JULY 2019 - MISSING MIDDLE ZONING REVIEW & RA9 AMENDMENTS
On behalf of IDEA, we are writing in support of the above-referenced Zoning Bylaw amendments. These changes will begin the process of streamlining our zoning bylaw and better aligning it with sustainable City goals and medium scale infill development.
IDEA is a community of committed Edmontonians passionate about the positive transformation of our mature and existing neighbourhoods toward people-centred communities. Our diverse membership consists of individuals and businesses who share a forward-looking vision of an Edmonton that is vibrant, walkable, efficient, flexible, resilient, sustainable, and healthy.
While we support the proposed “missing middle” and RA9 zoning changes, we do have some questions and requested additions to improve the overall chance of success of these amendments. We welcome the opportunity to have a conversation with you about these issues.
1. More Clarity on Purpose and Intent for Row Housing Zones
At present and despite the proposed “missing middle” changes, the circumstances under which rezoning to RF5 and UCRH for row housing would be supported by Administration and Council is unclear. Feedback our members receive from Administration in response to inquiries about rezoning applications consistently favours RF3, to the exclusion of RF5 and UCRH. When should these other zones be used? When and where are they as appropriate, or more appropriate, than RF3? This is an essential question to answer in order for the proposed amendments to be successful. RF3 is a great zone for starter homes, renters and first time home buyers, but in order for row housing to also appeal to a more mature segment of the market, the opportunities provided under the RF5 and UCRH are needed.
Please add clarity to the purpose statements of each of these zones, and especially what differentiates RF5 from RF3 when applying for a rezoning. At present, the sentence in the UCRH purpose statement that states that the zone is a transition zone to be used between low and high density housing is particularly problematic, as there are few sites large enough to allow for this sort of transition in core and mature neighbourhoods; sites are usually very small. If the transition sentence is not removed, we unfortunately do not believe that this zone will be useful in an infill setting.
2. Specific Regulations for Development on Corner Lots facing the Flanking Roadway
The MNO makes reference to the RF3 in some of its regulations to better allow for development on corner lots facing the flanking roadway, but this is not the case for the any other zone under which similar developments can occur. We currently have a member in the concept phase of developing row housing on a large corner lot, but because of the front and rear setbacks required by the MNO, and even in the RA7 zone under the proposed changes, there will be no option but to apply to rezone to DC2. We believe this is unfortunate given the significant work that has gone into the missing middle amendments. The fact is that most infill occurs on corner lots, most often facing the flanking roadway, but the regulations in the zoning bylaw treat this situation as an afterthought rather than the norm. As a result, many unnecessary variances and/or rezonings are required. We strongly request for you to reduce the front and rear setbacks that are required for development on corner lots facing the flanking roadway, in order to reduce barriers for infill to occur in such locations.
3. Gap Between RA8 and RA9
We believe it should be noted that there is currently a significant gap in height and development intensity between the RA8 and RA9 zones. For example, on sites greater than 1800 square metres, the maximum height in the RA8 zone is 23 m and in the RA9 zone it is 58 m, meaning that any building between 6 storeys and ~19 storeys essentially requires a DC2. This is a significant barrier for enabling missing middle development and we strongly recommend that the issue be addressed in a timely manner.