2156-2172 W 14th Ave rezoning application

Share 2156-2172 W 14th Ave rezoning application on Facebook Share 2156-2172 W 14th Ave rezoning application on Twitter Share 2156-2172 W 14th Ave rezoning application on Linkedin Email 2156-2172 W 14th Ave rezoning application link

The City of Vancouver has received an application to rezone the subject site from RT-7 (Residential) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal is to allow for the development of an 18-storey mixed-use building and includes:

  • 170 secured rental units with 20% of the floor area secured for below market rental units;
  • 540 sq. ft. commercial retail unit on the ground floor;
  • A floor space ratio (FSR) of 5.80;
  • A building height of 59.5 m (195 ft.); and
  • 84 vehicle parking spaces and 313 bicycle spaces.

This application is being considered under the Broadway Plan.

Application drawings and statistics on this webpage are posted as-submitted to the City. Following staff review, the final project statistics are documented within the referral report.


The City of Vancouver has received an application to rezone the subject site from RT-7 (Residential) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal is to allow for the development of an 18-storey mixed-use building and includes:

  • 170 secured rental units with 20% of the floor area secured for below market rental units;
  • 540 sq. ft. commercial retail unit on the ground floor;
  • A floor space ratio (FSR) of 5.80;
  • A building height of 59.5 m (195 ft.); and
  • 84 vehicle parking spaces and 313 bicycle spaces.

This application is being considered under the Broadway Plan.

Application drawings and statistics on this webpage are posted as-submitted to the City. Following staff review, the final project statistics are documented within the referral report.


​The Q&A period has concluded. Thank you for participating.

The opportunity to ask questions through the Q&A is available from February 21 to March 5, 2024. 

We post all questions as-is and aim to respond within two business days. Some questions may require coordination with internal departments and additional time may be needed to post a response.

Please note that the comment form will remain open after the Q&A period. The Rezoning Planner can also be contacted directly for any further feedback or questions.

  • Share How is this mixed use? Is it because you have 540 sq ft of retail which is will allow 1 very small business which I doubt will be utilized. Why does the design look nothing like the area? Why does the video which is real snazzy show a building that is not proportional to the rest of the area? Why does not show the beautiful Chestnut tree canopy and a proportionate view of what an 18 story building would look like next to 3 story houses? Why do we need an 18 story building in the middle of the block? on Facebook Share How is this mixed use? Is it because you have 540 sq ft of retail which is will allow 1 very small business which I doubt will be utilized. Why does the design look nothing like the area? Why does the video which is real snazzy show a building that is not proportional to the rest of the area? Why does not show the beautiful Chestnut tree canopy and a proportionate view of what an 18 story building would look like next to 3 story houses? Why do we need an 18 story building in the middle of the block? on Twitter Share How is this mixed use? Is it because you have 540 sq ft of retail which is will allow 1 very small business which I doubt will be utilized. Why does the design look nothing like the area? Why does the video which is real snazzy show a building that is not proportional to the rest of the area? Why does not show the beautiful Chestnut tree canopy and a proportionate view of what an 18 story building would look like next to 3 story houses? Why do we need an 18 story building in the middle of the block? on Linkedin Email How is this mixed use? Is it because you have 540 sq ft of retail which is will allow 1 very small business which I doubt will be utilized. Why does the design look nothing like the area? Why does the video which is real snazzy show a building that is not proportional to the rest of the area? Why does not show the beautiful Chestnut tree canopy and a proportionate view of what an 18 story building would look like next to 3 story houses? Why do we need an 18 story building in the middle of the block? link

    How is this mixed use? Is it because you have 540 sq ft of retail which is will allow 1 very small business which I doubt will be utilized. Why does the design look nothing like the area? Why does the video which is real snazzy show a building that is not proportional to the rest of the area? Why does not show the beautiful Chestnut tree canopy and a proportionate view of what an 18 story building would look like next to 3 story houses? Why do we need an 18 story building in the middle of the block?

    Bear1962 asked 2 months ago

    Thank you for the questions. The Broadway Plan allows for modest increases in density when a local serving retail use is proposed at the ground level. The City’s Economic Development Policy team have reviewed the space and determined the size is appropriate for the location. In terms of design, the proposal will be required to meet the Plan’s built form and site design guidelines. The Broadway Plan area is a 30-year plan that supports significant change, particularly the built form. The applicant’s rendering and fly-through video shows the surrounding area’s potential future build-out condition. This condition is guided by the Broadway Plan which allows 3 to 6 storey rental apartment buildings on remaining lots within the immediate area. Additionally, for this area, the Broadway Plan only allows for two towers per block where a 150 ft. lot frontage is assembled. The rendering and flythrough video are conceptual in nature and are not required to indicate the development potential for the surrounding area. The rendering and flythrough is more intended to demonstrate the proposed building form and design.

