Quote:
Originally Posted by suburb
|
Nice selective quoting...
Since you wanted to
bold "Estate" to emphasize your point, let me do the same -
Quote:
Originally Posted by Me&You
Source?
I know several residents of Mount Royal that have no where near 79' of frontage... I'd go so far as saying the majority of lots have a frontage of well under 79'. 
Perhaps it's that the minimal divisible width is 79', as in a lot can only be divided if it's more than 178' wide?
... |
And yep, the area defined as the "Estate" area is where several of the people I was referring to live...
Just as I thought, the minimum divisible width is 79'. From the ARP -
"Existing lots and developments which are less than the minimum requirements or greater than the maximum allowed as shown above shall be deemed conforming to the DC district. All new developments should conform to the standards of the DC district" (page 28 of the pdf)
Edit -
I'm with Polishavenger on this one... Mount Royal is a very small area in the scheme of inner-city redevelopment... There are a ton of other larger, more suitable areas that could use a "shot in the arm" of new development and density a lot more than Mount Royal. Why mess with perfectly desirable and unique area? Fill in Eau Claire, the west end, Sunalta, East Village, Vic Park / East Beltline (and, well, the entire Beltline), Mission, Erlton, Sunnyside, Hillhurst, The Bridges, and all the other areas already seeing
some dense redevelopment and infill. Once that's done, then maybe it will be time to look at doing something with the zoning in Mount Royal, but until then, we have more than enough space that could use, and actually wants, the attention of developers.