LDA20-0066 Metro 78 - McKernan

On behalf of A Path Less Travelled and the community residents, please find reports (https://apathlesstravelled.ca/metro78) shared with City Administration regarding concerns about waste removal and fire truck access related to the proposed development.

Please note that City Administration is still reviewing the application and a recommendation to City Council has not yet been rendered. This posted comment is for information sharing purposes only.

I have significant concerns about the development of this property. My greatest concern is that is does not meet the ARP for the area on several levels, it does not fit in well with the community, and does not provide any “value added”. I support increasing density appropriately, but this is not the way. I am concerned about on-street parking being allowed by the city for these new residents since no parking is available through the building. The sheer number of new residents will only add to the traffic gridlock that occurs already due to the street-level LRT crossings and high university and hospital traffic. I am concerned about the safety and overall design in terms of the building’s abutment to the multi-use pathway, especially during the dark hours of winter. I question the integrity of privacy for the neighboring houses. We have ARPs for a reason. The city developed this in cooperation with the residents of McKernan/Belgravia. The city needs to consider the best interests of the community, not simply the tax dollars that will be brought in. I do not support this application as it stands. The fact that the developer realized too late that a smaller building would not be financial feasible is not a reason to bend the rules for them. It was poor planning on their part. They should not be rewarded for this.

I've lived in Belgravia for 20 years and have been watching it evolve as more density is being added by way of infill. I'm not opposed to adding more density to central neighbourhoods, but I feel that the way in which it's happening feels and looks very unplanned. Older neighbourhoods like Belgravia and McKernan are losing their charm with each stucco clad building that gets jammed into it. Is there no design committee looking at these submissions from developers or home owners?

This proposal for Metro 78 does not suit this neighbourhood. The scale that they're proposing now, 6 storeys, is far too big for the area. It will dwarf all of the surrounding homes, reducing their property value. I'm concerned that the developer wants 6 storeys instead of the original 4. At what point will this stop? What other liberties will they be taking? I don't believe the developer has any interest in the neighbourhood or the people living here. They've chosen a location to build that will be most profitable to them.

Increasing the density of that small area by that much will be horrendous. There's already a huge 6 storey residential building going up a few blocks to the north of this proposed development. While I agree with the "no car" rule of this building, it's unrealistic. People will have cars, especially if there will be suites meant for families. Unfortunately, that's the nature of our city. That area of McKernan cannot support more street parking.

I'm in full agreement with all of the previous statements made regarding the traffic in the area. With only three entrances into the neighbourhood, it's gridlock on weekdays in the mornings, after school and between 4.30 and 6pm.

Over the years, Belgravia and McKernan have seen an increase in crime. Bringing more people into the neighbourhood will inevitably bring more crime. Is there a plan created to mitigate this? The police occasionally do a lap in the neighbourhood, but they can't always be present. The crime is generally petty like car break ins and bike thefts, but it's disturbing and costly to the people that live in these neighbourhoods.

Removed by moderator.

I reside directly north of the proposed development, and have significant concerns about this proposal. While I generally favor densification, it is also necessary to consider the negative impacts this has on the neighbourhood, and find balance. My decision to maintain residence in this neighborhood was based on an understanding that the existing ARP would guide redevelopment, and I believe the ARP strikes a good balance. I would be deeply disappointed if it were amended.

My fellow residents have raised concerns about the height. While there are examples along 76 Ave of 4-storey developments that I believe to fit in nicely with adjacent homes, I cannot say the same of the taller developments along University Avenue, which towers the homes on adjacent streets. Furthermore, while there has been much discussion about the landscape buffer to the west, it is unclear to me how much space there will be between the building and homes to the north and south. The proposed height – more than one-third higher than in the existing ARP – will greatly impact the sunlight and privacy in my home and those of my neighbours. It will significantly alter the character of the neighborhood, and make our homes less desirable to reside in.

I also share concerns regarding traffic. Traffic volume right now is at a tipping point. With the current volume, cars travelling north and turning left from 114 St. to 76 Ave. can have to wait several light cycles to be able to turn. This often leads to congestion on northbout 114 St south of 76 Ave. The eastbound lane of 76 Avenue leading up to 114 St. is not infrequently backed up beyond 115 St. I am concerned that even a small volume of traffic will lead to greater congestion at this intersection.

