LDA20-0066 Metro 78 - McKernan

1) There is a great deal of stress resulting from the density increase in this community. I hope you will come and stand here so you can experience the stress of congestion and noise level as it exists now. This neighbourhood has few exits and they all are congested by the LRT tracks. (115 street is backed up during peak times; the introduction of more traffic will cause this congestion to swell). I do not see how emergency vehicles such as police and fire will access these buildings as the south building will block the access to the alley which is the second access on this street; this blockage will make the street a narrow cul-de-sac.
2) Enjoyment of space and greenspace contributes to mental health. Just looking at nature and greenspace is calming. The proposal eats up the greenspace (the spine) beside the pedestrian and bicycle walkway and reduces the walkway to a corridor. Many pedestrians and cyclists (and runners) share this walkway ; bicycle bells alert walkers to step to the side. The proposal will make this walkway more congested than Edmonton's High Level Bridge and it is well-known that the High Level Bridge walkway is treacherous at peak hours. The vibrancy and enjoyment of this walking and cycling trail will be lost as it will be difficult to navigate and be minus the broad space (the spine) that is now there. I think of cities where walking and cycling is enjoyed -- those cities have broad walkways with open space on at least one side. At night, this corridor will not be welcoming to people exiting the LRT. People with limited mobility will face more difficulty.
I am concerned that this proposal that encroaches on greenspace that was already reduced with the building of the LRT and the increase in population for the neighbourhood pushes the density of the neighbourhood beyond a critical point. This critical point, in this case, refers to a point at which residents have access to walkable spaces, ease of entry for first responders and enjoyment of the neighbourhood. I urge that there be reconsideration of the size and footprint of these buildings and a reconsideration of the encroachment on the shared walkway/bicycle way.
Concerned 78 Avenue Resident

My family and I are relatively new residents to the area. Having read the comments already submitted, I want to focus my comments on the process aspects of this proposal. Before moving to the neighbourhood, we thought intentionally about living so close to the LRT. We asked potential neighbours about sound and other impacts and researched the relevant ARP to think through what was imagined for the neighbourhood in the upcoming years. Based on those conversations and comments, we purchased a house on 78th ave.
My concerns lie with a project that significantly departs from the ARP approved by the city and the result of significant community conversation and compromise (as outlined by other commenters). We moved to this neighbourhood knowing (and strongly supporting) increased density, especially close to the LRT. We also understood the limits on the density and height of future developments as articulated in the ARP. What is concerning here is the significant extent to which this proposal departs from the ARP.
I appreciate the challenges decision-makers face when needing to factor in changing contexts. That is, based on my work, I understand that literal adherence to a plan may need to evolve to reflect changing circumstances. What I do not understand is how such a significant divergence from the plan could happen without significant engagement with impacted communities. If plans like the ARP are not going to be used as a guideline for approving proposals (and DC2 zoning), then perhaps decision-makers should consider repealing them or developing a framework and then publicizing the variance from the plans that will be accepted. 
In closing, we moved to this neighbourhood assuming and supporting increased density. We assumed that the density would be consistent with the ARP. We are concerned that this key planning document may not be as significant to the decision-making process as we assumed. We are concerned that this proposal's deviation from the ARP is so significant as to dramatically change the character of the neighbourhood.

My family and I are relatively new residents to the area. Having read the comments already submitted, I want to focus my comments on the process aspects of this proposal. Before moving to the neighbourhood, we thought intentionally about living so close to the LRT. We asked potential neighbours about sound and other impacts and researched the relevant ARP to think through what was imagined for the neighbourhood in the upcoming years. Based on those conversations and comments, we purchased a house on 78th ave.
My concerns lie with a project that significantly departs from the ARP approved by the city and the result of significant community conversation and compromise (as outlined by other commenters). We moved to this neighbourhood knowing (and strongly supporting) increased density, especially close to the LRT. We also understood the limits on the density and height of future developments as articulated in the ARP. What is concerning here is the significant extent to which this proposal departs from the ARP.
I appreciate the challenges decision-makers face when needing to factor in changing contexts. That is, based on my work, I understand that literal adherence to a plan may need to evolve to reflect changing circumstances. What I do not understand is how such a significant divergence from the plan could happen without significant engagement with impacted communities. If plans like the ARP are not going to be used as a guideline for approving proposals (and DC2 zoning), then perhaps decision-makers should consider repealing them or developing a framework and then publicizing the variance from the plans that will be accepted. 
In closing, we moved to this neighbourhood assuming and supporting increased density. We assumed that the density would be consistent with the ARP. We are concerned that this key planning document may not be as significant to the decision-making process as we assumed. We are concerned that this proposal's deviation from the ARP is so significant as to dramatically change the character of the neighbourhood.

