LDA20-0378 Windsor Terrace Mixed-Use Tower

Dear City of Edmonton,

As a resident of Windsor Park Area, we feel that the city does not listen to the community members. You have asked for our input in our matter, but you also constantly push the boundary and force the community to accept your decisions in favor of developers.

Several years ago, the development Bentley Condos went through a good and long process in working with the community of Windsor Park. After years of negotiations, they agreed to a max height of 4 storeys building for their condo unit. The community felt satisfied with how discussions went.

However, when the 8709 - 118 Street NW project (Windsor Terrace) came up, we thought perhaps some agreement can be made to increase the limit it to 4-6 storeys high. Instead, were surprised that the city would entertain such a huge development at 8-10 storeys high. Despite the outcry from the community, the city still approved a highrise condo development.

After the approval, last year in 2020, we have seen almost every single house on the same street north of this development be listed for sale. It is a clear cry that the neighbours have given up on this neighbourhood, that the highrise development has invaded on the privacy of their backyard where people can look out the window and into their yard, and that the shadow cast by such a building would lower the property value of these homes. These homeowners feel backstabbed by the city and are now forced to abandon their own home.

To our greater surprise, now someone new (Pagnotta) is taking over the project and they now want an even more aggressive construction plan to allow for 2 additional storeys on top of what was approved. the new zone request is asking for up to 40 meters (about 13 stories).

There are huge concerns about the flow of traffic, cars going in and out, and particularly next to an elementary school. There are safety concerns, and congestion concerns. The single alley way would be difficult for lots of vehicles to go in and out, and there would be a constant line up of cars during the peak traffic times.

Although the developer also talk about building more 3 bedroom condos to allow for families to live in them, this also have a consequence on the local elementary school. Windsor Park School is a small school with limited number of classrooms. There is only one classroom per grade. It is already easy to be over crowded in the classroom and in some years application have been rejected. There are worries that even if people live in the community of Windsor Park, if there is not enough room in the class, some students would be sent to different schools. This is unfair to those already living in the neighbourhood. A large development to get more families living in the neighbourhood without government funding for school expansion would lead to families living here but children being sent to other neighbourhood schools. It is unfair to people who have already purchased a home here in Windsor Park and plan on sending their children to the local elementary school, to then allow a development to bring in other families, leading to their own children to be relocated to another school. This is displacement. Any densification plan by the city needs to be done in conjunction with additional capital projects for school expansion and construction. You can not ignore the latter. The only way this would work is if construction allows for doubling of the classrooms (so essentially, double the entire school size), AND increasing funding to double the number of teachers. However, sacrificing playground/field space for more buildings is not desirable as children need a place to be outdoors. If anything, consideration of a construction of a 2 storey elementary school may be needed due to the limited space.

Bentley Condo has also recently been concerned about Windsor Terrace's constructions that may lead to expensive foundation problems to their buildings. This could lead to lawsuits and disputes. This is something you need to discuss with them also as they have more details.

Currently, Bentley condo still has vacant units. The market for "luxury" condos is limited in this area as it is either seen as too expensive for the square footage, compared to the possibility of other properties such as single detached homes in the neighbourhood. (e.g. instead of a luxury condo, one can consider a single detached house). The market has not shown a huge demand for luxury condos. This also creates a worry that if Windsor Terrace is desiring to build multiple units, and in order to be more cost effective, the trade off would be smaller units or cheaper housing material. There is a tradeoff somewhere for the business model, and the living standard would go down.

There are unresolved issues with the previously approved plan, and now such an expansion further complicates the issue. I urge you to reconsider the plan approvals, and to take bigger steps to help the neighbourhood with the stated issues above.

I strongly disagree with the application to increase the height and density of this building project. Located immediate adjacent to the school and housing, it will significantly reduce natural lighting, and increases traffic next to the elementary/play school. With no significant laydown area there will be continual traffic congestion and reduced safety during construction. Parking is always a problem in this area, and although the city does seem to care or acknowledge vehicle transportation or parking anymore, it is still the residents that have to deal with trying to safely navigate crossing the streets with vehicle lined streets; this directly across from the elementary/preschool/playground/community lead entrance.

For developers to keep returning for relaxation even after there was an original agreement reached, only encourages the idea that they can bulldoze over communities in order to improve their profits.

