We’re getting close to request a public hearing for council approval (or not). We appreciate if people could take some time to leave their comments to the city planners.You have until Sept 6 to provide comments.
LDA20-0066 Metro 78- McKernan/Belgravia
The proposed zoning from the current (RF1) Single Detached Residential Zone(External link) to a revised (DC2) Site-Specific Development Control Provision would allow for the development of two mid-rise apartment buildings with the following characteristics:
A maximum height of 23 .0 m per building or approximately 6 storeys (previously 14.5 metres or approximately 4 storeys)
Up to 71 residential units per building for a total of 142 units (previously 55 residential units per building for a total of 110 units)
A maximum floor area ratio of 4.0 (previously 2.45)
Ground level commercial space fronting a public plaza and the 114 Street shared use path. Opportunities for commercial uses include specialty food services, retail, and personal service shops.
Vehicular and surface parking that is accessed from the proposed north-south lanes west of the properties
(Applicant Rendering, subject to change) ***The discussion has concluded and a What We Heard Report is now available here. *** Thank you for participating in engagement activities for this rezoning application. For any further inquiries regarding this application,engaged.edmonton.ca
Whoa now, whoa now….are these Nimbys that insane? Good God! I’m ashamed to call these people fellow citizens…..lol! Venom spewing, god fearing, torch carrying……
Thank you! I would appreciate the effort.
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).
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.
I have to go with my gut on this one: The building could fall down...
I will leave it at that.
We plan to respond to all comments on a report to the City, but since you brought it up, I'm happy to dedicate a special response to this one.I don't ever read those Engaged Edmonton pages, so I'm not sure what is par for the course on those, but there are close to a 100 feedback comments submitted on there, almost all VERY up in arms about this. Gotta hand it to BelMac residents, that's some serious push back, lots with somewhat justifiable points about it violating the established ARP guidelines etc.
This one was pretty funny though (or is this all tongue-in-cheek?):
Amen! As a new board member of a community league that redid its ARP a few years ago, I strongly disagree with the methods used for ARP community engagement and creation.We plan to respond to all comments on a report to the City, but since you brought it up, I'm happy to dedicate a special response to this one.
This idea of not following the ARP policies is flawed.
Anyone, developer, consultant or resident can apply to amend an ARP. This is the rule which we are following. The ARP fails to provide an economic mechanism to implement its vision. It explicitly says that developers should bear with the costs which may be done through direct control zoning, but doesn't say if the DC2 can increase the FAR, height or both. The ARP also fails to recognize that 78 Avenue is a pedestrian gateway. It only talks about vehicular gateways. This is the 2014 Planning mindset. We really question this approach.
Most importantly, the new City Plan approved last year takes precedence over any ARP. While the ARP restricts the height to four storeys, the City Plan designates the UofA area a Principal Node and 114 Street a Secondary Corridor. These designations open up opportunities for a range of building forms much more intense than four-storey buildings.
And before I forget, only firetrucks can back onto the plaza in case of an emergency. I doubt there would be kids playing there in case of a fire. Just saying...
Your comments @thommyjo are loaded with ageism-tainted bigotry. In a democracy everyone should get an equal say ..... "Planning" should not be a rigid platform and that is what "zoning" tends to do. "Planning" should not be prescriptive; it should be reactive to current needs ..... "Planning" should support it, not mandate it -- there is a difference.