Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 592

Thread: Edmonton infill developers launch new league to encourage good design

  1. #101
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,343

    Default

    Asking price of infill lots in Alberta Avenue continues to rise. Now asking over $180k for a graded infill lot

    Price Change. $183,750 11710 92 ST
    0 Bedrooms, Status: Active. Residential


    Demand for infill lots in the area continues to be very strong.

    This infill lot in has a knock down on it, sold in 4 days for $150k

    Status Change $169,900/$150,000 11626 89 ST
    1 Bedrooms, Status: Sold. Residential


    This infill lot in adjacent Spruce Avenue with a knock down on it sold in 10 days for $192k

    Status Change $189,000/$192,000 11303 101 ST
    1 Bedrooms, Status: Sold. Residential
    Last edited by 240GLT; 15-04-2014 at 08:41 AM.

  2. #102

    Default

    Those are impressive prices!! Glad to see so many families moving into the city!

    I was driving down 107a ave and seen an infill approx 108 and 94street I looped down 92street and seen 6 very small children with their mothers on an outing.

    Great to seen positive growth for our inner city

  3. #103
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,363

    Default

    Sunshine rights are a shadowy proposition, say architects

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Sunsh...298/story.html
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  4. #104
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,995

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Text amendment bylaw for Height, Grade, Storey is not going to Council March 10 as originally planned, likely post the Infill Action Plan now... so potentially Fall 14.
    Here is the draft amendment.
    http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...and-grade.aspx

    Looking for a vote in Sept/Oct this year.

  5. #105
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,363

    Default

    Yup... many people circulating this today, thanks.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  6. #106
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,363

    Default

    REMINDER - IDEA's AGM is tonight

    530 doors, 6pm start @ 10042 - 103st (DECL Community Hall)

    http://infilledmonton.ca
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  7. #107
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,995

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Text amendment bylaw for Height, Grade, Storey is not going to Council March 10 as originally planned, likely post the Infill Action Plan now... so potentially Fall 14.
    Here is the draft amendment.
    http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...and-grade.aspx

    Looking for a vote in Sept/Oct this year.
    I looked through the details and drawings that accompany this amendment. It still seems that some roof styles are penalized over others. And it doesn't appear to be an increase of XXm across the board, it's still dependent on roof style.
    http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...52_2014-05.pdf
    In particular section 4.c.
    Shed and butterfly roofs only get 1m extra over the 8.6m allowed in the MNO. Whereas gable or hip roofs get anywhere from 0.6-2.4m extra in height depending on pitch. But if it's a flat roof, or any style of roof with pitch of 2/12 or less, you get a whopping 2.5m extra in height. The same seems to apply to garages, with the allowed height being less (is it 3.7m or 4.3m?)

  8. #108
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,363

    Default

    Infill roadmap

    http://edmonton.ca/city_government/d...ll_Roadmap.pdf

    City hall expects $3B bill for new Edmonton neighbourhoods, makes plans for more infill housing


    BY ELISE STOLTE, EDMONTON JOURNAL

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...588/story.html
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  9. #109

    Default

    Give me a roof deck and I'd infill in a second, that is if I had 600k. I'd bribe everyone on city council I. Order to put roof decks in the blatchford town houses.

  10. #110
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,363

    Default

    Councillor wants density debate to include all single-family neighbourhoods


    BY ELISE STOLTE, EDMONTON JOURNAL AUGUST 8, 2014

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...717/story.html

    Well said Chris.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  11. #111

    Default

    ^yip, I think the simple answer is to keep RF1 zone, but change it, so that's its identical to RF3 zone. Here's my suggested legislation, no need for tons df study or research, lol:

    "Rf1 zone shall have the same conditions as the RF3 zone described in section..."

    Odd to see an NDP MLA criticizing such a move in the article, so much for supporting the working classes, seems he is more obsessed with single family home owners. Only issue will then be covenant communities.

  12. #112
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,669

    Default

    How about seeing what the owners of the RF1 properties think and just do what the majority want?

  13. #113
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny199r View Post
    Give me a roof deck and I'd infill in a second, that is if I had 600k. I'd bribe everyone on city council I. Order to put roof decks in the blatchford town houses.
    You can have roof decks. There's a neat place just off Whyte (81 Ave) and 95 st (behind the fire hall) that has a 1/2 storey with a roof deck. Looks really neat.
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  14. #114

    Default

    Walters' use of the word entitlement (twice!) is particularly savvy given our current provincial political climate. Giddy-up.

  15. #115
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,363
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  16. #116
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,363
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  17. #117
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,363
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  18. #118
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    YEG: Alberta Avenue, Boyle Street, McCauley | YLW: Shannon Lake | PHX: San Tan Valley
    Posts
    810

    Default

    Wow - way to go Alberta Ave!

  19. #119
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,995

    Default

    How many hectares are there in the mature areas (not including the core)? How many people can be accommodated in these areas if the density is increased from the current 54 people per hectare to the 85 people per hectare that is happening in developing areas? 100,000 people? 200,000?