There is more than adequate student and single housing in the university area, what is need is more family friendly projects the will bring more children into the area

I agree that the increase in height, relative to the earlier agreement, is excessive. Please consider the long range of the shadows cast northwards, in the depths of our winter. At solar noon in early January, the angle of the sun above ground is lower than 15 degrees (this can be checked in any elementary text on meteorology). With a (proposed) building height H=40 m we can use high school geometry to compute the northward reach ("d") of the shadow at solar noon: tan(15)=H/d so d=H/tan(15) = 40/tan(15)=40/0.268=149 m. The shadow off the tallest part of a 40 m tall building will, at solar noon in late Dec. and early January, reach 150 m northward of the building. As is readily seen using Google Earth, a shadow reaching a distance of 150 m northward from the centre of the building lot will impact homes as far northward as 89 Ave., that is, it will affect homes over the entire block standing north of the site. At the risk of stating the obvious, permitting a building 40 m high would degrade the quality of winter life for residents over a large area. (Note: in the shadow study we are provided, the long northward range of the winter shadow, e.g. Dec. 21, simply is NOT SHOWN - the diagrams are of inadequate scale to do so!)


Finally, and like many others, I feel it would be unjust - and harmfully inconsistent - to now permit in Windsor Park a building perhaps as high as 40 m tall, given that earlier negotations had limited the height of the Bentley to a level broadly thought acceptable as a compromise. Windsor Park residents in the main accept that densification will occur, and understand the underlying economic need that drives the trend. But need we go overboard with the pace of it? Must economics overwhelm the notion of sculpting a city whose design fits our climate?

I do think it is too tall. Windsor Park is nice looking area, and I think one tall building sticking up will not look very good. Feeling good when coming into your area is important. I realize we need more density but I think approving this is overkill. The original height was about right

I am in agreement with the comments stated by the WPCL.

It is important that the ground level is dedicated to services and amenities to benefit the neighborhood as part of the goal of a 15 minute neighborhood.

The post from Maria R says everything I would want to write, so please count those opinions as mine as well.

I have concerns that this area already has a number of high rise occupancy units already as the neighbour hood is host to University residences. This should be considered in any discussion of density.

Further, I believe that the previous limits as to height and number of units should be honoured.

Just keep on given'r.

I am happy to see development continue on that site. Here are my thoughts, I believe some aspects of rezoning should be approved.
1) I do not agree with no setbacks on 87 avenue. It already is such a dangerous intersection with limited visibility when turning left from 118 Street onto 87 Avenue. It is a corner, not in the middle of a block.
2) I agree with ground level retail/commercial along 87 Avenue (but not 118 st) that would service the entire neighbourhood
3) I do not agree with an increase from 8 storeys to 13 storeys. This intersection is already a very congested area in which I have seen many children crossing the street. At times, seeing many dangerous "could have happened" accidents involving pedestrians and vehicles. Increasing the height of the building will also increase the number of dwellings which all play into increasing the congestion of that area. From experience having kids that have attended WP school, it is a very small school. Increasing the density of that building may also pose an issue with our small school not being able to effectively manage an influx of extra students. Does increasing the floors/units also provide additional funding to our school to accommodate more students?
4) Fairness. I don't believe it is fair to other developers who have respected current City zoning, and neighbourhood responses when building.
5) While I support increasing density in the University area - I do not believe that this location situated right beside an area with many children ( the WPCL preschool, UCELC daycare inside WP, and then the elementary students at WP) is ideal. This is a safety issue.
I appreciate the opportunity to voice our concerns and sincerely hope that the city takes all of these valid points in consideration when reviewing this application for re-zoning. There are many ways to still meet the mandate increasing density in an area designated a "major node" but being mindful of the appropriate locations and safety within that area.

There is K-6 school across the street. We are talking about young kids, walking, crossing, playing. I believe this building brings vulnerability to this kid in many ways, from increase in traffic and to safety. When driving by o though this would be a small building as the one built on the side. I hope council react in prol of community and protect kids and this neighborhood.