  • Share The Broadway Plan’s (BP) direction for residential areas states: “In the existing low-density areas (RS/RT zones), diversify the housing choice with new rental apartment options while fostering a mix of building types from different periods.” This statement seems to imply that the intent of the BP is not to redevelop the entire KKSB area (west of Arbutus Street) from mainly owner-occupied homes to rental-only developments. That one would expect some of the existing homes to remain as is amongst new rental buildings. Is this correct? If yes, and notwithstanding current land values, then wouldn’t a low-rise building be more appropriate in the subject site and be better aligned with the policies of the BP, which also states that “In all instances, the overall height, density, and form of development should be sensitive to the surrounding context. This would include consideration of street character, views, shadowing, topography, access and circulation, and privacy”? Given that the BP is a 30 year plan, if towers were the first applications allowed in this area currently consisting of 2-storey homes, how would you explain that this proposal is sensitive to the surrounding context? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to limit tower developments to arterial roads such as in area KBAE and around the future Broadway/Arbutus station rather than in the middle of the block in a residential neighbourhood consisting of 2-storey homes that is located near the southern edge of the BP? on Facebook Share The Broadway Plan’s (BP) direction for residential areas states: “In the existing low-density areas (RS/RT zones), diversify the housing choice with new rental apartment options while fostering a mix of building types from different periods.” This statement seems to imply that the intent of the BP is not to redevelop the entire KKSB area (west of Arbutus Street) from mainly owner-occupied homes to rental-only developments. That one would expect some of the existing homes to remain as is amongst new rental buildings. Is this correct? If yes, and notwithstanding current land values, then wouldn’t a low-rise building be more appropriate in the subject site and be better aligned with the policies of the BP, which also states that “In all instances, the overall height, density, and form of development should be sensitive to the surrounding context. This would include consideration of street character, views, shadowing, topography, access and circulation, and privacy”? Given that the BP is a 30 year plan, if towers were the first applications allowed in this area currently consisting of 2-storey homes, how would you explain that this proposal is sensitive to the surrounding context? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to limit tower developments to arterial roads such as in area KBAE and around the future Broadway/Arbutus station rather than in the middle of the block in a residential neighbourhood consisting of 2-storey homes that is located near the southern edge of the BP? on Twitter Share The Broadway Plan’s (BP) direction for residential areas states: “In the existing low-density areas (RS/RT zones), diversify the housing choice with new rental apartment options while fostering a mix of building types from different periods.” This statement seems to imply that the intent of the BP is not to redevelop the entire KKSB area (west of Arbutus Street) from mainly owner-occupied homes to rental-only developments. That one would expect some of the existing homes to remain as is amongst new rental buildings. Is this correct? If yes, and notwithstanding current land values, then wouldn’t a low-rise building be more appropriate in the subject site and be better aligned with the policies of the BP, which also states that “In all instances, the overall height, density, and form of development should be sensitive to the surrounding context. This would include consideration of street character, views, shadowing, topography, access and circulation, and privacy”? Given that the BP is a 30 year plan, if towers were the first applications allowed in this area currently consisting of 2-storey homes, how would you explain that this proposal is sensitive to the surrounding context? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to limit tower developments to arterial roads such as in area KBAE and around the future Broadway/Arbutus station rather than in the middle of the block in a residential neighbourhood consisting of 2-storey homes that is located near the southern edge of the BP? on Linkedin Email The Broadway Plan’s (BP) direction for residential areas states: “In the existing low-density areas (RS/RT zones), diversify the housing choice with new rental apartment options while fostering a mix of building types from different periods.” This statement seems to imply that the intent of the BP is not to redevelop the entire KKSB area (west of Arbutus Street) from mainly owner-occupied homes to rental-only developments. That one would expect some of the existing homes to remain as is amongst new rental buildings. Is this correct? If yes, and notwithstanding current land values, then wouldn’t a low-rise building be more appropriate in the subject site and be better aligned with the policies of the BP, which also states that “In all instances, the overall height, density, and form of development should be sensitive to the surrounding context. This would include consideration of street character, views, shadowing, topography, access and circulation, and privacy”? Given that the BP is a 30 year plan, if towers were the first applications allowed in this area currently consisting of 2-storey homes, how would you explain that this proposal is sensitive to the surrounding context? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to limit tower developments to arterial roads such as in area KBAE and around the future Broadway/Arbutus station rather than in the middle of the block in a residential neighbourhood consisting of 2-storey homes that is located near the southern edge of the BP? link