This development does not belong on a small, quiet, dead end street like 78th Ave. It belongs on a bigger artery such as close by 76th or University Ave where I might support it. I agree with all of the concerns raised here, particularly the ones around dwarfing/shadowing of existing houses and traffic nightmares. At the VERY least, the original ARP MUST be respected and this development should rise no higher than 4 stories. Otherwise, those of us who bought our properties on this street since the original ARP was announced will have been duped. Please consider all of the opposition to this project.

This is a serious problem. the developer is lying and using excuses to make things go his way, and not being considerate of community members.

Hello, my jolly ol' neighbors!
This development is way too high, so it is! I immigrated here from big ol' Ireland many years back, I learned how to cook real good, my cockney stews were right bang on. This developer is a real dosser, so he is. He thinks that he can get away with bloody murder, so he does. He did a gammy finnacial ananlyis, how can we trust him to build a building in our neighborhood. My and my jolly ol' family immigrated here as bunch of year a go, and never have we seen this!

I am completely opposed to this development. This is a complete joke. I live on 78th Avenue with young children and I am concerned about their safety. The increased traffic on the road and the one-way nature will mean there is an increased risk of accidents and injury to children. The goalposts have moved with complete disregard for the ARP. This is a quiet family neighbourhood which is safe for children to play on and this will go out of the window with this project.

This development will be an eyesore to a beautiful street and neighbourhood. When it comes to dollars, integrity seems to be missing. I don't know how the city planners or council can sleep at night. Do you have any integrity at all? Has the developer had any experience in such projects? The developer has now shown that they are not to be trusted by changing the application? This is a red flag in itself. I urge the city to do the right thing and cancel this project completely.

You cannot make the area as in Century Park LRT neighbourhood. We don’t have enough space to develop high rise building.

Building is too high. Please limit to 4 stories. I am most worried with traffic congestion as well. There are not too many exit to get out of the neighborhood by car. Existing intersections are very crowded and bottle-necked already. Rush hour is pandemonium with cars, cycles and pedestrians, especially on the west of 114 street.

I would like to ask all these questions answered before these projects start.
1. What days will the development have garbage pick up and which days will the community have garbage pick up? (they have said on garbage pickup days they will not have any loading and unloading, but with development pick up 3 day/week and community pick up 1 day/week and possible commercial pick up 1 day/week this leaves very little time for loading/unloading.
2. The route of garbage truck pick up appears to indicate the garbage truck will turn from the new North-South lane to 78 avenue, has it been assessed whether the garbage truck will be able to make the turn with parking on both sides of the street and the parking at the development full?
3. Is the garbage area in the development large enough to accommodate garbage from any commercial units (cafe) and if not will this involve another garbage pick up?
4. Why were several key items missed in the applicant engagement and project revisions document?
5. Why is the plaza called a plaza instead of a midblock access-way, the definition is clearly based on area according to the TOP?
6. Why have you added 2 extra metres, so the fourth storey is now 2m higher then it was previously? Is this to accommodate an extra level?
7. It appears administration is aware of the financial costs the developer cites for needing a 6/7 storey building. Does the administration have any assurance their calculation is correct?
8. Why is the height not calculated from the top of the canopy but instead from the flat roof?
9. What is the rationale that the area is a gateway? Is it correct that this will not be supported by the developers survey which they indicate was not representative of the community?
10. Has there been any assessment of whether current street parking will be able to accommodate the projected 304 vehicles per day?
11. Has there been any assessment of the safety of children, cyclists crossing the new North-South lane to access the midblock access-way?
12. Why had child care been removed as even a possible use?
13. Why have step backs been decreased by .5 m on the west and east side compared to the previous DC2?
14. Why will the developer not consider a landscaped buffer between the new North-South lane and the adjacent west neighbours, when the development itself appears to have a 2m buffer between parking and their building?

