidents and increased risk to pedestrians coming from the LRT as well as small children in the neighbourhood of getting hurt by these vehicles who make unsafe driving decisions based the frustration and backlog of cars ie you can easily wait 20 minutes to get out of the neghbourhood during rush hour

The proposal is reasonable. It would be good to have more 2-3 bedroom units as mentioned in many other posts. The community would definitely like ground floor commercial. Also, the open parking policy implemented by the CoE should be used...reduce the number of parking to reduce traffic and focus on pedestrian and transit.

Build a four story building, not six. Fewer units.

Definitely some 2 and 3 bedroom units for families.

Is this buding a rental or is it to be condominium units for individual sale? I did not see info to this regard....or missed it.

Delivery and cab pickup location (cost picked up by building) is essential......especially for families. Would this also be used for ambulances or what kind of accommodation for ambulances?

Maintenance of current large trees! These should not be removed.

Please, not super dark colors for exterior. Building on Southwest corner of 76th Ave and 113 street.....the exterior is too dark.

There should be a set back for building. Building should not butt the sidewalk.

Mixed housing and commercial makes sense in this location, but the development should respect the existing neighbourhood rules and ARP. If we can't have confidence that the City and developers must follow rules, then how can we have confidence in the quality of the buildings, or indeed in the way our city is managed and developed?
6 stories seems high for this location, the normal 4 stories would be more appropriate and consistent with the character of the neighbourhood.
The housing units should include 2 and 3 bedroom spaces that would support families -- the University has a lot of single-friendly options, but families spaces are lacking.
Access to the units is a concern -- 76 avenue west of the LRT is regularly backed up 3 or 4 blocks from about 4:30 pm to 6:30 pm on weekdays, taking 20 + minutes to exit the neighbourhood (this is not an exaggeration -- anyone can go observe the phenomena). Asides from increasing traffic being annoying to neighbours, the residents of this proposed development could face serious problems even getting out of their homes, which will depress the value of the units. Parking and idling enforcement will be required in front of the units on 76 ave, there is no room for a quick uber pick up or UPS delivery. Lane access might be an option, but the lane maintenance costs will need to redistributed to the developer and the condo association, and some kind of turn around offered for a space that accommodates only one car. Further, the sidewalk in front is currently shared bike/ pedestrian space, and any vehicular traffic going across it will increase the risk of collisions. Creative thinking will be needed to resolve the access issue.

Some comments/concerns:

1. The design facing 76 Ave must be built such that no vehicles can park or stop on 76 Ave. If a vehicle blocks the westbound lane in front of this development, traffic can back up onto the LRT tracks; a very dangerous situation. Think of all the deliveries and pickups for a building of this size, and how many of these drivers will be tempted to stop or park in front on 76 Ave. The City and developer must present a clear and detailed plan to prevent this problem. Signs stating "no stopping" will not suffice.

2. All the delivery traffic and the underground parking entrance will be via the back alleys. Please provide us with a detailed plan of how this will work. These are one-lane alleys (some unpaved) that are not designed for this level of traffic. The City and developer need to carefully consider what will work here, not just for this development but for the existing houses and businesses that use the alleys.

