LDA22-0373 - Windsor Park 118 Street DC2

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Linkedin Email this link

Engagement has concluded

** This engagement opportunity is now closed. A What We Heard report will be posted when available**

Thank you for participating in engagement activities for this rezoning application. Please review the information on this page and provide feedback before the end of the day on November 27, 2022. 

The role of the public is at the ADVISE level of the City’s Public Engagement Spectrum, which means that the City will use any feedback that you share to make sure the review of the application is as complete as possible and takes neighbourhood context into consideration. It will also be summarised for City Council so that they know your perspective prior to making a decision at a future Public Hearing.

APPLICATION DETAILS


The City is reviewing an application to rezone 8715 and 8727 to 8735 - 118 Street NW from the Single Detached Residential Zone (RF1) with the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay to a Site-Specific Development Control Provision (DC2).


The proposed DC2 Provision would allow for the development of a short mid-rise residential building with the following key characteristics:

  • Maximum heights ranging from 14.5 metres at the north end of the site to 20 metres at the south end (approximately 4 to 6 storeys)
  • A maximum of 172 residential dwellings with at least 50% having two bedrooms or more and a maximum of 10% being studio dwellings.
  • A maximum Floor Area Ratio of 3.0
  • Any provided vehicle parking located underground and accessed from the rear lane

As a result of feedback received from the City’s technical review and planning analysis and through public engagement conducted in September and October 2022, the applicant has made some revisions to the proposal. Key changes include:

  • Reducing the maximum height from 21.5 m to 20 m
  • Removing child care services
  • Adding a restriction on the amount of studio dwellings
  • Increasing the south setback from 3.0 m to 4.2 m and adding a sidewalk along the lane
  • Adding a bicycle wash, repair and maintenance station to the building
  • Adding regulations to increase privacy and reduce overlook from balconies and rooftop amenity areas
  • Adding the requirement for transportation related upgrades, including two new crosswalks nearby

A comparison document between the initial and revised proposed DC2 Provisions is found on the right hand side of this page.


TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS

The following transportation related improvements are currently proposed to address concerns about increased traffic and pedestrian safety, should this application be approved:

  • Upgrading the north-south lane east of the site to a 6 metre-wide commercial alley within the available rights-of-way between 87 Avenue NW and 89 Avenue NW.
  • Construction of a sidewalk and/or concrete landings along the east side of 119 Street NW to enhance Windsor Park School student pick up and drop off operations. Construction of these improvements must minimize impacts to the boulevard trees.
  • Installation of pedestrian crossings along 118 Street NW and 119 Street NW to enhance Windsor Park School student pick up and drop off operations. The exact location of the crosswalk will be determined at the Development Permit stage in consultation with City Operations (Safe Mobility) and the Edmonton Public School Board. Crosswalk installation may include, but is not limited to, design elements such as zebra crosswalk markings, signage, curb extensions, and curb ramps.
  • Installation of stop signs at the east approach of the east-west lane and 118 Street NW intersection, at the west approach of the east-west lane and 117 Street NW intersection, and at the north approach of the north-south lane and 87 Avenue NW intersection.
  • Installation of a yield sign at the south approach of the north-south lane and 89 Avenue NW intersection.
  • Removal of all existing vehicle accesses to 118 Street NW, including restoration of the curb, gutter and sidewalk.

The image below shows approximate locations of the above improvements, with exact details to be determined at later stages of the development process, if the rezoning application is approved.

A plan view showing the transportation improvements

While these improvements have been proposed based on technical review and consultation with the Edmonton Public School Board, we would like to hear your thoughts about them.


NEXT STEPS

City Administration will prepare a report to City Council providing a recommendation on this rezoning application. The City’s recommendation will be determined by a thorough review of the proposal, which involves technical considerations, such as traffic and drainage impacts, and alignment to approved City land-related plans and policies (eg. The City Plan). The report will also include a summary of the feedback received through this engagement so that City Council can factor community feedback, along with the City’s recommendation, into their decision. The decision to approve or refuse this application will be made at a future Public Hearing where anyone interested can also request to speak directly to City Council and share their perspectives prior to a decision being made.

** This engagement opportunity is now closed. A What We Heard report will be posted when available**

Thank you for participating in engagement activities for this rezoning application. Please review the information on this page and provide feedback before the end of the day on November 27, 2022. 

The role of the public is at the ADVISE level of the City’s Public Engagement Spectrum, which means that the City will use any feedback that you share to make sure the review of the application is as complete as possible and takes neighbourhood context into consideration. It will also be summarised for City Council so that they know your perspective prior to making a decision at a future Public Hearing.

APPLICATION DETAILS


The City is reviewing an application to rezone 8715 and 8727 to 8735 - 118 Street NW from the Single Detached Residential Zone (RF1) with the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay to a Site-Specific Development Control Provision (DC2).


The proposed DC2 Provision would allow for the development of a short mid-rise residential building with the following key characteristics:

  • Maximum heights ranging from 14.5 metres at the north end of the site to 20 metres at the south end (approximately 4 to 6 storeys)
  • A maximum of 172 residential dwellings with at least 50% having two bedrooms or more and a maximum of 10% being studio dwellings.
  • A maximum Floor Area Ratio of 3.0
  • Any provided vehicle parking located underground and accessed from the rear lane

As a result of feedback received from the City’s technical review and planning analysis and through public engagement conducted in September and October 2022, the applicant has made some revisions to the proposal. Key changes include:

  • Reducing the maximum height from 21.5 m to 20 m
  • Removing child care services
  • Adding a restriction on the amount of studio dwellings
  • Increasing the south setback from 3.0 m to 4.2 m and adding a sidewalk along the lane
  • Adding a bicycle wash, repair and maintenance station to the building
  • Adding regulations to increase privacy and reduce overlook from balconies and rooftop amenity areas
  • Adding the requirement for transportation related upgrades, including two new crosswalks nearby

A comparison document between the initial and revised proposed DC2 Provisions is found on the right hand side of this page.


TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS

The following transportation related improvements are currently proposed to address concerns about increased traffic and pedestrian safety, should this application be approved:

  • Upgrading the north-south lane east of the site to a 6 metre-wide commercial alley within the available rights-of-way between 87 Avenue NW and 89 Avenue NW.
  • Construction of a sidewalk and/or concrete landings along the east side of 119 Street NW to enhance Windsor Park School student pick up and drop off operations. Construction of these improvements must minimize impacts to the boulevard trees.
  • Installation of pedestrian crossings along 118 Street NW and 119 Street NW to enhance Windsor Park School student pick up and drop off operations. The exact location of the crosswalk will be determined at the Development Permit stage in consultation with City Operations (Safe Mobility) and the Edmonton Public School Board. Crosswalk installation may include, but is not limited to, design elements such as zebra crosswalk markings, signage, curb extensions, and curb ramps.
  • Installation of stop signs at the east approach of the east-west lane and 118 Street NW intersection, at the west approach of the east-west lane and 117 Street NW intersection, and at the north approach of the north-south lane and 87 Avenue NW intersection.
  • Installation of a yield sign at the south approach of the north-south lane and 89 Avenue NW intersection.
  • Removal of all existing vehicle accesses to 118 Street NW, including restoration of the curb, gutter and sidewalk.

The image below shows approximate locations of the above improvements, with exact details to be determined at later stages of the development process, if the rezoning application is approved.

A plan view showing the transportation improvements

While these improvements have been proposed based on technical review and consultation with the Edmonton Public School Board, we would like to hear your thoughts about them.


NEXT STEPS

City Administration will prepare a report to City Council providing a recommendation on this rezoning application. The City’s recommendation will be determined by a thorough review of the proposal, which involves technical considerations, such as traffic and drainage impacts, and alignment to approved City land-related plans and policies (eg. The City Plan). The report will also include a summary of the feedback received through this engagement so that City Council can factor community feedback, along with the City’s recommendation, into their decision. The decision to approve or refuse this application will be made at a future Public Hearing where anyone interested can also request to speak directly to City Council and share their perspectives prior to a decision being made.

Tell us what you think about the application!

Please note you must provide a screen name and email on Engaged Edmonton in order to provide feedback. Other people that visit this part of the site will be able to see your comments. However, only your username will be displayed publicly, all other information is kept confidential. All comments go through an automated moderation process, and may take up to 1-2 hours to publicly appear on the website.

If you aren't able to provide feedback on this site, you can also send feedback to the Project Planner directly using the contact information under the "who's listening" section. Input shared on this page and through contacting the planner will be captured, you don't need to provide input through this site and by contacting the planner. 

Let us know what you like and what could be better about this application. What should Council know as they decide whether or not to approve the rezoning?

Engagement has concluded

CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

Yes to careful, considered increases in housing density across the City, including mature neighborhoods like Windsor Park! Absolutely no, to a 172 unit building across from our neighborhood elementary school! I’ve been out of town for a while, and have returned rather stunned by the scale of the massive construction on the corner of 87th Ave adjacent to this proposed development. Now, before that building is even completed, and the ramifications of that development absorbed by the community, a further development is being considered. It’s hard to believe that thoughtful City Planners and Councillors would even entertain this application … Increased traffic congestion; loss of trees; icy shaded sidewalks; a cold, shady school yard; loss of privacy for neighbouring homes; a hodgepodge of housing development; … the list is endless. It would be so much more prudent to have a complete, City zoning plan in place that is then thoughtfully and systematically implemented. This application - with its minimal revisions - is massive and will forever alter the area. How many other residential neighborhoods in Edmonton absorb tens of thousands of people (and traffic) every week day? We do! Students and staff at the University of Alberta campus; staff, patients and visitors at the University of Alberta Hospital, Stollery Children’s Hospital, Cross Cancer Institute, Kaye Clinic, Blood Bank, not to mention North Jubilee event attendees. I love the hustle and bustle that these institutions generate in our community - indeed it’s the reason we chose to live in Windsor Park - but please allow us to maintain some semblance of a quiet family life and elementary school environment.

CGS 9 days ago

while I am excited for the new revisions to Edmonton zoning, I am opposed to this proposal to rezone from RF1 to DC2. There are a number of aspects of the new zoning proposal that I am hopeful for: it furthers the goals of increasing housing availability while being mindful of existing communities. Looking to the zoning proposal, town houses, row-homes, brownstones, and multi-home dwellings might be developed in the proposed location---all of which would fit in with the surroundings and support the goal of adding more housing. Instead, what has been proposed is a 20 meter, behemoth with a footprint larger than the local school.

Primary concerns:

* The proposed development does not meet existing guidelines for mature neighbourhoods

* The proposed development does not meet the proposed future zoning for mature neighbourhoods

* The proposed building should be shorter. A 1.5 M reduction does not address concerns. It's worth noting that the new zoning proposal would place a 3 storey limit of about 11 metres: substantially less than what is being proposed. This does not conform with existing or future goals.

* This proposal will result in a substantial loss of privacy and light for surrounding neighbours, including the local school. I have happily lived next to condos in other mature neighbourhoods, but this development lacks the setbacks that many existing medium-density buildings have.

* I am concerned that this development will add substantial noise to the neighbourhood.

* There is already an approved DC2 building with 130 units next to this proposal. We do not yet know what the effects of Windsor terrace will be, and there are no comparable buildings in the neighbourhood to draw conclusions from. Combined, this proposal brings a total of 312 new dwellings to the neighbourhood: a substantial increase. How this will affect local class sizes, traffic, and local amenities is yet to be seen.

* We are increasing density rapidly without increasing amenities for the community. 312 new dwellings with no increased support. This simply adds strain to the limited commercial and social services that we have in a walkable radius. How will the school cope with an additional 312 families?

* Moving back to Edmonton from a 15-minute city in Europe, I was struck by how difficult it is to live without a car in central Edmonton. E.g., we do not have a grocer within walkable distance of WP (closest is 20 min walk, and similar by bus). For this reason, I am sceptical that residents of the proposed development would be able to get by with just a transit pass. This proposal will bring substantial traffic to already busy intersections.

* I am also disappointed by the lack of engagement with the community. When I reached out about the proposal to get more information, the developers did not respond to my e-mail.

