LDA20-0066 Metro 78 - McKernan

I have lived and owned property on 78 avenue for over 16 years. My concerns are as follows:
1. Height- The proposed height is not in keeping with good residential planning and the character of the homes around the area. Do not deviate from the 4 story limit as it will then erode the protection of the neighborhood from future developments.
2. The green spine is vital to make the common path humane and pleasant. Do not give this vital space up as we will never get it back.
3. There is totally inadequate parking and this will make it horrendous to live on 78 avenue with all “visitors “ to the site taking all street parking and making the street and alleys unsafe. Belgravia is already impossible to leave and take your kids to hockey, soccer or music lessons and this added congestion will make it even way. Currently it can take 25 minutes to leave the neighborhood. People have cats in Canada to think we don’t is just willful blindness.
4. I see the developers getting everything and the community being sold out. What is Charles Simmons park getting. It better be substantial. The presentation was conspicuously silent on the details.

We do not need 1 bedroom units as they are everywhere. The city needs 2-3 bedroom units. Student housing is everywhere. To sellout the neighborhood for this is a huge mistake.
Concerned Belmac resident

Yet another example of a developer getting whatever they want. If the developer needs 6 stories to make this project work, there is a hole in the ground on University Avenue between 112 and 113 street with a similar footprint that is already approved for 6 storeys under the ARP.

This is an extremely exciting proposal and I highly support it. This is exactly the kind of high-quality, transit-oriented development we need across the city, but fits particularly well here. I like the high quality design of the buildings, and I love the low-vehicle concepts it incorporates. I believe this can succeed given the location of this proposal - its proximity to transit, proximity to major employment areas, and proximity to commercial areas all point to low vehicle dependency and the bike storage, carshare program and subsidized transit passes are all great concepts. I also believe the height and density being requested is completely reasonable given its location, and is arguably less than the intensity called for by the City Plan.

We have a bad habit of pushing multi-family development to loud, busy, polluted arterial roads in this city. I am excited to see a new development in a quieter neighborhood setting and believe this will be a very popular project.

I was engaged when the city held ARP and TOD workshops and now have trouble how far the city administration wants to move away from these guidelines. This is the first major development along the LRT in McKernan / Belgravia and the local reaction has been quite negative to Pinto's proposals. And each time their reaction is to change their application and ask for greater deviance from the guidelines provided. If they wanted to build such buildings why didn't they purchase properties that were designated for such development. Also what kind of precedent are they setting by reducing the green spine along the LRT. Every developer will want to reduce it when they propose a new development not creating the open pathway that was once envisioned.
I am not looking forward to the traffic that will be created in our alleyways and trying to back out of the many rear garages when the alley has in fact been turned into a street. Why wasn't a development like this put between 2 Avenues which are already streets instead of between 2 alleys. All traffic using 78 Ave. will be exiting in either alley, and I really think you are underestimating the problems the larger trucks will create doing this. Many large trucks already have difficulties entering the alleys from 115 St. (I see this as I live on one of these corners). I can only imagine the trouble emergency vehicle will have if they are needed at the east end of 78 Ave.
I am not against increasing density in our neighborhood as this has been continually happening in the 30 years we have been here but this is the wrong development for this location.

The height of the building is too high particularly immediately adjacent to single family dwellings.
I don't think there is adequate space provided for firetrucks, ambulances, emergency vehicles, garbage trucks etc. I understand they would have to back up the single lane alley??
The shared use path immediately west of the LRT station extending north-south is well used and should NOT be narrowed any further.
It is unrealistic to expect two buildings with that many units to have no parking for tenant vehicles. Of course, tenants will have vehicles and they will be parking those vehicles in the neighbourhood. At the very least the parking hour restrictions should be extended to 8 PM.
The traffic assessment doesn't seem to address the duration of the construction which would cause extensive delays to the traffic in the area which is already overloaded (and no, there is no other alternative route when you live in the neighbourhood, nor could we be expected to drive only in the hours that construction is not active).
Finally, has the assessment process taken into consideration that an apartment building is already under construction as few blocks away on University Ave and that it will also have an impact on traffic, parking in the area?