The city has made innumerable and horrific rezoning errors in this area for decades, and always pats the communities on the head by requesting residents' input, but nothing changes in the developers' forever-escalating demands & proposals. It has long ago reached the point where most of us believe that we are being condescended to, the deal between the so-called city planners and the developers has already been confirmed and that these 'discussions for community input' are nothing more than rubber stamps for the city to say that we were consulted. We have lived for decades here and this has invariably been the pattern, so why would this time be any different?Nonetheless, since our home and neighbourhood is critically important to us, AND WE PAY HIGH TAXES - here we go again...
This is typical of greedy developers who do not have to live in these beautiful older neighbourhoods that are already getting ruined by 100's of infills, the loss of mature trees (and the immeasurable benefits they bring), with already overly huge developments being built with no parking provided (-did you seriously believe that in Edmonton, given the weather, people residing in the eyesores on 115th would NOT have vehicles - likely at least 2 per unit - and would NOT park these all over the already congested community because you let them off with not providing parking?!?!?!?!
Two lots would have been acceptable but, of course the greed grab took over and now four lots have been consumed. Four stories is more than enough height- in fact, is too tall. The buildings absolutely should not be allowed to rise to 7 stories - nearly twice the original bid - because this destoys privacy, creates a light deficit, interferes with people's gardens and yards, causes a sense of claustrophobia and leads to too much density and a sense of crowding. The traffic situation is already ridiculously overloaded in this area because itis likely already the busiest in the city, given the North Campus of University of Alberta, MacKenzie centre, the Maz, the Research facilities, the Kaye Clinic , the Red Cross, the Faculty Club, the Jubilee Auditorium etc. etc.. For reasons simply not conceivable, the city years ago decided not to put the LRT at university avenue and 114 street underground which has caused the area to be more than maxed out regarding traffic flow for decades. This will further congest an already seriously congested area which is already a serious safety hazard. 78 Ave is already effectively one way because of parking allowed on both sides. The impeded entry and exits from streets and laneways are already a problem. The city has done nothing to control the cut-through traffic in Belgravia which turns our neighbourhood into a short cut - and leads to congestion, speeding and dangerous driving. This makes crossing 76 Avenue as a pedestrian tantamount to taking one's life in one's hands. This failure also interferes with taxpaying residents being able to enter and leave their own neighbourhood with any ease- how able solving this longstanding, dangerous and worsening traffic flow problem first before adding more cars.
True to form, developers have reneged on the promises they made to get the much smaller original structure approved in the first place, such as green space, child care facilities and appropriate noise and privacy buffers. This "Trump"ed up proposal virtually ignores and insults all the rules of the ARP. Four stories only, no huge vehicle debt, spare the trees, provide the green spaces, safety, childcare etc that you promised.

The core issue here is straightforward: There is an approved plan for densification in this area. The Metro 78 proposal ignores the approved plan. One-off developments that ignore the approved plan should be denied until they conform with the plan.

I have lived on 78 ave. for 30 years and am very concerned about this proposed development. My concerns include:
- Height - 6 or 7 levels far exceed the ARP of approximately 4 levels. This will create privacy concerns and noise issues (i.e. rooftop patio proposal) and feels like an aggressive invasion on the adjacent neighbours. The developer has said additional levels are required for this development to make financial sense. The community should not have to bear this burden for the lack of the developer's foresight. The developer should have been aware of the ARP prior to purchasing the site and moving forward with his plans.
- Traffic - This development will further impact the traffic congestion in the community. There is already an existing issue of getting in and out of Belgravia. Despite the developer suggesting there will be no additional cars (as they are not providing parking), this development will bring more traffic into the community (guests, delivery vehicles, share vehicles, uber). 78th avenue can not accommodate more parking/traffic.
- Safety - Additional cars on the street, large vehicles backing up at the plaza and more use of the back lanes (which are barely usable now) all pose a safety risk to our community members. There are several children who walk down this street to get to school. Their safety should be of utmost priority.
- Greenspace - Our City and its citizens value greenspace. With this development, that will be taken away. According to the ARP, the greenspace should be 12m wide.
I am also concerned about the lack of yard maintenance since the developer purchased the homes for this site. Ice and snow were usually on their sidewalks during the winter months. Unmowed lawns, weeds and a large tree on the property that overhangs the sidewalk, requiring people to walk around it, are what we dealt with this summer. This has me wondering whether the developer will be able to maintain 2 large buildings and a plaza.
I do wish the developer had listened more to the concerns of the community rather than adding more and more to his proposal. My hope is that our City Council will listen to the concerns of our community and require the developer to follow the ARP.

I am very concerned about this project. I have lived on 78 ave for 27 years and feel this development is an aggressive invasion on our quiet street. Adding two 7 story buildings to a street that now has less than 80 residents will completely change the feel of our community. It will have a huge impact on our privacy and safety. Traffic in the neighbourhood and parking on our street, which are already issues will become much worse, despite the developer stating that tenants will not have vehicles (I believe tenants will find a way around this). I feel the developer has pushed for too many accommodations that go against the ARP and that the ARP guidelines should be followed if this development is to proceed. I ask that our City Council please listen to the concerns of our community and require the developer to simply follow the ARP.
-78 Ave Resident

The TIA was prepared by Addoz Engineering Inc. under contract to Pinto Properties Inc. in association with Precision Engineering Inc. How can this be considered an unbiased assessment when Addoz's future contract opportunities with the joint developers could well depend on a report that meets the developers objectives?