I fully agree comments from dfsmith. I strongly against this not-well planed development. I have a lot of worries, including irrational heigh of proposed building, unprecedented high-density of inhabitants which will cause security concerns and fire risk to the neighbourhood and community; imbalanced architectural landscaping, aggravated traffic jam…… etc. Here are the rationales and concerns:
1. This rezoning and developing plan are against the effective bylaw as described in McKernan-Belgravia Station ARP, in which it was clearly defined that the 4 story-building in the maximal height allowable.
2. Proposed total building height is 21.5 meters (70.65 ft) is the way much higher than the current surrounding low-density houses (The highest infill building is only 28 ft above the ground surface). That will harm the neighbours regarding the privacy, sun exposure, green lawn and garden, solar panel efficiency and other investments…… etc. We have not even talked about any potential disturbing and damage during future constructions as proposed.
3. The 76 Ave is the main corridor for the traffic flow out the entirely McKernan-Belgravia community of West portion and merge to 114 street on East bound. Proposed location of the building with proposed density of residents right in the corner between 76 Ave and 114 Street creates unacceptable traffic issue, not only for future residents in and out of that building but also for the traffic from the whole community as well as bypass vehicles. Traffic incident rates for the residents are going to increase for sure.
4. The City’s drainage system in that proposed rezoning areas are shallow and very much outdated. Unprecedented high-density of residents (120 units with estimated 250 residents at the minimum) will significantly increase usage of old sewerage system, causing possible sewer backup to surrounding neighbours and damages to the properties. The developer and City planner need to consider this issue seriously and have solid plan of upgrading the system to prevent potential damage occurred to the neighbourhood and community. It means that update of infrastructure of that area is very critical before any rezoning and development action can take place. Does the City planner have a plan or a warranty to the neighbourhood ?
5. In that whole section along 76 Ave (between 114 and 115 street on North of 76 Ave), there are still 3 low-density individual houses remaining standing (not counting the corner commercial shop building). Building a 6 story-building on the half of section of that land as proposed will surely make the architectural landscaping very ugly, to be hornets to say, even not considering functionality. Unless the City and developer use that whole section of the land for this development, the project is totally unfeasible and dysfunctional in my opinion. As the planning master, The City should have much better insights, considerations, and solid plan on these issues.
6. What is the setback distance from the proposed building to the next neighbour house? and to the front walking pedestrian where public shares? We need to know that.
7. Additional question for the City planner: Are there fences and barricades surrounding the proposed building in design to separate surround houses from it? We do have a serious concern about the safety and security if it is completely open access. You never know the character of a person among 250 residents in the proposed building.
I hope the City planner do listen to the community and neighbourhood and have a kind consideration on all issues we raised now and in future seriously.

Once again, in seeking feedback the city fails its citizens by asking for responses to change the zoning to DC2 so that a development will “fit”. Why bother with zoning and planning policy if every time someone wants to build something in an area that doesn’t fit the existing zoning, a DC2 zone that allows for anything to be built is allowed? Why stop at six stories? Why not call DC2 anything goes zoning or build what you want?

The point is, existing zoning and development planning, and proposed zoning, does not allow for such oversized development in this location.

Stick with the planning and zoning that currently fits theses lots. If the proposal doesn’t fit, turn it down. And don’t go changing the development rules whenever someone asks for it.

I could provide details about heights and setbacks, shading and traffic, parking and access, size and safety. All that would be given to the developer so it can “mitigate” or massage the design to say it has considered all the relevant feedback. Nope. Do the job to fit the development in the existing (and if you need wiggle room, the city plan and proposed district plans) regime.

When the LRT was built through that neighbourhood, that was the time to signal to the community densification at the station nodes was going to happen by rezoning, and then sticking with those plans and limiting them to those zones. People planned their lives and made investments based on that. Why are they penalized because someone wants to make changes outside the scope of that bargain?

This is a great project for the area. There is no reason there should be single family homes across the street from the University and beside an LRT station--it makes no sense. Traffic should not be a concern because many people living here will be students walking or taking transit, and it is in walking distance to pretty much everything you need. Ground floor commercial is important to integrate into a community. I do think that more family-sized units should be added as they belong in this community too, but many families can't afford a $500K+ home in this neighbourhood.

What a great project. This is the sort of development we need all along the LRT lines in this city. Single family homes still make up the vast majority of land in mckernan&belgravia, even though they are central neighborhoods next to the university, hospital, and a quick commute to downtown or whyte. This is the sort of project that enables young people more access to quality housing in the core.

Ground floor commercial would be great to attract some solid stores to add to the vibrancy of the community.

