LDA20-0378 Windsor Terrace Mixed-Use Tower

Consultation has concluded

A colour rendering of the proposed building.

***The discussion has concluded and we have written a "What We Heard" document that will be shared with Council when they make their decision at Public Hearing.***

Thank you for participating in engagement activities for this rezoning application.

The application is expected to go to City Council Public Hearing for a decision, with the exact date still to be determined. For more information, please visit these FAQs for Council meetings.

***The discussion has concluded and we have written a "What We Heard" document that will be shared with Council when they make their decision at Public Hearing.***

Thank you for participating in engagement activities for this rezoning application.

The application is expected to go to City Council Public Hearing for a decision, with the exact date still to be determined. For more information, please visit these FAQs for Council meetings.

Tell us what you think of the application

Please 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? Other people that visit this part of the site will be able to see your comments.

Consultation has concluded
CLOSED: This discussion has concluded.

The Windsor Park Community League's Development Committee has reviewed the revised Windsor Terrace DC2 bylaw from a community perspective. In the committee's view, the proposal falls short in two key areas, which are addressed below. The positive aspects of the proposal that we hope will benefit the community are as follows.

1) We're pleased to see commercial space provided in the building at street level along 87th Avenue and around the corner on 118th Street. This will improve the walkability of the neighbourhood and help make Windsor Park a complete community. We look forward to a restaurant or coffee shop becoming a gathering place for neighbourhood residents--post-Covid of course.

2) The new layout of the Windsor Terrace site reduces the impact on its immediate neighbours to some extent. In this regard, we find helpful the L-shape of the proposed development and its location on the site as far as possible from The Bentley to the east and to the single-family houses to the north and northeast. It's a plus that the surface parking for the commercial units is behind the building in the northeast corner of the site.

If further changes are made to the proposed bylaw, it's essential the commercial space and site plan be retained.

In our view, the Windsor Terrace proposal falls short in two key areas: mix of units and height. We have some improvements to suggest to these components of the project.

1) Too many studio apartments are allowed. There is plenty of undergraduate student housing already provided in the area. Nearby are five dormitories on the U of A campus that house about 2,000 students. In addition, university students live in a number of single-family houses throughout the neighbourhood as well as in the increasing number of secondary suites and garden suites being built in Windsor Park. We suggest the maximum percentage of studio apartments permitted in the development be reduced from 25% to 10%.

2) Conversely, too few 3-bedroom apartments are provided in the development. Families with young children generally have a hard time finding suitable housing in apartment buildings in Edmonton, and Windsor Park lacks affordable housing for young families. The location of Windsor Terrace would be attractive to families with young children. The site is across 118th Street from an elementary school, daycare and playground and within walking distance of the University of Alberta and University Hospital. Grad students, interns, residents, and fellows from abroad with families would find Windsor Terrace a convenient place to live. We suggest increasing the minimum number of 3-bedroom units from three (3) to six (6) to create a small community of families within the building.

3) The height of the Windsor Terrace proposal is a major issue in the community. We would prefer retaining the previously approved height of about 30 metres, rather than increasing it to 40 metres.

We appreciate consideration of these suggestions by the City and Pagnotta and look forward to an attractive, well-landscaped building rising on the site and becoming part of the neighbourhood. The current hole in the ground is unsightly, unsafe and a blight on the community.

WPCL Civics about 3 years ago

I am very much looking forward to this site being a functional building, and hopefully bringing new neighbours and some retail opportunities as well to the neighbourhood. I support the existing 8-story concept, and I think that mid-rise buildings on main roads/transit corridors are a good way to densify the neighbourhood.

That said, I echo a few points that have been frequently raised here:

1) There has not been a compelling reason provided by the developers for the increase from 8 to 13 stories. The developer is not entitled to expect such an increase, as they purchased it knowing the zoning constraints. The city should take very seriously the concerns about this increase voiced by neighbours, who will have to live with the project long after the developer has left.

2) Regardless of height, I strongly support the calls for 3-bedroom+ units, to ensure that the building can accommodate families as well as individuals/couples.

I hope the city will remember that these decisions significantly impact people's quality of life and enjoyment of their homes in the long term - and that they will consider what is genuinely good for the neighbouring community, not just what will make the most money for developers.