    The Broadway Plan’s (BP) direction for residential areas states: “In the existing low-density areas (RS/RT zones), diversify the housing choice with new rental apartment options while fostering a mix of building types from different periods.” This statement seems to imply that the intent of the BP is not to redevelop the entire KKSB area (west of Arbutus Street) from mainly owner-occupied homes to rental-only developments. That one would expect some of the existing homes to remain as is amongst new rental buildings. Is this correct? If yes, and notwithstanding current land values, then wouldn’t a low-rise building be more appropriate in the subject site and be better aligned with the policies of the BP, which also states that “In all instances, the overall height, density, and form of development should be sensitive to the surrounding context. This would include consideration of street character, views, shadowing, topography, access and circulation, and privacy”? Given that the BP is a 30 year plan, if towers were the first applications allowed in this area currently consisting of 2-storey homes, how would you explain that this proposal is sensitive to the surrounding context? Wouldn’t it be more appropriate to limit tower developments to arterial roads such as in area KBAE and around the future Broadway/Arbutus station rather than in the middle of the block in a residential neighbourhood consisting of 2-storey homes that is located near the southern edge of the BP?

    jhw15 asked 2 months ago

    Thank you for your questions. I have noted my response by question theme below. 

    Housing Typology Diversity

    You are correct, there will a mix of housing forms that will include the existing detached homes. For a visualization, please review Pg. 57 of the Plan here. This development pattern could be compared to a typical block within the Fairview neighborhood. 

    Rezoning Enabling Policy

    The Broadway Plan is a rezoning enabling policy which means it allows Staff and Council to consider rezoning applications. The section from the Plan you noted; “In all instances, the overall height, density, and form of development should be sensitive to the surrounding context. This would include consideration of street character, views, shadowing, topography, access and circulation, and privacy,” refers to Plan areas where no rezoning applications are to be considered, and no redevelopment framework has been established by a Council approved policy. In this instance, the KKSB sub-area provides guidance for Council and Staff to consider rezoning applications.

    Application Intake & Phasing

    As mentioned, there is no phasing plan when it comes to implementation. This means applications can be considered within both off-arterial and on-arterial areas. 

