LDA20-0378 Windsor Terrace Mixed-Use Tower

I am concerned that a building hieght of 13 stories would be enormously higher compared all surrounding houses and buildings. This large structure would be very nonhomogeneous and as a consequence would cause obstruction and shadowing over adjacent structures.
My second concern is that with limited public parking is there sufficient surface and underground parking to support 160 units.

I live in Windsor Park and overall I've very excited to see this approved - city needs density. But I am concerned about the setbacks as they will effect traffic/pedestrian visibility. I have witnessed some close calls related to the current fencing at 87 and 118St with kids that have cut the corner where the sidewalk is closed. The proposed design would routinely put a lot of pedestrian traffic at that corner with marginal visibility for turning traffic.

Time will tell if enough people will risk buying a unit though. What process will have to be undertaken when the developers inevitably decide to convert this into a purpose built rental property when no one buys in?

As a Windsor Park resident, I'd like to add my voice to those of my neighbours. I believe all of us welcome development on that site, and that such locations on arterial roads with transit access are the best candidates for increasing density in mature communities. All of us look forward to welcoming the new residents and businesses of Windsor Terrace as we would new neighbours.

That said, please give due consideration to the requests made repeatedly here. The community had made a generous concession in the original eight-story development application---no such high-rise buildings exist in Windsor Park today. I therefore strongly oppose increasing the application height to 40 metres --taller than the tallest of the Lister Hall residences-- without provision for setbacks from the south and west property lines fronting the major pedestrian and traffic lanes. The proposal for 12 surface parking stalls to accommodate visitors, staff, and customers of the five retail outlets will clearly result in spillover street parking onto 118th Street and in significantly increased traffic fronting Windsor Park Elementary School.

Lastly, please include my voice with those of my neighbours in calling for additional multi-bedroom units to be included with the revised application approval. Increasing the requirement from the current count of three, three-bedroom units, in an application now requesting 160 total units, is a reasonable provision for the diversity of families to accommodate in a location facing an elementary school, park, and playground.

Thanks for the opportunity to provide this feedback. Again, we look forward to welcoming the new residents and businesses as we would new neighbours, but equally appreciate your consideration in the approval of this revised development application.

As long-standing Windsor Park residents, we would like the existing 'hole' developed, but with the following caveats:
1. no increased height to 13 stories from the existing permit/zoning, or modest increase to 10 stories maximum. This building is in the middle of a residential area and will be sticking like a sore thumb.
2. increase the number of 3 bedroom apartments while decreasing the number of studio units - we need more families in the neighbourhood

We do support ground-level retail/commercial along 87 Avenue and 118 st and we agree that the proposed L-shaped development is much better than the existing U-shape proposal, especially for residents of the Bentley building nextdoor

It's time for City Council to stop rubber-stamping every developer proposal while dismissing neighbour's objections.

I support the feedback and requests made by the Windsor Park Community League. The changes from the previous plan are considerable, with the increase in height and number of units. If City Council can hold the developer to the original height, that would be desirable.

I agree that more 3+ bedroom units are desirable for the community. This can be accomplished with this building re-design.

It is my hope that City Council sees its role as one of discernment and planning for the community as a whole rather than being compelled by the pressures of the developer.

As residents of Windsor Park we are very much opposed to the proposed rezoning of the Windsor Terrace site to allow further stories to be added to the building. The fact that the original proposal for an approximately 8 story building was approved by council against the wishes of the community is bad enough but rezoning to allow building of a much higher structure would be a definite slap in the face.
The shadow cast to the north of such a high structure would be immense, particularly in the winter months, and the lack of privacy for the single family homes in the area would be very unfair. The number of homes up for sale to the north of the site tells you what the local residents think of it.
Our advice to Council is , please consider that this is people's homes and lives that you are dealing with. Do not sacrifice them on the alter of densification.
For what it is worth we live in an area of Windsor Park that will not be directly affected by the structure so our opinion is not a case of nimbyism.