Jeanie about 3 years ago

I am generally supportive of this development, particularly the three bedroom units, ground floor retail and the addition of town houses. However, I believe that this building, as proposed is too high, and the height should be restricted to the height of the Lister Hall towers. This is a scale that is appropriate to the neighbourhood and would block less light to the adjacent apartment, houses and school.

David Alton about 3 years ago

I am not in favour of the increased density of this proposal.
Windsor Park negotiated in good faith with the developers of the first proposal and made our compromises then. We should not be asked to accommodate the new developer simply because time has passed and the property has been sitting vacant. They purchased the lot knowing full well the constraints upon the construction at that time.
My biggest concern is the increase in height. I believe in the "slippery slope" maxim .... the next building will want to be 14 stories.

Elizabeth Millar about 3 years ago

The original plan of 8 stories was much discussed and finally agreed upon and fitting for WP, whereas this new plan of 13 stories seems totally unfit for this neighbourhood. The immense extra traffic that it would bring to this already congested area, the potential danger for children coming and going to school from just across the street, the huge shade that a building this high would bring to the neighbouring homes, all factors speaking much against a building of this height.
There`s so much construction already happening on 117 st, one at the corner of 117st and 87st, the other on 117St and 83 Ave, not to mention the mega construction just across University Ave. Are the builders realistic, will all these places be needed?

I`m much against a huge structure of this proposed 13 stories project for the above reasons.
R.K.

na about 3 years ago

Is it possible to require that a certain % of units are designated for low income rentals?

AL1234 about 3 years ago

1. I think it would be great to get this building built (having a large "hole" near an elementary school, or anywhere, isn't great).
2. Having some retail on the street level would be great. There is already a small retail (strip mall) closer to the University, but having more options for Windsor Park residents would be useful (plus the University students in residence nearby).
3. I have concerns about parking for any retail patrons or visitors to the building. There needs to be enough underground parking or parking on the site. 87 Ave doesn't presently have parking and it wouldn't be prudent to allow much parking (definitely not free parking) on 87 Ave due to the University parking issues already faced in Windsor Park. I have concerns that visitors the building (or residents without enough parking stalls) will overflow onto Windsor road/118 Street.
4. Windsor Road/118 Street has a elementary school, soccer fields and daycare. It is a playground zone. Any development nearby needs to consider the impact on congestion during drop-off, pick-up, etc times of the day.
5. Right now, due to the fencing etc. at that site, the view when turning left (or right) onto 87 Ave is somewhat hindered. It may be prudent to see if the set-back could be increased to ensure there isn't an increased number of accidents at that intersection (especially with children walking to and from the school/playground).

D407 about 3 years ago

I'm generally supportive of this development, but would like the developer and city to scale back the height to no more than 10 stories.

IFV about 3 years ago

I am against increasing the height of this building. This will set a precedent for more buildings of increased height. The building will create shadows for the houses close to it. There will be increased traffic on 117 street, 118 street and 87 avenue with this building and even more with an increase in the number of units.
Windsor Park is a family oriented neighbourhood and so that what is built on this site should consider more 3 bedroom or larger units.

Jean about 3 years ago

Most of the residents of Windsor Park have chosen to live in this quiet, well situated residential neighbourhood of single family homes with mature trees. Transition occurs when older homes are replaced by large, impressive or more "skinny" homes. The construction of a 13 storey structure is not welcome or desired. Given that it is inevitable, concerns arise: traffic, parking, congestion, over-shadowing of properties, significant population increase. The lot on 87 Ave is very (too?) close to the elementary school, where many pedestrians and family cars come and go.
If the new structure can be designed to accommodate families, larger units would be a better fit for the community. Allowing pets would integrate the new residents with the park and community events. Ground floor commercial spaces must be ones that residents can enjoy, such as a convenience store, coffee shop, pub, book shop, travel agent. Bicycle parking and visitor parking must be provided. As an act of good faith, environmental considerations like solar panels, rooftop gardens would promote good will and community spirit. Acceptance of this new structure will be a challenge to our Windsor Park collective identity, but modifications might make it tolerable.

