LDA20-0066 Metro 78 - McKernan

I agree with the commenters that it is unacceptable for the Metro 78 developers to insist on erecting a high-rise building on a residential street in a residential neighborhood. Our area redevelopment plan (ARP) calls for buildings not to exceed approximately four levels or 16m. That is already large and I see no valid reason to go higher. We are already challenged in terms of parking and traffic density, particularly on 78th avenue, which is a narrow to begin with. Already it is essentially a one-lane street because so many people park on both sides of the road. To put up a seven-story building and assume that nobody in those buildings is going to own a cars, or at some point travel to and from the buildings in a car, is short-sighted and unrealistic.
According to the ARP, the greenspine by the LRT should be 12m wide. The green space between the proposed buildings and the LRT fence is only 9m.
My understanding is that the City established the ARP in good faith with the neighborhood. To now manipulate that ARP to meet the needs of a developer is a slap in the face to the people who live in this neighborhood and understand what works here. We understand the need for density, but there are limits to what kind of density an area like this can support, and the ARP laid that out. Please, City of Edmonton, respect the people who live in this neighborhood, and understand its needs and limitations. Do not grant the height variance. It is unnecessary, unsafe, unsightly and, worse, a violation of an agreement you made with this neighborhood and the people here who have worked so hard to try to make the development work.

As someone who lives on 78th ave, on the other side of 115th street, I have significant concerns regarding this development. We currently have a large development going in at 115th and University. Once completed this will bring another 300 individuals to our community, and make an already difficult traffic and parking situation worse.

It is unclear to me how the individuals living at the 78th ave and 114th street complex will access their homes, and how 78th ave, effectively one way street, will be able to accommodate the increased traffic.


I also have significant concerns regarding the encroachment on the green spine and the refusal of the developers to set aside space for child care - as this is already a problem in our community before adding an addition 200 families.

It is frankly unacceptable that the Metro 78 people are now trying to develop what is essentially a high-rise building, without consideration for the lack of surrounding space and the detrimental impact on the project's immediate neighbours (and the neighbourhood at large). While it has no direct impact where we live, on principle I strongly oppose this kind of height variance. As well, the effect of the additional traffic on these narrow streets should not be minimized. The additional units being proposed would exacerbate the traffic issue even further.
Thank you

Please do not approve this rezoning. The neighbourhood is already stressed with 4 ways in and out of the entire area. The new development at University Drive and 115 street will create enough new traffic problems that we will need a traffic light at 119 street and University Drive. The density proposed is beyond what is normal for a neighbourhood. Take Metro 78 downtown and use some of the empty parking lots.

I have read all previous materials since the application was made, and have attended all public meetings - the most recent Zoom meeting with the developers answering questions. I found the developers to be receptive and listened to comments made. However, what they said there and what they have since stated about the development is disappointing. Developers have earned a bad reputation for not working well with community people, and this case confirms all the mistrust that currently exists in the two communities. The Metro 78 development is truly in a unique area, and requires careful planning that responds to those who will be most affected, not just those who will benefit. The proximity to adjacent homes is of concern and the height should not exceed 4 levels as per the ARP. I worked with McKernan community planners to provide advice on the best possible tree species to create a landscape buffer, and the developer has since rejected trees in favour of a fence. Fences are NOT needed in this community and another fence will only serve to create a gated feel with a tunnel effect for pedestrians. I was very dissapointed to see the developer has rejected the daycare/childcare proposal. This is self serving as they do not want to take any responsibility for community development. A daycare and coffeehouse are EXACTLY what is needed in the Bel-MacK communities to develop a stronger, healthier, and more lively sense of community. My final concern is over traffic and related safety; the city planners need to revisit these two related issues before approving the site. Given the narrow and essentially one way traffic in the development plan means that garbage trcuks and service vehicles will have to back in or out, and this will be with increased cars parked on the sides of the road. It was was shown that the city will not be able to prevent people living in the units from getting parking passes setting up an even more dangerous situation. For all of these reasons I recommend that the development is not given approval until these issues are addressed to the satisfaction of the two communities. Given that the city is moving towards a more 'hybrid' approach to zoning, this should not mean a carte blanche for developers; rather the city planning office MUST take seriously the concerns by the community for in-building businesses, more natural landscaping and barriers, and better safety measures for vehicles.