* Edmonton’s mature trees---and the shade they cast---are an unbelievable treasure. City planners around the world would do anything to have trees like ours, but you can't plant new old trees. While living elsewhere, I missed Edmonton's trees dearly. Trees like these require planning that takes decades to come to fruition. We are so fortunate to have these trees; to cut them down and replace them with new saplings would be an immense and irrevocable mistake.

Last but not least: a great concern of mine is that proposals such as this will undermine the community support for increased density---a fear proven out by the responses to this proposal. Many have expressed resistance to any increased density. I can see why: on the one hand the city suggests that the new zoning will help neighbourhoods mature and ensure that new development fits with its surroundings, on the other hand an 11 storey high-rise was approved and a 6 storey building is being considered under DC2. If DC2 is exceptional, why do so many approved proposals seem to rely on rezoning to DC2? It gives the impression that the city will do one thing and say another: it erodes Edmontonians' trust in city planning.

Members of my family have lived in the community since it was originally developed. I was excited to see brownstones and duplexes bring a community I love into a new phase of life under the new zoning rules. Watching the proposed changes from Windsor Terrace and this new Westrich proposal, I’m left wondering if settling my family in the neighbourhood was the right decision: are we going to be pushed out of the community?

AlexK 9 days ago

LDA22-0373 - Windsor Park 118 Street DC2

It is my understanding that the City is currently in the process of revamping the Zoning Bylaw and building the City’s District Planning Policy, as well as the Scona District Plan. This is reassuring as a well thought out City wide planning policy with public consultation and due diligence can ensure successful and sustainable growth of this city with increased density and accommodation for all.

The proposed zoning change for this particular development and developments like it, cutting into the heart and soul of established neighbourhoods with buildings completely out of character with their surroundings strips the City and residents of a voice in the development process and transfers the direction of change to private companies primarily interested in profit.

The proposed 172 unit development would be the largest building in Windsor Park, cutting in from the development along 87th Ave, overshadowing the elementary school and playground and increasing traffic along the inner streets of the community.

The site by Westrich, running along 87th Ave, and adjacent to the proposed site has not yet finished construction and is not occupied. The impact of that site on the community of Windsor Park is currently unknown and it would certainly be wise to delay rezoning for a second development that penetrates the community of Windsor Park rather than simply occupying the periphery.

At this stage in the maturing of the City of Edmonton approving developments along arterial roads such as 87th Ave and 16th St in this neighbourhood make some sense but approving this building as proposed makes no sense at all unless profit is the sole motive.

I hope the Council has the courage and clarity of thought to deny this rezoning application.

J Green 9 days ago

“A critical part of The City Plan is rooted in stewardship and preserving the attributes most valued by Edmontonians today that were handed down to us from previous generations. As a community, in return, we continue to deliver on what makes for a safe and liveable city as part of our gift to future generations.” (Edmonton City Plan, 2020, p. 7)


Like so many others who have commented here, I strongly oppose the proposal from Westrich. This is the case despite the fact that I fully support the City Plan’s vision to grow our city to two million by 2060 and create a more compact city that reduces our environmental impact and the fiscal costs of running the City by an estimated 8% (City Plan, 2020, p. 148).

Judging by the comments here, there is strong, near unanimous, opposition to the Westrich proposal. It is also clear that community members have reasonable and consistent concerns. This is not an instance of ‘not in my backyard’ – on the contrary, community members express support for the City Plan and greater density but do not believe that the Westrich proposal is the best way to achieve those goals. I strongly agree.

From my perspective, the problems in this revised proposal are the same as in the original proposal. They include:
1. the failure to conform to existing infill guidelines;
2. the failure to conform to key principles and guidelines in the approved Edmonton City Plan and the draft District General Policy and draft Scona District Plans which will guide the City’s vision of growth for 2020-60;
3. a far too long and far too tall building on a non-arterial street in the interior of a neighbourhood of 172 units, directly across from an elementary school;
4. an escalated rate of growth that is inconsistent with the City’s commitment to 'phased growth' in the City Plan of 25% for Phase 1 2020-30 (City Plan, p. 38, 39, 135)
5. the risky concentration of development in one already highly used single street when the effects of the not-yet-complete 139 unit Windsor Terrace are unknown;
6. significant and reasonable concerns with respect to safety and traffic at the elementary school and early childhood learning center due to the sheer size and scale of the 172 unit building and its associated 236 cars;
7. significant traffic concerns due to the unrealistic plans to route all traffic through the 117/118th Street alleyway with high potential for traffic chaos in the alleyway, backups onto 87 Avenue, cut through traffic in front of the school and throughout the neighbourhood, and disruption to parking in the commercial parking spaces at the back of Pagnotta’s Windsor Terrace and visitor parking in front of the school;
8. disproportionate burdens to property owners in direct proximity to the development due to increased traffic, noise, shading, and the loss of property values;
9. further extension of an already long period of construction-related disruptions on 118th street for nearby residents, school operations, student drop off, and other residents who use that street to enter and exit the neighbourhood (e.g. noise, traffic disruptions, safety issues with the operation of cranes, etc.);
10. the risk of potential overbuilding with the introduction of 172 additional rental units that will compete with the 139 rental units of Pagnotta’s Windsor Terrace, potentially impeding the latter building in successfully establishing itself and showing proof of concept and market demand.

To this already long list, we can now add the unattractive prospect of working with a developer who appears to have little interest in working with the community, City, or City Plan in a respectful way. This is clear from the very lightly revised proposal which fails to address reasonable concerns of the community and the root problem of a far-too-large building and far-too-rapid escalation of growth. While the most obvious way to mitigate the concerns of the community is to introduce an appropriately sized building for an interior street (e.g., townhomes), the developer has instead offered superficial, cosmetic changes. These fail to provide solution to community concerns – for example:
1. A 1.5 metre reduction in the height of the building does nothing to address reasonable concerns about the inappropriate size of the building, traffic and safety;
2. Landscape containers on the 4th / 5th floors do not mitigate the loss of mature trees;
3. Pouring concrete on the grass in the 119th Street pick up /drop off zone does not address safety or congestion issues because the root problem is a too large building and congestion in front of the school, not sidewalks—something the developer would understand had they conducted an adequate traffic study and realized the 119th Street zone is already overcrowded;
4. Subsidized transit passes for one year do nothing to change the fact that there will still be 236 cars associated with the development increasing traffic volumes throughout the community. This is a temporary fix, not an enduring solution to the core problem;
5. Proposed crosswalks for school safety are important but do nothing to reduce the root problems of traffic volumes, safety, and congestion created by a too-large building that should be on an arterial road and not in front of an elementary school.
6. The continued use of misleading visual images also does not change the fact that 118 Street is a relatively narrow street, not five lane roadway as the visualizations suggest. The failure to render visuals more accurately reflects very poorly on the developer and planners involved in this project.