Marilyn Gaa about 3 years ago

Family sized appts are especially important in this neighborhood.Ground floor retail also helps the "neighborhood" feel.

tony about 3 years ago

I don’t want the height increased. Maximum 30 metres please.

R. A. Anderson about 3 years ago

1. The proposed building is too tall. 8 storeys should be the limit.
2. The entire ground floor should be retail, no residences.
3. I would like to have a larger number of family-oriented units (3 or more bedrooms)
4. I would ask Council to confirm that there is sufficient underground parking to accommodate all the residents, and that the surface-level parking is only for the retail customers.

Robert about 3 years ago

Love this building and the proposed increased density - it will be great for the area. Hope this one gets built soon!

Filip about 3 years ago

I like this development. I believe the developer is trying to introduce a good looking building into a good looking area. I see some peoples concerns about the height and buildings being covered in shade but I reviewed the sun shade study provided and I see no major difference between 8 stories and 13 stories.

The commercial space is a welcome addition and the I like that there has been a lot of trees, planters and shrubs incorporated next to the sidewalks.

I'm excited to see the transformer from a big hole to this final product

rds about 3 years ago

Thirteen stories is far too high. The Bentley was limited to 4 (5???) stories at their time of build and I know that they wanted to go higher but were denied. How is it that only a few years later we are considering 13 stories on an adjacent site? My preference would be 8 stories max, same opinion as when the Bentley was being proposed.

Setbacks should be essential off of 87 Ave and 118 St. If you want to develop gathering places and establish a feeling of community you have to provide the groundspace to do so.

JPMc

JPMc about 3 years ago

I am delighted to see that there is finally a plan to fill in the massive hole at the corner of 118 St and 87 Ave however the plan for the building on that site is disappointing. I understand that the City does not factor in issues of aesthetics and liveability when approving zoning plans.
There is no evidence that there will be any retail of interest at street level, no room for a sidewalk cafe or open fronted greengrocer.
The 13 storey height will be very incongruous at that site, the apartment vacancy rate in Edmonton was 6% prepandemic so there is no urgent need for that number of storeys.
Plus at present there are at least 3 other apartment buildings being constructed within 1 km of 118St and 87Ave.
It is known that living more than 5 storeys higher than street level makes people disconnected from their neighbourhood.
The City of Paris was designed with buildings less than 30 m tall so that sunlight reached the streets , we all agree that this is one of the most beautiful cities in the world so why can’t we follow suit and place developer greed aside.

Jane does about 3 years ago

I would really hope that the ground floor units are devoted to retail space. It is sorely needed!

LD about 3 years ago

I am writing to request that the city work with this builder to decrease the size of the building. The originally approved building was already at 10 storeys and had terracing and setbacks in place to work to integrate the building into the community.

If we look to neighboring communities such as McKernan, Park Allen, and Belgravia the height of this building is unprecedented. Even in the community of Malmo recent mid rise buildings did not come close to this height and they are equally close to transit.

I know that the City is working to increase density but as someone who will live in the shadow of this building and is forced to pay the high property taxes associated with Windsor Park I ask that you consider the impact of this type of building on a community. Think of the urban design principles that create buildings that are a part of communities versus tall towers separating communities.

We are already surrounded by massive buildings and I would ask that you consider the impact this would have in your own communities before moving forward with approval.

I am asking that the original height of 10 storeys be the maximum height of this building. If not, please look to decreasing property taxes for those of us who will be impacted by the shadow of this building and the traffic increase associated with this building.

smah about 3 years ago

I was not in favour of the original plan and this plan is even worse. I know the City is strapped for cash but why approve a project that is so detrimental to this community? It does not make sense to drop a 13 storey building into this neighbourhood? It does not make sense to add more traffic to the University traffic that happens every day. Why does the City need to put such a large building right beside a community school?

Some of the units are to be family units which means more children to attend the school. This would be a non-issue if WPS was a school with enrolment issues but that is not the case. Are there plans to have the builder support increasing the size of the school?

Should the land be left as a giant, open pit? No, but it should not be overdeveloped either. The City and the developer need to come back to the table with a huge apology and the willingness to find a solution that actually fits what the community needs and wants.

re about 3 years ago