LDA20-0066 Metro 78 - McKernan

We can NOT reject projects like this one if we, as a city, want to grow and move forward. Height and density should not be a concern in central areas, especially right beside a train station… This is such a well thought out project with great design that increases density in a central area of the city. This will help us creating a more livable environment that is more sustainable for the future. It will also help to support struggling businesses in the central area of the city and encourage more people to use the LRT as their main way of commuting. I fully support this development and I hope the city can make the right choice by giving it the green light to get built.

I moved into this neighbourhood, chose this place to live because of it's quiet, quaint beauty. I am not against development if it benefits the community and we are about community and this proposed project has made that more evident as community stands together emphasizing the things that are important to them. As I wait on 115 Street to exit the community on my way to work, I wait behind 7 or 8 cars next to the new major building complex on the corner. I may or may not be able to proceed depending on the traffic control from the builders on this day. I know that the traffic coming in and out of our neighbourhood has been stressed for a long period of time and now we have one development nearing completion and the proposal for Metro 78. I am not by nature a negative person but I look at the pictures and all I see is a huge complex overshadowing the encompassing community. In the pictures we see what looks like an ideal living space with green areas, people walking around but where are the houses that exist there now? They are dwarfed by the impending height and depth of this proposal. This is not what I was looking for. Inevitably there will be impact on the traffic in and out of the area, even people visiting those living in the new development is a reality. I envision the challenges with the emergency vehicles getting in and out of the community and the overall stress on the existing structure, hence the community and people living in what was their place of refuge. I do not support any proposal for this encroaching development.

This proposal is adding 142 units to this community, catering university students and young professionals. This can easily add 20, 30 children to this community. In the initial consultation, the developer was asked to consider a day home or day care to serve this community and the developer initially included a day home, but this has now been removed. As pointed out by a fellow resident, the developer slyly increased the building proposal from 4 to 6/7 levels, not only violating ARP but potentially taking advantage of this community. This action is unacceptable.

This project is troublesome to me. As a Belgravia resident, I and my family use the bike lane west of the LRT line everyday. The 25m building and the traffic it will bring in makes me super stressful, not to mention the safety concerns listed by fellow residents in other threads. The violation of ARP is worrisome, too. Quite frankly, I don't like this proposed project.

As I continue to read my neighbour's comments on the concerns regarding this development, it baffles me that the City of Edmonton is willing to work with Pinto on this project. It is so very clear that their complete disregard for the ARP is a red flag. How can the residents of Belgravia/McKernan have any confidence in the well-being of our community when companies can blindly propose such obviously flawed projects?

What makes this project obviously flawed: I invite anyone to walk down 78 avenue towards the LRT and really imagine what two 7 storey buildings would mean for this cul-de-sac. It is utterly outrageous to have such a large development in this specific location. If you have yet to physically see where this project is taking place, I think anyone who explores the area would be baffled at this proposal.

The residents of Belgravia/McKernan understand the importance of increasing density in the core neighbourhoods, all we ask is that the ARP is followed for the VERY REASON of maintaining the integrity of these communities. If these buildings were brought down to 4 levels, I really feel the discussions in this thread would be different. We could take Pinto Properties seriously as an advocate for the neighbourhood and negotiate this project with some optimism. The fact they have slyly INCREASED from 4 level proposal to 7 levels makes me feel like they are trying to take advantage of this community.

Yes, we need increased density in core neighbourhoods. No one is arguing that necessity for the future of Edmonton. What is concerning is the location; density; disregard for the ARP and the OBVIOUSLY FLAWED traffic impact assessment. Once again, I invite ANYONE to drive into Belgravia during rush hour and tell me that we DON'T have traffic issues. If you have yet to venture in or out of this neighbourhood during peak hours (without a global pandemic keeping people working at home), you truly have no idea how fragile this community is to ridiculous proposals such as Metro 78.

Bring it back to 4 levels; follow the ARP; fix the "streets" in the back alleys and we will accept this project within the community. Anything that differs from this is a disappointment.

I am one of more than 100 citizens who participated in a City of Edmonton process to develop a transit oriented development ARP for McKernan-Belgravia, which provides for substantial increases in density while respecting the neighborhoods. The city spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on this plan, and council voted to accept the plan as a by-law. The Metro 78 proposal substantially violates this ARP, undermining the integrity of good planning processes and corroding public confidence in city council decisions. The kind of density it proposes can be achieved through more appropriate means, as provided for in the ARP.

In the years since the ARP was approved by council, people have made significant investment in new homes along this block of 78 Avenue, as well as 77 and 79 Avenue, trusting the city would respect its own bylaws. The Metro 78 proposal means a significant negative impact for neighboring properties in terms of loss of privacy, major disruption to parking and transportation, and declining traffic safety.

While the concerns about it not fitting the ARP for Belgravia may be justified in some respect, I still really like this project and love what it represents for our city. These are two mixed-use mid-rise buildings right outside of an LRT station in a mature neighborhood, something that Edmonton sorely needs more of if it ever wants to achieve a dense urban environment accessible to everyone.

