LDA20-0066 Metro 78 - McKernan

Metro 78 is exactly what Edmonton needs to progress into a sustainable, vibrant, and human scaled city. McKernan/Belgravia is a densifying neighbour with great access to a range of transportation options, the University of Alberta, and much more. Therefore, a sensible TOD such as Metro 78 should be approved. For too long Edmonton has been ignorant enough to build a car oriented city with single family detached homes, and lifeless suburbs. Turning down a missing middle development would completely go against everything that the 2021 City Plan stands for. This is the missing middle the city needs to keep diversifying communities for a more human scale city that will lead to stronger communities.

"This is a neighborhood with single family homes on the street. This development is preposterous and an invasion of our community."

The comment above just goes to show who is against this development. If the city listened to people like this communities would stagnate into unsustainable single family home neighbourhoods that only accommodate a certain demographic. The irony of these kinds of comments is that they say missing middle housing is an invasion of their community, yet they don't even consider all the young students and professionals that may not be able to afford single family homes. Being a good "neighbour" is all about inclusivity and looking out for others. People like this ruin our communities by only welcoming a select, high income, group into their communities, and should be completely disregarded.

I would ask if this development is in keeping with the "Values" of Pinto properties after reading through the comments and concerns.

Our Values
Safety
Security and Peace of Mind,

Community
Connection with Each Other,

Sustainability
Conscious of How We Live,

Trust
We Keep Our Commitments.

Also, this developer was incorporated in 2018, and this would appear to be their first development (Based on their website).

It sounds like this particular development presents quite a few logistic and technical challenges to overcome, something challenging for even a more experienced developer.

I wouldn't want the neighborhood to be stuck with a poorly built property that doesn't sufficiently overcome the inherent challenges in the build, by a seemingly inexperienced company that doesn't appear to adhere to its own value statements.

This is a neighborhood with single family homes on the street. This development is preposterous and an invasion of our community.

I am deeply concerned about the development of this project. More specifically:

Height: Now 7 levels/25 m tall (measured from the roof canopy). This far exceeds the area redevelopment plan (ARP) of approx. 4 levels/16 m. I feel this size is just too large for this location. It will dwarf the surrounding homes, create privacy
concerns and traffic issues, and set a precedent that the ARP can be overridden.

Greenspine: The green space between Metro 78 and the LRT fence is only 9 m. There is already a 'wall' (fence) bordering the LRT and Metro 78 will add an even taller 'wall' on the other side. With only 9m between the two walls the space will be tightly enclosed and feel like a tunnel. According to the ARP, the greenspine should be 12m wide.

Buffer: The community asked for a landscape buffer (minimum 1m) between the new north-south lane and directly adjacent neighbors to increase privacy, reduce noise and pollution, improve appearance, and reduce property damage. The developer said he would not consider a buffer but would consider a fence. So far he has not followed through on this.

Child Care: The community asked the developer to consider a day home or daycare to serve the community and allow for a more family-oriented development. The community offered to work with the developer to find a highly qualified operator. Originally the developer included a day home, but this option has now been removed.

Safety: Regarding the loading/garbage zone/corner cut all in the same location. Large vehicles (ex. garbage trucks) will need to back up instead of turning down the back lane when the area is in use. Vehicles backing up present a serious risk of injury/mortality to children. This has not been addressed.

Traffic: The transportation impact assessment (TIA) calculated 304 additional vehicle trips/day and concluded this will not significantly impact traffic. However, the TIA neglected to consider 78 Ave. functions as a one-way street (with cars parked on both sides), traffic to the back lanes, and impact to street parking.

Is there anything to be learned from the two condo developments on 76 Ave? The one on the north side of the street occurred before the ARP and Belgravia Square occurred after it was implemented. In both cases I believe the developer asked for more than 4 storeys and in both cases the city denied the request. It would be interesting to hear from anyone actively involved in either of those developments about the reason(s) for the city's denial.