I agree with the comment about this development raising red flags. Our concerns include:
1. Height. This will not fit in well with the neighbourhood. 7 stories is too large for the space and creates traffic and shadowing concerns. The developer/city planner indicate this 'the application generally conforms with the intent of the plan", yes the orientation of the building and the new north-south lane is in accordance with the plan, but the overall vision of the plan is clearly not met.
2. Community impact/density. Increased density for the area is fine and I understand the rational for it. But the type of increased density is important. Adding additional rental units primarily geared for students, yes increases density, but at the cost of the community. A development that increases density but also encourages families and home owners would be much preferred and this appears to be the intention of the ARP. For instance townhouses illustrated in the ARP, perhaps for people that would love to live in the area but just can't afford the current high costs.
3. Safety. Out family uses active transportation as much as possible and I am concerned about safety for us. With a substantial increase in traffic, congestion on 78 ave and the back lanes, multipurpose loading zones, and cars going in and out of the little parking available, this is a perfect set up for injury and accidents.
4. Greenspine. This is meant to be an open space, and the ARP set a minimum distance for this. The current development will erode this. It doesn't seem right the developer can decrease on this space just to make more units fit in.
5. Charles Simmonds Park Contribution. Although it is good the applicant is contributing to this very worthwhile project, it appears they have done this by not landscaping the greenspine as they had originally intended. This is a tradeoff that should have been discussed with the community.
6. Privacy. There is a very small distance between the side of the buildings and the current back lane, less than the minimum required in zoning. And the development illustration show large windows on the sides. This is a clear privacy concern, why has this been allowed?
7. Child care. Why was the day home that was proposed and discussed during the BCL and MCL engagement sessions removed? Although it will not have the same capacity as a daycare this at least would make the building a little more family friendly and provide a few more child care spaces for the community.

Echo the concern about pedestrian safety. The current cul de sac may not be pretty to look at (although I live on the street and 100% fine with the way it looks) but it is safe. We are separating traffic from children walking to school, elderly from getting to the SUP, LRT station, etc. With the proposed change, you are forcing large vehicles to do 3 points turns, backing into a crosswalk/sidewalk. How does this fit with the City's Vision Zero initiative? Are we now open to making our streets less safe to accommodate developer's needs?

Also echo the disappointment in the potential change to the ARP. By all mean this plan is relatively new and took a lot of our time and energy is coming up with what we thought was an agreement between the City and the residents on what fits here... Why are we spending time, energy, and tax dollar to come up with a plan that can just change to accommodate the developer's needs. And we are not talking about small change, max 4 stories to 7 is significant... The impact shown in the sun/shadow study is just depressing as my property will be significantly impacted year-round...

I have been living in this neighbourhood with my family for almost a decade and this development is troubling for a number of reasons.

Having a young family in this neighbourhood, the safety concerns of this project are obvious. We have children that utilize the path along the LRT tracks for walks, bike rides, and other activities on a weekly basis. The lack of compliance with the ARP for the green spine is concerning, along with difficultly service vehicles will have navigating in and out of this cul-de-sac. It has me worried for my kid's ease of enjoyment in this beautiful neighbourhood with increased traffic and lack of space along this green spine.

The height of this development is just outrageous. Not only does it clearly go against the ARP, it will create issues for current residents due to privacy concerns and without a doubt, lower the value of their homes living close to a complex like this.

The traffic concerns in this neighbourhood cannot be discounted. I have heard of a number of families considering a move to this area but moved elsewhere due to the difficulty of navigating in and out of this neighbourhood on a daily basis. Having such a dense complex like this will have a great impact on congestion and traffic, which will deter homebuyers from settling in this area. The traffic assessment was definitely flawed and catered to the developers agenda.

My hope for this development would be to bring it back down to the ORIGINAL proposal of a 4 storey building; a focus on multi-bedroom units for families and overall respect for the current residents of this neighbourhood.

I truly am puzzled by how any city developer could approve such an aggressive project like this on a quiet cul-de-sac in this mature neighbourhood. I know it comes down to dollars and cents, but if this project goes through with the current proposal, I have lost faith in the conservation and future initiatives of developing these core neighbourhoods.

Edmonton is a beautiful city and this neighbourhood is a true gem. What makes this area so wonderful is the community and homeowners who have chosen to settle and a build a life in McKernan/Belgravia. Individuals who rent in these neighbourhoods typically have little engagement in community initiatives. I think it is reasonable to assume a large chunk of these units would be used a rental units or AIRBNB's and have very little benefit to the community aesthetic.

I hope the city takes these concerns seriously and we can come to a reasonable compromise on this future development.

We built a home in this neighborhood knowing about the ARP.
The ARP promised this neighborhood a green spine. It is still only 9m. The plan had stated 12m. Why must we advocate for this green spine when it was already negotiated in the ARP?Note that this walkway must be shared by cyclists, walkers and children on bikes, scooters and wagons - green space offers a buffer space to walk/ride if the walkway is busy.

The developer will make a contribution to the Charles Simmonds Park, which is great, but there is no landscaping for the (narrow) greenspine.

I've seen drug paraphernalia, garbage, clothing and more dumped at the current cul de sac. How will the developer help to keep this cul de sac clean and safe?