  20. #120
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,363

    Default

    Community leagues want not-for-profit developer

    Such agencies build infill on problem sites

    BY ELISE STOLTE, EDMONTON JOURNAL

    EDMONTON - Certain corners of this city have been derelict for years. The neighbourhood of Ritchie has one of them, an intersection with two abandoned gas stations and a strip mall that could use a healthy dose of tender loving care.

    It’s a problem that won’t be fixed by one more round of optimistic policy changes and a few zoning tweaks, says Allan Bolstad, former city councillor and current head of the Edmonton Federation for Community Leagues.

    With city council gearing up for debate on the city’s infill roadmap Tuesday, Bolstad and the leagues voted to push for a new approach. They want the city to set up a neighbourhood redevelopment agency, a not-for-profit with enough capital and know-how to take on tricky development projects and catalyze investment in struggling neighbourhoods.

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...971/story.html
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  21. #121
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,592

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Community leagues want not-for-profit developer

    Such agencies build infill on problem sites

    BY ELISE STOLTE, EDMONTON JOURNAL

    EDMONTON - Certain corners of this city have been derelict for years. The neighbourhood of Ritchie has one of them, an intersection with two abandoned gas stations and a strip mall that could use a healthy dose of tender loving care.

    It’s a problem that won’t be fixed by one more round of optimistic policy changes and a few zoning tweaks, says Allan Bolstad, former city councillor and current head of the Edmonton Federation for Community Leagues.

    With city council gearing up for debate on the city’s infill roadmap Tuesday, Bolstad and the leagues voted to push for a new approach. They want the city to set up a neighbourhood redevelopment agency, a not-for-profit with enough capital and know-how to take on tricky development projects and catalyze investment in struggling neighbourhoods.

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...971/story.html
    i'm not sure this wouldn't just put us further in debt without creating what we would like to see created

    don't forget that part of the problem with city-owned sites such as station pointe is not just no take up by developers. part of it is how much the city wants for the land.

    instead of creating an entirely new entity - anyone tried to hire any capable people in the industry lately? - if we're prepared to subsidize infill development on city land, why not just give the land away with a suitable discount based on the product you want to see built?

    and part of the problem with non-city owned sites - which the above wouldn't address - is that they are non-city owned sites.

    the assumption that the city could set up a successful development company from scratch with the knowledge and expertise needed to deliver the kind of product being talked about on a competitive and economical basis within municipal salary guidelines etc. is about as high as my having a winning lottery ticket for this friday.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  22. #122
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,343

    Default

    Some better looking infill coming to Parkdale and area



    Interesting to read the comments coming out of the committee meeting today. Lots of support for infill development overall, but how many of these developers actually do infill properly, considerately and in an open and transparent fashion ? Up until now, infill developers have shown that there is still more work to do in those regards

  23. #123

    Default

    "So many people were excited for this suite and for what it would have brought to this community. In the end my plan for the function of this suite would not be there and I cancelled it and am building just a regular double garage."

    http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/201...suite-attempt/
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  24. #124
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,343

    Default

    Yet a garage suite went in on 86st and 116ave with no issues at all

    We need to look at the zoning parameters, have them make sense and force developers to abide by them

    But they need to make sense

  25. #125

    Default

    A developer recently bought 2 lots side by side in Malmo Plains and has put in an application to build 1 massive house spanning both lots. Would this be considered an Infill?

    I was listening to the CBC News report this morning about a woman in Capilano talking about plans to build a hotel style building near one of the historical houses in Capilano.

  26. #126

    Default

    ^One very similar in King Edward with internal stair, seprate pad next to main res. driveway and obviously a seprate mech. room... but the internal stair is ridiculous, wastes space for both the residence and the driveway... and as far as a yard goes there is none, but the family uses the front as a backyard, which I think makes more sense... But the debate is interesting. Garage, no driveway to save space? Pad for suite residence or merely the plethora of street parking? Allowance for yard space for suite and home independently? The woman in the blog points out a serious grey area, and if the rules were loosened we'd have more builds, I believe. Vancouver and Victoria have some great examples of alley accessed homes, utilizing a huge and underused piece of infrastructure.
    Live and love... your neighbourhood.

  27. #127
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Is an interior stair such a waste of space? I'm intending to build with an interior stair just for winter safety and convenience. I have room for it (a 600ft^2 garage plus setbacks from the property line is 1/4 of my back yard) but as I see it, whether it's inside or out, the space the stairs take is space that's not usable yard space.

  28. #128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    "So many people were excited for this suite and for what it would have brought to this community. In the end my plan for the function of this suite would not be there and I cancelled it and am building just a regular double garage."

    http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/201...suite-attempt/
    This lot is extremely short, I've been in the house in question and it is very vice. There is hardly room for the 20x20 garage

  29. #129
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,363
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  30. #130

    Default

    Yay. RF3 everywhere would be the only answer to bringing down the cost of infill. Right now it's ridiculously expensive.
    Fixed*
    Last edited by Johnny199r; 19-08-2014 at 11:03 PM.

  31. #131
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,363

    Default

    3...
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  32. #132
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    ^^^ Sweet! This is excellent news.

