LDA20-0066 Metro 78 - McKernan

The ARP is the governing policy document for this proposed development. Brushing it off, ignoring it, flouting it is unacceptable. The city, if it expects citizens to be law abiding, should equally abide by its policy direction. The developer should have been sent packing long ago and not wasted our time.

Traffic from this development during development and after construction will be a huge burden for a narrow quiet street and an even narrower alleyway. Forcing traffic into the alley by removing the keyhole turn around is horrible.

I do not support this development as it does not comply with the ARP that is relatively recently approved. The community and the city have put much time and effort into a plan that was forward looking and allowed redevelopment that would not obliterate the neighbourhood.

Why does the developer assume it can get amendments to zoning and the ARP?
Why did the developer pay lip service to the community requests for buffers or protection of existing amenities?

I have lived in Belgravia since 1996 and raised my family here. It is an engaged community. As a result, lots of work, thought and volunteer hours went into working with the City to create the ARP. We need to follow the ARP, that is why we have one. The developer knew that the maximum height was 4 stories and they chose to proceed with their plan. Now, they are looking for an excuse to build something too tall and too large for the space, infrastructure and traffic The developer is not more important than the community but, sadly, I feel that the City feels that they are. Maybe we should know why the City thinks that way prior to voting in the municipal election.

A developer that so completely ignores the ARP should be given a written warning for wasting city resources and private citizens' valuable time. What specifically bothers me in this case is the 50% increase in the number of stories. The proposed height increase will very negatively impact surrounding lots and set a precedence for fully disregarding the ARP. As a homeowner in the neighborhood I'm looking for bureaucrats and politicians to honor the ARP - anyone up for the task?
 
What further points out the reality disconnect of the proposal is that the Applicant Rendering of the project is depicting a train type that is not used in Edmonton.    

The ARP should be followed, otherwise why have one? The proposed development is too high and too large for the location.

I've lived in Belgravia for the past decade. This neighbourhood has an existing ARP. All one has to do is look at the dozens of names that are acknowledged in that ARP to see that there was a considerable amount of thought and input that went into its creation. If we continue as a city to allow these types of buildings to be erected that clearly "violate" the existing ARP and require special consideration or exemptions, then why do we even bother spending the time, effort and thought into compiling an ARP? Just allow developers to build whatever they want, wherever they want. At least that process would be streamlined and wouldn't be wasting everyone's time.
The height of this building is too high. The lack of parking will be a nightmare in this neighbourhood. The amount of traffic that this new proposed building will bring into the neighbourhood will make the 76 Avenue and 114 Street corridor worse than it already is. And that's saying a lot.
We have an ARP for a reason. It was agreed upon by residents of this neighbourhood as well as the McKernan neighbourhood. We all agree that urban density and revitalization is important. But not this way. And not with the new building plans the way they are.

Since we moved into Belgravia 27 years ago we have seen the development of at least 2 ARP's, why do we go through all that consultation if it is not going to be upheld by the city. Does allowing one exemption set a precedence?
The height of the building is not suitable to the location. Along with the lack of parking, this will have a negative impact on neighbouring homes.
There is a need in the city to fill the missing middle but not this development in this location.

I am appalled that the City would consider completely ignoring the ARP. I thought the reason the ARP was developed was to provide a framework for situations exactly like this. Even if the residents of this development do not own vehicles, they will most certainly have visitors who do, and these visitors will wish to park their vehicles on neighbouring streets. 78th and 79th Avenues cannot accommodate this increase in density and traffic. I appreciate the need for TOD, but this development is completely out of place in this neighbourhood.

This proposed development is yet another insult to McKernan/Belgravia. These communities are diverse, vital and family oriented and I feel this development would further compromise the character of the area. Community members were enthusiastically engaged in the development of the ARP yet the planning department is ignoring it. I object to the density, height and the presumption that most residents will not have a vehicle, thereby contributing to the traffic woes of the neighbourhood. If the developers can't make money with 4 stories then they shouldn't be building it.