I am also opposed to this development for all of the many reasons offered. This is a small neighbourhood hemmed in by the train tracks. The roads (e.g. 76th) were kept narrow in the recent revamp with the goal of keeping this area from becoming a thoroughfare. To cram in that many people with that many cars into the end of a dead end street can only be the product of greed. If the city agrees to this, it will be proof that the planners and council members are not working in the best interests of residents. It sincerely couldn't be interpreted any other way.

As many community members have mentioned I would be able to support this project if it were more in line with the ARP. Community members need to be able to have some level of trust in the ARP as a guiding document as the area changes and grows.

There is no easy way of accurately knowing the area of the “plaza” at Metro 78 from either the plans submitted by Pinto Developments, or the City’s YouTube presentation. So I went to the City’s Transit Oriented Development Guidelines, which defines a plaza as an area covering between 0.25 (min) and 0.5 (max) hectares. That sounds like a reasonable space. Except that after direct inquiries to the City, I learned Metro 78’s socalled plaza is less than one-third the minimum area required to qualify as a plaza. It’s actually about 700 sq meters, the same area as a 62-foot wide residential lot. This increases my concerns for traffic safety-- that’s a small area for garbage trucks, couriers, and all the vehicles, bikes, and walkers relating to 140 residences, not to mention neighborhood foot traffic to McKernan School and the LRT station.

I don’t know why the City allowed this misuse of terminology, and it undermines my confidence in both the developer’s proposal and in the City’s review process.

Please correct me if I’m wrong.

Dear rm,

Thank you for your response, however I am surprised by your response and think you may not have had a chance to read through all the feedback of community members. If you have time, please read through all the comments as then is becomes very clear the community is supportive of densification and development. We are just requesting densification in line with the area redevelopment plan (with sufficient set backs and max of 4 storeys). Metro 78 development is clearly outside of what was agreed on.

I wonder if you live in the community and have actually visited the site. I invite you to come and see the site, appreciate the access and massing issues, and then perhaps you may change your point of view.

And FYI:
1. the BelMac group requested the developer provide affordable housing units in the development to do exactly what you suggest, be more inclusive and allow families/individuals that would not be able to afford to live in the area, live in the area. For instance immigrants, lower income families. The developer declined and would not consider this. Perhaps you may know the developer and would better be able to advocate for this, we just were not successful.
2. You mention missing middle developments are needed to diversify communities. It is unclear how a 6/7 storey development will provide more diversity than a 4 storey development. The development is primarily expected to be rented by university students (indicated in the second TIA), and I'm not sure how 2 additional storey's of transient university students will provide further diversity and provide a stronger community.

Based on comments already provided and on past conversations, it probably is safe to say that very few people, if any, in McKernan and Belgravia are opposed to greater density in these neighbourhoods. So the question is not whether greater density is appropriate but rather where, how, and how much is too much. Locating a development along 114 Street near the LRT station makes good sense and it fits nicely with the Area Redevelopment Plan (ARP) and the new City Plan. As noted in many of the comments so far, the proposed development far exceeds the ARP in terms of height and density, it encroaches on the green spine that is highly valued by neighbours, it fails to provide a buffer for residents immediately to the west, safety concerns remain unaddressed, and access depends on 78 Avenue operating at any one moment as a one-way street (because of parking on both sides) and on east-west alleys that are already in poor condition. In this case the need for greater density does not come close to outweighing all these failures (and more) in the current proposal.

Neighbours and the City should not accept violations of the ARP lightly. Details in the ARP, such as maximum heights and the width of the green spine, were compromises that came after a long and expensive process of consultation and agreement. To consider the restriction on height as a minimum, rather than a maximum, and to ignore other constraints of the ARP when they are inconvenient are to dismiss all of the work and mutual trust that went into creating the ARP. No wonder citizens are so often cynical about city government and its support for developers. If the present proposal is accepted, it surely will be used by other developers as a precedent for further violations in future developments.

Finally, we should be concerned about the process of evaluating development proposals. The developer has argued that six storeys are necessary to cover the cost of infrastructure (water, etc.) for a development in this location. Yet the developer has not released calculations for justifying this argument, and the City does not undertake evaluation of financial justifications. So, we have only the developer’s word about the need for six storeys. This approach seems wholly inappropriate for neighbourhood development and planning.

Jeff Bisanz