  • Share Hi there. I had a look at the Low-Density Residential Character Area of the Broadway Plan that this site is within. Looking at page 57, even that image shows the 12-18 storey tower on the corner of the block, and notes that these towers will be placed in “strategic” locations. How is this considered a strategic location when it is directly in the middle of a residential block with a narrow street, on the same block where 18 storey towers are already proposed for the arterial Arbutus Street under KBAE? Please explain the strategy behind this. I do see another one of your Q&A responses 5 days ago, and the sole strategy seems to be due to current land values and a “significant need for housing units”. Is there any other strategy to expand on for this specific site? I live in the surrounding neighborhood and am not at all against densification as I understand the need for housing in this city. I can support a 3-6 storey residential building on this site, but why not save the development of an 18-storey tower on this block to those lots fronting arterial Arbutus Street within KBAE? Also, you touch on the required TDM Plan in other Q&A’s. How is this a sufficient strategy to assess the impact on traffic and parking in this residential area? The tower proposes 170 units, and 84 parking spaces, and this won’t be the only tower on this block. Does the city not assume that there will be 1 vehicle per unit (some units having none, some having 2, some having 1)? There simply is no room for ~90 more vehicles per tower to park in this area. People living blocks away will feel the effects of this. Page 33 of the Plan says that these residential areas will “retain their unique qualities”. I will argue that this neighborhood’s unique qualities will be heavily degraded due to an additional 18-storey tower in the middle of the block. Huge increases in traffic on a narrow street and no parking for residents and their guests are major impacts on this neighborhood. I understand the need for this, and I support increased housing. But please, consider holding out and keeping the towers to KBAE for this area, lining arterial Arbutus Street. Also consider what removing the no-minimum parking requirement will do to this neighborhood in this proposal’s case. If operationally feasible, these towers need more parking underground to help retain the qualities that so many existing residents appreciate about this beautiful Kitsilano neighborhood. Thanks for your time answering these questions and including these comments in your report for council. on Facebook Share Hi there. I had a look at the Low-Density Residential Character Area of the Broadway Plan that this site is within. Looking at page 57, even that image shows the 12-18 storey tower on the corner of the block, and notes that these towers will be placed in “strategic” locations. How is this considered a strategic location when it is directly in the middle of a residential block with a narrow street, on the same block where 18 storey towers are already proposed for the arterial Arbutus Street under KBAE? Please explain the strategy behind this. I do see another one of your Q&A responses 5 days ago, and the sole strategy seems to be due to current land values and a “significant need for housing units”. Is there any other strategy to expand on for this specific site? I live in the surrounding neighborhood and am not at all against densification as I understand the need for housing in this city. I can support a 3-6 storey residential building on this site, but why not save the development of an 18-storey tower on this block to those lots fronting arterial Arbutus Street within KBAE? Also, you touch on the required TDM Plan in other Q&A’s. How is this a sufficient strategy to assess the impact on traffic and parking in this residential area? The tower proposes 170 units, and 84 parking spaces, and this won’t be the only tower on this block. Does the city not assume that there will be 1 vehicle per unit (some units having none, some having 2, some having 1)? There simply is no room for ~90 more vehicles per tower to park in this area. People living blocks away will feel the effects of this. Page 33 of the Plan says that these residential areas will “retain their unique qualities”. I will argue that this neighborhood’s unique qualities will be heavily degraded due to an additional 18-storey tower in the middle of the block. Huge increases in traffic on a narrow street and no parking for residents and their guests are major impacts on this neighborhood. I understand the need for this, and I support increased housing. But please, consider holding out and keeping the towers to KBAE for this area, lining arterial Arbutus Street. Also consider what removing the no-minimum parking requirement will do to this neighborhood in this proposal’s case. If operationally feasible, these towers need more parking underground to help retain the qualities that so many existing residents appreciate about this beautiful Kitsilano neighborhood. Thanks for your time answering these questions and including these comments in your report for council. on Twitter Share Hi there. I had a look at the Low-Density Residential Character Area of the Broadway Plan that this site is within. Looking at page 57, even that image shows the 12-18 storey tower on the corner of the block, and notes that these towers will be placed in “strategic” locations. How is this considered a strategic location when it is directly in the middle of a residential block with a narrow street, on the same block where 18 storey towers are already proposed for the arterial Arbutus Street under KBAE? Please explain the strategy behind this. I do see another one of your Q&A responses 5 days ago, and the sole strategy seems to be due to current land values and a “significant need for housing units”. Is there any other strategy to expand on for this specific site? I live in the surrounding neighborhood and am not at all against densification as I understand the need for housing in this city. I can support a 3-6 storey residential building on this site, but why not save the development of an 18-storey tower on this block to those lots fronting arterial Arbutus Street within KBAE? Also, you touch on the required TDM Plan in other Q&A’s. How is this a sufficient strategy to assess the impact on traffic and parking in this residential area? The tower proposes 170 units, and 84 parking spaces, and this won’t be the only tower on this block. Does the city not assume that there will be 1 vehicle per unit (some units having none, some having 2, some having 1)? There simply is no room for ~90 more vehicles per tower to park in this area. People living blocks away will feel the effects of this. Page 33 of the Plan says that these residential areas will “retain their unique qualities”. I will argue that this neighborhood’s unique qualities will be heavily degraded due to an additional 18-storey tower in the middle of the block. Huge increases in traffic on a narrow street and no parking for residents and their guests are major impacts on this neighborhood. I understand the need for this, and I support increased housing. But please, consider holding out and keeping the towers to KBAE for this area, lining arterial Arbutus Street. Also consider what removing the no-minimum parking requirement will do to this neighborhood in this proposal’s case. If operationally feasible, these towers need more parking underground to help retain the qualities that so many existing residents appreciate about this beautiful Kitsilano neighborhood. Thanks for your time answering these questions and including these comments in your report for council. on Linkedin Email Hi there. I had a look at the Low-Density Residential Character Area of the Broadway Plan that this site is within. Looking at page 57, even that image shows the 12-18 storey tower on the corner of the block, and notes that these towers will be placed in “strategic” locations. How is this considered a strategic location when it is directly in the middle of a residential block with a narrow street, on the same block where 18 storey towers are already proposed for the arterial Arbutus Street under KBAE? Please explain the strategy behind this. I do see another one of your Q&A responses 5 days ago, and the sole strategy seems to be due to current land values and a “significant need for housing units”. Is there any other strategy to expand on for this specific site? I live in the surrounding neighborhood and am not at all against densification as I understand the need for housing in this city. I can support a 3-6 storey residential building on this site, but why not save the development of an 18-storey tower on this block to those lots fronting arterial Arbutus Street within KBAE? Also, you touch on the required TDM Plan in other Q&A’s. How is this a sufficient strategy to assess the impact on traffic and parking in this residential area? The tower proposes 170 units, and 84 parking spaces, and this won’t be the only tower on this block. Does the city not assume that there will be 1 vehicle per unit (some units having none, some having 2, some having 1)? There simply is no room for ~90 more vehicles per tower to park in this area. People living blocks away will feel the effects of this. Page 33 of the Plan says that these residential areas will “retain their unique qualities”. I will argue that this neighborhood’s unique qualities will be heavily degraded due to an additional 18-storey tower in the middle of the block. Huge increases in traffic on a narrow street and no parking for residents and their guests are major impacts on this neighborhood. I understand the need for this, and I support increased housing. But please, consider holding out and keeping the towers to KBAE for this area, lining arterial Arbutus Street. Also consider what removing the no-minimum parking requirement will do to this neighborhood in this proposal’s case. If operationally feasible, these towers need more parking underground to help retain the qualities that so many existing residents appreciate about this beautiful Kitsilano neighborhood. Thanks for your time answering these questions and including these comments in your report for council. link