There are several serious problems with the Metro 78 proposal:

1. Metro 78 is out of all proportion to the surrounding buildings and allows for no transition in scale between single family houses and the proposed mid-rise buildings. Its built form is inappropriately large for the deep end of a block-long cul-de-sac otherwise lined with single-family houses.
2. Metro 78 is too tall, violating the ARP, looming over neighbouring yards, and intruding into the privacy of neighbours.
3. Metro 78 would require reduced setbacks, often as small as 1.5 meters, encroaching on alleys, a major bicycle/pedestrian corridor, and neighbouring homes. The small setbacks also preclude proper landscaping. It is poor infill design when setbacks for a six-storey building are so small.
4. Metro 78 requires the city to accept a significant and permanent narrowing of the important “greenspine” pedestrian/bicycle route, at a time when pedestrian and bicycle transportation is rising.
5. Metro 78 will increase hazards along the 78 Avenue corridor leading to the crosswalk to McKernan school and playground, by converting 78 Avenue from a narrow and quiet residential street to a dangerous and noisy jam-up of daily garbage removal, courier deliveries, and the congestion of residential and visitor traffic for 140 residences in very tight quarters.

I live and own a house on the same block of this proposed development and I completely reject this new proposal. To put it simply this is about corporate greed evident by the developers' total disregard for the current APR and the community. Any argument that suggests that this is about NIMBY is completely disenginous.
Stick to the 4 level plan, increase the number of 3 bedroom units, and support the green spaces and biking lanes. Yes, to diversification but no to hideous condo buildings with endless units that will likely not retain long term residents because of lack of accessibility and likely high cost to rent and own a condo built by such aggressive developers.
Finally, to the city of Edmonton, this idea that the developers have had many conversations with the community yet clearly they never listened or followed through on any of ur suggestions.

I agree with fellow Belgravia/McKernan residents' comment that this project needs more community engagement. It appears to me that the developer completely disregarded community residents' concerns and proposed a taller building than the ARP allowed. Our concerns about safety, traffic, child care, height, greenspine are all left unaddressed. Very disappointing. City should say no to this proposal.

This project requests an ARP amendment. During the Summer of 2021, the CoE repealed many ARPs because they were considered outdated; the Mckernan/Belgravia ARP was not repealed and is considered by the City to be up to date and will also be incorporated into the upcoming District Plans. No other approved projects requested an ARP amendment in this area. I think that all parties, the community, developers, and CoE should adhere to the ARP when considering development proposals.

The Developer has put a substantial amount of planning into this project and has had many conversations with the community. I like the idea of no parking even though traffic will increase in order to service the buildings' residents. I also like the cosmetic upgrades in the proposal because this would be preferable to a "standard" development. However, my main concern is with the FAR of 4.0. Many nearby residents, myself included, feel that this FAR is too intense for the neighbourhood. The other proposals that were approved by City Council ( Mckernan Gates and Crossing) have FARs which are more aligned with what the community wanted (around 3.4) and with land use regulations (Bylaw 12800 for RA8).

This revised project needs more community involvement and input than it has received. I gave feedback on the initial project because I thought it was not in keeping with the culture and esthetics of the district. This revision exacerbates those issues. 78th avenue is one of the most beautiful, tree lined streets in the district and in Edmonton for that matter. What is proposed is a street which trades off this beautiful treed appearance with an urban concrete "plaza", stark buildings which will dwarf the nearby structures and crowd the public path to the east. It does not even pretend to blend in with its surroundings. Increasing the population density also does not take into account how difficult it already is to access or leave the district in rush hour. There are regular bottlenecks due to the extremely heavy traffic along the 114 Street corridor and the regular LRT obstructions at University Avenue and 76 Avenue which are still unsolved. Add another 142 families to the mix (not to mention the increase in density when the University Avenue and 115 Street structure comes on stream) and we will be in dire straits. It would be better to locate on the east side of 114 Street since there are so many more access points to McKernan than to Belgravia which is limited to 4.
I do not think that the proposed infusion of money to aid in the development of Charles Simmonds Park is enough of a "bribe" for our community to accept such a drastic change to the appearance, ambiance, and deforestation of our district!
If this project is allowed to progress after the district thought it had been consulted on a much smaller scale development, I truly believe that the entire city planning process needs to be reviewed. Why is the city allowing developers to change the scope of the project after consultation? Why are the community's needs/wants being ignored? City planners should be there as much to protect communities from the rampant overhaul of districts, not promote them and enable them over our protests and concerns.