The link to the 'applicant engagement summary and project revisions document' with comments is:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15pbhBU9AQ8qj4ptzvqh7ojlnAewC0R5S/view?usp=sharing

The 'applicant engagement summary and project revisions' document appears to be not fully accurate in respect to:

1. Summary of engagement events (pg 1)
February 7, 2021: This meeting was with representatives from the Belgravia Community League (BCL), BelMac (group of near neighbours to the development) and McKernan Community League (MCL), not just BelMac.

March 24, 2021: This is not included in the summary and was a meeting with representatives from BCL, BelMac, MCL and the Charles Simmonds Park committee, to discuss a contribution to Charles Simmonds Park.

May 2021. This is not included in the summary. BelMac requested several times to have a follow up meeting between the representatives of BelMac, MCL, BCL and the developer, and the developer declined.

June 9/2021. This is not included in the summary and was a meeting to discuss a fence for adjacent neighbours.

2. The summary of the meetings in October and February do not mention height and set backs, both of these topics were thoroughly discussed.

3. Project revision table to address community comments (last two pages). This is not fully accurate, a link will be provided with comments.

I understand that city needs and wants to increase the density near the LRT station, however the traffic of the 114 street and university Avenue and nearby area are beyond congested as it is already. What is going to happen when emergency situation occur?
Also the density of 78 Avenue where the buildings are planned are too overwhelming for us residents. Proposal started from 4 story to 6 story and 7 stories now. It’s too crazy to even think how the area are going to be!

Although I understand the city's need for densification, this development takes densification to another level. A six or seven story building in Belgravia is my opinion is completely idiotic. A four store building as was originally proposed is something we could live with but six or seven!! The developed suggests that they will be spending a million on a new water line, a line that is only required if this building was allowed to be built. They have in prior meetings suggested that the residents of this building wont have cars as they will use the LRT. If the city buys this then I suggest the people involved have their heads examined. Belgravia has essentially two entry and exit points into the neighbourhood. Getting in and out of the neighbourhood during peak travel hours is a real nightmare and with the additional traffic that this building will create will only make it worse. In addition street parking on 77, 78, 79 and 80th avenues between 116 and 114 street is already an issue for the residents and I really would like to know what the city plans to do about this. I can see a dramatic increase in traffic in the alley between 77 and 78 avenue between 114 and 115 streets. The alley is in desperate need of repair. Will the developer pay for the alley repair/improvement as else, the tax payers on the streets will have to foot the bill!!

I am typically keen about new development and support modest, thoughtful density increases in the neighbourhood, particularly if they can be supported by alternative means of transportation (which is part of this developer's stated intentions). However, this development as proposed, is not good for the community! It is simply too big and too tall; it encroaches too much on neighbours and the green spine! It puts too much pressure on parking and traffic that the developers do not seem to feel any need to address with more than a tokenism approach. It does not follow what was agreed to in the ARP; there does not seem to be a justifiable reason to go above 4 stories. All that will happen is that the next developer will push the thoughtful boundaries established through fairly recent community engagement (for the ARP) as well. We already have challenges with traffic entering and exiting the neighbourhood, which does not appear to be factored in adequately; other developments are also adding traffic and I'm not certain that the collective impact is being considered. Things that could improve how this project fits into and supports the neighbourhood like including a childcare operation, offering a bike-share operation and car-share for the neighbourhood not just residents (to offset the overall impact). This appears to be a developer pushing the limits of the ARP too far to maximize profit versus a balanced approach and being a partner in enhancing the community. If this is who is being dealt with, the City should completely decline the application and set a tone for some of the even more aggressive developers who have little regard for the neighbourhoods in which they build.

