[policyenthusiast]

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.

This is a great point. Not only does it not change the shape and size of the structures, but it just adds a layer of bureaucratic icing.

Might as well just say "eightplexes are now a discretionary use". End result is the same.

 

[kcantor]

^

I'm not sure the end result is the same as any discretionary approval given by a DO is subject to appeal to the SDAB.

More important however is the disconnect between (a) density and the number of units and (b) the quality of design and construction of the end product.

It would be my position that (a) is much less important than (b). Unfortunately, the bylaw pays attention to (a) and only pays lip service to (b).

If it were up to me, any infill development project that incorporates the existing main structure should have it's permits granted on the same basis as they are currently being assessed and issued.

Any infill development project that demolishes an existing main structure (or doesn't replace a previously existing main structure so we aren't seeing demolition by neglect) would require the project to secure the approval of a "Residential Infill Design Committee" that would be able to consider urban and neighbourhood and streetscape design and impact in granting or withholding approval.

 

[BrettB]

I wonder if such a committee could be put in place community by community? I'm sure what would be allowed in Norwood wouldn't pass muster in Glenora.

 

[kcantor]

I wonder if such a committee could be put in place community by community? I'm sure what would be allowed in Norwood wouldn't pass muster in Glenora.

Given that Edmonton consists of 7 geographic regions and 375 neighbourhods, community by community committees aren't likely to be able to secure the expertise and exercise the impartiality necessary for what should be an impartial body. That impartiality shouldn't on its own preclude its ability the take urban, neighbourhood and streetscape characteristics relative to any application in context.

 

[policyenthusiast]

Motion came from Councillor Janz. Here's his piece on it:

https://www.michaeljanz.ca/infill?a...un_18&utm_medium=email&utm_source=michaeljanz

 

[TAS]

Communities looking at restrictive covenants which have proven to be successful.

Glenora and Crestwood residents find legal means to fight city's zoning bylaw

As residents plan to place restrictive covenants on their land titles, council looks to limit size of developments in mature neighbourhoods.

edmontonjournal.com

Knack was at the Glenora meeting and noted that 5 residents he has had ongoing conversations with have come around to support up to 6 units on a midblock lot, which is progress, ha.

Would those residents prefer 4 units, absolutely. But a compromise among more residents is taking place. People supporting 8 midblock don't like the idea of 6, but again a compromise. Doesn't mean that number can't grow in a couple of years (or decrease with a different council).

But it's game over for more gentle density on some streets perhaps if more restrictive covenants start popping up.

Just a few years ago, 6 unit buildings midblock would have been unheard of so change is happening. And 8 units are still permitted on corners.

I do like the idea of some better architectural guidelines for these multi unit infills.

 

[David A]

As always, this is a matter of perspective. What seems "gentle" to some people may not seem as gentle to those living in the area or next door, but perhaps 6 is size that works better people nearby and others.

 

[TAS]

Any takers on this 4-plex (8 total units) infill for $3.2 million?

In fairness, I'm sure the other elevations of this project look much better, but this is what realtor chose for one and only pic.

https://www.edmontonrealestate.pro/listing/Edmonton/Jasper-Park/e4443659-na-edmonton-ab-t5p-4t1/

 

[policyenthusiast]

Any takers on this 4-plex (8 total units) infill for $3.2 million?

In fairness, I'm sure the other elevations of this project look much better, but this is what realtor chose for one and only pic.

View attachment 660828

https://www.edmontonrealestate.pro/listing/Edmonton/Jasper-Park/e4443659-na-edmonton-ab-t5p-4t1/

Definitely a case study in why the minimum design standards bylaw amendment needs to go through next week. What an awful facade.

 

[trevorhayden]

Would these scenarios be acceptable based on the new 6 unit limit on mid block RS lots?

1. A row house building with 4 primary units, 2 secondary suites, and 2 granny flats connected to primary units.

2. A row house building with a shared wall, split across 2 sides of a property line. Each of the 2 properties has 2 primary units, 2 basement suites, and 2 backyard units (main building has 6 units, backyard building has 4 units). All doors face front or back yard.

3. A row house building with a shared wall, split across 2 sides of a property line. Each of the 2 properties has 3 primary units and 3 basement suites. 8 doors face a front or back, 4 doors face side yards.

 

[Gronk!]

Noted: Meddling with midblocks, politics versus policy, why variations could lead to variances

The co-hosts of Episode 313 of Speaking Municipally discussed how a city council committee has endorsed a motion to send proposed changes to its country-leading housing policy to a public hearing on June 30.

edmonton.taproot.news

 

[trevorhayden]

When will this City get it into its thick collective skull that you can't concentrate housing growth by limiting it in inner blocks? You concentrate growth by adding LRT and electric BRT to nodes and corridors. The new high density housing will follow.

 

[Gronk!]

Here are the proposed changes to Edmonton's zoning bylaw set for debate this week

Zoning regulations that city council approved in 2023, which allow for larger, multi-family buildings on many lots in most neighbourhoods, could be partially reversed after a public hearing on June 30. That's when Edmonton's council is set to debate several proposed changes to the zoning bylaw...

edmonton.taproot.news

 

[TAS]

City legal council advised that Cartmell's motion for a moratorium on midblock infill contravenes the Municipal Government Act so it was dropped.

Afterwards, Cartmell said "The City's Legal Department shut me down".

Either Cartmell didn't know his motion for a moratorium was going to fail due to legal grounds, which means he didn't do his homework by just checking with admin if this was feasible and as a result caused unnecessary worry among builders and false hope for some residents, or he did know it was going to fail but it was a way to score some political points on a contentious issue - I tried to go to battle for you folks worried about your neighbourhoods but legal shut me down.

Either way, not good Cartmell.

 

[thommyjo]

City legal council advised that Cartmell's motion for a moratorium on midblock infill contravenes the Municipal Government Act so it was dropped.

Afterwards, Cartmell said "The City's Legal Department shut me down".

Either Cartmell didn't know his motion for a moratorium was going to fail due to legal grounds, which means he didn't do his homework by just checking with admin if this was feasible and as a result caused unnecessary worry among builders and false hope for some residents, or he did know it was going to fail but it was a way to score some political points on a contentious issue - I tried to go to battle for you folks worried about your neighbourhoods but legal shut me down.

Either way, not good Cartmell.

He’s simply playing politics to win the conservative vote in hopes they can reset stuff with a new council.