Theming example

This is incredibly circular logic. Our neighbourhoods don't have houses within 3 m of the front property line because it has been illegal to do so; we shouldn't be justifying the continuation of an illogical, costly ban on building within 3 m of the front property line on the basis that it has existed in the past. Especially when we consider why oversized front yards were mandated in the first place (so that whites could price poor and coloured people out of the city).

Minimum flanking side setback is 2.0 m. Why not reduce setbacks with treed boulevards to 2.0m min and set that as the new street wall? define the street, tighten it up, leave room in the yard for food growth and garden suites.

Recognizing these setbacks are pulled from existing zones, What is the rationale for this limitation? Can we reduce?

"4.1.5 - Max height should be increased to 11.5m. The intent is to include 3

story units. Please see the following:
Grade 1-3’ – typical grade calculation falls between 1 and 3’ from
finished grade
Main floor 9’ Typical garage is 8’ but would be helpful to allow for
9’ in order to account for extra rough ins in the garage space for the
2nd floor living space
16” for subfloor x 2. This could range from 14” to 16” depending on
design and span 9' living floor height (this is now standard in most
homes, basement suites and condos so should be accommodated
on at least 1 of the living floors to ensure living standards are
similar across all housing options. Top floor can stay at 8'
Minimum 3'4"" for roof height. This assumes a 4/12 pitch on a 30'
span which is the minimum length for standard reverse gable roof
on an interior townhome unit. This is limiting for any structures
that have a min width or depth longer than 30'
The total here using the absolute mins is 1'+8'+1'2"" x 2+8'x2+5' =
32'4"" or 98.5m
The total here using a realistic market scenario
3'+9'+1'4""x2+9'+8'+5' = 36'8"" or 11.17m
Most typical height requirements will be between 11 and 11.5m for
a 3 storey product. We had to change one of our roof structure on
our ascension block infill project to a flat roof system which added
about $20,000 per unit due to a shortfall in height by a few inches. I
would highly recommend raising this to 11.5m otherwise most
small scale infill buildings with 4 units will still require a DC zoning
to make the housing product work."

"Recommendation 4.1.5 – Maximum height in the RS Zone of 10.0 m, based on the standard zone and expectations based on the Zoning Bylaw Report #4, Attachment 2 Document, presented to the Urban Planning Committee on April 22, 2022.

"

"Re: 4.1.5. Marked improvement but still not in line with suburban regulations.
Recommendation: Change Maximum Height to 12.0 m in parity with suburban regulations."

It is not necessary to increase the maximum height to accommodate 3 storey buildings. 3 storey houses are reasonably common in early 20th century developments, and they used steeply pitched roofs and sloped ceilings to build third levels without increasing height excessively. A modern version would need to be slightly taller to accommodate adequate insulation in the cathedral ceiling, but keeping the height below 10.0 m at the midpoint of the roof will not be a problem.

"Recommendation 4.1.5 – Maximum height in the RS Zone of 10.0 m.
This mitigates potential impacts including increased heating and cooling requirements
and carbon emissions that will result by increasing interior ceiling height, as well as
increased massing and shadowing impacts to adjacent buildings, including blocking sun
access to solar panels,
The Land Use Policies of the MGA include, Policy 2.4 – “In carrying out their
planning responsibilities, municipalities are expected to respect the rights of
individual citizens and landowners and to consider the impact of any policy or
decision within the context of the overall public interest.”"

The proposed change in maximum height to 10.5m is of extreme concern, especially in "mature neighbourhoods". That's almost a 20% increase in max height from what is currently allowed. Many existing residences will disappear in the shadows.

How can a massive minimum width of 5.0 m be justified when 3,000 of our neighbours are houseless? There are innumerable example of comfortable, beautiful and efficient homes much narrower than 5.0 m. The famed New Orleans shotgun house starts at 3.5 m wide; 154 Hamilton St in Toronto, at 4.2 m wide, sold for $3 million; countless Albertans live comfortably in travel trailers at 2.4 m wide for all or part of the year. The cost to service sites, which all Edmontonians bear, scales with lot width. Building narrow makes us all richer, and will build us a healthier happier, financially solvent city to pass down to future generations. Houses for humans ought to be human-sized.

4.1.1 Is a really powerful way to control units that de-couples it from zoning, and for my site it counts as a mild upzone. But I would like to see this number be more daring; 1 unit per 50m² would be more appropriate.