As expressed by many of the posts that I have read, I am not in favour of increasing the height of the building and the number of units. I have concerns about the increased vehicle traffic around the school, playground and community hall. I am also dismayed that the city would even allow for a rezoning application that differs from the original plan. It appears that our input is meaningless. We already live in a very densely populated area with the number of students living on and near campus and the number of University employees moving to and from campus on a daily basis. We may be a city hub but we are already maxed out when you include the surrounding density of population in Garneau, a neighbourhood that has been adversely affected by densification over the years.

Too tall. Too dense,

As a Windsor Park resident, I’m happy to see the commercial space in the Windsor Terrace proposal. More services nearby would be a welcome addition to the neighbourhood. Looking forward to a coffee shop.

Too many units (160 compared to 96 in the existing Windsor Terrace DC2) are allowed in this DC2 overall as well as too many studio apartments. A 25% limit on studio units is too high and should be reduced considerably or eliminated. Plenty of university student housing is provided in the area already—more is not needed.

On the other hand, not enough larger units are provided. A minimum of only three 3-bedroom family-friendly units is too few. More 3-bedroom units to accommodate young families would be appreciated in this location near a daycare, playground and elementary school.

Addressing these concerns about the mix of units by reducing or eliminating studio apartments and increasing the minimum number or percentage of 3+-bedroom apartments could reduce the overall number of units in the building.

Larger units are in short supply in Edmonton, a need that is incentivized by the City in the Community Amenity Contribution Policy as well as regulations under consideration by the Zoning Bylaw Renewal project. The incentives also recognize that more young families will live in apartments as Edmonton’s population grows and property values in mature neighbourhoods continue to increase.

The Zoning Bylaw discussion paper on residential zones provides timely and relevant guidance on including an appropriate amount of 3+ bedroom units in multi-family buildings. In small-scale developments, an average of 2.25 bedrooms per unit is proposed for developments with more than 20 units, and for low-rise developments, an extra storey would be allowed if at least 10% of the dwelling units have at least 3 bedrooms. The new Zoning Bylaw is on the horizon; it is expected to take effect in a little over a year, in mid-2022.

Since this Windsor Terrace proposal increases the height by 10 metres (2-3 storeys), requiring a maximum of at least 15% 3-bedroom units on the lower floors of the building seems more than fair.

Pagnotta is invited to consider a bolder approach to providing family-sized units in a neighbourhood that welcomes young families. Create a community of young families within Windsor Terrace by grouping a larger number of 3-bedroom units, e.g. 15-20, on two or three lower floors with a common play/lounge area. This would be a model of how to provide family friendly units in larger scale apartment buildings.

While the building looks very stylish and modern, I wonder who can afford to buy these units especially the 3 bedroom ones which will likely be priced in the 7 figure range. Most families wanting to live in this neighbourhood spending that kind of money would likely be looking at a free standing house.

This is also a very dense development and increased traffic around the school in what is already a very busy street in the morning and afternoon is of concern. The height of the building is also disproportionately high compared to the rest of the neighbourhood.

Finally with more and more newer in-fills looking at installing solar energy, the shadow casted by this tall building will have a significant negative impact on the neighbouring houses.

We support the WPCL Development Committee recommendations. The proposed increase in density and height for this site are unreasonable. We are very supportive of increasing the number of three bedroom units and encouraging young families to live near the school.

I am most concerned that we have appropriate retail stores at street level. We need a decent, if small, grocery store, a pharmacy, a good restaurant and/or post office.
I think the height of the building should be determined by the shadow effect it will have on the surrounding buildings. Parking for residents and visitors should be provided in the building.

I do not think a 13 storey building is a good addition to Windsor Park. It will certainly change the dynamics of this lovely neighbourhood. Now that people are working more from home is the increased density in central Edmonton neighbourhoods necessary.

The proposed building is too much for the site
- too tall It will unreasonably shadow the neighbourhood homes and school
-too wide It will extend into sidewalks compromising pedestrians and driver vision
-too many units It will result in an unsafe number of vehicles in an elementary school drop-off zone
Densification is good.
Unrestricted densification is not.
I do not support the increased height and density

Dear Mr. Mayor and City Councillors:

As long-time residents of Windsor Park Community, we support developing the site at the corner of 87 Avenue and 118 Street. However, we oppose the proposed rezone application for the property, currently known as Windsor Terrace.