I echo some of the sentiments brought up by the other posters. Belgravia is already a neighbourhood full of individuals "passing by." This reality is something us Belgravians understand - the train, the hospital/university, the green spaces. We complain about it, but it's what it is. The sheer size of the development not only increases the traffic (foot or cars or otherwise) of residents, but also of visitors, delivery people, in home help/services. Now the development plan was clear. To maintain the general feel of the neighborhood, while developing some densification. Maybe also developing some common good for the community, like child care or something. Of course all that is scrapped. Now it's just a big building with lots of residents to maximize profit. Where is the benefit for the community? 'does not significantly impact the neighbourhood does not equate benefits the neighborhood.

This developer is untested and unproven. They are trialing new initiatives on a grand scale (no-parking, ultra-dense apartments that look an awful lot like hotel rooms) that has the potential to fall flat. What assurances can the community have that these will not become short-term rentals? The community is already struggling with illegal rooming houses, illegal parking, petty crimes like break-ins and thefts from cars and garages - a more transient residential population will not do much to help this. Small, family-oriented development creates communities where people know their neighbours.

Did you know that last year, the local school could not field a kindergarten class? Less single-person-dwellings are required - more small, affordable, family spaces are required!

Stretch your arms out - If you're taller than about 4', then this is how far this building (6+ stories!) will be from the property line. This building is an imposing footprint that will continue to "concretize" and pave our neighbourhood - The "plaza" they envision will be in shadows most of the day. The two "surplus city land plots" are currently well landscaped green spaces. Why should the community give this up? How is this beneficial to the community? It's beneficial to the bottom line of the developer.

Where is the commitment to Greening our city? We're giving up green space, we're cutting down trees, we're paving more. There is very little on green-initiatives in this development. Car-Share? Sure. No parking - This is a no-investment-initiative that is un-proven in this city. No solar. Less green-spine space. No geothermal. No commitment to renewable energy use. The developer will tout that this is a transit-focused development (they will sponsor transit passes) - and that there is no parking, so no cars. How is this enforceable? Parking, in-and-out routes in this neighbourhood, and emergency vehicle access are huge concerns and the developer is not interested in upgrades that don't allow them to build bigger. (The bigger water/sewer service required to build bigger does nothing for the community...but rebuilding the back lanes to allow for the increased traffic might be a step in the appropriate direction!)

Why bother spending money on ARP development, a robust public consultation program, and passing bylaws, when this consultation is ignored? The community clearly described what they felt was appropriate for this area, and this development is not it. It's too big, it's giving up green space for pavement, it's creating a barrier to entry into the community (a large wall rather than an open, tree-lined cul-de-sac) and no architectural feature can hide the imposing bulk of this huge building. The whole 114 St Corridor, from University down to Belgravia Rd, was intended to have 196 units built on it. This one spot is planning for 142? This is PROFIT driven, not COST driven. With each iteration, the developer proposes bigger and bigger - with justification being cost to build. Build smaller, it's cheaper. It's welcome in the community. It's appropriate. It doesn't overshadow your neighbours. It allows more families to afford housing, and keep our schools well-attended, rather than move to the outskirts of Edmonton.

The only rationale I can see from the developer to amend the ARP is that this location is a "gateway" to the neighbourhood and therefore is appropriate for a high-rise. This is a dead-end street that is extremely difficult to access, even for residents. There are few ways into Belgravia and an extra 300+ traffic trips per day (as estimated by the Traffic Impact Assessment, TIA) would overwhelm this beautiful area.
https://www.edmonton.ca/sites/default/files/public-files/documents/plans_in_effect/McKernan-Belgravia_Station_ARP_Consolidation.pdf
See figure 15, page 43 of the ARP. This figure clearly shows a maximum of 4 storeys for this location.

Calling the new North-South lanes (on the City of Edmonton website, Marty Vasquez) a Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) is incorrect. CAC is a very specific legal term and these lanes do not apply. If it wasn't for removing the cul-de-sac, we wouldn't need these new (inferior, and less safe) lanes.

This project is far to expansive for the current community in terms of traffic congestion, parking and SAFETY in regards to the increased traffic of general vehicles and service vehicles that will require access to the building. The building will dwarf the existing properties and invade on the sun and privacy of the homes

My family is very much concerned about the height of the building, the narrowed greenspine and potential strains with child care, not to mention the problems concomitant with the increased traffic brought by this type of tall building. I don't see these points are adequately addressed in the proposal.