I live within two blocks of the development, and am very concerned about the traffic and parking increase which will come with the 32 unit increase. Even if none of the tenants drive, which is highly unlikely, they will inevitably have guests. The height changes will also greatly change the character of the neighbourhood, and proper consultation should be required for such a drastic change. The further encroachment onto the green spine is also problematic - it sets a precedent for future development, but more importantly will create a claustrophobic, and potentially dangerous, "tunnel" between the LRT wall and the towering building.

I have little issue with the original proposed plan, but the amendment, is radically different and unacceptable.

The McKernan-Belgravia Station Area Redevolopment Plan already forced a higher level of densification on the residents than they were comfortable with, by letting them choose only between very high density and medium high density options when we voted for it about 10 years ago. Now the City should follow the plan that was forced upon the residents and not continuously allow developers try to get zoning above what is intended in this plan. This building with 6 stories is clearly not what the City has presented to the residents and needs to be downscaled to what is in the plan. If the City allows this rezoning however, the City might as well abandon all the expensive public consultation processes (for example the McKernan-Belgravia Station Area Redevolopment Plan consultation was done by a company from Toronto) and safe some money, because those plans are meaningless anyway and the developers can do what they want.

Reading some of the comments that are in favour of this project (with zero concern or criticism) has me wondering if these individuals even live in our neighbourhood. No one on this thread is saying to not go forward with the project, we fully understand the need for these projects in central neighbourhoods. OUR CONCERN is the developer's complete disregard for following the ARP and the example it sets for future projects. Citizens in this city should care about this so no one company gets the "green light" to build whatever they want, wherever they want. That is NOT what is best for any community.

For those in FULL support of this project, I understand why you believe it's important to approve this. But, asking the developer to build a 4 storey complex, like in the ORIGINAL outline is completely rationale. It is completely rationale to ask the developer to follow the ARP so we, the tax-paying citizens within this neighbourhood, feel safe and confident in new developments built within these communities.

If anyone who is in full support of these two 7 storey buildings on a dead-end street in a neighbourhood that is riddled with intense congestion and multiple illegal boarding houses, I would love to know if you actually live anywhere near this development. I would love to know if you would be in full support if you owned a home on the same street as Metro 78, or any of the adjacent properties. I wonder if your thoughts would differ from your blind support on this specific project.

I really don't see this as an "all or nothing" issue. All we ask is for the developer to simply follow the ARP for the consideration of the current residents of this neighbourhood. I really don't think this is out of line.

I am the owner of the immediate adjacent property to the project. I have spoken to the developer about my concerns namely the access to the building for the expected increase in traffic from delivery vehicles, business traffic, taxis, visitors, city and emergency vehicles. Just because the tenants do not have a vehicle does not mean there will be no traffic impact as previously suggested. While I support increased density I think the road structure around this project is very limited. I can understand if there was free flow of 4 way traffic, but this site is located on a narrow dead end street. With such congestion already in the neighbourhood, I’m concerned with potential damage to my property that has not been addressed. The developer said they would agree to put up a fence and they would send me some possible fencing options. That was months ago and I have not heard from them again. If this project is approved now, I doubt there will be a fence to protect my property.

My feelings is that the 4 story building proposed was profitable, and the request for a change to the ARP is only out of greed at the expense to the community. There is a complete disregard for the ARP, all the changes to the building appear to increase profitability, from the lack of family suites, the reduced green strip, not addressing traffic impact, and failure to follow up with me regarding the fencing as promised, all appear to show lack concern for the community for the financial greed of the developer.

I do not believe this development is a good fit for this neighborhood. I live on 78th ave. and it is a very small street with a small alley. Parking is premium at the moment and Its a nice quiet neighborhood. I understand this development will be 7 stories tall and I feel that is too tall for this area, will stand out negatively, and create privacy concerns for me and my neighbors.

I understand there is to be no green buffer between the new development and the existing neighborhood, instead, the no doubt less expensive option of a fence is being pursued. I do not feel this will provide any additional benefits other than a new place for graffiti which if you see along the LRT line is quite prevalent already, plus this fence creates blindspots for people coming and going through the neighborhood and does not contribute to the aesthetic, nor improve the use of the area.