Concerns around parking and traffic are regularly overblown for these projects and other solitons exist, like permits for guests or paid street parking for residents trying to regularly store private goods on public property. Pay for a garage or driveway if you have a car and park on your own property.

People wanting this to stay a bunch of single family homes are excluding thousands from some of the most valuable land in our city to access education and employment. That shouldn’t be prioritized. More projects in the 4-6 story range around LRTs are needed!

Live Work units will not give the pedestrian activation that a commercial use would, and there is no requirement for any real Commercial uses. There should be some ground floor commercial required so close to the LRT, and with commercial to the west. Government Services seems strange for a Live Work Unit as these would be directly associated with Government and not be a residence? Would this not be an office proper?
The ground floor rendering is not representative of what can be built, it appears that the Live Work units will provide all the ground floor commercial and allow no restaurants or community amenities to be provided.
The Zoning Bylaw Renewal also does not have Live Work units so these units will revert to residential only and allow the development to not even have these commercial developments. Make a choice, either require commercial and improve the neighbourhood amenities, or have a 100% residential development.

Family units are direly needed in these developments, 3 bedroom units should be mandated and not be live work units. The regulation allowing the work component to be a bedroom will defeat the benefit of additional rooms for 2 bedrooms, and could be interpreted as being in affect for the 3 bedrooms, and should be removed.

The Setback from the West and South property lines does not make sense to me as they are allowed to get closer to the property line after 14.5m in height, but that seems like it increase sun-shadow impact? The 4.5m setback from the West property is good to protect the properties there and the building should not be any closer.

All in all, the development is very large for the area, but could be beneficial if they allow more 2 and 3 bedroom units and actually provide meaningful commercial opportunities.

Our neighborhood has lost all trust and faith in the mayors office and city counsellors who voted to approve Metro 78 development nearby this proposed development on 76/114st. The city has voted to disregard the ARP that community members spent years developing with the city. Metro-78 was proposed as a 4-storey development and has now become a 7+story development that does not fit at the end of a quiet street and destroys the heritage family-child-friendly neighborhood. The development also blocks morning sun- a significant quality of life issue, and sets a precedent along the train line in this small neighborhood that is highly congested. City councellors are out of touch with the community they serve and do not live in the neighborhood of Belgravia-McKernan. Counsellors stated we need more student housing as one reason to approve Metro 78 yet the University of Alberta has empty student housing towers and the new University Heights on university avenue offers student housing. Increasing density in this neighborhood has created significant hardship for residents to get in and out of the neighborhood and this development on 114st will contribute further to significant congestion and decrease quality of life for those that live in the neighborhood - adding hours to the daily commute to exit and enter the neighborhood to do daily activities. How many cars will be added to the congestion with this development? How many stories will this development become when the developor out of greed and the city disregard community concerns? The city allowed developers for Metro 78 to go from 4 to 7+ stories and to create an unsafe street and development for children and pedestrians. The laneways surrounding these developments will become main roads - Our laneway is already a main road and cars are parked in our driveways. This is not the area to squeeze in more of these large developments - no other area along 114st has a neighborhood so close to a train track with massive 4-7 story apartments, so why squeeze more of these into this small neighborhood which is already suffering from congestion?
The mayor and city counsellors have lost the trust by the residents on many projects in this city.

It seems like around 7-9 large family friendly dwellings (SFH+duplexes) will be removed for this development. I would like to see the amount of three bedroom units increased at least to 10-12% to ensure we aren't reducing supply of larger residences in this area (across the street from an elementary school).

This is a great idea. As the population rises, it gives way more people options to live near transit and schools. This development makes this area so much livelier as well. I support this rezoning and development.

My only feedback is please allow for more family units that has 2 or 3 bedrooms and minimize 1-bedroom or studios. And increase height to 7 stories so more people can access this location. Please fund for sidewalk access to the shared use path from north, east, and south of the building.