    Hi there. I had a look at the Low-Density Residential Character Area of the Broadway Plan that this site is within. Looking at page 57, even that image shows the 12-18 storey tower on the corner of the block, and notes that these towers will be placed in “strategic” locations. How is this considered a strategic location when it is directly in the middle of a residential block with a narrow street, on the same block where 18 storey towers are already proposed for the arterial Arbutus Street under KBAE? Please explain the strategy behind this. I do see another one of your Q&A responses 5 days ago, and the sole strategy seems to be due to current land values and a “significant need for housing units”. Is there any other strategy to expand on for this specific site? I live in the surrounding neighborhood and am not at all against densification as I understand the need for housing in this city. I can support a 3-6 storey residential building on this site, but why not save the development of an 18-storey tower on this block to those lots fronting arterial Arbutus Street within KBAE? Also, you touch on the required TDM Plan in other Q&A’s. How is this a sufficient strategy to assess the impact on traffic and parking in this residential area? The tower proposes 170 units, and 84 parking spaces, and this won’t be the only tower on this block. Does the city not assume that there will be 1 vehicle per unit (some units having none, some having 2, some having 1)? There simply is no room for ~90 more vehicles per tower to park in this area. People living blocks away will feel the effects of this. Page 33 of the Plan says that these residential areas will “retain their unique qualities”. I will argue that this neighborhood’s unique qualities will be heavily degraded due to an additional 18-storey tower in the middle of the block. Huge increases in traffic on a narrow street and no parking for residents and their guests are major impacts on this neighborhood. I understand the need for this, and I support increased housing. But please, consider holding out and keeping the towers to KBAE for this area, lining arterial Arbutus Street. Also consider what removing the no-minimum parking requirement will do to this neighborhood in this proposal’s case. If operationally feasible, these towers need more parking underground to help retain the qualities that so many existing residents appreciate about this beautiful Kitsilano neighborhood. Thanks for your time answering these questions and including these comments in your report for council.

    Unc asked 2 months ago

    Thank you for your questions. I have noted my response by question theme below. 

    Strategic Location

    Strategic locations for towers in existing low-density areas were selected based on their proximity to rapid transit rather than the positioning of the site on the block. In this case, policy in Kitsilano South Area B (KKSB) allows consideration of towers, whereas policy in Kitsilano South Area A (KKSA) does not permit towers. This is due to KKSB being located in close proximity to the future station at Arbutus and Broadway.

    Parking Reduction

    The proposed development site is well-situated with great transportation access. Like other comparable locations in the City, we expect to see an overall reduction in vehicle trips in and around the Arbutus Street corridor with the completion of the new SkyTrain connection, as many more vehicle trips will be replaced by transit over time.  The development is required to provide for vehicle spaces, bike parking, and loading fully on-site, as set out in the City’s Parking Bylaw. The development is also required to provide a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. The applicant has the option to choose from a variety of sustainable transportation strategies, such as transit passes, additional bicycle accommodations on-site, and car share vehicles which will help reduce vehicle use within the area. Council approved parking minimum reductions for Downtown and the Broadway Plan, to review the rational and context, please find the report here. 