While I would like to see greater use of public transit, the fact is that our city (and province) is built for cars, and it is extremely wishful that this development will not cause havoc with street parking, which is limited right now and ill-enforced.

The proposed narrowing of the greenspine from 12 m in the ARP to 9 m in this plan is also problematic. With densification, we need our greenspaces protected.

I am strongly opposed to the proposed amendment to the ARP. Again, I would be deeply disappointed if the City chose to disregard it. The scale and plan of the proposed development will have several negative impacts on the neighbourhood that will be long-lasting and irreversible.

Stick to the ARP with 4 storeys max height for this location PLEASE!
Keep the ARP green spine at it's original width, no smaller PLEASE!

Removed by moderator.

Removed by moderator.

Another idea to help with the potential parking problem would be to get rid of the ground level living units and put in a main floor parking garage. This would help mitigate some of the lack of street parking available. And in order to address traffic issues along 78 Avenue, perhaps parking could be only allowed on one side of the avenue in order to create two driving lanes.

I understand the need for density in the city’s core, as laid out in the ARP. Density for who? Have we stopped to think about who might benefit the most from direct access to the LRT? Creating a seniors residence or a residence for folks with mobility needs would open an accessible living space in the city. There are not enough spaces that are accessible and affordable for folks with mobility needs. We could contribute to an age friendly Edmonton, and make Edmonton a liveable winter city for folks with the greatest physical barriers. This development caters to a developer and the needs of temporary renters willing to pay. The City claims to support Accessibility. This is a chance to demonstrate that support. This area is a jewel of an opportunity to provide folks with mobility needs a direct connection with the LRT, and therefore the city.

I think now would actually be a good time for the City to re-do the traffic assessment at 76 avenue/114 street and at 115 street/university ave. Traffic is jam-packed.
Given the substantial inadequacies in the TIA (traffic impact assessment) that leaves the City vulnerable to legal challenge, perhaps it would be best to do it all properly, maybe with a different developer who is more inclined to respect the ARP.

I would like to piggy-back on YEGcg's well written & necessarily long submission.

I have grown up in this neighbourhood and have seen the changes that have impacted me and all the residents here. The LRT, I would have to say for me, is the biggest one thus far. Living so close to the U of A campus, there is so much cut-through traffic in our neighbourhood. We are gridlocked! It's a route that should not be taken by vehicles driving southbound on 115 Street from campus... a sign even says they are supposed to turn east (left) onto University Ave. So now, with other developments already being built, this Metro 78 proposal, and likely more future developments (depicted in one of the slides) along the LRT corridor in Belgravia... tell me how this will not impact traffic flow and congestion!

This leads me to another car issue... parking! If new family dwellings being built are required to also have a garage so owners are not relying on public streets to park, why is this idea not enforced for larger developments? Where is their garage? I understand that this development is focusing on LRT & transit ridership, but you can't guarantee that owners/renters won't own a car down the line. Can/will they prevent someone who owns a car from buying a unit? Or maybe potential buyers can just lie and say they don't own one...
Every unit needs to have 1 parking space. Even if they don't use it, they could rent the parking space ONLY TO someone else that also lives in the building - like a family with 2 cars - (for security reasons).

Let's talk about size! The new height amendment is not in keeping with the feel of this neighbourhood, and it certainly is not following our ARP agreement. Four stories is the maximum. Period. There are many reasons why this was agreed upon.

HOW ABOUT WE TURN THIS SITUATION AROUND... LET'S PROPOSE THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT GETS BUILT ON THE DEVELOPER'S RESIDENTIAL STREET. OR ON ANY OF THEIR EMPLOYEE'S STREETS & AVENUES. HOW ABOUT RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO WHERE THE CITY EMPLOYEES LIVE (the one's that would approve this monstrosity).
I WONDER WHAT THE OUTCRY WOULD BE!!!!!

As a Belgravia resident, I am troubled by this proposal because too many aspects are not satisfactorily addressed. Specifically I am concerned about the height of the proposed building, the greenspine it will take away, the child care issue, the traffic it causes and the potential safety issues. Please don't ignore community's concerns.