I genuinely do not see how this project is "too dense for Belgravia" or understand the assumption that everyone in these buildings would use a car for their daily needs.

1: Infrastructure and services in older areas like Belgravia are chronically underutilized because of the vast majority of residential being single-family housing. I'd argue that the area would be getting more bang for its buck in terms of increased density while not pushing the limit in this new rezoning.

2: Once again, this project is right on the doorstep of an LRT station with access to the university, downtown, and the south side within minutes, and exists in a pedestrian-friendly area. The proposed design uses this to its advantage with 2 buildings nicely framing a pedestrian plaza + commercial opportunities being present at ground level. Developments like this are very appealing to people who would like to/have reduced their need for their car and those who choose not to own a car, minimizing the impact of vehicular traffic on surrounding roads.

Overall, if this project sets a precedent for more like it in Belgravia and beyond I think that'd be an amazing thing. Inner-city Edmonton has been struggling for a long time with maintaining it's own infrastructure, services, and life force while suburban Edmonton has brimmed with development, all the while being enabled by the inner city and its tax revenue to do so. Bringing more residents closer to the core with expanded transit, a safe and functional bike network and, most of all, more housing housing options that aren't a single family home or a skyscraper is beneficial to our city as a whole.

Quite frankly, I like nothing about this project.
First it was 4, then 6 and now the developers want to build two buildings each 7 floors high!!! This is a residential neighbourhood primarily made up of detached homes. There are some apartment buildings but none higher that four floors which is what the ARP for this area allows.
There is going to be no underground parking provided and they reasoning for that is that this will encourage the residents to use public transportation. The city planners and councillors are being naive. Do they really think that the residents will not have cars? And where are they going to park? On the streets which are already congested, plus in their wisdom the city decided to make the streets and avenues narrower when the repaving was done!

The turn around will be removed, making 78th avenue a virtual dead end. The alley provided will not be enough for large vehicles, like fire trucks and garbage trucks to turn around. They will have to back up all the way to 115th street, making the alley and the avenue unsafe. And the city does not want to consider these issues. Why?
The ARP stipulates that the greenspine should be 12 meters wide. The green space between this new development and the LRT fence will be only 9 meters wide so between the existing fence and these tall apartments people will have to walk through a ‘tunnel’.
And the developer is telling us that they are providing amenities…like a larger water line!! We already get a good water supply. The only reason this water line has to be brought in is for the fire hydrant which is required by these two buildings. How is this an amenity for the community. Then there is the ‘plaza’. That will become a no man’s land which will not be maintained by anyone. Who is going to clear the snow in winter and keep it clean in summer?
Need I say anymore?
ADK

I have four significant concerns. First, the development far exceeds the hight allowed by the ARP, and the building will be too large for the location. Second, as presently designed, it constricts the green space between the development and the LRT fence, again violating the ARP and rendering this space unpleasant and thereby limiting use. Third, it creates safety concerns due to restricted room for large vehicles to back up safely, putting children at risk. Fourth, traffic will be increased, creating parking issues for visitors and tenants of Metro 78 alike.
The developer should stick to the limitations in the Area Redevelopment Plan, which are well considered and suitable for the neighborhood. I am in favor of greater housing density in my neighbourhood - I live one block away from the proposed development - but new structures should be executed carefully and in accordance with city guidelines.

The size of this project is simply too far beyond what is specified in the ARP. I am supportive of densification in Belgravia and McKernan, but the buildings in this project are too large. If two six-story buildings are permitted in the middle of the north-south LRT corridor in McKernan, then it sets a precedent for all sites along the LRT and along University Ave. The final result will grossly exceed the density that is envisioned in the ARP. I would support four-story buildings with adequate setbacks. I cannot support the project as proposed.

Regarding parking: are there any other developments in Edmonton that demonstrate the success of the model proposed, i.e. that providing no parking stalls on site will result in the great majority of tenants not owning cars? I think it is very likely that the majority of the 140 tenants will own a car, and thus will look for on-street parking.

I agree with most residents in the Belgravia neighbourhood who express concerns on the height of the 2 buildings and the possible negative traffic impacts to the neighbourhood. Having two 6-story buildings don't seem to fit the neighbourhood of Belgravia. Can the buildings remain at the 4-story level?

I actively participated in the development of the ARP and too often have seen its basic tenets ignored. The proposal for 7 levels/25 m tall far exceeds the agreed upon heights in the plan for this area. In the introduction to the plan, there is a section devoted to principles (page 23). The first principle, which clearly addresses height, should be followed without exception. I’m supportive of minor changes that the community agrees to - not abrogation of the agreement made with the community. Further, inappropriately arguing to be considered a ‘gateway’ to justify the height request is disingenuous and very disrespectful to the community.
I am also not in favour of reducing the required green spine from 12 meters to 9 meters. Such seemingly small compromises erode the integrity of the plan and should not be considered.
Lastly, I do not have confidence in the traffic impact assessment. Covid has meant reduced traffic, but this week the return to long waits, disgruntled drivers tired of waiting and behaving badly has started again. Does anyone know whether, in recent memory, there is an instance of a TIA not concluding “no significant impact”?