     

  • Share Will this building be built to be resilient (ie "elastic") for the design earthquake? Please don't say it will be built to the current code as the code does not provide sufficient resiliency which can result in structural damage (without collapse) leading it being unoccupable and even subject to being torn down. on Facebook Share Will this building be built to be resilient (ie "elastic") for the design earthquake? Please don't say it will be built to the current code as the code does not provide sufficient resiliency which can result in structural damage (without collapse) leading it being unoccupable and even subject to being torn down. on Twitter Share Will this building be built to be resilient (ie "elastic") for the design earthquake? Please don't say it will be built to the current code as the code does not provide sufficient resiliency which can result in structural damage (without collapse) leading it being unoccupable and even subject to being torn down. on Linkedin Email Will this building be built to be resilient (ie "elastic") for the design earthquake? Please don't say it will be built to the current code as the code does not provide sufficient resiliency which can result in structural damage (without collapse) leading it being unoccupable and even subject to being torn down. link

    Will this building be built to be resilient (ie "elastic") for the design earthquake? Please don't say it will be built to the current code as the code does not provide sufficient resiliency which can result in structural damage (without collapse) leading it being unoccupable and even subject to being torn down.

    WW asked 2 months ago

    Thank you for your question. The structure must be designed by a registered professional engineer to meet or exceed seismic design requirements set out in the Vancouver Building By-Law (VBBL). APEGBC (the professional association for Engineers and Geoscientists) requires the engineer of record have their drawings peer reviewed prior to building permit submission. However, this happens in later development stages and not at the Rezoning stage.

  • Share Will the City be increasing the size of parks in the area to offset the increasing demand created by this increase in population density? on Facebook Share Will the City be increasing the size of parks in the area to offset the increasing demand created by this increase in population density? on Twitter Share Will the City be increasing the size of parks in the area to offset the increasing demand created by this increase in population density? on Linkedin Email Will the City be increasing the size of parks in the area to offset the increasing demand created by this increase in population density? link

    Will the City be increasing the size of parks in the area to offset the increasing demand created by this increase in population density?

    WW asked 2 months ago

    Thank you for your question. The Broadway Plan has its own Public Benefits Strategy. The strategy is a 10-year capital strategy for delivering public amenities and infrastructure to address the renewal and growth needs of a geographic area. In addition to the 10-year strategy, the Broadway Plan provides a higher-level vision and outlook for public benefits in the area over the 30-year life of the Plan.

  • Share When will there be an opportunity for community input at a public hearing?And realistically, if the neighbouring residents strongly oppose this proposal, will council consider altering the scale, or better still, the location of this proposed building? on Facebook Share When will there be an opportunity for community input at a public hearing?And realistically, if the neighbouring residents strongly oppose this proposal, will council consider altering the scale, or better still, the location of this proposed building? on Twitter Share When will there be an opportunity for community input at a public hearing?And realistically, if the neighbouring residents strongly oppose this proposal, will council consider altering the scale, or better still, the location of this proposed building? on Linkedin Email When will there be an opportunity for community input at a public hearing?And realistically, if the neighbouring residents strongly oppose this proposal, will council consider altering the scale, or better still, the location of this proposed building? link

    When will there be an opportunity for community input at a public hearing?And realistically, if the neighbouring residents strongly oppose this proposal, will council consider altering the scale, or better still, the location of this proposed building?

    JohnM asked 2 months ago

    Thank you for your questions. Yes, there will be a Public Hearing, which is being targeted for some time in the fall this year. A postcard will be mailed out notifying residents on the time and date of the Public Hearing. Planning staff will submit a referral report to Council that details a range of information related to the proposal and project area. The report will outline the relevant Broadway Plan policies and whether the proposal is demonstrating compliance with the policy framework. Staff will also include the public consultation feedback within the report, and a more detailed summary is included within the report appendix. As mentioned, Council are the final decision makers. Staff cannot speak on behalf or for Council, however, it is typically their purview to make a decision with all the project factors in mind, particularly the feedback from the public.

  • Share 1.What are the regulations for this type of project in terms of setbacks? It looks like the building is right at the sidewalk 2. What are the regulations in terms of privacy for neighbours? It looks like all the building side windows will take away any privacy of the next door properties 3. Is there a better shadow study for the building? I don't think the one published really shows the impact of such a tall and massive building in terms of restricting natural light to adjacent homes Thank you on Facebook Share 1.What are the regulations for this type of project in terms of setbacks? It looks like the building is right at the sidewalk 2. What are the regulations in terms of privacy for neighbours? It looks like all the building side windows will take away any privacy of the next door properties 3. Is there a better shadow study for the building? I don't think the one published really shows the impact of such a tall and massive building in terms of restricting natural light to adjacent homes Thank you on Twitter Share 1.What are the regulations for this type of project in terms of setbacks? It looks like the building is right at the sidewalk 2. What are the regulations in terms of privacy for neighbours? It looks like all the building side windows will take away any privacy of the next door properties 3. Is there a better shadow study for the building? I don't think the one published really shows the impact of such a tall and massive building in terms of restricting natural light to adjacent homes Thank you on Linkedin Email 1.What are the regulations for this type of project in terms of setbacks? It looks like the building is right at the sidewalk 2. What are the regulations in terms of privacy for neighbours? It looks like all the building side windows will take away any privacy of the next door properties 3. Is there a better shadow study for the building? I don't think the one published really shows the impact of such a tall and massive building in terms of restricting natural light to adjacent homes Thank you link

