policyenthusiast
Active Member
David Dewang's article references this as "red tape at best and downzoning at worst", but I get what Knack sees in it. It would go a long way for visual flow.
|
|
|
- Thread starter cliffapotamus
- Start date
EtoV
Active Member
It seems like this is a privacy/built form issue more than a height or density issue. Limiting building heights based on the building next to them would be a huge step backwards. The impact of a 3 story home doesn't change whether there's a bungalow or 2 storey home next door.
Imo it could be solved with rules around the number and size of windows within a certain distance to the side lot line. Provisions could be made where if you want to build windows within this distance (as this is largely a result of mid block row homes), you would be required to angle you windows away from the property line so that there isn't a direct line of site into the next door yard or home.
Eg something like this, but only with the indirect facing windows like those above the doors:
Imo it could be solved with rules around the number and size of windows within a certain distance to the side lot line. Provisions could be made where if you want to build windows within this distance (as this is largely a result of mid block row homes), you would be required to angle you windows away from the property line so that there isn't a direct line of site into the next door yard or home.
Eg something like this, but only with the indirect facing windows like those above the doors:
JuliallThat
Active Member
Some of the most significant justifications for the ZBR, is the blanket consistency and universal application of it city wide. I'm really hesitant to set up exceptions for certain neighbourhoods, to reintroduce overlays, or even base height on neighbouring buildings. That's not to say there aren't issues, but it's also working really well at doing what it needs to do, which is to enable broad flexibility universally across the city. Slippery slope arguments are themselves a slippery slope but once start setting exceptions, then we're just going to end up back at the beginning after a decade of this or that.
If there's an issue, we should try and solve it in a universal way. Like what EtoV said here about limiting window sightlines to protect privacy.
Some suggestions I have are:
Reduce front setbacks to 0 or near zero, by shifting the entire building as far forward as possible we reduce the opportunity for privacy and shading issues in the backyards.
Maybe we should be talking about mandatory fence upgrades to protect privacy and put that burden on the developer, since a fence is ultimately small change next to the cost of the building and would improve the lived experience for neighbours.
All units should face only forwards and backwards, such as main entrances, balconies and large windows. Side windows are only for washrooms, bedrooms, or secondary egress.
But we must not lower the unit count or mandate any structure splits (eg: some units must be in a laneway structure). We should do whatever we can do keep up this level of flexibility, while ensuring the built form more palatable to neighbours.
If there's an issue, we should try and solve it in a universal way. Like what EtoV said here about limiting window sightlines to protect privacy.
Some suggestions I have are:
Reduce front setbacks to 0 or near zero, by shifting the entire building as far forward as possible we reduce the opportunity for privacy and shading issues in the backyards.
Maybe we should be talking about mandatory fence upgrades to protect privacy and put that burden on the developer, since a fence is ultimately small change next to the cost of the building and would improve the lived experience for neighbours.
All units should face only forwards and backwards, such as main entrances, balconies and large windows. Side windows are only for washrooms, bedrooms, or secondary egress.
But we must not lower the unit count or mandate any structure splits (eg: some units must be in a laneway structure). We should do whatever we can do keep up this level of flexibility, while ensuring the built form more palatable to neighbours.
CplKlinger
Senior Member
Kosy123
Senior Member
Probably the biggest success of ZBR is how redeveloping areas are now catching up fast with developing areas in terms of net dwelling units.
trevorhayden
Active Member
Has anyone considered the reason that new infill growth is mid-block, not along arterials is because no one wants to live along a smelly, noisy 6 or 7 lane wide road?
BrettB
Active Member
Exactly!
policyenthusiast
Active Member
Old news now perhaps.
We have property rights!
We are entitled to our sunlight!
We are entitled to the value of our property!
We are entitled to comfort in our property!
We have property rights!
We are entitled to our sunlight!
We are entitled to the value of our property!
We are entitled to comfort in our property!
CplKlinger
Senior Member
The June 30 public hearing packages for changes to some residential zones (RSM and mid-block row housing) are up now.
constance_chlore
Active Member
A weird bit of attention from a couple weeks ago: someone called into the popular leftist talk radio show Majority Report to complain about Edmonton's zoning changes. It's the typical left-NIMBY nonsense, but it is weird to hear it coming from Edmonton where most NIMBYs are on the right.
trevorhayden
Active Member
This Council now officially sucks
policyenthusiast
Active Member
Is there an agenda item for this?
From Taproot:
Edmonton city council approved a motion on June 17 to amend zoning bylaw 20001, reducing the maximum number of homes allowed on interior lots in the small-scale residential (RS) zone from eight to six, despite opposition from some residents and housing advocates. Mayor Amarjeet Sohi acknowledged concerns about density but emphasized the importance of infill goals for financial and environmental sustainability. The proposed changes are scheduled for a public hearing on June 30. The RS zone, which was introduced to increase urban density, has already led to more multi-dwelling housing permits, particularly for row housing, according to City of Edmonton administration.
Bad call.
Last edited:
David A
Senior Member
Yes, in theory a free for all is simple and easy, but maybe its not such a great idea after all and yes people have started to notice after some ugly stuff has popped up throughout the city.
I don't want us to go back to a lot of restrictions, but I feel there is a balance somewhere between lots of restrictions and none and we need to find that.
trevorhayden
Active Member
Developers are going to continue building mid block 8-plexes. They will just apply for a rezoning to RSM to do so, along with adding multi unit backyard homes while they are at it. With the new ZBL's reduced public engagement rules, NIMBYs will feel even less empowered in the local development process. They really shot themselves in the foot.
Last edited: