LDA20-0066 Metro 78 - McKernan

Consultation has concluded

Color rendering of 2 mid-rise towers (78 Ave and 114 street) from an elevated viewpoint, with LRT in foreground

(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, please contact the planner on this page, under the "who's listening" section.

The application is expected to go to City Council Public Hearing for a decision in Fall 2021. For more information, please visit these FAQs (External link) for Council meetings.

City-hosted in-person public engagement events and information sessions continue to be suspended until further notice. This page is to help you find out information and tell us what you think, instead of having an in-person meeting. Please review the information on this page and tell us what you think and ask any questions below, before the end of the day on September 6, 2021.

We will use any feedback that you share to make sure our review of the application is as complete as possible and help inform conversations with the applicant about potential revisions to address concerns raised. Feedback will also be summarized in the report to City Council so that they are aware of the public’s perspectives prior to making a decision.

Application Details

Rezoning
The City has received a proposal to rezone properties on the north and south sides of 78 Avenue NW between 114 Street Street and 115 Street NW. The application includes 11416, 11419, 11420, and 11423 78 Avenue. The developer’s name for the project is Metro 78.

This application has been revised since it was first received by the City on February 21, 2020. The initial rezoning proposal was for two lots located at 11416 and 11419 78 Avenue NW to allow for two 4-storey low rise residential buildings. As a result of the City’s review and public feedback, the applicant has decided to revise their proposal to also include lots located at 11420 and 11423 78 Avenue NW.

The proposed zoning from the current (RF1) Single Detached Residential Zone 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

  • Community Amenity Contributions in the form of a public plaza along 78 Avenue between the two buildings, cash contributions towards the Charles Simmonds Park redevelopment, provision for family oriented units, and the construction of two lanes abutting the site.

Colour rendering of proposed public plaza between 2 mid-rise towers looking west from 114 street

(Applicant Rendering, subject to change)

Road Closure

The application also includes a proposed closure of portions 78 Avenue, portions of 114 Street abutting the site, and the laneway south of 78 Avenue between the site and 114 Street. New 6-metre wide (previously 5-metre) north-south lanes are proposed along the western boundaries of the rezoning site to provide connections to the remaining lanes parallel to 78 Avenue and to provide access to the proposed development. See land exchange map.

Area Redevelopment Plan Amendments
This application includes proposed changes to the Mckernan-Belgravia Station Area Redevelopment Plan to amend current policies that do not support development of this intensity at this location and to allow for mid-rise buildings at this location. Additional information for this associated proposal is included in the proposed Mckernan-Belgravia Station Redevelopment Plan amendments.

Please watch the video presentation and view the documents in the right hand sidebar for more details on the application.


(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, please contact the planner on this page, under the "who's listening" section.

The application is expected to go to City Council Public Hearing for a decision in Fall 2021. For more information, please visit these FAQs (External link) for Council meetings.

City-hosted in-person public engagement events and information sessions continue to be suspended until further notice. This page is to help you find out information and tell us what you think, instead of having an in-person meeting. Please review the information on this page and tell us what you think and ask any questions below, before the end of the day on September 6, 2021.

We will use any feedback that you share to make sure our review of the application is as complete as possible and help inform conversations with the applicant about potential revisions to address concerns raised. Feedback will also be summarized in the report to City Council so that they are aware of the public’s perspectives prior to making a decision.

Application Details

Rezoning
The City has received a proposal to rezone properties on the north and south sides of 78 Avenue NW between 114 Street Street and 115 Street NW. The application includes 11416, 11419, 11420, and 11423 78 Avenue. The developer’s name for the project is Metro 78.

This application has been revised since it was first received by the City on February 21, 2020. The initial rezoning proposal was for two lots located at 11416 and 11419 78 Avenue NW to allow for two 4-storey low rise residential buildings. As a result of the City’s review and public feedback, the applicant has decided to revise their proposal to also include lots located at 11420 and 11423 78 Avenue NW.

The proposed zoning from the current (RF1) Single Detached Residential Zone 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

  • Community Amenity Contributions in the form of a public plaza along 78 Avenue between the two buildings, cash contributions towards the Charles Simmonds Park redevelopment, provision for family oriented units, and the construction of two lanes abutting the site.

Colour rendering of proposed public plaza between 2 mid-rise towers looking west from 114 street

(Applicant Rendering, subject to change)

Road Closure

The application also includes a proposed closure of portions 78 Avenue, portions of 114 Street abutting the site, and the laneway south of 78 Avenue between the site and 114 Street. New 6-metre wide (previously 5-metre) north-south lanes are proposed along the western boundaries of the rezoning site to provide connections to the remaining lanes parallel to 78 Avenue and to provide access to the proposed development. See land exchange map.

Area Redevelopment Plan Amendments
This application includes proposed changes to the Mckernan-Belgravia Station Area Redevelopment Plan to amend current policies that do not support development of this intensity at this location and to allow for mid-rise buildings at this location. Additional information for this associated proposal is included in the proposed Mckernan-Belgravia Station Redevelopment Plan amendments.

