LDA20-0066 Metro 78 - McKernan

I agree with my fellow neighbours, please listen to the numerous concerns for the height of the building, the safety concerns for children (there is a K-9 school right across the street and their safety should be the priority), and the traffic congestion that this development would bring! The traffic is already bad enough now and the new condo development under construction across from the Aberhart building hasn’t even have residents move in yet. Even though it’s near the LRT most people will still have vehicles to drive because our LRT isn’t that developed yet and cannot bring people to most places in Edmonton- the traffic will get worse. Belgravia is a great neighborhood please don’t destroy it for the residents thank you.

I am very much concerned about the height of this building - it's way too tall for this area. It will block sun light for neighbours who will live in the shadow forever if this project gets a green light. The safety is another concern - the very narrow street and the tall building will be a problem when vehicle backs up and potentially a hazard for pedestrians, bike riders, and little kids who frequently use the surrounding areas.

First, I'd note that this project has highlighted an overall flaw in the city's ARP process - the ARP is sold to the community as a plan of what to reasonably expect, while developers seem to see it as a starting point to negotiate more profitability. That, combined with recent changes to the city's planning direction, is leading to a clash of expectations.

That said, this project is bearing the brunt of needed infrastructure upgrades as first developer in, leading to their ask for increased height - and I don't think that's unreasonable. I can understand this challenge and I do appreciate that they are attempting to somewhat mitigate this height through stepbacks and visual interest on the buildings. I think the buildings as sketched are attractive, and compete well with other recent projects around the city. This would seem to be a good example of a 'missing middle' project.

The zero-parking option fits the goals of the city and the communities, and kudos for attempting it. However, there would need to be increased effort by the city to enforce (and hopefully expand) parking restrictions throughout the neighbourhood, to make sure this doesn't just download the parking onto on-street spaces. If zero-parking can't work in this location next to the LRT, it probably can't work in Edmonton outside the innermost core.

The developer does appear to have attempted community consultation, meeting with residents and both affected leagues. This is more than what we have seen from other developers.

I appreciate the Community Amenity contributions, especially to Charles Simmonds Park (although I also note that the construction of the alley should not be listed as such).

I too am concerned about the removal of the proposed child care use; this would have been an excellent amenity to attract families to the community as a whole, and I'd like to see this back in the proposal. Other businesses, eg a cafe, would also be good additions. I appreciate that other residents would like to see a small grocery store - I would too - but realistically that's not something a developer can make happen. But perhaps increased density from projects like this will attract other businesses and services in the vicinity?

I am 110% in favour of this proposal but it does have a few drawbacks.

Requiring garbage trucks to backup when picking up garbage in the adjacent lots is a safety concern and could inconvenience nearby residents. That said, this will be an interim condition that will be resolved in the long term when the ARP's vision comes to fruition. If this proposal goes ahead then other developments nearby will likely fall into place relatively quickly relieving the awkward alley configuration. Good driver training and backup buzzers should suffice in the short term.

I can also understand the concerns of the height of the building but that too will resolve itself with time. Many, if not most of the original single story houses are being redeveloped into 2-3 story buildings which will reduce the 'jump' in height in the future. Also, with other inevitable developments along 114 St, this building won't stick out for too long, though it will always be taller then anything next to it. I agree that 6 story's may not be ideal but if that's what makes the project the most viable then I'm all for it.

Concerns about the city selling of pieces of the green spine are also valid. Reducing the overall width of the multiuse trail right of way is a disadvantage. Right now though, most of that space is occupied by either the alleyway or is a tiny strip of grass. I've always felt that the space could be better utilized and by creating a retail frontage with many trees, I think it may actually improve the pedestrian experience. Even just looking at the success of the cafe at 76 Ave and 115 St, I think another retail opportunity like that would be great for local residents. having a new gathering spot on the green spine would actually make it more valuable then it is currently. Right now there's no real gathering space in the green spine. Having some units front directly on the trail will likely also make it more pedestrian scaled instead of less. Adding the new plaza in place of the old turnaround will definitely be an improvement for pedestrians.

When you take into account the new lane connections, there won't be a problem for drivers either. As it is, with people parking on the street there's only one effective lane of traffic on 78 Ave so having people drive down the alleyway instead of turning around on the street doesn't change anything. If driver conflicts become a problem then the alleyways and streets in the area could become one way improving safety and flow of traffic.

The thing that really irks me with peoples responses to this and other similar developments is complaints about traffic and loss of parking. Developments like this with a little commercial space and many residential units right next to sustainable transportation infrastructure make it viable to live without a car. A key point of public transit infrastructure such as the LRT is to allow more people to live closer to the places they want to be such as the University, Whyte Ave and downtown without the need for driving. Placing this right on the multi-use trail and LRT will give residents an alternative to driving also makes cycling viable via the 76 Ave bike lanes and the green spine trail. The more development we design around sustainable modes, the less people will need to drive, allowing us to build a neighbourhood for people, not for cars. Removing the turnaround and making the new plaza is a perfect example of this. We need to design around people's needs, not cars. This proposal does that by fronting onto the LRT and multi-use trail. However, it could do a better job of that by having the main entrance face the path or plaza instead of the alley.

Core neighbourhoods need initiate a change in Edmonton toward moving people to sustainable modes of transportation including transit, cycling and walking. Promoting these modes over driving through denser development near transit hubs and pedestrian/cyclist friendly corridors is a critical step towards building a more economically, environmentally and socially sustainable city. This development would allow that.

Without larger housing projects such as this one, most people will get priced out of central neighbourhoods like Belgravia and will be forced to drive from outside the city instead, right past our doorsteps! With the university next door it's important to allow for more people to live nearby so they don't have to commute as far.

In my opinion, this project would take great advantage of the LRT and nearby bike infrastructure and is almost the exact type of development Edmonton needs to prioritize in order to grow sustainably. It would deeply dishearten me if this project didn't go ahead.

The resident group engaged A Path Less Travelled Consulting Inc. to help review the Metro78 Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) and to advise on related issues.

Our staff reviewing this TIA has over 30 years of experience as a Transportation Engineer. Their experience includes six years with the City of Edmonton in the very position the current city’s transportation engineers are in, as well as numerous years of experience in the private sector conducting and reviewing TIA’s on behalf of developers and municipalities. Our staff also lived in the Belgravia community for over 25 years.

We have never before experienced an administration that is so unwilling to work with residents. Here is why.

We completed the review of the first TIA submission in January this year. We shared our concerns first with the developer’s transportation engineer. We worked together to resolve the comments and in some cases we agreed to disagree. We expected some disagreement because those issues were subjective or within the range of typical practise in transportation engineering.

We then shared our review with the residents’ leaders and then with City of Edmonton, and we confirmed it was forwarded to city transportation engineering staff in January. Over the next few months the resident’s group coordinator continued to follow up with the City regarding the TIA status. The City indicated it was still being worked upon.

In late April the City emailed the resident group coordinator, indicating that the TIA was now in a state that they could approve. Our coordinator questioned this approval and the City engineering staff indicated they were still open to discussing the TIA.

At the same time in late April we found out that this TIA was the third submission by the developer’s transportation engineer. The City and the developer had completed an entire TIA update without communicating this to our coordinator (the 2nd TIA), and without any opportunity for us to review this second TIA, despite our coordinator asking for status updates at that time.

At the request of A Path Less Travelled the residents’ coordinator asked City staff to share the comments they made to the developer’s transportation engineer on the second and first TIA submissions. The City refused. Then, in a May 6 meeting with the coordinator and us the transportation engineers claimed the City is being transparent, and if we want this information we can get it from the developer’s transportation engineer.