Seeing restaurants or a hair salon on the main floor would be fine - but no late night convenience stores please. I have lived near such a store in the past and it caused a lot of noise late at night.

Vision Zero - a city policy meant to increase safety. This development is designed to have a single walkway between the buildings (the plaza), where the 200+ residents plus all neighbourhood residents walking to McKernan School or accessing the LRT will be channeled through. And yet, the plan is also to have garbage trucks and large delivery trucks BACK UP into the plaza where children are walking to school in order to make the required turn. This is extremely dangerous and not in line with City policy.
A well-designed plan would have a smaller footprint with adequate space for large delivery trucks and garbage trucks to turn around.

Major red flags here. The neighbourhood has a recent ARP in play, and it is being violated on several fronts: the height (now 7 storeys), FAR, setbacks, and incursion on the green spine. If the ARP, which was created in good faith with substantial compromise already, is further degraded, what is left for the community? It sets a dangerous precedent to allow developers to do whatever they like, and give them the clear impression that the rules don't apply.
I and many of our neighbours agree that mixed-density near the LRT is of benefit to the community. I don't see any mixed-density, however; it is all maximum height and FAR, or in this case far beyond the maximum. The vision of the ARP is to have stacked row housing in this location, with the mid to high rises along the major arteries. This is a dead-end street that is extremely difficult to access by vehicle, not only for visitors to the residents, but also for the hundreds of vehicle trips per week for grocery and restaurant delivery, online shopping, and other deliveries that people without a vehicle rely on.
The Traffic Impact Assessment (TIA) done by the developer was deeply flawed, and quite an embarrassment to the Transportation department at the City of Edmonton. An independent review by a traffic engineer raised several areas of concern that were ignored by Transportation.

1. My husband and I would love to thank the city planner for listening to us. My husband goes to work every day and he is an Uber driver (as a hobby) . Pre-COVID he already did not like coming into the neighborhood during rush hour, and now with the new development and congestion on 78 avenue, it will decline all pickups from Belgravia.

2. OH!! I forgot!! It will be dangerous to have my children walk through the plaza on their own with all the traffic and vehicles backing up. I'm worried for their safety,particularly two of my children with not that much vision (it came from my husband, not me).

3.
I am scared of heights, and to be honest with you, me and my entire fam (cousins, cousinettes, and even great-grandmother Bumble) were kinda hoping to live in the development. But, since I am scared of heights, 7,6, and 5 stories is a bit to much for moi.

4.
I have to go with my gut on this one: The building could fall down...
I will leave it at that.

Love goes out to all!!!
On behalf of my fam
Ma pig

This proposal is very interesting. I have been following along in the community newsletters and the work of the BelMac group for some time.

I am surprised by the proposal as described. The community just recently developed and approved an ARP for the area. Why should this proposal (any proposal) be allowed to have exceptions to it? I can understand the financial benefits of this to the developer and how this is important when building something like this, but that does not mean it's good for the community.

1) Traffic - It is unclear to me how this is going to work? Access to Belgravia is very limited as it is. Traffic in and out of the neighbourhood during rush hour is already a problem. There is another huge apartment complex going up 2 blocks away. How will folks living here adequately get in and out and perhaps more importantly, what is the impact for the rest of the community here. I imagine the thought is folks who live here will use the LRT, but why assume this? What concrete data do we have to support this (particularly including the building currently going up on 115th street with 100s of units)? Will the developer be responsible for road upgrades, backlane upgrades (which are already in bad shape)? It would seem a smaller development would be a better compromise.

2) It seems like the neighbours to this development will be severely impacted, both in terms of privacy in their homes/yards and potentially value of their home. I imagine they did not think they would be neighbours with a 6 storey building. 4 stories already is not great but certainly better. I know several neighbours that have already moved out of the area, and this may cause the entire area to become a student rental zone. Why would a family want to move in to a street that has a 6 storey building going up that will be largely students.

3) Similar to above, it is unclear how services will be provided to this complex which is at the end of a one way street e.g. garbage, mail, etc. What guarantees does the developer provide if concerns are raised once the building is functional?

4) It says provision for family oriented units. I think this language needs to be very clear from the onset. The more family units (eg. minimum 3 bedroom), the more this complex can truly be a part of the community. If 15% or more of the units are 3 bedroom, then this could be a winner. But right now only 5% of units are.

5) Safety - what provisions does the developer guarantee around the time of building itself? The area is a corridor for access to the LRT? How do we ensure good sightlines and safety to the area?

6) As a rental complex near the university, with the potential of university students and more rowdy crowd than is typical for the neigbourhood, what assessment has been done to ensure neighbourhood safety? What assessment has been done to look at the multiple illegal lodging houses already in the neighbourhood?