Please watch the video presentation and view the documents in the right hand sidebar for more details on the application.


Consultation has concluded

You can:

  • Ask a question directly to the file planner that is processing the application. When necessary, we will work with the application to provide an answer.

  • Search and view community-submitted questions and official responses.

  • Type your question in the box below and click "Submit". Answers are typically provided within 5 business days

Please note you must be registered on Engaged Edmonton in order to provide feedback.  However, only your username will be displayed publicly, all other information is kept confidential.  We use this information to distinguish between feedback received from neighbouring/local area residents and other interested stakeholders.  

You may also provide feedback to the Project Planner directly via the contact information under the "who's listening" section of the page.

  • Hi Marty How does the EPCOR infrastructure upgrade (only required for Metro 78) justify increasing the height from 4 to 6/7 storeys? Is there a density (3 or 4 storeys) which does not trigger that, or has a cost share been looked at? His numbers are weak as hell, and don't support cramming in density out of line with the ARP and severe overlooking on the SFH neighbours. Being perpendicular to the rest of the properties calls for a more sensitive height transition. I would get on board with 4 storeys. thanks, Tom Burr

    11435 78 Avenue - resident owner asked over 2 years ago

    Thank you for reaching out.  Due to the volume and nature of all requests that have come in, we will specifically address and provide an answer in the What We Heard Report (WWHR), which will be posted on this webpage, when available.

    We will inform all participants who subscribed to periodic updates once the WWHR report has been published.



  • There have been many questions listed in the 'Share Your Thoughts' by the community. To ensure they are addressed I have submitted them here as well. 1. Garbage pick-up: a. We have been told to decrease the chance the multipurpose loading/garbage/and corner cut zone will be occupied during garbage pickup, there will be no loading/deliveries on garbage days. Can you clarify which day Metro78 garbage and recycling pick up will be? And is it correct to assume Metro 78 garbage pick-up will not be on the same as community garbage pick-up (Thursday)? b. Has it been assessed whether the Metro 78 garbage trucks will be able to turn from the new north south lane into 78 avenue, when cars are parked on both sides of 78 avenue, and Metro 78 parking is full. c. Is the garbage area in the building large enough to accommodate the garbage from any commercial units? And if not does this mean another day of garbage pick-up? d. With the garbage bins being kept inside Metro 78, will the garbage company have access to open the door, or will Metro 78 need to leave the garbage bins outside before they come? 2. Will the document entitled 'applicant engagement and project revisions' be revised for its omissions including: Feb 7, 2021. The meeting was with representatives from BCL, BelMac and MCL, not just BelMac. March 24, 21. 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 representatives of BelMac, MCL, BCL and the developer, and the developer declined June 9, 2021. The developer met with adjacent neighbours to discuss a fence. This is not included. Summary of October and February meetings. Height and setbacks were also discussed, but these topics are missing. Project revision table is inaccurate. Appears may have removed all green spine landscaping to offset Charles Simmonds Park Contribution and this was not discussed (6), Childcare is no longer in the proposal (7), the community did not request west balconies (12), we requested once weekly garbage collection (13), we requested a buffer not a fence (16), and missing is discussion of height and setbacks. 3. Why is the 'plaza' called a 'plaza' and not a ‘mid-block accessway’. Although the intent may be to function as a plaza, it clearly does not meet the definition of a plaza in TOD guideline, and shouldn’t the terminology in the DC2 used be consistent with the city’s definition? 4. Why is the height of the building measured from the flat root instead of from the top of the canopy? 5. Has there been any assessment of whether current street parking will be able to accommodate the estimate additional 304 vehicles per day? 6. Has there been any assessment of the safety or children, cyclist crossing the new North-South lane to access the mid-block accessway, considering parked cars will need to back up to exit their parking stall, the increase in traffic, and the backing up of large vehicles when the loading zone/garbage zone/corner cut zone is occupied. 7. Why had childcare been removed as a possible use? 8. Why have setbacks been decreased by .5m on the west and east side compared to the previous DC2? 9. Will the platform structures on the east and the west of the building project an additional 1.5m, in addition to the reduction of the setback of 1m and 2m on the west and east side respectively up to 16.5m in height? 10. There appears to be a 2m buffer between the Metro78 parking area and Metro78, but the developer won't consider a buffer area between the directly adjacent neighbours and the new north-south lane. Why not? 11. The developer previously supported their assertion that the development site is a gateway using the results of their survey. Is it correct to assume the developer will no longer use the survey results as support given they indicate in the engagement summary “this survey is not intended to be representative sample of the community”? 12. The review of the survey was done by Avens Evaluation Group. According to Avens’ website, one of the two consultants at Avens is Dorothy Pinto. Shouldn’t an arm’s length firm have reviewed the survey?

    BelMac neighbours asked over 2 years ago

    Thank you for reaching out and summarizing these questions from the guestbook.  Due to the volume and nature of these requests, we will specifically address and provide answers to them in the What We Heard Report (WWHR), which will be posted on this webpage, when available.

    We will inform you (and those who subscribed for periodic updates) once the WWHR report has been published.