I am concerned this development will lead to less diversity in the area. Along 79, 78 and 80 Ave between the LRT and 115 St is seems that there are actually more student renters than families. If this development goes ahead with the majority of renters students (based on the developers projection), the area will actually become less diverse, which is not the intention the missing middle.

I agree with the previous input on this development regarding proposed recent revisions in particular. As other commenters have asked, what is the purpose of the ARP if developers are not required to follow it? The cost of installing infrastructure for the project should not be considered reason for disregarding it. A six-storey development that significantly increases the density above the initially proposed four storeys is unsuitable for this site and would do significant harm to the adjacent properties. Regardless of your TOD aspirations, residents of this development will have cars and they will clog both sides of 79th and 78th Avenue, and add to already significant congestion at 76th Avenue and 114 Street. The increased height of these buildings will negatively impact the natural light and privacy available to adjacent properties. I am not opposed to sensitive 4-storey development and support increased density on the perimeter of Belgravia-McKernan, but I cannot support this project. City of Edmonton, stand with the tax-paying citizens of this area and your ARP.

Instead of breaking its own contract with citizens, the planning department must stop being a rubber stamp and become more creative. The developer had a compliant, viable proposal which suddenly ballooned into a monstrosity under the ruse of infrastructure upgrades. Until the city and developer fully disclose the cost of these upgrades, it remains a ruse.

If the city is truly interested in increased density around transit, they should look a kilometer to the south. The site of the now- defunct provincial lab to the east of the South Campus Transit Centre and north of 65 Avenue could support a mid or even high rise development with thousands of residences adjacent to a true transit centre and not our whistle stop. Work out a land swap with the province. Even if that parcel is not available or in addition to it, look to the south of 65 Avenue. The area between the LRT tracks and the row of trees could alone support a development that would dwarf the total possible development in Belmac. To the east of the trees is an even larger plot comprising run-down playing fields.

We recently moved to Belgravia and were struck by the thoughtfulness of the development process within the neighborhood. There is a reason that ARPs are carefully constructed with critical consultation and support of community residents.

The McKernan-Belgravia Station ARP cites guiding principles, objectives, policies and a VISION that “the fundamental character of the neighbourhood be protected by limiting the type and form of development within the interior of the neighbourhood to be compatible with existing character”. One of the key policies is height restriction. The height limitation of 4-storeys can be found more than 20 times in the ARP. Clearly, this was considered a key policy of the redevelopment plan. The ARP also considers “Plan Amendments” with the proviso that “in all but exceptional circumstances, amendments are consistent with the vision, guiding principles, and objectives of the McKernan-Belgravia Station ARP.”

Poor planning by the Developer with obvious disregard for the ARP should not be considered an “exceptional circumstance”. If 4-storey structures do not address business concerns for the Developer, then the Developer should seek other areas of the city for construction.

Great things can happen when residents and the city work together. Rejigging the ARP to suit a Developer while ignoring concerns of the neighborhood residents does not make sense.

As a home owner on 78 ave, I am opposed to this project. The height and density proposed in this project will exacerbate tremendous traffic and congestion issues that are already affecting the neighborhood. Not enough has been done to accommodate the concerns of the current residents of the area. Concessions need to be made for this project to actually work for the community.