Of note, the one positive change in the revised proposal is the commitment by Westrich under Section 10.2 ‘Public Improvements’ to donate the amount of “$15630,000” to Windsor Park. While I assume this $15M figure is an error, it does confirm a lack of care and attention to detail -- two traits that most communities presumably want in a developer overseeing a major project.

On the basis of the lightly revised proposal, I remain strongly opposed to this development. I do not see that the developer has made a genuine effort to take community input seriously. Viewed through the lens of the City Plan, I also do not see how the proposal can be supported by the City. While the above issues are all important, two issues stand out above all:

First, this is the wrong location, unsupported by specific guidelines in the City Plan or by community opinion. A building this size is best suited to the edge of our community. University Avenue is the most reasonable location -- it is already a very busy four lane road, has a service lane for access, and a new building would be across from open parkland, not an elementary school, reducing a vast array of concerns that have been raised. Westrich should be well aware of the suitability of University Avenue as I believe it is constructing a building on University Avenue on the Belgravia side.

Second, this is the wrong timing. Approving this project would rapidly escalate growth in our community in ways that are risky, unnecessary, and contrary to the City Plan. The City Plan is clear on the value of taking a phased approach to growth. It states very clearly: “The City Plan carefully considers how to phase growth areas over time to ensure the best social, environmental and economic return on investment for Edmonton.” (Edmonton City Plan, 2020, p. 38). It outlines a clear plan of four phases of growth. Of specific note, growth in Phase 1 (2020-30) is intentionally skewed towards new developing areas (65% of growth), not mature communities (35% of growth), to give more time to adjust (City Plan, p. 135) . Windsor Park also clearly falls outside of the major node and growth activation areas as shown in the draft Scona District Plan (p. 48, Figure 6.10). It is not intended as a site for intense growth. Yet, with the completion of Windsor Terrace, our community will already have a nearly 30% growth rate – this far exceeds Phase 1 (2020-30) targets. Approval of the proposed Westrich building will escalate growth to roughly 65%, nearing Phase 3 targets. This cannot be considered prudent stewardship and does not serve the best interests of the community.

In sum, I see no basis for recommending this project given its abundant problems and the fact that the impact of Windsor Terrace is not yet known. Our community is well on track to exceed Phase 1 growth targets already and other development will continue through the already established path of 'human scale' development of skinny homes, garden suites and the like. Given this, and the fact that a key factor in deciding on growth activation is “community interest” (City Plan, p. 142), it is unclear why the City administration would approve it and foist an unwanted building on our community. This seems risky and ill advised, hardly a way to signal to current residents that the City is committed to careful stewardship and responsible phased, growth. It is also a clear signal to potential future residents that they are well advised to invest their housing dollars elsewhere, in other cities.

At a recent October Planning hearing, Mayor Sohi and several other Councillors emphasized that the City Plan—which was generated through extensively consultation—needs to be respected and upheld. I could not agree more. I strongly oppose the Westrich proposal.

Karen D Hughes 9 days ago

As a lifelong resident of Edmonton, and a homeowner in Windsor Park since 1950, I am strongly opposed to this rezoning application.
I feel that the minor and cosmetic revisions the developer has made to this application do not alleviate the major concerns I have expressed previously:
- the massive height and length of this proposed development that is completely inappropriate for a residential street and belongs instead on a main thoroughfare;
- a significant increase in traffic/decrease in safety for senior citizens such as myself, and for children attending the school, playschool, or daycare in the vicinity;
- a tremendous loss of privacy to homes located near the development from balconies and windows overlooking backyards, not to mention the roof decks proposed on the portions of the development towards the north;
- the major increase in the shade cast on surrounding homes and yards;
- the environmental catastrophe of existing mature trees that will be destroyed by this development (and that are in no way replaced by "plantings" proposed);
- the out-of-balance densification on this particular block: we already have two buildings contributing to densification, which I agree is necessary for Edmonton's future -- however, both the Bentley and the Windsor Terrace are properly located on the main thoroughfare, 87 Ave. whereas this proposed development is instead on a residential street in the heart of our neighbourhood.

Another concern is the rush and speed with which this development appears to be pushing forward. Surely it makes more sense from a planning perspective to wait until the Windsor Terrace is occupied, to see what the _actual_ and measureable effects will be to the neighbourhood, before approving another enormous development in the same block.

Melanie Biro 9 days ago

I am opposed to this development as it will increase traffic and congestion in the Windsor Park community and especially on 87th Avenue. I am a University student who grew up in this area and I work after university classes.I typically drive to work around 4:00 – 5:00 p.m. and the traffic at this time is already very congested. Some days it’s challenging to turn onto 87 avenue during rush hour and it can be bumper to bumper traffic on very bad days when there is poor weather, accidents, special events, etc. This is also true for 116 Street when university classes end and offices close for the day. I don’t believe it is a reasonable to assume that a large increase in the amount of people and cars coming into and leaving the neighbourhood, which will result from this development, can be easily accommodated. We are bounded by Saskatchewan Drive and you can only exit our neighbourhood by 87 or 116 Street, both of which are small roads relative to the traffic they receive. Having a significant increase in the number of cars trying to enter and exit the neighbourhood will only add congestion and make it more difficult for residents.