While the current zone and proposed zone are both DC2 provision—Site Specific Development Control Provision—the scope, purpose, design and overall size and height of the two projects differ significantly.

We oppose the proposed Pagnotta-development rezoning application for a number of reasons:

—The original application for the development of this property was submitted by Westoak, negotiated in good faith with residents of Windsor Park Community, and eventually approved by City Council in accordance with City development zoning practices and policies. It appears wholly unfair to other development companies, who choose to follow the City development policies, regulations and community wishes, to now allow Pagnotta to so drastically change those agreed upon building parameters to suit its own needs.

—In reviewing the developer’s website, Pagnotta claims “our commitment to excellence in construction begins with a strong dedication to our clients and extend (sic) to a sense of community within our city”. During the last several years while the project has remained on hold, Pagnotta has failed miserably in adequately maintaining the property and its perimeter. It has:
--failed to regularly pump large amounts of standing water out of the open pit (it was literally a mosquito-infested swamp for most of last spring);
--failed to clear the 87th Avenue pedestrian sidewalk of snow on a regular basis during this and past winters;
--failed to repair the damaged, uneven pedestrian sidewalk along 87 Avenue to make it suitable and safe for walking; and
--failed to provide a useable pedestrian pathway on the east side of 118 Street (particularly, in the winter months), although no construction activity has occurred for several years; currently, one must cross the street in order to walk on a sidewalk.
—Needless to say, Pagnotta's obvious indifference to the ongoing care of the site does little to support its claim to “a strong dedication to its clients” and “a sense of community” within Windsor Park.

—The proposed height of the building would be 34% taller—growing from eight-storeys to 13-storeys or 29.9 metres to 40 metres. A building that tall simply does not “fit”, in any way, with the character of our mature neighbourhood. The proposed building would be taller than some of the student residences at Lister Hall Centre.

—The proposed building would cast a longer shadow on a sizeable number of homes to the north. Clearly, more homes would be affected with a 13-storey apartment than with an eight-storey high-rise. ([We personally experience the shadow-effect of the 14-storey, University’s Innovation Centre for Engineering (ICE) building at 9211 - 116 Street as it casts a shadow throughout the winter months over our residential property, which is situated one full, long city block north of it, on Edinboro Road. We are located a full 12 properties north of ICE.)

—Parts of The Bentley, which has been built as a four-storey structure and had been supported by our community and league executive, will be in total shadow for much of the year. As well, the privacy of surrounding residents and their yards will be negatively affected.

—The new DC2 Provision proposes a development with a maximum height of 40 metres. Does that height exclude a roof mechanical unit? If so, would the total height of the building with the roof mechanical unit not approach 43 to 44 metres?

—The new application increases the number of dwellings by 64—from 96 units to 160 units; that amounts to a baffling 67% increase. The additional units are not required to increase residential density within our community. We are already a densely populated area with one of the largest university residence complexes in Canada housing about 1,800 students in its four, huge student residence towers across the street from our community. We also have hundreds of rented rooms, suites, houses and stand-alone garage suites dispersed throughout our community.

—Windsor Park Community is situated adjacent to the largest employer in Edmonton—University of Alberta—with over 39,000 students and 15,000 staff. The original north campus consists of 150 buildings covering 50 city blocks with thousands of students living on the north campus in one of the many residences and apartments owned and operated by the University of Alberta. That enormous size brings with it, its own set of problems—colossal traffic and parking issues and, normally, remarkable human densification. The impact of the University on our community is both unique and extraordinary.

—The proposed application offers only three family-oriented dwelling units within the development. With a proposed increase of 64 units from the current zone to 160 units, it seems unreasonable that no additional family-oriented dwellings have been planned. The current zone, with only 96 units, had three family-oriented dwelling units planned. Such dwellings are critical in keeping with the residential character of Windsor Park and in contributing to the cultural and social benefit of our community, school, and neighbours.

—Parking, speeding, and heavy vehicular traffic are persistent issues within Windsor Park Community, even without the development. We believe an additional 200, or more, vehicles will only compound the traffic problems.