This is ridiculous. Development review comments are not a State secret. The City of Edmonton cannot claim transparency and at the same time deny our access to these comments. There is no reasonable justification in a democratic and transparent process for the City to withhold such comments. Your engagement system is broken.

This caused much more difficulty for us to meaningfully review the third TIA submission, but we carried on, putting faith in the City staff verbal statement that they were still open to comments.

We were then surprised that our review found significant deficiencies in the TIA that were identified in January yet unaddressed in the “approved” third TIA. We pointed out the deficiencies at a June 16, 2021 meeting with City staff, and had even shared alternatives that would resolve these deficiencies.

Yet the City staff continued to claim the TIA was acceptable. They refused to review, comment, and provide feedback on our alternatives. Instead they parroted emails from other decision makers in the City that the developer’s alternative was acceptable. We knew that already; we were asking for comments on the suitability of our alternatives, based on our faith in their statement that the TIA was not approved and they were open to comments.

In effect City staff negotiated three TIA’s with the developer and deliberately choose to exclude resident participation after the first submission. They then refused to address any issues with residents or even comment on resident alternatives once their negotiations with the developer were complete, despite claiming they were open to changes.

One of our issues relates to safety. We pointed out in plain language that reversing garbage trucks killed two toddlers in separate incidents in the 1990’s in Edmonton. We gave the City staff alternatives to eliminate all reversing, and all these alternatives meet City standards. We even had to solve problems for City staff who could not see simple solutions, such as for two lots on 79 Avenue where if the waste continues to be removed from the lane the waste trucks “must” back up.

We were also surprised that your management responsible for the August public engagement advanced the plans to the engagement, despite our direct communication that this should not happen given the safety issue. The City should not allow development plans in a public forum that do not meet safety criteria; safety issues must be resolved prior to a public engagement. If the developer insists on advancing such plans, as is their prerogative, the City should provide proof that it communicated their safety concerns to the developer and the developer chose to ignore the concerns, and this proof should be prominent on the City’ engagement website.

Responsible transportation engineers like those at A Path Less Travelled know our ethics demand that we protect public lives, regardless of our client’s or our employer’s interests. We also know that the City of Edmonton adopted Vision Zero, which does not tolerate ANY death or serious injury crashes on our roads, including our alleys. We believe it is reprehensible for an engineer to approve plans that will risk toddlers’ lives, and to put waste truck drivers in a position where they will kill children, especially when City standard solutions to save lives are readily available.

Another key issue was for the fire truck access. City staff told our coordinator and us at the May 6 meeting that the truck must back into the plaza from the new north-south alleys, then proceed forward along 78 Avenue. We asked if the truck could instead back across 78 Avenue first to the opposite north-south alley, then turn to 78 Avenue to proceed forward. We were told “No, because it would eliminate 8 to 10 on-street parking stalls [when the fire truck swung onto 78 Avenue]”.

We pointed out at the time this should be a choice of the residents, because they can choose between the on-street parking stalls or a plaza design compromised by a fire truck backing into it. Instead, the City missed an engagement opportunity and is forcing its will upon residents.

In June we were able to conduct our own turning analysis, based on exactly the fire truck turns used in the TIA, to show at most 3 to 4 parking stalls would be eliminated. Further, we pointed out that if the turning analysis were modified to allow the fire truck to back once more (to “wiggle”), as was done for the analysis in the TIA, it likely would avoid any parking stalls to be removed.

We sent our plans to the City’s transportation engineers for their review and comment. We also asked for any documentation confirming their assertion that “8 to 10 on-street parking stalls would be eliminated.”

Those transportation engineers have not replied to our request for documentation, nor to review our independent analysis of an alternative analysis that allows proper fire truck access AND a better plaza design.

How can the residents here engage meaningfully with the City? The city transportation engineers chose to exclude residents from ANY input into the second and third TIA’s, approved the third TIA without resident input, and ignored obvious safety and design concerns raised by the residents.