I am against this application because of the height of the building and the lack of parking. I also think that green spaces become even more important as the density of the neighborhood is increased and that any changes to the green area around the path should not be permitted.

The height of this building does not fit the neighborhood nor do the streets present the ability to deal with either the parking issues or traffic issues. Greenspace needs to be expanded. Any development , most notably of this size, should provide additional green areas as a concession to neighbors. A larger buffer green space and fence should be required without question. The day home/daycare aspect of the development should NOT have been allowed to be removed. Reinstate this as a requirement. This is a family community. Redesign of access must be addressed re: large vehicles and access points. Rezoning should NOT be approved. This project has massive safety Issues. Zero-parking - a great idea but in practical terms is a no go. There are always people who will ignore this. Our side streets will be packed with vehicles, to the detriment of residents. Redevelopment is not necessarily a bad thing and can often be a great thing. In this case however it is a huge Negative.

HI Josh: Thank you for providing your perspective, however it seems you do not live in the area, rather you live on 155st, which will make it difficult to understand the unique characteristics of the site/community.

Also I don't think you know about the area redevelopment plan. This was passed in 2014 to provide guidelines for creating appropriate densification in the community.

Metro 78, however, is not within these guidelines. The ARP specified a 4 storey building and adequate green space between the building and the LRT. However, Metro 78 appears to be 7 storeys and does not provide adequate green space. This will lead to traffic and safety concerns to name just a few.

Also you probably aren't aware of the developments currently underway in the community. There is a 6 storey building being built just a few blocks away from the metro 78 site and another 6 storey building recently obtained approval on the other side of 114 street. Both of these however are within the guidelines of the area redevelopment plan and considered appropriate densification for the community.

I invite you to come visit the area and then perhaps you will better understand why the community is advocating for a maximum 4 storey building to be built on the site (not no building at all), and perhaps you would consider changing your previous comments.

This proposed development violates the carefully studied, planned and accepted ARP (Area Re-development Plan) in several ways. The height far exceeds the 4-level limit and creates privacy and traffic issues in the neighbourhood. The greenspace between the Metro78 and the LRT fence also violates the ARP minimum of 12 m of greenspine.

The absence of landscape buffer is detrimental to all nearby properties and the area's roadway constraints will force large vehicles to back up, causing serious risk to children and less mobile seniors in the area.

The expected additional vehicle traffic will cause significant congestion and safety issues for pedestrians and cyclists. We already have significant traffic pressure on 78 Avenue. As a narrow street with cars parked both sides it effectively allows only one-way passage. It is also a major pedestrian and cycling route to/from the LRT and to/from the pedestrian crossing traffic light on 114th St. between the neighbourhood and both the McKernan School and the childcare facilities in the McKernan Community League building.

Above all, the City of Edmonton must absolutely refuse to allow the ARP parameters to be exceeded. This would set a dangerous precedent for future development proposals across the city, damaging mature neighbourhoods everywhere.

I was wondering how long it would take for the NIMBY term to be tossed out. I'm sure that term was used a decade ago, and perhaps rightly so, during the negotiation of the ARP. But an agreement was reached and enshrined as a bylaw of the City of Edmonton. We agreed on appropriate height and density in "our backyard" and now the other side says that they want more. I guess we'll have to disagree on the meaning of the term NIMBYism.

Hello. I have numerous issues and concerns with this project. Traffic issues have not been adequately assessed. Now leaving Belgravia through 76 ave in mornings and suppertime is a huge headache. You are lucky to get through the lights after 4 light changes. Leaving through the intersection of 115 st and university ave. is dangerous. If you want to go straight through the Lrt intersection going east you need the far left lane, and the traffic exiting the Kaye Parkade doesn't give way. A constant problem. Add to this the excessive building proposed and it surpasses extreme.

I have concerns about the scope of the project. The height will negatively impact the neighborhood (out of scale with nearby housing). There is also a concern with traffic and lack of on-site parking, which will inevitably lead to residents parking on surrounding neighborhood streets. Mixed use development can be good, but should be of a height and mass that fits in with the surrounding housing.

This is a great, great project. There are few like this in Edmonton and we need to encourage more.

Those concerned about height, density, and traffic need to recognize they live along an LRT corridor. If you don't want the density, live somewhere else. The city's plans for transit have been clear for decades. As a resident on 155st, one block from the future west LRT, we bought knowing that projects like this will be a part of our neighbourhood.

All the traffic, safety, and laneway concerns are overblown. People say this all the time and it rarely comes to reality. Projects under 100 units don't cause traffic...tens of thousands of homes being built outside the henday do.

This is an important project to densify the area and is a logical location with the LRT and university nearby. If we can't get projects like this done here, we are screwed as a city...

Please stop being NIMBYs friends. Our city, our kids, our tax base needs projects like this.