—The application reveals that the proposed plan has zero setbacks from the south, west, and east lot lines. Therefore, the corner of the building will extend to the edge of the south-west corner of the property at 118 Street and 87 Avenue. This is very significant in that from a safety perspective, it will be very difficult to see pedestrians and vehicles walking or driving south along 118 Street. This is already a very busy and dangerous intersection, without the impaired sight-lines caused by the zero setback.

—As well, it seems that appropriate setbacks along 118 Street and 87 Avenue would enhance and complement the commercial and residential uses on the ground floor. Setbacks would allow a more active and inviting pedestrian-oriented streetscape that could easily incorporate outside seating areas, patios, umbrellas, and benches in front of planned retail establishments. Such outdoor retail spaces could become community hubs, where neighbours and residents intermingle and gather for a cup of coffee.

—Appropriate setbacks on 118 Street and 87 Avenue would also reduce and soften the building massing effect of the towering structure extending from the property line upwards.

—The plan currently proposes 12-surface parking stalls for five retail businesses, customers, and guests. The spill-over parking will likely move to street parking, a commodity that is very limited in our community. More precisely, additional parking along 118 Street will be directly impacted by the picking-up and dropping-off of students who attend WP Elementary School, the WP pre-school, the after-school program, the WP Community skating rink, the picnic area, and the children’s park, playground and sports' field/courts. The entrance to Windsor Terrace is also located along 118 Street for drop-offs and pick-ups of residents and guests. Parking for all apartment residents, visitors, and patrons should be provided underground.

Although we like some aspects of the application, we have grave reservations about the appropriateness of the building height and the inordinate increase in the number of dwellings. We do hope that the developer takes some of these observations into consideration and amends its plan accordingly.

DKB/NLB

The proposed increased height of the building is not acceptable. It will not blend in with the residential buildings and also not with the Bentley, which is a reasonable height for our community. Thus, it will become an "eye sore" in our City.

Hello,
Thanks for the opportunity to share my thoughts. Windsor Park is a family community with an excellent elementary school right beside the proposed development. Let’s take this opportunity to have three and four bedroom units that are reserved for families (e.g. not numerous roommates). This could draw young professors and graduate students with families to our community! A plan for limiting traffic in front of the school must be in place for the safety of our children.
Sincerely
Susan Neufeld

I have been a resident of Windsor Park for 65 years. I do not support the new proposal on the basis of three main issues.

The first relates to good faith. I am concerned that every time this lot has changed ownership, a change in plans and rezoning has been applied for. I don’t think this is fair to the neighbourhood, who has negotiated In good faith throughout the process and already made allowances to previous developers. A new owner should be bound by the zoning regulations in place at the time of purchase. The City should honour the previous agreements reached, and not entertain new development plans/zoning every time ownership changes.

The second issue is neighbourhood aesthetics. Windsor Park residents understand the City’s plan to increase residential density along LRT corridors. To this end, we already made concessions agreeing to an 8 story structure, rather than the preferred 4 story structure the majority of residents initially agreed to. I do not agree with the further increase in height applied for. Even though it is argued that there are university residences nearby of similar heights, they are clustered within University property, not located within a single detached dwelling residential area. Also, all of the residences are well set back from the street front. The current proposal has no set back. The building extends right to the front of the lot and will completely dominate the corner of 87th Ave and 118th St and will change the whole feel of the area.

The final, and perhaps most important, issue is safety. This corner is already a high traffic density area due to the location of the school and community league. I believe the increase in vehicular traffic resulting from the parkade traffic from the proposed number of units would be dangerous. There is already a lot of pedestrian and vehicular activity in this area and the visibility at this corner is going to be adversely affected by a large solid structure extending out to the street front on both sides.

In summary, I do not support the proposed zoning changes on the basis of good faith bargaining related to previous proposals, neighbourhood aesthetics and safety issues.

I'm a residence of Windsor Park community and my kids go to Windsor Park School.

I'm strongly against the Windsor Terrace project. High rise building will cause many problems in security, traffic, sunlight blockage to neighbours etc. And, it will destroy the harmoney environment in Windsor Park community which I think currently is the best community in Edmonton. My suggestion is that keep the building levels at maximum 4.

a test to see if my comment can be posted