Following is a description of the proposed amendments.
On Monday, December 7, 2015, City Administration presented the attached draft amendments to the RF3 zone to Executive Committee. In the days leading up to Executive Committee, concerns were identified with the proposed maximum 6.0 metre front setback for Row Housing and the potential for block face misalignment in situations where the front setback of neighbouring properties is in the range of 10 – 12 metres. Planners and community representatives agree that these concerns should be addressed and worked through the weekend to develop a revised approach to the front setback, in order to ensure better outcomes.
To address the front setback concern, Executive Committee passed a motion directing Administration to pursue consultation around the alternative front setback option and prepare amendments, as generally outlined in the attached draft amendments, and return to City Council Public Hearing.
The alternative front setback approach has an aim of maintaining a functional and buildable area, while responding to the wide-ranging front setbacks found throughout the RF3 zone. The alternative front setback proposes:
- for Lots where the Front Setback on the Abutting Lot and the general context of the blockface is less than 9.0 metres, the Front Setback for Row Housing on corner lots within the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay shall be consistent within 1.5 metres of the Front Setback on the Abutting Lot and with the general context of the blockface, to a maximum Front Setback of 6.0 metres;
- for Lots where the Front Setback on the Abutting Lot and the general context of the blockface is 9.0 metres or greater, the Front Setback for Row Housing on corner lots within the Mature Neighbourhood Overlay shall be consistent within 3.0 metres of the Front Setback on the Abutting Lot and with the general context of the blockface.
- Does the alternative front setback method achieve greater responsiveness to surroundings relative to the fixed 6 metre setback?
- If Row Housing is shifted further back on a lot towards the alley, as a result of preserving large front setbacks, there are implications that include variances to the rear setback in order to achieve buildable area. Is this an acceptable tradeoff?
Feedback collected will be used to assess if further discussion is necessary, and to help inform the report and bylaw amendments presented at City Council Public Hearing.
Again, BDCL needs your emails well before December 18 if we are to include them in our response to the City. Email email@example.com.