  33. #133
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,343

    Default

    Yes- To neighborhood specific guidelines

    Yes- To better enforcement of unapproved variances to building permits

    Yes- To developers taking much more care, responsibility and ownership of infill projects


    The only concerning part for me was the fact that very few actual, experienced developers spoke to these changes. Most of the developers who spoke are purely amateurs. I would have like to have seen a better perspective from developers who have walked the walk, not just talked the talk

  34. #134
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,363

    Default

    ^sure, but many of those developers also either don't do infill or have done some of the poorer examples, but I get what you are saying. Keep in mind that IDEA speakers and some of the developers also had MUCH input from some of the more experienced developers who could not make it.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  35. #135

    Default

    Kaloo Kalay! Edmonton has joined the modern age. Bring on the mid block laneway suite. Can't wait to ditch my backyard in favour a place for the grandparents.

    As an aside, any of the old timers here remember a program whereby the province would provide residents with a trailer/RV type thing to park in your backyard where your aging parents could live while you provided some care. My neighbour swears she remembers this program.

  36. #136
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,995

    Default

    I think this is great. Opening up of the garage and garden suites location should make a difference. There's really none of these in the city.

    The other changes are good and will certainly encourage infill. But I think people need to be realistic about what homes are going to cost. Increased lot selection and competition may help, but if you want quality finishes (inside and out), you're not going to get it for 250 or 300K.
    Assuming a mid level neighbourhood, 1050 sq ft rowhouse on a corner lot (triplex). Nice finishes probably end up around 180/sq ft. Add 50K/door for developer profit. And 300K for the lot. Realtor fees and taxes and you're looking at $350K minimum.

    I think you'll see stratification of infill depending on neighbourhoods. Less desireable neighbourhoods will see the vinyl boxes, mid level will see small but nice finishes, and the nicer neighbourhoods will see fancy, large semis. Developers that try and force vinyl boxes in high end locations will be shunned and harassed and those that try and put super fancy places up in less desireable locations will lose money.

  37. #137
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,567

    Default

    We had a wider-than-usual lot (50', I believe) in Strathcona (normally 33' in my area) sell a few years ago and a duplex was built on it. Each side sold for about $600k, so it certainly wasn't cheap.

    A neighbour a few doors down is building a garage suite on a corner lot. He had to go to SADB for approval since the lots here are too small for a garage suite. It's a modern house with a flat roof, so the garage will be 2-storey with a flat room as well, allowing for enough room upstairs for a small suite. He's also putting in a car lift to provide more parking (you need 3 spots for house with a secondary/garage suite), and while the city didn't acknowledge the car lift as being a spot, the SADB did (which I agree with).
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  38. #138
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    That 3rd spot is an unnecessary requirement that should go. There are people all over with only one spot for a house, and who use the street. It works.

  39. #139

    Default

    ^While $600k isn't cheap, a similar single-family on the same lot would have retailed for around $800-$1m. So it's all relative.

    All around a great step forward for Edmonton yesterday. Will encourage developers or new players in the fields to get more serious about infill in Edmonton. As there is more attention on it, I think we will see the quality of the products offered go up. There will always be a range, just as there is in the suburbs.
    www.decl.org

  40. #140
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,363

    Default

    Exactly...

    We need more options with more types of dwellings in more areas, simple as that.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  41. #141

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    That 3rd spot is an unnecessary requirement that should go. There are people all over with only one spot for a house, and who use the street. It works.
    Bingo. What's the likelihood?

  42. #142
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,669

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    That 3rd spot is an unnecessary requirement that should go. There are people all over with only one spot for a house, and who use the street. It works.
    Disagree. If you are adding an additional living unit to a lot you should provide available parking for it. The city doesn't owe anyone parking spots.

  43. #143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    A neighbour a few doors down is building a garage suite on a corner lot. He had to go to SADB for approval since the lots here are too small for a garage suite. It's a modern house with a flat roof, so the garage will be 2-storey with a flat room as well, allowing for enough room upstairs for a small suite. He's also putting in a car lift to provide more parking (you need 3 spots for house with a secondary/garage suite), and while the city didn't acknowledge the car lift as being a spot, the SADB did (which I agree with).
    Sweet. I've been thinking about a lift myself & glad to know I won't be treading into undiscovered country with the SDAB.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  44. #144
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    2,214

    Default

    Yeah I'm torn on that parking one. Street parking shouldn't be a guarantee or be considered a given. What if one day the parking is removed for a bike lane?

  45. #145
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    1. Many people in the more central neighbourhoods where suites are more common do not have multiple vehicles.

    2. Many suite renters will take transit and will not have vehicles.

    3. All across the city homeowners fill their garages with other stuff to the point that they are useless for car storage. I'm OK with that, but it does make a mockery of the idea that having a requirement will make a significant difference to street parking.

    4. The City does not require any other specific storage, why for cars?

    5. The city does not have the responsibility to provide parking. Absolutely. But right now it does, and if sometime in the future it stops the burden will be borne by those who don't have as much parking as they have cars. There's no downside for the City.

    6. The whole point of this exercise is to provide more homes for people, in areas that already have service for people, at affordable prices. Parking requirements will sometimes get in the way of that goal, and when it does I think it's important to ask whether we think it's more important to provide homes for people or for cars.

  46. #146
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,363

    Default

    Not to mention that similar to most things, if you make something harder ie. finding parking or providing parking, people might just consider alternatives such as and dare a say walking, biking, transit or car-sharing.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  47. #147

    Default

    If someone wants to limit themselves to tenants that are OK with not having parking, why the heck not?