    1.What are the regulations for this type of project in terms of setbacks? It looks like the building is right at the sidewalk 2. What are the regulations in terms of privacy for neighbours? It looks like all the building side windows will take away any privacy of the next door properties 3. Is there a better shadow study for the building? I don't think the one published really shows the impact of such a tall and massive building in terms of restricting natural light to adjacent homes Thank you

    NinaW14 asked 2 months ago

    Thank you for your questions. 

    1. The building is subject to a 3.7 m (12 ft.) front setback. There are no side or rear yard requirements. However, the proposal is subject to the Broadway Plan’s built form and site planning guidelines which set out design expectations for privacy/edge conditions. 
    2. In terms of privacy, the proposed tower location must demonstrate an 80 ft distance from future and existing towers. This tower separation is measured above the 4th storey and structures under this height do not require the 80 ft. setback.
    3. As per the Broadway Plan, solar access requirements in the Broadway Plan area apply to parks, public school yards, and village shopping streets/plazas existing or in development at the time of adoption of the Broadway Plan. The applicant has submitted a shadow study that follows the application submission requirements. 
  • Share This building fails to meet many developmental guidelines laid out by the city. Including minimum square footages of 1, 2 and 3 bedrooms units as detailed in the city’s Housing Design and Technical Guidelines. Additionally, there is a minimum finished narrow unit dimension of 12 feet. The drawings by the developer does not show the dimensions of the studio units, but from what I calculate they do not meet this minimum standard. Can you please comment on this and can the developer provide more accurate drawings? Additionally, for the Kitsilano South Area B Broadway Plan the maximum FSR for this type of building is 5.5. The developer is proposing an FSR of 5.8. Retaining to both these statements, why is the city allowing these developers to break all of the requirements laid out in city policies.? This is more profitable for the developer at the cost of basic standards of living for the community. on Facebook Share This building fails to meet many developmental guidelines laid out by the city. Including minimum square footages of 1, 2 and 3 bedrooms units as detailed in the city’s Housing Design and Technical Guidelines. Additionally, there is a minimum finished narrow unit dimension of 12 feet. The drawings by the developer does not show the dimensions of the studio units, but from what I calculate they do not meet this minimum standard. Can you please comment on this and can the developer provide more accurate drawings? Additionally, for the Kitsilano South Area B Broadway Plan the maximum FSR for this type of building is 5.5. The developer is proposing an FSR of 5.8. Retaining to both these statements, why is the city allowing these developers to break all of the requirements laid out in city policies.? This is more profitable for the developer at the cost of basic standards of living for the community. on Twitter Share This building fails to meet many developmental guidelines laid out by the city. Including minimum square footages of 1, 2 and 3 bedrooms units as detailed in the city’s Housing Design and Technical Guidelines. Additionally, there is a minimum finished narrow unit dimension of 12 feet. The drawings by the developer does not show the dimensions of the studio units, but from what I calculate they do not meet this minimum standard. Can you please comment on this and can the developer provide more accurate drawings? Additionally, for the Kitsilano South Area B Broadway Plan the maximum FSR for this type of building is 5.5. The developer is proposing an FSR of 5.8. Retaining to both these statements, why is the city allowing these developers to break all of the requirements laid out in city policies.? This is more profitable for the developer at the cost of basic standards of living for the community. on Linkedin Email This building fails to meet many developmental guidelines laid out by the city. Including minimum square footages of 1, 2 and 3 bedrooms units as detailed in the city’s Housing Design and Technical Guidelines. Additionally, there is a minimum finished narrow unit dimension of 12 feet. The drawings by the developer does not show the dimensions of the studio units, but from what I calculate they do not meet this minimum standard. Can you please comment on this and can the developer provide more accurate drawings? Additionally, for the Kitsilano South Area B Broadway Plan the maximum FSR for this type of building is 5.5. The developer is proposing an FSR of 5.8. Retaining to both these statements, why is the city allowing these developers to break all of the requirements laid out in city policies.? This is more profitable for the developer at the cost of basic standards of living for the community. link