We believe the transportation engineers at the City have failed in their duty to properly review the TIA and in doing so have compromised public safety and a better design for all.

I am writing with extreme concerns about the proposed Metro 78 development.
Firstly, the concept of essentially turning alleyways into main thoroughfares is deeply worrisome. With the loss of the cul de sac turnaround, vehicles would have to back out, shuffle-turn, or exit through the back alleys. The concern is not only for the neighbors dealing with disruptions and damage due to this altered useage/expansion and the considerable safety issues for pedestrians and drivers, but also for the city in the upgrades and maintenance of the right-of-ways required to make this remotely workable. The current street form of the round turnabout at the dead-end of the avenue has been quite effective, and there is insufficient justification to change this for the worse.
Another major concern is the slippery slope of selling off public greenspace to developers. It is wholly unbelievable, in this instance, that a developer could not get abundant profit and density without engulfing any of this city-owned property. The argument that there will be public space created in other parts of the footprint is weak since that paved, shadowed space will clearly be slanted toward residents or possible customers rather than being as friendly to passers-by.
Likely the biggest concern is the freedom that the developers seem to have taken to ignore the Area Redevelopment Plan when it suits them. This ARP has, in the past, been touted by the city planners as protecting neighborhood interests, rather than just tossing them under the bus whenever developers ask (which, unfortunately, evidence has too often indicated is the most likely scenario). The greenspace walkway along the perimeter was supposed to be a major benefit to the neighborhood, partially compensating the community for the negative impacts of intrusive developments. Instead, this particular proposed project will carve into this greenspace creating a cramped gloomy canyon instead of a pleasant walkway along 114street. In addition, the proposed 6 story structures tower over the 4 story limit outlined clearly in the ARP.
Beyond the above prime concerns, the lack of resident parking facilities realistically requires much more planning to accomodate on-site visitor parking and manage inevitable increased street parking and traffic, since the proximity to transit does not in itself limit car ownership and visitors/deliveries with vehicles.
The recent larger-scale developments in the area (ie Belgravia Square on 76th Ave and University Heights on University Ave) have drastically impacted the neighbors’ rights to fully enjoy their property and decreased their quality of life (in terms of view, sunlight, privacy, traffic and noise). It is frightening how willing the city planners seem to have been to ignore this fact in favour of increased development in mature communities, when there is plenty of undeveloped, underutilized space throughout the city, including near transit routes, available for densification. I have great amounts of sympathy for those families living near these developments and dread the idea that projects of similar scale could be built next to my beloved home, or, in fact, any of us, without protection from the city planners.
We ask that planners take at least some of these concerns under consideration to make this particular project less harmful to the neighborhood.

Firstly, the approach by Metro78 was to be condescending and unable to listen. the community tried to get some concessions to offset this horrible project but in the end a few dollars are thrown at the park. Building new alley way links to replace the ones taken out by the construction is not a community benefit. it is a necessity given the proposal. There are no net benefits from this project for the community and a list of disbenefits.

The closure of the cul de sac turn aroundis unacceptable. The street is narrow and really only allows one-way traffic when vehicles are parked in front of homes on each side otf the road. diverting either incoming or outgoing traffic into the alleys is not a responsible proposal. The alleys in this area are old, poorly maintained, narrow one-way lanes. If vehicle traffic ends up being 300++ per day,

I have read all the feedback to date and agree with the comments that the rezoning by Metro 78 from a four-story to 6+ story larger development will be detrimental to the neighborhood. Key points largely center on the issues of congestion in a corner of Belgravia which has no more buffer zone. The traffic congestion is already beyond acceptable and is already a safety hazard that would be amplified with much larger numbers of people requiring access into the neighbourhood. This area has high property crime which will be amplified with larger developments. Street parking will be a problem. Follow through with this will be a huge problem for Belgravia.