Is there still 250 to 500 tonnes of petroleum impacted earth on the site, and if so, where is it located? Is the large amount of water in the excavation indicative of hitting the water table, and if so, is there a risk of contamination entering the water table? This site was touted by the city as an example of innovative brownfield development, but it seems that has not been achieved as of yet.
Originally promised green features (see Innovation in Sustainability: Redeveloping Contaminated Sites on Youtube for reference) would be welcomed back.


The proposed height is excessive and out of scale with the Bentley and adjacent family homes.
Comparison to the height of the Lister Hall residence complex is not reasonable as those buildings are situated in a cluster on the University Campus, not in a residential neighbourhood. A mid-rise building with more family suitable suites would be more appealing. (Particularly as the U of A has a shortage of family accomodation.)The proximity to Windsor Park School would be a draw for families who may be studying at the University or nearby hospitals. Families with kids occupying the apartments would also benefit the school, and community. And provide affordable housing .

Pedestrian safety is a concern , with potential for significant traffic congestion at peak times of day. This concern would be lessened by keeping the building at a more modest height.

I agree with many of the points raised thus far. Retail is a positive. Height should remain as prior. More 3 bedroom units would be good.

Judah Mierau
Resident of Windsor Park

This is a great project for the area especially the commercial space at ground level. It's a beautiful design and greatly needed for this area of Edmonton.

Lots of good points in the comments here;

Height should be maintained at the original, no increases. Or at least not that much of an increase. Maybe give them 2 more floors but that's it. Asking for 5 more is just greedy..

Any ground floor suites should be specifically for those with decreased mobility, or entirely commercial. This is safest for reduced mobility people in the event of an emergency, having an elevator is great but what are they supposed to do if the elevator can't be used. Not a problem if they are already on ground level.

Underground parking should include bike parking and be available both for residents and customers. Obviously with priority places for residents.

They should add a water containment system potentially under the parking garage, an example of this would be the Lafarge Storm Trap system, this would reduce the water runoff concerns of having most of this lot not be grass as well as helping reduce any current issues in the area.

Studio suites are cool and all but that's basically what all the garden houses and such are for, bigger units with 3 or more bedrooms can be just as useful for college kids, they just become roommates. Or you get actual families who can't afford a full house but want to live in the area.

Pets should absolutely be allowed in the building. It doesn't mention that here but every building should allow pets.

It's time for some real density in this part of town.
This is the perfect location for the proposed height of the building.
I am disappointed there are only three units that have three or more bedrooms. A lot this size, and a building this tall, in such a good location, needs far more than three units with three or more bedrooms.

I think this a great project for the area considering it allows for commercial space at ground level. This is sorely lacking in this area and the additional population density of the residential units should help to support it.

If you buy property with a permit, it should be not up for renegotiation. Adding floors to make it taller does not fit character of neighborhood. If the owner wants to maximize profit by adding more floors they should find a location where a taller building would be a better fit.

I am all for the retail space on the first floor of the building that supports the City's street-oriented development concept and will be beneficial for the neighbourhood to have a restaurant/coffee shop within walking distance. I am not in support of the height increase, as the developer did not provide a compelling reason for the height increase and it will be the highest building in the area aside from the DICE building on campus, towering over the neighbourhood and campus.

I've looked through all the information and find that this new Development is a positive for the neighborhood - and especially residents of the Bentley directly to the East. In my humble opinion, the new 'L' shape is considerably more beneficial versus the old 'U' shape that provided for what was essentially a 30m high wall along the eastern portion of the property. This building - although 10m taller than the prior development - has the added floors / massing towards the corner of 87 avenue and 118 street and also provides for some great retail opportunities which our community certainly needs. Considering the additional height is towards the SW, this looks to minimize the additional evening shadow impact on neighboring residences versus the prior development. And in fact, due to the 'L' shape, it looks like it will actually allow more light to bathe the Bentley building in the summer evenings versus the 'U' shape prior.

I also like the added 3-bedroom units in the development (perhaps 1 or 2 more would be great) and the on-grade parking which I presume will be for customers of the retail space at the Main floor. Haven't seen any suite layouts, but I am hopeful that the # of studio units is considerably less than 25% of the building as proposed - perhaps should be to a maximum of 15 or 20 units total within the building.

Other than that - I think the building has a striking presence to the SW corner of the property and still considerate of the existing residents to the north and east.