Overall, this complex has potential to add to the community, but trying to stuff in as many units as possible doesn't seem the way to go. Let's add thoughtful density with potential for long term tenants with a family orientation.

Density along the LRT corridor is crucial to the City's success so generally very supportive of this development. If another two floors can welcome additional families to these neighbourhoods that is a positive. I will be curious to hear about the city's transportation review as Belgravia already seems light on access roads and this additional density won't help matters (although between biking and transit, I appreciate there are other ways to move than just vehicle).

I am in a stew on this development due to privacy issues and height. Me and my family have lived in this community for many years, and hopefully many years to come. And, I have never in my life seen a 6 storey development that is only 1.2 meters from the back lane. This development has very large windows on the side from stories 1-5 that will be overlooking the neighbors houses, and I am not sure if my neighbors do private things in there backyards, or even know about this, but it is an invasion of their privacy. I am also at wit's end about the height of the development. I think that 6 stories is a trifle too high for this neighborhood. Thank you, city, for hearing my concerns.

I am very concerned about the impact of this development on this community. 7 stories is way too much for the space. There is NO capacity for the extra traffic. It doesn't fit in with all the other 1/2/3 story houses. My feelings explain to me that the design does not integrate well the community. And, especially, I am very concerned, for crying out loud, that there isn't a good buffer, between the ally and the surrounding houses. Thank you for listening to the community's feedback!

Would like to ensure that there is ample bike parking and bike tune up station (air).

Would like focus of commercial units to be focused on food security rather than personal services.

Development should provide plan to ensure consideration has been given to future adverse climate impacts in Edmonton while reducing carbon footprint (good airflow to reduce need for energy intensive air conditioning use).

Landscaping should be strategically chosen to attract native bird species and pollinators.

Additional small community garden and compost should be integrated into design for tenants.

I like this proposal and think that really, there is no better place for denser and ped/bike friendly developments than near transit stations like this. Why not provide more people access to the amenities that they use instead of just single family homes?

One thing that I agree with other commenters on is a need for accessible and efficient active transportation connections. For example, the current construction on the corner of university ave has provided very poor ped/bike connections, at times blocking off paths completely for no obvious reason. This is a short term problem. Longer term though, access to the 76 ave bike lane needs to be optimized and connections from the Mc/Belgravia Shared Use Path to CROSS university ave/whyte ave needs to be looked at, as currently there is no efficient crossing.

I live in this area and conceptually, I like the proposed development. I specifically like the inclusion of 1st floor commercial and the plaza as it should expand services available to residence.

Changes to consider:
- Conversion of the 114st & 78 ave crossing into a pedestrian tunnel similar to the 114st and 76 ave crossing. With this development (and potentially others) increasing density in this area substantially, that will mean more crossing and more disruption to traffic at this intersection. It would also serve to connect the two communities in a more natural way while making it safer for students at the school and others to cross the street to access services/LRT.
- Building height seems out of touch with other buildings in the area. Specifically those on 76th avenue. I would suggest 4 or 5 stories is appropriate for this development.

As a home owner in this neighbouring area for 15 years, I have some ongoing and growing concerns that I have voiced previously. In short, I do not see firm rationale and/or justification for deviating from the existing long range development plan for this neighbourhood. The number of deviations remain substantial and significant. We already have major infill projects int his neighbourhood, some of them are not yet to capacity (or not yet completed). Analysis should be done AFTER these existing projects have been allowed to come to occupancy, not before. Some specific points are listed here:

1. The impact of this proposal on traffic flow in and around 78Ave-155 street and vehicle exists on University Ave and 114 St, cannot be overstated. This is being underestimated because the new developments of Belgravia square and Apartment block cnr 115 St & 80 Ave, have not yet been realized. The pinto proposal itself does not cater for vehicles; but it has no way of restricting it.

2. The design element of the proposal that spans the green space of the colder-sack/turnaround will set precedence; emergency vehicles will not be able to maneuver, shadow casting to existing family residents as well as the implied short-term rental/leasing format is completely inconsistent with the surrounding family neighbourhood. There has been no justification to 'experiment' with this design element West of the LRT in an already bottlenecked family community; there are far more suitable areas south of the LRT line with far less impact to existing/surrounding communities.

3. The new developments of Belgravia square and Apartment block cnr 115 St & 80 Ave, is bringing 1000s of new residents to this niche of Bel/Mac; the capacity of these infill developments is far beyond the original long range plan for this area and the impact to vehicle, cycle and pedestrian traffic congestion in general has not been realized and should be assessed before approving yet-another proposal that deviates from the long range development of the area.