My points of opposition to these proposed buildings:

1. Congestion in the alley to the South and North of this building. These alleyways will in fact become bonafide streets as vehicles will use these upon exiting this area. There will be fender benders as almost all houses have garages on these alley ways.

2. Because these complexes have no garage or permanent parking for its tenants there will be numerous vehicles making trips to provide services. Taxis, ubers, meal deliveries, grocery deliveries, Telus and Shaw hook ups will mostly all exit through th alleyways. Garbage and recycling pick ups, fire trucks navigating these narrow spaces will be a challenge and dangerous. All making our alleys riddles with pot holes all the more very bumpy.


3. LRT vehicles use this space to park whenever they are making daily check ups at the McKernan station.

4. LRT vehicles and trailers have parked there for months whenever they are repairing the LRT station. Where will they set up on future upgrades to the station?


5. LRT snow clearance of the station use this space. They wheel barrow out the snow and dump in this location. There is a huge snow pile at the end of winter in this exact building area. Where will they dump the snow?

6. Exiting the area at rush hour. It is a nightmare (before COVID) trying the leave the area. We live on the corner of 115st and 77 Ave. and we have cars lined up past our place trying to exit to 114st and 76 ave.. The new 6 storey building 82 ave/Univ ave and 115st will greatly add to the congestion. Good luck trying to leave the area and should someone need an ambulance or fire truck at this time will have to wait a little longer than usual. When UofA is back to normal as well as normal life after COVID returns this will be a horrible area to leave during evening rush hour.

7. Why can’t the city stick with the ARP guidelines that were agreed upon with the Community Leagues just a few years ago. So much time was spent drafting these and now they are thrown out the window. Why bother doing meaningless consultations??

Please consider the detrimental effects to the green spine and beautiful treed residential area in giving the go ahead to this ill planned housing project.

Marie Sharpe 77 ave

This is too tall, blocks too much light, does not have sufficient parking, and the developer has not considered any of the community's concerns in any meaningful way. It also does not fill any of the needs of families looking for affordable housing. No landscape buffers have been included and so noise, darkness, will hurt the properties already there. it will be completely separate from the community and not contribute to the quality of life in the community.

I like the proposed design of the building and the close proximity to the LRT station.

We too are very concerned about the height of the proposed development! We see this over and over again with the infills in the neighborhood. Apparently 2-storey, yet developers get away with adding a loft on top and having the basement raised (for larger windows?). Do not allow this to happen again.
Also, we share the concerns about traffic. Despite the close proximity to transit, very few people go grocery shopping by LRT only. There are many neighborhoods in Edmonton that still are "food deserts" (not even a convenience store quickly accessible for last minute needs).

In a previous post, I stated that the hole in the ground on University Avenue between 112 and 113 Street was included in the ARP. According to the map on page 43 of the ARP, it is not, even though it is bisected by the edge of the circle of 400 metre radius centered on the LRT station as shown on page 11. On the other hand, the block between 115 and 115A Street on University Avenue is included in the ARP, even though no part of that block is within the 400 metre radius of the station. That block does appear to be restricted to 4 stories for whatever that is worth. I apologize for my error.

I am concerned that the height of the proposed development is far too high. It is 3 stories above the ARP. If the city won't adhere to the ARP or the developers won't adhere to an agreed-upon ARP, what is the point of having an ARP or even having a consultation process? If the reasoned voices of Belgravia's residents are not heard and the city (or developer) refuses to abide by the ARP, then there is no point having a consultation process, there is no point in having an ARP and there is no point in having a city planning department.

If the number of planned units is to be ~140 for this development, I'm also troubled by the level of traffic that will be brought into this very narrow avenue. 78th Ave. is already packed with resident's parked cars on either side, so having another 90-100 additional vehicles moving through this narrow avenue 2-3 times a day (only at peak hours) will be impossible to manage. It will also be a safety hazard. Overall, I don't believe a thorough or reasoned assessment of traffic flow into this dead-end street has been made. Likewise, I do not see any plans for underground parking, so I assume these 100+ cars need to find surface parking spots in a street that can only accommodate 20-30 vehicles. Simple traffic modelling would show that this is an impossible situation.

