Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

City's draft infill action plan.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by 240GLT View Post
    Originally posted by highlander View Post
    An established block has an established pattern of front yard, house, back yard, garage,(driveway?), and a significant variation can impact neighbours. That's why there's a rule that the front of the house has to be within a certain distance of the established line on the block. What you're proposing would change that significantly.

    If a new building that can be up to 10m tall extends well past the back of existing homes and looms, to use a nimby word, over their back yards it doesn't make much difference whether it's an apartment building, a block of rowhouses or a monster house.

    I don't know if that makes it a bad ideal, or just one to be careful with.
    Not saying that there needs to be massive changes. Just clarity with regards to the zoning bylaws, and bylaws that make sense for the area.

    Turning the lots in Alberta Avenue to RF3 zoning, and being under the mature neighborhood overlay has made it so that almost every development has to seek a variance. That discourages development and creates the kinds of problems that we are trying to aleviate. You could still write the front setback rules or height restrictions into that specific overlay. Just tailor it so that it is more suited to the area.
    I hear what your saying... but this in itself requires a lto fo work, community consultation, reports, studies, ARP's .. a lot of the stuff that the city is moving away form.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

    Comment


    • #47
      ^ the city is moving towards more productive and proactive community consultation. In our neightborhood, we've practically pioneered this new approach, and it works really really well. Stakeholders in communities still deserve a say.

      The city will never get away from reports and studies. That's the nature of bureaucracy.

      In another thread, were you not lamenting the lack of an updated Oliver ARP ? I know I have been pushing for the Northlands and Stadium ARP's to be updated.. If that had been done in a timely manner, maybe there would have been a better use development going into where the Parkinsons' clinic is going.

      A lot of us have been working on this infill file for quite some time. It's a very tricky manuever and has many layers. I know that the development lobby is pushing to get rid of restrictions alltogther , but that's not the correct route either. Different neighborhoods deserve complimentary guidelines... as I said, the MNO was well intentioned, sort-of works for most neighborhoods but doesn't work well for any neighborhood.
      Over promise and under deliver. It’s the most Edmonton thing you can do.

      Comment


      • #48
        ^ I hear ya.. I really do not nec disagreeing

        I don't like community specific guildines how ever outside of true special areas.

        One of my biggest beefs with the Oliver ARP are the "special guidlines" because those special guildines don't change and soon it's 30 years later and you have tick crap being built because the city has "special guidelines" for the area that no longer fit and its cheaper just to keep them then to change them and develops in turn design to them in order to avoid complication to their application.

        Less restriction + more flexibility... Sometimes less is more...
        "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
          ^ I hear ya.. I really do not nec disagreeing

          I don't like community specific guildines how ever outside of true special areas.

          One of my biggest beefs with the Oliver ARP are the "special guidlines" because those special guildines don't change and soon it's 30 years later and you have tick crap being built because the city has "special guidelines" for the area that no longer fit and its cheaper just to keep them then to change them and develops in turn design to them in order to avoid complication to their application.

          Less restriction + more flexibility... Sometimes less is more...
          I think that the Norwood area is a special area. It's one of the oldest and most diverse neighborhoods in the city, and has a special character not found in most other neighborhoods. Certainly worthy of special attention.

          Your beef with the Oliver ARP is the same as my issues with the Northlands and Stadium ARP's. Stuff happens that shouldn't because those plans are not monitored and updated in a timely fashion. Take the guidelines away and what you get may be even worse.
          Last edited by 240GLT; 05-06-2014, 04:14 PM.
          Over promise and under deliver. It’s the most Edmonton thing you can do.

          Comment


          • #50
            ^ I agree about Norwood, but I'm not sure how that translates into zoning regulations. I can think of a few regulations that should be loosened because they restrict things that were common 100 years ago, like small side yards, development of 3rd level attic spaces larger than 50% of the main floor area and 2-level front verandahs, but how do you go about restricting things that are "out of character"?

            Comment


            • #51
              ^ I think you need to look at the different types of neighborhoods, and understand what it is that makes them desireable or unique.

              There are many unique and attractive aspects of Parkdale for instance that don't exist in Gold Bar. Yet the zoning regulations within the MNO treat the two neighborhoods more or less the same.

              There are also challenges to infill in Parkdale, such as narrow and shallow lots that don't exist in many other MNO neighborhoods. So as Parkdale has become a very attractive neighborhood for infill, developers are forced to go through the process of seeking variances for basically every build. Right now there are nine infill projects within two blocks of my house.. six duplexes and three SFH's. Almost every one, including the SFH's have had to be granted variances. So that needs to be streamlined if we're going to continue to attract investment and growth. Not saying that we need to loosen guidelines.. not at all. We need clarity and guidelines that make sense. And at the same time we need to identify what it is that makes the neighborhood unique, and work towards preserving and enhancing those qualities.
              Over promise and under deliver. It’s the most Edmonton thing you can do.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by highlander View Post
                An established block has an established pattern of front yard, house, back yard, garage,(driveway?), and a significant variation can impact neighbours. That's why there's a rule that the front of the house has to be within a certain distance of the established line on the block. What you're proposing would change that significantly.

                If a new building that can be up to 10m tall extends well past the back of existing homes and looms, to use a nimby word, over their back yards it doesn't make much difference whether it's an apartment building, a block of rowhouses or a monster house.

                I don't know if that makes it a bad ideal, or just one to be careful with.
                In shallow lot areas the pattern is more like front yard, sideways bunglalow, garage and back yard side by side, with the garage within a few meters of the house. People in these areas are already used to having their back yards next to garages and driveways. I would suggest that in these areas we allow rear attached garages and 60-70% lot coverage when lots are subdivided, but the height limit on the rear of the lot should be 4.6 m (the current limit for garages) instead of 10 m. A minimum 30 m^2 rooftop patio could be built on top of the garage, possibly cantilevered a bit over the driveway as well. Driveways would need to be at least 5.5 m to provide adequate parking. Requiring the rooftop patios to have solid railings would minimize privacy concerns.

                Comment

                Working...
                X