    I'll be far more likely to rent to a non-driver, even if the City insists that I have to have a stall for them.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  48. #148
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    While I'll have 3 stalls I most likely won't make one available to a tenant. I'll have a car in one, bikes in another and an RV parked in a third.

    There is more than enough street parking on my block even with parking only on one side of the street - and one of the few residents who regularly parks on the street is a single occupant who has a 3-car garage and a 3-car pad.

  49. #149
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,669

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Johnny199r View Post
    Yay. RF3 everywhere would be the only answer to bringing down the cost of infill. Right now it's ridiculously expensive.
    Fixed*
    I don't think it will bring down the cost of infill.

  50. #150
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    YEG: Alberta Avenue, Boyle Street, McCauley | YLW: Shannon Lake | PHX: San Tan Valley
    Posts
    810

    Default

    ^

    I agree. It will just make it easier for people to build in the community that they want, making infill more attractive to more people.

    Some of the most affordable infill neighborhoods are already zoned RF3. Why do you think Alberta Avenue is the most popular infill neighborhood?

    The elephant in the room is that infill is and always will be an expensive activity. My opinion is something big needs to happen in regards to how the city taxes mature neighborhoods vs the suburbs - make it more expensive to choose a suburban lifestyle - make people think twice so they actually park their car and walk around a mature area and picture themselves living there. Pointing out the long term financial benefits of public transit and easy access to amenities only goes so far in a car dependent city like Edmonton. The people that "get it" are already doing it.

    Maybe something as simple as decreasing the taxes in mature neighborhoods by 25%, while concurrently increasing the taxes of new neighborhoods by 25%. Or perhaps do a 2 year city program like Cornerstones where the city rebates you for the cost of a demolition of an existing property up to a value of $7,500 after your infill is complete?
    Last edited by Downtown; 20-08-2014 at 05:46 PM.

  51. #151
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,592

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Downtown View Post
    ^

    I agree. It will just make it easier for people to build in the community that they want, making infill more attractive to more people.

    Some of the most affordable infill neighborhoods are already zoned RF3. Why do you think Alberta Avenue is the most popular infill neighborhood?

    The elephant in the room is that infill is and always will be an expensive activity. My opinion is something big needs to happen in regards to how the city taxes mature neighborhoods vs the suburbs - make it more expensive to choose a suburban lifestyle - make people think twice so they actually park their car and walk around a mature area and picture themselves living there. Pointing out the long term financial benefits of public transit and easy access to amenities only goes so far in a car dependent city like Edmonton.
    so if you work at the mall or misericordia hospital and want to live in lewis estates should you pay more than if you live in la perle or westmount?

    if you work at the edmonton research park or grey nuns and live in tamarack should you pay more than if you live in jackson heights or forest heights?

    if you live in cameron heights and work at the airport or nisku, should you pay more than if you live in garneau?

    if you live downtown and drive to fort saskatchewan, should you pay less than if you live in miller or cy becker?

    making sustainable choices is not simply about location. it's also a function of densities and destinations and travel options. it is a complex issue and simple solutions like the one you put forward won't tame the elephant.

    residential infill on its own won't solve some of the historical neighborhood problems and neither will inequitable taxation. you could triple the density of capilano as an example, but on its own that will still not make it a more urban neighborhood in the sense that you want it to be. because other than increasing the density - which is more readily achieved in new neighborhoods than it is with infill in existing ones - there are still not enough destinations within walking distance for it not to be the same suburban community it was when it was developed a half century ago.

    the difference between urban and suburban is not defined solely by zoning and distance from the core. it is defined by the type of lifestyle it can support regardless of where it is located.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  52. #152
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    YEG: Alberta Avenue, Boyle Street, McCauley | YLW: Shannon Lake | PHX: San Tan Valley
    Posts
    810

    Default

    Some very good points, but I think regardless of where you work, live or commute to, you should pay for infrastructure costs for your neighborhood. Perhaps adopting a sliding scale approach to taxation in relation to the age of the area and perceived pay back for initial infrastructure costs.

  53. #153
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,300

    Default

    Increasing the taxes on existing lots is going to do nothing but make people angry. If you're going to increase taxes on suburban developments, it would have to be a new tax on development yet to be built, so that it would become more attractive for a developer to build infill

  54. #154
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,592

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Downtown View Post
    Some very good points, but I think regardless of where you work, live or commute to, you should pay for infrastructure costs for your neighborhood. Perhaps adopting a sliding scale approach to taxation in relation to the age of the area and perceived pay back for initial infrastructure costs.
    so should downtown and the north edge pay for the arena while garneau and rossdale split the cost of replacing the walterdale bridge?

    should the quarters pay for all of its new infrastructure and louise mckinney park?

    there is a sliding scale already where commercial property pays two and a half times what residential pays. and regardless of whether it's from new or old suburbs, edmonton residents pay property taxes forever and the city happily takes it with no real regard to the cost of servicing or providing and maintaining services. and you need to look past just roads to the provision of things like water and sewage treatment where some of the newer neighborhoods are closer to and better connected to those plants - and more efficient - than much of the inner city.

    as previously noted it's just not as simple or as black and white as you're presenting.
    Last edited by kcantor; 20-08-2014 at 06:42 PM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  55. #155

    Thumbs up

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Downtown View Post
    ^

    I agree. It will just make it easier for people to build in the community that they want, making infill more attractive to more people.