I am absolutely floored that the city is not following the by-laws set out for construction of new buildings. What is the ARP for then? Why do we have set by-laws if they are not being enforced? Where is the privacy for the homes on 78th Ave? I believe that it was stated earlier that if the builder could not get firm renters, they would do Airbnb’s. Well, if that is the case how are these Airbnb’s individual going to get to the building? Taxi, drive their own car or rent a car? I see there is limited parking set up for this building. So, these drivers are going to park on the street? On 78th and 114 it is a two-hour parking without a UA3 permit. What is so frustrating is that the parking by-law is not enforced. The 311 app does little to attend to Belgravia’s concern about illegal parking. As for Charles Simmonds Park. If this building goes up the park will look even more rundown, then it is at the present time. People are bringing their dogs into the park unleashed, there is dog feces every were, beer cans lying on the ground and the smoking of marijuana. With the new building on the corner of 114th and University Ave and the go ahead with this one the area will become saturated with cars people and dogs. We pay our councilors to look after our welfare/community. Where are they??????? We have not been looked after for years by our councilor.
There are two things that the city needs to get a backbone in. Follow the by-laws that are set out for new construction and change the by-law that allows drivers to move their illegal car just a few inches to start the whole illegal parking all over again This goes on all day in Belgravia. This movement of cars total defeats the parking by-law.
I do not like the fact that the builder is continually finding ways around the law to suite his ever changing mind, his behaviour is despicable. These last minutes of changes are unacceptable and I am opposed to this development.

I am against this proposal as it now stands. It will alter the nature of the neighbourhood, decrease quality of life for everyone who lives within a few streets of the development, and contribute to increasing lack of safety and high noise levels. For these reasons and all those already mentioned by previous commenters, I am against this proposal. It should follow the ARP - that is why the ARP exists. To argue that the developer cannot make a profit if they follow the ARP simply means the developer did not plan well. Why should the residents of Belgravia and McKernan pay for this lack of foresight? In addition the entire process of last minute changes made without consultation with residents, smacks of haste to get something passed underhandedly, because the City knows we are against it. Whose side are you on, City of Edmonton? Citizens or big business? It sure looks like on this project you are voting with the developer. Not acceptable.

I am opposed to the development proposal, as submitted. Further. last minute changes including height and land use have been made without notice or consultation to the community.

The biggest problem is that too much development is being crammed into a small site with a very sensitive proximity to single family homes.

The blocks are perpendicular to the rest of the neighbouring properties, which makes any infill particularly impactful. Overlooking of the older neighbourhood homes will be baked into the cake. The approved ARP calls for the need for sensitive placement of windows to respect this privacy. In this context, a 4 storey building envisioned by the ARP would still deliver a significant increase in density, with an appropriate transition from the existing properties which will remain SFH. The windows, balconies and newly added rooftop terrace, will significantly overlook existing bedrooms, bathrooms and gardens.

There is a fundamental planning misconception with the plan - the site is in a cul-de-sac location, and can not be considered a gateway. Servicing, and vehicles (estimated at 304 additional trips /day) will treat it as a terminus, not a point of arrival or through way. Existing bottlenecks leaving the neighbourhood will be made much worse. The east side of 114 Street has way more connectivity to the rest of the city.

The developers' argument that infrastructure upgrades (only required for this development) are driving the extra two storeys / 33 units is not a justification for inappropriate height and density which will harm the value and amenity of existing properties.

An RA7-type density or 4 storeys / 14.5M would be consistent with the ARP and significantly more compatible with the neighbourhood. The developer's presentation of cost and value is pretty meaningless and seems to contains errors. The cost of the development's infrastructure seems to be a tail wagging the dog - maybe the developer should find a cost share with EPCOR.

I believe there could be support at the 3 to 4 storey range, but the first-time developer is cramming too much in. I fear he is making a commercial mistake, which will leave the community with a legacy problem property.

While I am pro-increasing density in mature neighborhoods the plans for this project go to far and are not in the appropriate location. The traffic is a nightmare already with ridiculous traffic congestion that can take an hour just to get out of the neighborhood during rush hour. The thought of >300 more car trips each day is just too much.
I am puzzled by why we have ARPs if all of the rules can be broken and/or challenged. Why are we negotiating buiding height when the rules are in place already. I feel the builder is just trying to wear us down. 78 Ave is a quiet residential street that will be ruined by this development even if the ARP guidelines are followed.
At minimum the developers must follow the ARP.