I understand that there are to be no parking provisions at this new development, I doubt units would be rented/sold only to people without vehicles so now we will have much more neighborhood congestion of vehicles, and homeowners such as myself may find we are unable to park our vehicles due to owners/tenants/visitors of this new development.

There are only a few ways to enter and exit this neighborhood, and at busy times congestion is already an issue. There is currently another condo unit being built on the corner of McKernan (with an underground parkade). The potential traffic density is going to make it hard to get into and out of the neighborhood safely. Also will affect the ability of EMS/Fire/Police to respond to this area.

I understand that this development will also have a negative effect on trash collection in that trucks will no longer be able to take advantage of the roundabout and the corner ally, instead, they will need to accomplish multi-point turns in order to facilitate garbage and recycling.

I understand that the developer reneged on adding a dayhome to the first-floor businesses, I understand the developer reneged on the greenspine, and I understand the original plan for 6 stories is now 7. Basically, I feel that the developer isn't being 100% forthright on all the plans for this development.

In summation, I feel that this development will have a negative impact on the daily lives of those who live in this neighborhood, create traffic and parking congestion, make it more difficult to deliver essential services like garbage/recycling, and even impact the response times of EMS, Fire, and Police. I believe the developer is acting in bad faith, reneging on previous commitments, and trying to exceed the existing ARP which if successful would set terrible precedence for the future.

I was really excited about this development until I learned about several "red flags":
- excessive height - exceeding the area redevelopment plan (ARP) for height by 3 levels (from approx. 4 levels to 7 levels). This is not a main street in the neighbourhood and is unlike 76 Ave. and University Ave., where taller structures have been built, are appropriate, and were supported by community members to build.
- promises broken - for example, the developer had included a day home but this option is now removed (child care is difficult to find in the University area and 3 year wait times are common). Collaborating with the community to create more child care spaces would certainly be a sign of commitment to the community and surrounding areas.
- decreased safety - currently cars park on this street to access the LRT (there is a 2 hour limit if you don't have a neighbourhood pass). To exit the street, there is a turnaround (which will be eliminated) or cars exit down the south alley. With the proposed development, my understanding is the turnaround will be eliminated and traffic flow will be down the alley. Large vehicles, like garbage trucks, will need to back up instead of turning down the alley. Is this legal? It does not sound safe for children, other pedestrians and bike traffic which use this street to access a pedestrian light to cross 115 St. and 78 Ave.
- not adhering to rules and past collaborative action with community representatives - Kevin Taft has shared that "the city spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on this plan, and council voted to accept the plan as a by-law." It seems that best practice occurred, community was consulted and participated as an important stakeholder, and our City leaders accepted the plan. I do not think a good case has been made to reject the past collaborative process and outcomes.

I support densification and a good plan that works for the community. The current plan has some problems that need to be addressed.

I am very mcuh against this project. It will be horrible for people in Belgravia. The city doesn't have good developers in Edmonton, use Belgravia Square as an example. The city doesn't enforce developers to build well built projects and with this monstrosity we can expect empty units, poor quality and incomplete work as seen in Belgravia Square. The city development is faster than the population with many vacant condos, apartments etc. This will only add to the problem plus take away from the enjoyment of the residents of Belgravia

I am a longtime resident of this area. I accept that densification has changed the neighborhood, and will continue. I would not oppose a 4-storey development on this site if it preserved the 12M green spine and adequately addressed traffic concerns. This proposal does none of those things, and should be rejected. Frankly, it is absurd to suggest that the ARP should be amended to permit 6 stories in order to recover water-infrastructure costs. That approach treats the ARP as the starting point for negotiating compromises based on the cost/profitability of a development - a formula for abuse. It is understandable that developers will try to push the envelope, which is why it is the City's responsibility to protect the public interest by insisting on compliance with the ARP.

As a longtime resident of this area, I oppose the "amendments" to the ARP. The rationale (that 6 stories are required to offset water-infrastructure costs) is absurd, because it treats the ARP as a starting point for negotiating compromises based on the cost/profitability of the development. That approach is a formula for abuse. I am not opposed to a 4-storey development that complies with the ARP and which preserves the 12M green spine. It is understandable that developers will try to push the envelope, which is why the City must uphold the ARP in this situation.