    This building fails to meet many developmental guidelines laid out by the city. Including minimum square footages of 1, 2 and 3 bedrooms units as detailed in the city’s Housing Design and Technical Guidelines. Additionally, there is a minimum finished narrow unit dimension of 12 feet. The drawings by the developer does not show the dimensions of the studio units, but from what I calculate they do not meet this minimum standard. Can you please comment on this and can the developer provide more accurate drawings? Additionally, for the Kitsilano South Area B Broadway Plan the maximum FSR for this type of building is 5.5. The developer is proposing an FSR of 5.8. Retaining to both these statements, why is the city allowing these developers to break all of the requirements laid out in city policies.? This is more profitable for the developer at the cost of basic standards of living for the community.

    Tuckos asked 2 months ago

    Thank you for your questions. The application will be required to adhere to the High-Density Housing For Families with Children Guidelines which sets out minimum unit sizes. If approved, minimum unit sizes will be included as a condition of approval. Further, if approved, more detailed drawing sets will be required within the development permit stage. The public will have the opportunity to review the development permit drawings if the rezoning is approved by Council. In terms of the FSR, the Broadway Plan allows for modest increases in density when a local serving retail use is proposed at the ground level.

  • Share What is the background of this developer and have they done projects like this before? According to their website they have two additional similar developments planned at Carolina St and Manitoba St. Will they be able to deliver on three gigantic expensive development projects? on Facebook Share What is the background of this developer and have they done projects like this before? According to their website they have two additional similar developments planned at Carolina St and Manitoba St. Will they be able to deliver on three gigantic expensive development projects? on Twitter Share What is the background of this developer and have they done projects like this before? According to their website they have two additional similar developments planned at Carolina St and Manitoba St. Will they be able to deliver on three gigantic expensive development projects? on Linkedin Email What is the background of this developer and have they done projects like this before? According to their website they have two additional similar developments planned at Carolina St and Manitoba St. Will they be able to deliver on three gigantic expensive development projects? link

    What is the background of this developer and have they done projects like this before? According to their website they have two additional similar developments planned at Carolina St and Manitoba St. Will they be able to deliver on three gigantic expensive development projects?

    ncornwall asked 2 months ago

    The City does not require financial testing/viability from the applicant.

  • Share In a previous answer about shading, you stated : The Council-approved Broadway Plan requires that overshadowing of new development on pre-determined public open spaces (public parks, high streets, public school grounds, etc.) be mitigated during certain times of the day. Does this include the beautiful communal gardens on the boulevards and at the corner of the street that serve as de facto parks for the neighbourhood? on Facebook Share In a previous answer about shading, you stated : The Council-approved Broadway Plan requires that overshadowing of new development on pre-determined public open spaces (public parks, high streets, public school grounds, etc.) be mitigated during certain times of the day. Does this include the beautiful communal gardens on the boulevards and at the corner of the street that serve as de facto parks for the neighbourhood? on Twitter Share In a previous answer about shading, you stated : The Council-approved Broadway Plan requires that overshadowing of new development on pre-determined public open spaces (public parks, high streets, public school grounds, etc.) be mitigated during certain times of the day. Does this include the beautiful communal gardens on the boulevards and at the corner of the street that serve as de facto parks for the neighbourhood? on Linkedin Email In a previous answer about shading, you stated : The Council-approved Broadway Plan requires that overshadowing of new development on pre-determined public open spaces (public parks, high streets, public school grounds, etc.) be mitigated during certain times of the day. Does this include the beautiful communal gardens on the boulevards and at the corner of the street that serve as de facto parks for the neighbourhood? link

    In a previous answer about shading, you stated : The Council-approved Broadway Plan requires that overshadowing of new development on pre-determined public open spaces (public parks, high streets, public school grounds, etc.) be mitigated during certain times of the day. Does this include the beautiful communal gardens on the boulevards and at the corner of the street that serve as de facto parks for the neighbourhood?

    ncornwall asked 2 months ago

    Thank you for your question. As per the Broadway Plan, solar access requirements in the Broadway Plan area apply to parks, public school yards, and village shopping streets/plazas existing or in development at the time of adoption of the Broadway Plan. The gardens at the corner of Yew are not included within the solar access policy. Based on the shadow studies, the gardens are shaded within the morning hours with solar access within the mid-day and afternoon hours.

Page last updated: 06 Mar 2024, 08:14 AM