    Some of the most affordable infill neighborhoods are already zoned RF3. Why do you think Alberta Avenue is the most popular infill neighborhood?

    The elephant in the room is that infill is and always will be an expensive activity. My opinion is something big needs to happen in regards to how the city taxes mature neighborhoods vs the suburbs - make it more expensive to choose a suburban lifestyle - make people think twice so they actually park their car and walk around a mature area and picture themselves living there. Pointing out the long term financial benefits of public transit and easy access to amenities only goes so far in a car dependent city like Edmonton.
    so if you work at the mall or misericordia hospital and want to live in lewis estates should you pay more than if you live in la perle or westmount?

    if you work at the edmonton research park or grey nuns and live in tamarack should you pay more than if you live in jackson heights or forest heights?

    if you live in cameron heights and work at the airport or nisku, should you pay more than if you live in garneau?

    if you live downtown and drive to fort saskatchewan, should you pay less than if you live in miller or cy becker?

    making sustainable choices is not simply about location. it's also a function of densities and destinations and travel options. it is a complex issue and simple solutions like the one you put forward won't tame the elephant.

    residential infill on its own won't solve some of the historical neighborhood problems and neither will inequitable taxation. you could triple the density of capilano as an example, but on its own that will still not make it a more urban neighborhood in the sense that you want it to be. because other than increasing the density - which is more readily achieved in new neighborhoods than it is with infill in existing ones - there are still not enough destinations within walking distance for it not to be the same suburban community it was when it was developed a half century ago.

    the difference between urban and suburban is not defined solely by zoning and distance from the core. it is defined by the type of lifestyle it can support regardless of where it is located.
    I agree. Increasing density won't make a community more urban. I like urban living because I can walk to work, to the store, to restaurants, use my bicycle to go places etc. many core communities in Edmonton don't really offer that function. For instance, living in Riverdale, tough to walk anywhere. So close to downtown, but nothing in your neighbourhood besides houses, no public transportation.

  56. #156
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2013
    Location
    I don't even know anymore :/
    Posts
    1,300

    Default

    The hope is with increased density comes increased public transport as it becomes more feasible with a larger population in a smaller area. The reason places like river Dale aren't walkable is that there just isn't enough people there to support local businesses and shops.

  57. #157
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    12,592

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seamusmcduffs View Post
    The hope is with increased density comes increased public transport as it becomes more feasible with a larger population in a smaller area. The reason places like river Dale aren't walkable is that there just isn't enough people there to support local businesses and shops.
    it's more than "there just isn't enough people" in riverdale but that's a different discussion. despite that, for much of the dale downtown and the quarters and east jasper are all reasonably close to walk to as is forest heights for that matter. the issue for the dale is probably more geography up and down the escarpment than anything else when it comes to shopping. as for recreation there are lots of us that walk to our community recreation spaces and louise mckinney or to downtown for entertainment as well as work.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  58. #158
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,567

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    That 3rd spot is an unnecessary requirement that should go. There are people all over with only one spot for a house, and who use the street. It works.
    We're extremely constrained for on-street parking on my street, so I disagree that the third spot requirement should go. The lot I mentioned with the new duplex has contributed significantly to the parking problems; the single house on the lot had an older lady with a single vehicle that parked in the garage. Now there's a duplex on the lot with 2, double garages that are filled with the owners 2 cars each, but there's also basement suites in each duplex with 2 cars each that now park on the street (I have no idea how they got this passed without the extra parking). So we went from 1 car in a garage to 4 cars in the garages and 4 cars on the street.

    Besides the person building a garage suite we also have someone who built a garage closer to the house to provide 2 tandem parking spots behind the garage, and someone else who put in a second garage door to allow a car to drive through the garage and park in the back yard. There are various ways that adequate parking can be provided on your property without trying to claim public land for private use.

    Of course the on-street parking depends on the neighbourhood. Strathcona is tight for parking space, while other neighbourhoods may have tons of it (right now).
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  59. #159

    Default

    Some areas like riverde should be kept as a suburb. Increasing density some is great, but at the same time historic neighborhoods were designed to be single family locations and maybe should be kept intact closely as such.

    Who would advocate losing nice beautiful residences in glenora because the lot is big enoung to be chopped in 4 pieces?

  60. #160
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,995

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    The lot I mentioned with the new duplex has contributed significantly to the parking problems; the single house on the lot had an older lady with a single vehicle that parked in the garage. Now there's a duplex on the lot with 2, double garages that are filled with the owners 2 cars each, but there's also basement suites in each duplex with 2 cars each that now park on the street (I have no idea how they got this passed without the extra parking). So we went from 1 car in a garage to 4 cars in the garages and 4 cars on the street.
    I didn't think secondary suites were allowed in semis?