What was the point of making the ARP, setting down all these rules and guidelines, if we’re just going to forget about them the first time they’re inconvenient for some developer! You’re telling me 142 units isn’t going to clog the whole neighbourhood with more cars and traffic? If you’ve seen the cars lined up to 118th st trying to exit by the LRT you know that things are congested enough as it is. Not to mention the eyesore that this 6 story, light-blocking, oversized chunk of concrete and metal will be. I have no sympathy for this money-grubbing developer who thinks they have the right to ignore the rules for their own benefit (to the detriment of everyone else in the neighbourhood). And I certainly don’t think the city should make any exceptions for them!

Removed by moderator.

This development is beyond a scale that would fit into the neighbourhood, is not in alignment with the ARP, and, if approved, strongly favours the developer over the concerns raised by neighbours and city planners. As a resident 1 block away on 77 Ave, this development impacts my enjoyment of neighbourhood amenities, such as the green spine, on-street parking, and access for emergency vehicles.

The ARP was approved as a bylaw in 2013, which was deemed to still be valid and current during the recent review of all city ARPs. When the ARP was developed, both the community and the city came to an agreed upon plan for the area and this was codified into a city bylaw - the city planners and city council entered into a covenant with area residents that they would act in accordance with the ARP. If council, instead of the residents, believe that the current ARP is no longer sufficient, then the City should develop a new ARP, with new community consultation. It’s an insufficient process to disregard the ARP piecemeal.

Part of the ARP, which was developed to provide amenities to an area that was significantly impacted by the building of an above ground LRT line, was the inclusion of the multi-purpose green spine. In other words, in exchange for the area being physically separated along its entire east side and for the increase in noise, the green spine was provided as a benefit for the area and for those who pass through it. This development, as it stands, requires that the City sell part of the green spine - which is our common good as Edmontonians and as area residents. When a common good like this is sold, it is nearly impossible to regain it. With inevitable increased density, we will need more areas like this in the future and not less. Should we consider selling parts of the river valley or other parks so developers can build a few extra units? We have an opportunity, now, to preserve our greenspaces for generations to come… for no cost.

To be clear, I understand that all parts of the city need to be more densely populated to make better use of existing infrastructure. For many decades we’ve all allowed the spread of low density development, while doing little to increase overall density. That said, the ARP was developed to accommodate a reasonable increase in density in this mature residential neighbourhood. This development far exceeds the density laid out in the bylaw. Part of the ARP document states “The plan increases housing options while retaining the predominantly low-density residential character of the McKernan and Belgravia neighbourhoods.“ Two buildings, each 6/7 stories tall, built on 4 lots, with over 140 units does not retain the character of the neighbourhood. In addition, the ARP clearly states that the maximum height for this location is 4 stories.

The developer has asserted that the project would not be financially feasible with less than 4 stories / 100 units (as originally proposed), and now that has increased to 6/7 stories and 140 units. There are plenty of examples in both McKernan and Belgravia where developers have sought, and made, a profit by doubling the density (i.e. “skinny houses”). Part of this developer’s argument is that additional water infrastructure would be needed to accommodate the additional units. This is circular logic - no significant additional water infrastructure would be needed if the density was being doubled or quadrupled - the reason these costs have increased is due to the number of units the developer wants to build.

The development, at the end of a cul-de-sac, is not on a major thoroughfare as the developer is asserting. Yes, it is physically near 114 St, however, the driving route to get to it is: 1 block down a narrow residential street (or alley), 2 blocks to 76 Ave, and 1 block to 114 St (after waiting for the LRT). To say that this development is being built on 114 St is akin to saying that Mill Creek Pool is on Whyte Ave or that West Edmonton Mall is on Anthony Henday Drive. In other words, side streets are being impacted, which will lead to other follow-on issues. Will the City mandate that 78 Ave become one-way and the adjoining alleys also become one way in the other direction? If so, this is not keeping in the spirit of the ARP in maintaining the character of the neighbourhood - outside of downtown and Strathcona there are very few residential neighbourhoods with one way streets or alley ways. What upgrades will the City provide for this? The traffic impact on the alley might necessitate paving, which would be unfair for area residents to pay for, considering the primary beneficiary will be the developer. Will the City mandate that area residents or their guests no longer be able to park on the street? Has the City considered how emergency vehicles will access the area safely and quickly?