As well as a former student of Windsor Park Elementary, I am concerned about how this development will impact students in the school. I have many memories of enjoying the sunshine coming through the windows on the East side of the school, in Grade 2, 4, and 6, especially during the winter months when we receive little sunlight in Edmonton. Having such a large building will likely block out the sunshine in the school and be detrimental to the experience for students and teachers. As well having towering building near to a school is generally a poor idea as it will create safety and traffic problems for people coming into the school to drop off and pick up students as people are trying to leave to get to work. Construction will also be very noisy and disruptive as it is directly across from the school.

Finally, there is an Afterschool program that needs to cross 87 Avenue to get to the school and back, each morning and afternoon. I attended this Afterschool program and remember when the lights were put into place to make it safer to cross 87 Avenue. In addition to the Afterschool children, the crossing is regularly used and having cars for this development come out the 117 / 118th Street alley way, as the developer proposes, seems unrealistic and unworkable and will only increase traffic problems and safety concerns on 87 Avenue.

For these reasons, and others, I do not support this development and do not believe it will improve our community.

Sam from Windsor Park 9 days ago

As a long-term resident of Windsor Park, living less than 1 block from the proposed development, I am strongly opposed to this application. Concerns I expressed previously regarding the significant increase in traffic and decrease in safety in the alley between the development and my home have not been answered by the limited crosswalks and signage in the revised DC2 application. Neighbours immediately east of the development will have extensive shade cast by the development. These neighbours will experience severe loss of privacy due to balconies and windows on the east side of the development, not to mention the rooftop decks on the 5- and 4-storey portions.
Moreover, this development does not accord with the existing zoning bylaw and mature neighbourhood overlay...and it is not at all clear whether it will meet the new Zoning Bylaw and District plans.
We already have welcomed the Bentley building that has increased density on this same block; in addition, the Windsor Terrace is now under construction and will further increase density. Because we do not yet know what the effect will be of the Windsor Terrace, once it is completed, it is too early to allow another massive structure to be developed in this location at this time.

SM Biro 9 days ago

I am not opposed to all development in Windsor Park. I am opposed to this proposed development.

It is located in the wrong place: across from an elementary school, playschool, daycare, playground, playing fields and skating rink. The proposed development attempts to mitigate this by making the community go through a number of contortions like moving the school pickup and drop-off zone. This is being done so that a development can go ahead, not for the utility of the community or the school's students, but for a corporation's profit to trump the community's needs and safety.

The current school drop-off on the east side of Windsor Park School has been used since the school was built in 1953 when the school entrances were oriented mainly to the east. Children leaving the school to go to waiting transportation are visible to parents in their vehicles on 118 Street NW. If the drop-off, pick-up point is moved to 119 Street NW, children will have to cross a school yard, play area, and boulevard to get to waiting vehicles. the problem is that parents do not have line of sight from vehicles to school exits. This is especially problematic for the play school and daycare, the most vulnerable population.

To support this new drop-off zone for the school, the proposed development suggests construction of this new zone should minimize the impacts to boulevard trees. No trees should be allowed to be impacted by new zone's construction.

Another mitigation strategy the proposed development makes is the creation of new pedestrian crossings across 118 Street NW and 119 Street NW. Making the exact location of the crosswalks determined at the development permit stage, does not allow respondents to comment on what impact they may have. That being said, the tentative locations shown for crosswalks between the east and west side of 118 Street NW, and between the east and west side of 119 Street NW are located at rear lanes, which are unsuitable for pedestrian traffic. This is especially important when you understand that the crosswalk across 118 Street is at a rear lane that will serve as an exit for this project with 172 units, for Windsor Terrace with 130 units (currently under construction at the corner of 118 Street NW and 87 Avenue NW), 46 units of the Bentley, and the remaining 10 single family units that will continue to use the lane. Traffic volume from 368 units is not a good mix with a crosswalk to carry pedestrian traffic for an elementary school, a play school, and a day care, as well as public use for recreation areas of playground, ice arena, and playing fields.

The mature neighbourhood overlay and the current and proposed zoning bylaws for the city as well as the City District Planning Document and the Scona District Plan do not allow for this development in this location. Moving to Site-Specific Development Control Provision (DC2) is being used so the proposal does not have to comply. Why? If that is the only way it can be built, why bother having zoning bylaws, policies, and guidelines. Just apply DC2 and anything can be built. Doing so does not allow for orderly development. While the City hopes to double it's population by 2060 to 2 million people, allowing it to do so by not having any zoning or policy to follow is a recipe for disaster.

The proposed development wants maximum heights ranging from four to six stories with rooftop amenities. In responding to feedback, it said it will reduce the height from 21.5 metres to 20 metres. This reduction will not eliminate the impacts on sunlight and privacy for the existing home to the north and east.

The reduction in height still does not allow the proposal to comply to zoning bylaw, existing or proposed, nor does it mitigate the privacy and shadow impacts on neighbouring properties.

Rooftop amenities effectively make this a 5 to 7 story development in terms of impact on privacy to neighbouring properties and increases the impact of shadow of the development's built structures for rooftop amenities. These heights are not appropriate to be placed immediately adjacent to single family homes and are not permitted under current zoning and the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay, and will also not comply with the proposed zoning bylaws, the City District Plan, and the Strathcona District Plan.

The proposed development will have Minor Home Based Business and Major Home Based Business, the later limited to ground oriented dwellings.

How many units is this? Adding the element of minor and major home based businesses increases traffic in a restricted space that today accommodates 7 homes. What are the accommodations for increased parking in the development and on street to handle these businesses? This proposed development is in a restricted residential parking zone, so on street parking is not available.

My general opposition to this proposed development is that it is too large, does not comply with existing and proposed zoning bylaws and development policies, is unsafe placed next to school, daycare, play school, playgrounds, and recreation structures. It is huge and out of scale for the community, not allowing for the community to adjust to the existing and under development densification (the Bentley, Windsor Terrace, subdivided lots, secondary suites, garden or laneway suites). The city has a plan to double its population by 2060. The proposed development, Windsor Terrace, the Bentley, and skinny homes will bring Windsor Park growth to 64.2 percent of doubling of the community's population by 2026. This is too quick for orderly development and community adjustment. New development should be re-assessed once the 130 units of Windsor Terrace come online in 2023-24.