  61. #161
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,567

    Default

    Beats me, I can only tell you what's there; it's a duplex with rental suites in the basement.
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  62. #162

    Default

    Fun fact: You can fit a duplex with 2 basement suites on a lot far easier than a duplex with a single secondary suite, thanks to how the zoning is written.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  63. #163
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,995

    Default

    I think you can't have secondary suites in basements of semi-detached homes, but maybe in duplexes it's allowed. Some minor difference that common sense forgot. As of a couple years ago at least, maybe they've changed that.

  64. #164
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,343

    Default

    It all depends on the zoning

  65. #165

    Default

    ^^My basic understanding is it typically isn't allowed, but that it is still very common.

  66. #166
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,995

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by IanO View Post
    Text amendment bylaw for Height, Grade, Storey is not going to Council March 10 as originally planned, likely post the Infill Action Plan now... so potentially Fall 14.
    Here is the draft amendment.
    http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...and-grade.aspx

    Looking for a vote in Sept/Oct this year.
    I looked through the details and drawings that accompany this amendment. It still seems that some roof styles are penalized over others. And it doesn't appear to be an increase of XXm across the board, it's still dependent on roof style.
    http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...52_2014-05.pdf
    In particular section 4.c.
    Shed and butterfly roofs only get 1m extra over the 8.6m allowed in the MNO. Whereas gable or hip roofs get anywhere from 0.6-2.4m extra in height depending on pitch. But if it's a flat roof, or any style of roof with pitch of 2/12 or less, you get a whopping 2.5m extra in height. The same seems to apply to garages, with the allowed height being less (is it 3.7m or 4.3m?)
    Looks like this won't get voted on until Feb/Mar of 2015. I don't know if that's a final vote or if it has to go back again after that.
    Either way, I could use that extra 1m as I'll be applying for permits on our infill in Dec.

  67. #167
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,363

    Default

    Infill - evolution or revolution

    Change is happening in Edmonton’s mature neighbourhoods, as older houses come down and new ones go up. Is such change happening fast enough, or too fast? Are city builders keeping up with Edmonton’s growing population, or is there more work that could be done to add density to established neighbourhoods?

    http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/201...-or-evolution/
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  68. #168
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,995

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    Asking price of infill lots in Alberta Avenue continues to rise. Now asking over $180k for a graded infill lot

    Price Change. $183,750 11710 92 ST
    0 Bedrooms, Status: Active. Residential


    Demand for infill lots in the area continues to be very strong.
    A quarter acre (11,000sq ft) graded lot went up for sale and sold in a few hours in Holyrood this week. They asked $250K for, sold for list. I thought they could've got $350K for it, but I guess they were hard up for money. I was ready to pounce on it.

  69. #169
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    edmonton+halifax+vancouver
    Posts
    300

    Default

    I wanted to see test out the city's infill guidelines with a prototype garage suite:

    "By its nature, the metropolis provides what otherwise could be given only by traveling; namely, the strange." --J.J.

  70. #170
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,363

    Default

    Solid
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  71. #171

    Default

    Love it.
    www.decl.org

  72. #172
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Alberta Ave, McCauley, St Albert and Spruce Grove
    Posts
    96

    Default

    That is perfect!
    Luck is the collision that occurs when preparation and opportunity run into each other.

  73. #173
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,489

    Default

    Last I heard rooftop decks on garage suites were prohibited. Has that changed?

  74. #174

    Default

    Looks great, thanks for sharing. What parts of the design are testing the city's infill guidelines? Rooftop patio like T48 says?

  75. #175
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    edmonton+halifax+vancouver
    Posts
    300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    Looks great, thanks for sharing. What parts of the design are testing the city's infill guidelines? Rooftop patio like T48 says?
    There's no rooftop patio, I just tried to conform to the city's guidelines on height, window placement, access etc.
    "By its nature, the metropolis provides what otherwise could be given only by traveling; namely, the strange." --J.J.

  76. #176
    First One is Always Free
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    Alberta Ave, McCauley, St Albert and Spruce Grove
    Posts
    96

    Default

    I am curious as to what $$$ something like that could be built for. It is awesome!
    Luck is the collision that occurs when preparation and opportunity run into each other.

  77. #177
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,669

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whyteknight View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    Looks great, thanks for sharing. What parts of the design are testing the city's infill guidelines? Rooftop patio like T48 says?
    There's no rooftop patio, I just tried to conform to the city's guidelines on height, window placement, access etc.
    Does that also mean that the lot you would be proposing a garage suite like this is 15 meters wide?

  78. #178
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,995

    Default

    Kind of short on windows. The finishes and look are decent from the alley side, but I'm more concerned about what is looks like from the house side. Who wants to stare at a big tall wall. Likely with few windows for privacy?

  79. #179
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,489

    Default

    ^Agreed. Also, why not a pitched roof? Only good reason for a flat roof is to accommodate outdoor living space IMHO.

  80. #180
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    edmonton+halifax+vancouver
    Posts
    300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    ^Agreed. Also, why not a pitched roof? Only good reason for a flat roof is to accommodate outdoor living space IMHO.
    The flat roof and minimal aesthetic on the garage suites set up a new architectural language for the lane. They are a expression of the evolution of our mature neighbourhoods. I've also been working on a pitched roof option but again, a far more simplified form than a typical pitched roof house.

