fast test png prew

There must be room in both the front and the rear yard for trees large enough to provide environmental benefits, to offset even in a small way, the mature trees removed to prepare the site for infill. The 3.0 m only applies if there is a treed blvd, but these trees must not be relied on as permanent green assets as they are impacted by extreme heat events and compaction from construction that make them more susceptible to pests and pathogens.

"In every part of the zone - the front setback varies between 3.0m - 4.5m. Recommend a standard minimum of 3m. Front yards are
uniquely wasted and inefficient space in the home. To improve density of the community and to increase street participation - lets
reduce waste. Rear setbacks will still permit private amenity space in the backyard. For builders who want to build in front driveways -
they can push the house back on the lot notwithstanding the 3m front setback minimum. I agree that it would be simpler to just have one
common front setback that could be varied based on product type or streetscape. From my experience, we can almost never go within 4
metres due to the shallow utilities. What about MNO? Streetscape for existing houses vs new infills - the setback rules make sense"

"Hi Ingrid, Many communities and their residents have little knowledge of the Draft Zoning Bylaw. Our community collaborated with others in our District to conduct a review, while others would be required to read the 336 pp of the bylaw and try to understand what is relevant to them or their neighbourhood.

You may want to check out pp. 62 - 66 of Zoning Bylaw Through the Lens of Equity, much of what you share while it affects use and enjoyment or does not consider the rights of individual citizens and landowners, this report suggests is NIMBY and a reason to targeted engagement with communities in mature neighbourhoods and residents has been avoided.

Information shared in the Zoning Bylaw Overview only specifies the building regulation for maximum height 10.5 m (which has increased since April 2022 and Infill Development Edmonton Association would like it to increase to 12.0 m and have the rear garage attached). None of the significant changes to minimum site area per dwelling with a 75m2 minimum site area per Dwellings to allow many small units, maximum site coverage (47% up from 42%), loss of 20% lot depth maximum front setback (now 3 m with treed blvd/4.5 without), reduced 40% of lot rear setback to 10.0 m, loss of separation distance front bldg & garage from 3.0 m to 0.9m and proposed for backyard housing no separation from the current 4.0 m, size of garage up from 14% of site coverage to 20% and garden suites from 18% to 20%. It will be almost impossible to exceed the maximum 70% imperviousness in landscaping section 5.9. communicated in the Overview of how proposed RS Zone regulations will compare to the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay which will be retired. "

I have significant concerns with this draft. It will essentially eliminate the opportunity for single family based neighbourhoods to thrive. The increased vehicular traffic will become problematic for families who bought in the neighbourhood for the sole reason of providing their children with a safe place to go to school and play. Parking for these additional units and buildings will be non existent in some neighbourhoods. It will decrease the green space that we should be valuing by building more onto these lots. The proposed new height allowance will definitely affect the resale value of a home that is now impacted by the shade of this building. I understand the need for housing and infill but this proposal is simply too broad and far reaching. Mature neighborhoods need to be respected and I am dismayed to see our city being less than transparent with this new zoning bylaw. Had it not been reported in the journal, I still would not know of it and then to elicit feedback during the Christmas season is unfair to busy families. More transparency and better communication is needed for residents so their input can be heard. I am thinking that the ones who are pushing for this draft are the developers who can make money off of this new zoning proposal. As a resident, when I read that this had been years in the planning, I was more than surprised. It must have been only the city and the developers who were in the know, as all the people I have asked about it, in the past couple of weeks, have not heard of it. This is too big of a change to slip past the residents of this city.

I don't want this at all. I want my neighbourhood to only have houses in it and remain low traffic. I don't mind the idea of more uses adjacent to major roads. However, opening up uses like this proposes to inside of residential neighbhourhoods is a tremendous mistake, and will be nearly impossible to undo. Major thumbs down.

Recommendation to move 6.50 Backyard Housing from Part 6 – Specific Development Regulations and include it in Part 2 Standard Zones & Overlays, in Section under each zone for Backyard Housing. This would locate it in the Zoning Bylaw where it would add to the diversity of housing forms.

If "multi-unit housing forms" means apartments, then please delete "multi-unit housing forms". There is plenty of opportunity for apartments in the other zones.

This is incorrect, the current zoning bylaw even with the MNO, already allows on a 600m2 or larger lot for 6 units to be developed where land is zoned RF1 including by subdivision to build 2 skinny homes, each with a secondary suite and garden suite and semidetached is also permitted to have secondary suites and garden suites. Lodging and supportive housing is also currently allowed in the RF1 zone. What is not currently allowed in RF1 is multiunit housing which is allowed in the RF3 zone. What the RS Zone does is to combine RF1, RF2, RF3 and RF4 current zones to create significant zoning and increase potential for units on a 600m2 lots to 8 or if you consolidate 2 lots to build 3 storey 10.5 apartments or row housing. 3D modelling also shows that building alignment will be lost and very little room left for trees.

"How does the city intent to compensate existing homeowners whose property value are negatively affected by these new allowed developments within existing areas? ie backyard houses, commercial uses, etc.

What about loss of enjoyment? A home is typically the largest investment a person makes.

By adding additional buildings on a lot, the amount of grass/green space is reduced which increases the amount of rain runoff entering sewers. Can the existing old sewer infrastructure handle the increased loading? Will the additional flow cause flooding of basements?

Will there be enough parking? Even during winter parking bans?

This bylaw should go to referendum. This is a complete change from existing norms and people should be given the opportunity to vote on the concept not just comment as comments may or may not be considered."