I am concerned that the use of DC2 zoning to circumvent orderly, planned, manageable development is all too common. It has been used four times in Windsor Park in the last five or so years. That DC2 is supposed to be an exception, it appears to have become the rule.

vbe-54 9 days ago

I am opposed to this application for DC2 zoning for the following reasons:

It is unclear which principles, policies, and zoning bylaw the City will use when considering this proposed development and request for rezoning to DC2 from RF1. The City is currently reviewing it’s Zoning Bylaw, City District Planning Policy, and Scona District Plan. The proposal clearly contravenes the existing zoning bylaw and mature neighbourhood overlay, and it will not meet the new Zoning Bylaw and District Plans.
This proposed development is massive. Current and proposed zoning and policies do not accommodate such a development at this location on the interior of an RF1 zone. It would be more appropriate for the proposed development to be located along an arterial roadway.
The proposed development will have 172 units. Kitty corner to the proposed development is the 46 units of the Bentley. Across the street is a just completed 8-unit apartment building. The Windsor Terrace is currently under construction and will have 130 units. Combined, these developments are a drastic escalation in building scale in Windsor Park. The impacts of the currently built and under construction building should be evaluated before adding this development’s units. The proposed development’s massive size within a residential community next to an elementary school, daycare, and play school, and playground, skating rink, and playing fields is not appropriate at this stage of the community’s development.
Windsor Park has been undergoing rapid redevelopment by subdivision of lots, building new laneway homes, and secondary suites. These redevelopments will to continue and are more in keeping with the nature of Windsor Park. This type of development will create a more digestible increase in density than will come from massive developments such as from this proposed development. These subdivided lots, secondary suites, and laneway home developments and the existing 184-190 units from Windsor Terrace and the Bentley will more than double the population of Windsor Park in the next few years. Let’s see what comes of these changes before pursuing mega projects like this proposed development.
If this proposed development goes ahead, that will result in the addition of 360-370 housing units in an area of less than one square block. This is too much at this location,

public1953 10 days ago

I would like to add my voice to the many valid concerns already raised. I don't think this type of development is at all appropriate for the existing neighbourhood. I think it is especially bad for the residents in the immediate vicinity of the proposed development, including the school. If I lived in a house adjcaent to the development I would leave the neighborhood. I am opposed to the destruction of the existing homes necessary to proced with this development. I am concerned that approval of this rezoning request will inevitably lead to similar rezoning approvals in the future. Encroaching on mature existing neighbourhoods is not the right solution for increasing density.

J Keenan 10 days ago

I urge that the application be denied, and that more suitable solutions to increasing density be considered for Windsor Park. This proposed development does not harmonize with, or enhance, the existing neighbourhood; on the contrary, it destroys the existing fabric and distinct qualities of a mature residential area; has a negative impact on the environment of the school across the street; and looms over single family properties on 117 Street. As noted in another comment, the rendering of the proposed development fails to reflect its actual visual impact: based on the scale of the cars, the rendering suggests the site borders a four-lane thoroughfare, rather than a quiet, narrow residential street, across from a school, and with low houses along the rear of the building.

JulP

JulP 10 days ago

I think this application should be denied entirely. We can increase density in a much more sensible and less destructive way while still preserving single family homes in the interior part of the neighbourhood. This project increases the density in this area to an unreasonable degree and also causes an incursion which will be very disruptive to the quality of life of the nearby residents. It also poses a risk to the students of our school
Windsor Park has been slowly and "gently" increasing the density around the perimeter of the neighbourhood with the addition of the Bentley and more recently the construction of the much more high density Windsor Terrace. This is already increasing the density greatly in this very small region but these developments are both located on a major street (87th) capable of dealing with increased traffic and general congestion caused by many more residents. In addition Windsor Park has densified by having much skinny house development over the last 10 years and many more families have been able to live in our neighbourhood. We have been able to welcome more families while still largely maintaining the traditional feel of our historic neighbourhood.
This new development incurs into the centre of Windsor Park. It does not abut onto a broad and major street. The road in front of the development is narrow and the inevitable increase in traffic and people parking (legally or illegally) in front is bound to increase. This affects the nearby residents but more importantly it affects Windsor Park Elementary.
Probably the very worst problem in my opinion is that it is directly across the street from our beloved Windsor Park Elementary School. Even if the major pick up area is changed to the other side of the school, children and their families will still be using the street in front of the school either as they drive or walk. The great increase in traffic is a safely issue. Your unrealistic drawing in front of the project seems to show a very broad street (4 lanes maybe?) but this is a narrow 2 lane street. It will inevitably be congested by residents from both this development and Windsor Terrace once it is occupied. A great increase in traffic in front of the school means a great decrease in safety.
The current application should be denied and much more thought put into the way a historical neighbourhood such as Windsor Park should intelligently densify without affecting the safety and quality of life of our residents particularly our children.
Thank you for considering.

Chris Brzezowski 10 days ago

I am opposed to this proposed rezoning and the proposed development.

I am truly disappointed that the Westrich has largely ignored the significant input provided by the Windsor Park residents with respect to their application and continues to propose a project which is so dramatically out of character with the community and runs counter to City principles for concentrated developments, especially when the City is in the process of establishing a new District Planning Policy and a Scona District Plan.

I grew up in Windsor Park and returned to the neighbourhood for many reasons 29 years ago – in particular, because my wife and I wanted to live in a relatively safe, quiet, calm, convenient, park-like, and walkable community. Many of these benefits are now at risk.

This is clearly not the time for the City to approve rezoning for such a project over the strong objections of those directly affected, especially when it represents such a significant change from what presently exists in the neighbourhood. Consultation is meaningless if the input of those consulted is largely ignored.

Impacts such as noise intrusion into a quiet residential area, safety concerns from increased neighbourhood traffic, light and wind effects on adjoining properties, reduction in neighbourhood green space, loss of privacy in adjoining properties, negative visual effects from the overly abrupt change in scale between the proposed development and adjoining properties, etc. are all identified as important considerations. While this City web site acknowledges some changes to address such issues, the changes are very minor and largely superficial. The project scale and impacts remain excessive and virtually unchanged.

The impacts on the neighbourhood are largely speculative and hard to estimate and address with confidence at this time because the proposed development involves such a significant change in scale from what presently exists.
The proposed Westrich 172-unit development together with the 139-unit Windsor Terrace building currently under construction on an adjoining property would double the number of residential units/population in North Windsor Park. The actual risks and impacts to residents, school children, and playground users remain largely speculative given the size of the changes the project will make to neighbourhood population and activity levels.

There is no credible rationale nor any urgency for such a drastic escalation in the scale of community development when the impacts of Windsor Terrace are still unknown. Consideration of another significant additional project in our Windsor Park neighbourhood, such as that of Westrich, should, at the very least, be delayed for two or three years by which time the impacts of Windsor Terrace will have become clear and can be incorporated into the evaluations of potential rezoning applications.

joro 10 days ago

I am opposed to this development for two reasons.

First it runs counter to the City’s principles of concentrated development to occupy arterial roads (eg 87 th Avenue). Windsor Park already has an 11 story development in process on this road and its effects are still unknown. The proposed development is next door to this high rise structure and will obviously intrude directly into the single family homes of the suburb, contravening the plan to keep high density buildings on neighborhood boundaries.

Secondly, this proposal will contravene the plan to develop mature suburbs like Windsor Park in an orderly way, with increased density plans aiming for a 25% increase by 2030. With the existing 87th Ave development under construction, Windsor Park will experience an approximately 65% density increase by 2024. Why have plans for orderly development - with sound reasons - if these are set aside arbitrarily?

In sum, I urge the Council to reject this proposal and ensure that carefully planned density requirements for neighborhoods are upheld. Otherwise why not allow for a free for all and be done with density plans?

Geo 11 days ago

We are writing as long-term (more than 20 years) residents of the Windsor Park community, approximately one block from the proposed development. We strongly oppose this development on several grounds. We are not averse to the creation of higher population density in our community, but such a huge development in the interior of the community is not appropriate. Such a development on 87th Avenue would be reasonable, but this location, across a residential street from a busy elementary school, creates the probability of parking, traffic and pedestrian safety issues. These will add to the yet-to-be determined issues caused by the upcoming occupation of the 139 unit Windsor Terrace building next door. Furthermore, we understand that the zoning and District policy development process will shortly lead to changes in Zoning Bylaws and District Planning Policy as well as the Scona District Plan. It would make more sense to consider the Westrich proposal in the light of the new regulations, rather than the ones being phased out. We are hopeful that community input will have more effect than has be the case many times in the recent past, and with that in mind we want to register our strong opposition to the proposed development.

M Wayman
D Quilichini

Mwayman 11 days ago

This proposal is not suitable for the interior of the neighbourhood for many reasons including:
1. It is adjacent to the school and the increased traffic will be dangerous for children accessing the school.
2. This is highly unlikely to increase the number of school children in the neighbourhood as it is likely to be inhabited by students temporarily living in the neighbourhood while attending university. The proposed building will not be conducive to building a strong community.
3. It is not in line with current city densification guidelines. The densification can occur in a far more neighbourhood fashion with duplexes, garden suites and above garage suites.
4. This will set a precedent for building multi storey buildings within the neighbourhood.
5. Although densification is desired, it must not occur without consideration of the effects on a neighbourhood.

Jean Frost 11 days ago

I am opposed to Westrich’s rezoning application (the “Application”). The Application would allow Westrich to develop a large residential building on 118 Street (the “Westrich Development”).

In light of the available information, I do not think that approving the Application (and the underlying Westrich Development) as creating net positive improvements for the area if the rezoning is approved. The majority of this submission will outline the concerns or potential negative impacts the City should be aware of, in light of its existing City Plan (the “Plan”).

For context, the Plan sets out the city’s long-term visions for the future and is the product of two-year consultation with thousands of its residents. The Plan sets out three systems: planning and design, mobility, and managing growth. This submission focuses on the elements of planning and design, and considers whether the Application complies with this system.

The Plan is aimed at creating 15-minute districts to reduce vehicular trave to make services and amenities closer to residential areas. It relies on zoning bylaw renewal initiative to achieve this objective. One of the primary zoning initiatives pertains to residential bylaws, to allow for more housing types to be supported in each neighbourhood. The City has acknowledged that “neighbourhoods are zoned to enable gentle density.”

Gentle density should result in infill development that complements the neighbourhood character. The Application does comply with this aim. While I am in support of densification through infill development, such development should complement the neighbourhood character. Windsor Park is a mature neighbourhood, with primarily low-rise residential neighbourhoods. In my view, what constitutes gentle rezoning in the circumstances would include semi-detached housing, row house, or apartment or flat in a duplex. A 172-unit residential dwelling building (which would be the largest building in the Windsor Park neighbourhood) does not conform with this objective.

The Application also does not support the 15-minute district. According to the Plan, this is achieved by increasing: active and attractive main nodes and corridors; safety of travel by bike and transit; opportunity for different housing; and services and amenities within districts.

First, Windsor Park falls outside of the City Plan Nodes and Corridors’ Priority Growth Area. It is not an area that is intended to be “more active”, especially with the existing traffic activity in and around 118 Street. The Westrich Development would create additional traffic that cannot be supported by the existing infrastructure, which could reduce pedestrian safety. This is particular concern, given the Westrich Development’s proximity to the Windsor Park School.

Second, the Westrich Development would not make the Windsor Park neighbourhood a more attractive node and corridor. Increasing the attractiveness of a physical landscape includes: featuring a mix of trees and plant life, comfortable sidewalk, low traffic, etc. The Westrich Development necessarily requires the cutting down of existing mature trees, shrubs, and green space located on private property. The loss of the existing mature trees and vegetation will create excessive exposed concrete and pavement in the area, creating risk of “urban heat islands” which occur when the city’s nature land cover are replaced with dense concentrations of pavement, buildings and other surfaces that absorb and retain heat. This effect increases energy costs (i.e., for air conditioning), air pollution levels, and heat-related illness and mortality.

Third, while the Application would increase housing diversity, this objective should be balanced against other equally important objective (as noted above), and legal and regulatory considerations. My understanding is that the Application does not comply with the Plan, the Infill Guidelines for Mature Neighbourhoods, and the proposed planning guidelines found in the District Plan.

Fourth, the Westrich Development would be built alongside the immediately south, 96-unit Windsor Terrace which has not yet been completed. At the moment, we do not know the impacts of the Windsor Terrace. It is hasty and risky to approve the development of a larger residential building (i.e., Westrich Development) without understanding the benefits and harms of the Windsor Terrace. If the Application were approved and the Westrich Development built, in the event that it creates significant negative impact(s), then it is the neighbourhood who bears the brunt of the consequences, not the developer.

In sum, the Application and its underlying Westrich Development, do not conform with the purpose, object, and spirit of the Plan. If this Application were allowed, it would set an undesirable precedent for other districts and their neighbourhoods. It would cast a shadow of doubt on the force and effect of the Plan and the value of community consultation in Edmonton’s city planning and design, if, at a latter date, the codified input is given little to no weight when it is applied to future zoning applications.

eli 11 days ago

We oppose this proposed development for the important reasons already outlined by our fellow community members on this feedback forum. Allowing this huge high density development in the heart of our community directly across from an elementary school and community center may increase density but at what cost?

We have lived in Windsor Park for 23 years and seen with some dismay the changes caused by the ever increasing resident and daily population levels resulting from larger student bases and higher residential densities. For example, it is now no longer possible to enter or leave our neighborhood during a good portion of the business day without excessive delays due to the pedestrian and vehicle traffic. This development will only worsen the situation and its approval fails to recognize the already high activity level resulting from the University and the Hospital.

While we would not be directly impacted by this massive structure, others in our neighborhood will be. Who is to says we won't be in the future if a precedent is set to allow this development into the core of our community.

We think it is particularly important to consider the possible safety issues resulting from this proposed development. Its proposed site is in an already congested high traffic area where many young children gather almost daily. Adding a few stops signs and cross walks isn't going to make much difference.

We urge Council to keep developments such as this one to the periphery of our community and leave its core to single family residential housing.

Rick and Roberta Leech

Rick Leech 11 days ago

I am strongly opposed to the rezoning application. Densification can be achieved by rezoning to RF2/RF3 or RF4. Many in the neighbourhood purchased to be in a single family home mature overlay zone. Not all the edges of the neighbourhood have increased density. Not sure why an interior condo building is appropriate. Duplexes, triplexes or even four to eight unit buildings are much more appropriate and allow for densification. Please vote to deny the application.

Judah Mierau 11 days ago

The revised response calls for even more paving over of green space than the original - namely, widening the back lane, adding a sidewalk to the south lane, and adding sidewalk or concrete to the 119th Street school access. There is no reason to pave the grass along 119th Street to facilitate school drop-offs - children can simply step out of a vehicle onto the grass at curb level, and proceed into the grassy schoolyard. There are ten mature elm trees along this grassy boulevard, which is not wide enough to allow for a sidewalk. This suggestion is indicative of the disregard this developer shows towards trees and green space. A simpler way for school drop-offs and pick-ups to be simplified would be for no large apartment building to be constructed right across the street from an elementary school. Even suggesting these changes indicates that this is not a good location for this building. Proposed new crosswalks are lined up with alleys, and the one on 118th Street leads into a parking lot for school and daycare staff. These are not safe practices.

The large number of new Stop and Yield signs are indications of future traffic congestion - and the traffic study does not even factor in the significant traffic likely to be coming to and from the yet to be completed Windsor Terrace tower right next door. I would be interested to hear what the Windsor Terrace developers think of the alley traffic sign proposals, as this will have an effect upon their residents. I also note that the proposed yield sign at the north end of the back alley intersects with a one way street bordered with 2 way bike lanes and 2 busy sidewalks leading to the park and the school. Likely a stop sign would be required here for safety.

It would be prudent to hold off on even contemplating allowing construction of such a large apartment building until such time as the Windsor Terrace Tower effects are clear, and until the new zoning guidelines are enacted. It seems Westrich Pacific developers are trying to rush into building a non-conforming apartment during a period of transition between zoning regulations - even though neither the existing nor proposed guidelines would support this type of large apartment being built in this interior neighbourhood location. Hurrying to build yet another large apartment could prove to be a traffic disaster, in addition to creating an urban heat island by removing so many of the existing mature trees and shrubs, and creating so much new pavement and concrete. Green building practices are not mentioned in the revision and do not appear to be important to this developer. While boulevard trees will be assessed and protected where possible, no consideration is given to the many existing mature trees on private property which will be sacrificed.

Windsor Park is attractive in part because of the mature trees and landscaping, which are at risk of being obliterated by overzealous densification. At the same time the City is planting trees to mitigate climate change, and recognizing the importance of trees and green space in this regard, private trees and shrubs are unprotected and destroyed at a developer's whim. This makes no sense. It is time for recognition of the value of our existing tree canopy, private and public, and to stop allowing the free market to destroy valuable ecological assets. New tree plantings will take decades to mature and provide the ecological benefits the old trees are already giving us. I expect the residents of Windsor Terrace may be saddened to learn that the beautiful old trees north of them are under threat of removal by Westrich Pacific. Edmonton has been designated as a "Biophilic City", but unless the City starts to take action to protect our private green spaces as well as the public ones, this designation rings hollow.

The Windsor Park community has contributed to gentle (and not so gentle) densification, with split lot infill homes, garden suites, the Bentley Condominiums, Windsor Terrace Tower, and a low rise apartment on 87th Avenue and 117th Street. There are several university residence towers on 117th Street in South Windsor Park. A smaller scale infill project at the proposed development location would be much more acceptable to the community . Approving such a large,non-conforming apartment in the interior of a neighbourhood would be extremely unfair to the existing residents who were blindsided by a developer's purchasing of most of a residential block, and who will lose their privacy, sunlight, and suffer loss of property value, increased traffic congestion and noise, despite zoning regulations that should prevent such a building from being constructed. Confidence in the future of the entire neighbourhood would be shaken. Gentle densification is welcomed in Windsor Park, but this extremely large apartment replacing most of a block of single family homes is overkill, and not acceptable or fair to existing residents, school, daycare and playschool.

I strongly object to this proposed project, and do not think it should be approved.


EWM 11 days ago