    Last edited by whyteknight; 14-10-2014 at 02:21 PM.
    "By its nature, the metropolis provides what otherwise could be given only by traveling; namely, the strange." --J.J.

  81. #181
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,363

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    ^Agreed. Also, why not a pitched roof? Only good reason for a flat roof is to accommodate outdoor living space IMHO.
    Also to get around max height and or other zoning issues to ensure usable space on the second floor.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  82. #182
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    edmonton+halifax+vancouver
    Posts
    300

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    Kind of short on windows. The finishes and look are decent from the alley side, but I'm more concerned about what is looks like from the house side. Who wants to stare at a big tall wall. Likely with few windows for privacy?
    Hopefully this will give you a better idea:





    "By its nature, the metropolis provides what otherwise could be given only by traveling; namely, the strange." --J.J.

  83. #183
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,567

    Default

    Don't forget your third parking spot for the suite...
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  84. #184

    Default

    Gotta love that you've gotta have a parking spot for a suite, but there's nothing saying you have to include said parking stall when you rent out your suite...
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  85. #185
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    7,711

    Default

    ^It's a stupid requirement….

  86. #186
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,363

    Default

    Or ask for a variance, especially if you are near major transit routes or LRT.

    But yes, stupid.
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  87. #187

    Default

    It sucks that common sense is only applicable after the payment of additional fees.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  88. #188
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,669

    Default

    The zoning requirements for a garage suite seem very restrictive and not that old. It looks like you will have to get a variance and that adds risk to trying to do garage suites.

  89. #189
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    48,363

    Default

    Correct, we need to change zoning...
    www.decl.org

    Ottawa-Edmonton-Vancouver-Edmonton

  90. #190

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD View Post
    ^It's a stupid requirement….
    Or, from my perspective, it's a stupid design.

    The lot is 40' wide as shown. It's easy to fit a 32' triple garage and still have the needed 4' side yard on each side. At 32' width, and probably 22' deep, the 2nd level garage suite would then be 704 sf. Right on the mark of the 700 sf limit.

    A tandem back lane garage??? OMG. How would you ever get the inside car out, when you are not supposed to street-park on the lane?

  91. #191
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Most people use at least half their official car-storage space for uses other than car-storage. It's perfect for storage/workshop/bike garage space. 30' is short for a tandem, though.

    The garage/suite I'm building is big enough to be a triple, but it'll be an over-length double.


    -There's a new garage suite on a corner lot by Eastglen Pool that looks a lot like a minimalist/discount version of WhyteKnight's peaked version. Very plain, very tall and very ugly, but at least it matches the (also new) house.

  92. #192
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,669

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eons View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD View Post
    ^It's a stupid requirement….
    Or, from my perspective, it's a stupid design.

    The lot is 40' wide as shown. It's easy to fit a 32' triple garage and still have the needed 4' side yard on each side. At 32' width, and probably 22' deep, the 2nd level garage suite would then be 704 sf. Right on the mark of the 700 sf limit.

    A tandem back lane garage??? OMG. How would you ever get the inside car out, when you are not supposed to street-park on the lane?
    Where did you get 700 square feet from? From what I was reading a garden suite can be a maximum 60 square meters (645 sq. ft.). Also, the yard borders a street so he doesn't have four feet on either side. The one side has to be 4.5 meters or 20% of the lot width, whichever is less. Am I reading the wrong zoning bylaws?

  93. #193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by whyteknight View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    ^Agreed. Also, why not a pitched roof? Only good reason for a flat roof is to accommodate outdoor living space IMHO.
    The flat roof and minimal aesthetic on the garage suites set up a new architectural language for the lane. They are a expression of the evolution of our mature neighbourhoods. I've also been working on a pitched roof option but again, a far more simplified form than a typical pitched roof house.

    I like the flat one better. What are the rules around eaves and drainage? I also wouldn't park my car next to this unless I liked having it smashed by sliding snow/ice in the winter.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  94. #194

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by eons View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD View Post
    ^It's a stupid requirement….
    Or, from my perspective, it's a stupid design.

    The lot is 40' wide as shown. It's easy to fit a 32' triple garage and still have the needed 4' side yard on each side. At 32' width, and probably 22' deep, the 2nd level garage suite would then be 704 sf. Right on the mark of the 700 sf limit.

    A tandem back lane garage??? OMG. How would you ever get the inside car out, when you are not supposed to street-park on the lane?
    Where did you get 700 square feet from? From what I was reading a garden suite can be a maximum 60 square meters (645 sq. ft.). Also, the yard borders a street so he doesn't have four feet on either side. The one side has to be 4.5 meters or 20% of the lot width, whichever is less. Am I reading the wrong zoning bylaws?
    The exact wording is "60 square meters (645.84 square feet). May be increased by up to 7.5 square meters only where additional amount is used for a platform structure associated with the Suite."

    You need a landing area for the stairs.

    As per side yard, I am only using the same side yard as it's illustrated on the diagram. Note that the street is to the right hand side of the garage, and there is exactly 4' left between the garage wall and where the 40' starts.