The lack of off-street parking for the building is wholly inadequate in this proposal. At 100 or 140 units, the plan is for 8 visitor parking stalls. One could reasonably assume that there would be at least 8% of units that have one vehicle, despite the building being marketed as ‘transit oriented’. Effectively there would be no visitor parking and even the new residents might be parking on the street, if there are more than 8 units that have a car associated. As it stands now there’s very little on-street parking, due to the existing density of the neighbourhood. How will the City help ‘enforce’ the developer’s marketing of the building as transit oriented? Will it ban residents in the development from seeking on-street parking permits? If so, will this ban remain indefinite with no opportunity to appeal in a year or five?

Given the small size of the individual units, and the lack of transparency from the developer in how the building will ultimately be occupied (i.e. rented or condos?), it appears that this could easily become an unlicensed AirBnB ‘hotel’, with easy access for Edmonton Oilers or Edmonton Elks games via the LRT. The number of units in this development is about the same as the Holiday Inn on 104 St & 100 Ave. Many visitors to Edmonton bring their own vehicles or use a rented car while here, as evidenced in Edmonton Bylaw 12800 which states that “1 parking space per Sleeping Unit” is required for Apartment Hotels. What is the City’s plan to mitigate this possibility? Why wouldn’t the City mandate at least 1 parking space per 2 or 4 units for such a dense residential development, even if it’s for visitor use? How has EPS evaluated this proposal for potential ‘AirBnB’ type uses, including related noise related issues?

If the City does not consider the possibility that the development could become a de facto hotel, Bylaws 15785 & 16591 state that the minimum number of visitor stalls is 1 per 7 sleeping units for TOD apartment housing. This would mean that a minimum of 20 visitor parking stalls are required for the development. The same bylaws indicate that, for TOD apartments, a minimum of 0.7 parking stalls are required per unit, which would mean 98 stalls for a 140 unit development. The total for this proposal is 8, when bylaws indicate there should be 118, at a minimum.

The height of the building impacts the sunlight, privacy, and views of the neighbours. Even from my doorstep on 77 Ave, I can view across to campus and watch Canada Day fireworks in the river valley. The height of this building and ‘party space’ on the top floor would mean that those residents essentially can see into my front window and I’d no longer have the view. If the buildings were 4 stories (or less) I’d still be able to have this viewpoint and less intrusion into my personal space.

Overall, this development is too tall and too dense for this neighbourhood, the building site, and for the covenant the City entered into by way of approving (and keeping in place) the existing ARP. If the developer’s proposal is accepted, and thereby the ARP is amended, why do we have an ARP?

I have great concerns about this development. The traffic in this area is already unmanageable, especially on 76 Avenue and 114 Street with the LRT crossing. Adding up to 200 new residents will not help this and whatever you say, you cannot guarantee that they do not have a car. I am also disappointed that it adds nothing to the neighbourhood - no amenities, just congestion.

The width of the current road is too narrow to accomodate any additional traffic. With parking on both sides of the street, there's only room for one vehicle at a time. How often has our ARP been tested? If the city and developers are going to ignore it, what was the point? This "community engagement" process is why people do not trust the city. And why people scoff whenever the idea of community engagement via the city comes up. It is completely dishonest and insincere. Additional suites and building height means more rental suites in the neighborhood, more visitor traffic, more noise. All of which negatively impacts the immediate neighbours. The precident of ignoring the ARP is also of concern, as it empowers developers in the future to also ignore the ARP. If we throw enough money at a project, is there no limit for developers? Should I put up a 20 story building in my backyard? I hear the ARP is more hopes and dreams, rather than a set of standards.

When the planning for the LRT was underway and approved, the community was promised that the LRT would not be a locus of multi story dense development. This community is the most severely affected of any along this line by the LRT that bifurcated the community.

The height of this development is unacceptable and will encroach on the privacy of the neighbours. The developer’s rendering of its building show no community behind it. Just a wasteland of green. How ridiculous.