Please listen to voices from the community - this project is simply unacceptable!! There are too many red flags left unaddressed.

The current proposal is not appropriate for the location. The ARP was a reasonable plan that should be respected. The original 4 story building was harsh but at least met the requirements of the arp. If the city can not follow any of there own plans then they should quit pretending and let everyone just do what ever they want. Having 142 suites and not expecting anyone to have a car or need parking is not practical. The city should just say no.

I live in the neighborhood on 78th, only a few houses down the street from where these apartment buildings are going to be built. I am unimpressed with the current plans and would prefer the development not go ahead. My main concern is the amount of traffic this is going to add to the neighborhood as well as the plans to encroach upon the "green spine". The height of the apartments is too high-especially for our residential neighborhood.

I strongly object to the height of the proposed Metro 78. What is the point of an agreement between the community and the city if a developer can exceed the ARP height agreement by 9 metres. I too live in an area zoned such that apartments could be built, and anything above the ARP agreed 16 m would leave us in permanent shade for several months a year. We have seen that the condos on the N side of 76 Ave. completely shade the windows of the houses on 77 Ave. for several months in the winter, and would be livid if this happened to us -- we need the sun for ourselves and for our yard. If I lived N of the proposed new building I would be furious at the probable loss of light. Allowing this variance from the ARP is guaranteed to be a precedent for other developers.

A second issue is that, pre-Covid (& we will get back to that state at some point), traffic for those who need to get out of the neighbourhood after work/school hours is extremely heavy, partly due to the huge amount of short-cutting: adding possibly several hundred vehicles to the neighbourhood will exacerbate that situation.

There are so many requests from the developer to vary from the ARP that, if granted, I question why we even bothered to go through that process with the city. What was the value of the time and energy, and the validity of the agreement?

I have some questions:
A. I’ve repeatedly watched Marty Vasquez’s YouTube presentation and have looked at the DC2 application, but I can’t find the dimensions of the “plaza.” Can someone tell me how wide the “plaza” will be?

B. This project would generate a lot of garbage from 140 units and possible commercial space. I see the plan provides a space for garbage bins at the front corner of each building.
1) How does the space for garbage bins relate to the units immediately behind and above the bins?
2) How big will the bins be?
3) Will there be separate bins for trash, recycling, and compostables?
4) How often will the bins be emptied? (i.e. How many times a week will waste disposal vehicles be at the site?)
5) What will be the road access to the bins? (i.e. How will the garbage trucks enter, load, and exit the site?)
6) If there is a coffee shop or other commercial space, will it contract a separate waste company, with separate bins?

Thanks to whoever answers these questions. I’m looking for information.

I moved into Belmac recently with my young family and I am absolutely shocked by this application and its complete disregard for the needs of the community, the safety of children, and environmental factors. While I agree with many of the objections that others have raised, for me, the most unacceptable aspects of this development are: the traffic issues that will exacerbate an already struggling neighbourhood that sees streets of backed up cars as they try to cut through the residential streets to 114th from University Ave; a complete disregard for the environment with shoddy plans for green space and the erosion of the residential skyline of 78 Ave; a lack of attention to the reality that Belmac needs single family homes to fill school places, create a vibrant community, reduce traffic congestion and noise pollution, and keep the streets safe for children. Like others I understand the need for more high density housing on the lrt line and near campus, but this is an arrogant application that disregards the ARP and pays no attention to the real needs of this community.
I would genuinely worry about raising my kids on this street if anything like this development goes ahead. It would push me to leave. I sincerely hope the City have enough respect and concern for the well-being of our neighbourhood and its inhabitants that they radically rethink this rezoning application.