  95. #195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by whyteknight View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    ^Agreed. Also, why not a pitched roof? Only good reason for a flat roof is to accommodate outdoor living space IMHO.
    The flat roof and minimal aesthetic on the garage suites set up a new architectural language for the lane. They are a expression of the evolution of our mature neighbourhoods. I've also been working on a pitched roof option but again, a far more simplified form than a typical pitched roof house.

    I like the flat one better. What are the rules around eaves and drainage? I also wouldn't park my car next to this unless I liked having it smashed by sliding snow/ice in the winter.

    People who advocate for post modern design and flat roof frequently copy/paste designs for Arizona and don't understand that it snows in Alberta.

  96. #196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Most people use at least half their official car-storage space for uses other than car-storage. It's perfect for storage/workshop/bike garage space. 30' is short for a tandem, though.

    The garage/suite I'm building is big enough to be a triple, but it'll be an over-length double.


    -There's a new garage suite on a corner lot by Eastglen Pool that looks a lot like a minimalist/discount version of WhyteKnight's peaked version. Very plain, very tall and very ugly, but at least it matches the (also new) house.
    Well, the owner has the right to decide how it's used. He can park three cars there or none. But from a design perspective, it's stupid to have a single garage door on a 40' lot.

    Some say "form follows function". Some say "form and function are one". In this case, since the function is poorly designed, I can only conclude that the form is also poor.

  97. #197

    Default

    Flat roofs= leaky rooms

    More costly in the long run and 7/10 times on an older infill project the house is going to have a mininum 6/12 pitch and not always running the shortest distance; Damn shingles are expensive!

  98. #198
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,669

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by eons View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by eons View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD View Post
    ^It's a stupid requirement….
    Or, from my perspective, it's a stupid design.

    The lot is 40' wide as shown. It's easy to fit a 32' triple garage and still have the needed 4' side yard on each side. At 32' width, and probably 22' deep, the 2nd level garage suite would then be 704 sf. Right on the mark of the 700 sf limit.

    A tandem back lane garage??? OMG. How would you ever get the inside car out, when you are not supposed to street-park on the lane?
    Where did you get 700 square feet from? From what I was reading a garden suite can be a maximum 60 square meters (645 sq. ft.). Also, the yard borders a street so he doesn't have four feet on either side. The one side has to be 4.5 meters or 20% of the lot width, whichever is less. Am I reading the wrong zoning bylaws?
    The exact wording is "60 square meters (645.84 square feet). May be increased by up to 7.5 square meters only where additional amount is used for a platform structure associated with the Suite."

    You need a landing area for the stairs.

    As per side yard, I am only using the same side yard as it's illustrated on the diagram. Note that the street is to the right hand side of the garage, and there is exactly 4' left between the garage wall and where the 40' starts.
    A forty foot lot needs a variance to have a garage suite. This lot is a corner lot and you need 12 feet of setback space which leaves 28 feet so you cannot fit a 32 foot wide garage on the lot.

    If you look at the requirements from the city it seems they don't really want people building these things. They certainly don't want them to have flat roofs with a height allowance of only 18 feet. It is too bad because I think it would be better for the residents of the house and the suite to be in different buildings on a lot instead of having people living up and down from each other.

  99. #199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by eons View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by eons View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisD View Post
    ^It's a stupid requirement….
    Or, from my perspective, it's a stupid design.

    The lot is 40' wide as shown. It's easy to fit a 32' triple garage and still have the needed 4' side yard on each side. At 32' width, and probably 22' deep, the 2nd level garage suite would then be 704 sf. Right on the mark of the 700 sf limit.

    A tandem back lane garage??? OMG. How would you ever get the inside car out, when you are not supposed to street-park on the lane?
    Where did you get 700 square feet from? From what I was reading a garden suite can be a maximum 60 square meters (645 sq. ft.). Also, the yard borders a street so he doesn't have four feet on either side. The one side has to be 4.5 meters or 20% of the lot width, whichever is less. Am I reading the wrong zoning bylaws?
    The exact wording is "60 square meters (645.84 square feet). May be increased by up to 7.5 square meters only where additional amount is used for a platform structure associated with the Suite."

    You need a landing area for the stairs.

    As per side yard, I am only using the same side yard as it's illustrated on the diagram. Note that the street is to the right hand side of the garage, and there is exactly 4' left between the garage wall and where the 40' starts.
    A forty foot lot needs a variance to have a garage suite. This lot is a corner lot and you need 12 feet of setback space which leaves 28 feet so you cannot fit a 32 foot wide garage on the lot.

    If you look at the requirements from the city it seems they don't really want people building these things. They certainly don't want them to have flat roofs with a height allowance of only 18 feet. It is too bad because I think it would be better for the residents of the house and the suite to be in different buildings on a lot instead of having people living up and down from each other.
    Please do READ.

    I am using the same side setback as the drawing is already shown. If the existing design is that way, they must have a variance approved already.

  100. #200
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,995

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    If you look at the requirements from the city it seems they don't really want people building these things. They certainly don't want them to have flat roofs with a height allowance of only 18 feet. It is too bad because I think it would be better for the residents of the house and the suite to be in different buildings on a lot instead of having people living up and down from each other.
    This seems to be the case as I think there is only a handful of legal garden and garage suites in the city. I believe the city told me there was a grand total of ONE garden suite earlier this year.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •