Archive for August 2012

Disrespecting the Norquay Plan

with one comment

Analysis of 2220 Kingsway Development Application
in Relation to the Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre Plan

Prepared by Jeanette Jones

 
I. Background of the Plan

The City of Vancouver began work on the Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre Plan (the Plan) in March 2006. Over the years forty to fifty different people made up the Norquay Working Group that was “consulted” — but rarely more than a dozen and a half at any one time. Community Open Houses were scheduled at key points during the process. More details on the convoluted history of Plan production can be viewed at the Eye on Norquay web site [1]. One easy overview is provided by a Timeline [2]. A basic summary of the five years of planning that led up to the Plan [3] was put together for a December 2010 public presentation. The Plan that Vancouver City Council approved in November 2010 [4] is supposed to provide a policy basis for all development within the boundaries of Norquay.

The section of the plan most relevant to the development application for 2220 Kingsway is the section dealing with the Kingsway Rezoning Area (p. 46-60).

  Base height for buildings along Kingsway is set at 8-10 storeys.
  Three “mid-block” sites on the north side of Kingsway (including the Wally’s site) are allowed 12 storeys
    in exchange for pedestrian walkways between Kingsway and Galt Street.
  On two “large sites” [Purdy’s and Canadian Tire] height limit is 14 storeys. In exchange, these sites are
    expected to include a large and fully landscaped public plaza.

The Plan was designed to

        enhance local neighbourhood identity through new public realm enhancements (a more beautiful centre),
        supporting a rich and robust community life, maintaining the distinctive and eclectic character of
        the neighbourhood, and providing unique spaces that fit the evolving nature of the community.
(p. 5)

The implementation of this Plan is supposed to include three “companion documents”:

1   New District Schedule[s] and Guidelines for the new residential housing types. These are Small
     House/Duplex (p. 34), Traditional Rowhouse (p. 38), Stacked Townhouse (p. 40) and Low-Rise
     Apartment (p. 43).
2   A Public Benefits and Infrastructure Financing Strategy “to consider the impact of increased population
     and mechanisms available to pay for [public] benefits.” (p. 69)
3   A more detailed Public Realm Plan. This plan is to include “guidelines … to address relationships of
     private and public open space.” (p. 57)

Not one of these “companion documents” has been completed. No provisional work on them has been shown to the community. Yet development along Kingsway proceeds in their absence. No further development should be approved until the guidelines which are to govern such development are written and adopted by Council.

 
II.  Relationship of the Plan to the Development Application for 2220 Kingsway

A.  Respecting the Plan … sort of …

1  —  Sidewalk width of 24 feet on Kingsway is respected. But the proposed East Tower overhangs the sidewalk by several feet.

2  —  Height limit on this site of 14 storeys is respected. But the sketch on p. 53 of the plan shows only
one 14-storey tower.

3  —  Traffic impacts have been mitigated.

       A new configuration for the streets at southwest corner of the development would divert traffic
         from the intersection of Kingsway and Gladstone. Preliminary drawings show a crossing of the
         barrier only for bicycles, but not for pedestrians.
       A new signalized crossing of Kingsway would be constructed where the lane on the east side of the
         development meets Kingsway. But this lane will function primarily as access to the site for
         residential and commercial traffic rather than as the “pedestrian mews” described in the development
         application. A sidewalk along the lane narrows to almost nothing where trucks will be turning.

4  —  The development would contain a long-awaited grocery store of approximately 32,000 square feet. Previous planning promised a grocery store at 2300 Kingsway, and the Plan calls for a grocery store at the 2400 Motel site. Will we get all three?

B.  Disrespecting the Plan

1  —  This development is too massive to fit into a Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre. These are not the “human-scaled” buildings called for in the Plan. (p. 49), but a walled compound. The entire 2.3 acre site is to be covered by a private podium of at least one storey. The proposed buildings are not in keeping with the sketch for “Gateway sites” on p. 53 of the Plan, which shows one 14 storey tower and one lower tower. In the drawing, the two buildings are separated by a roughly rectangular ground level plaza that is surrounded by shops.

2  —  There is no adequate public plaza. The Plan states that “any redevelopment on these two sites [i.e. the Purdy’s site and the Canadian Tire site] will be required to provide a large (approximately 6,000-8,000 square feet) and fully landscaped public plaza which will be activated by retail uses on the edges. These plazas should be prioritized for primary pedestrian use and should not be accessible by vehicles” (p. 56). The plaza is to be a “functional and distinctive local public space to serve as [a] community gathering space for neighbourhood activities” (p. 50). The proposed “plaza” at the corner of Gladstone and Kingsway will function mainly as a funnel-shaped entrance to the proposed grocery store. A proposed small “park” at the corner of Gladstone and 30th Avenue will serve the same function. Neither can serve as a community gathering space in any meaningful way. Only by including non-functional narrow strips of space at the edges of the buildings can the “plaza” be calculated to include the area required by the Plan.

3  —  The towers are a uniform height and have a uniform glass and concrete finish. The Plan calls for “modulating building faces in width, height, and finishing materials to visually break up large building walls.” (p. 49) [Panel 13 from the June 2010 open house conveys a community preference for a unifying brick theme that has been respected at 2339 Kingsway and 2711 Kingsway; Panel 10 from the February 2011 open house conveys a clear community distaste for glass towers.]

4  —  The West Tower is a 14 storey wall separating the development from the unrezoned single family neighbourhood to the west of Norquay. Elsewhere in the Plan there is a 4 storey transition zone between taller buildings on Kingsway and single family housing. “The Plan recognizes the need for a careful transition from residential neighbourhoods to the higher densities and intensities of Kingsway.” (p. 42)

5  —  The development does not contribute to community life in any meaningful way. The social life of the residents will be centred on the private central courtyard with its swimming pool and on the private rooftop gardens. These areas are nicely landscaped, but are visible only from the air and remain inaccessible to the community.

 
References:

[1]  Eye on Norquay
https://eyeonnorquay.wordpress.com/

[2]  Timeline (Eye on Norquay)
https://eyeonnorquay.wordpress.com/timeline/

[3]  Norquay “Planning” in Vancouver: Five Years of Top-Down Manipulation (Dec 2010)
https://eyeonnorquay.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/101206-gwac.pdf

[4]  Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre Plan (Nov 2010)
http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/neighcentres/norquay/pdf/NVNCPlan.pdf
 

Advertisements

Written by eyeonnorquay

27 August 2012 at 9:26 pm

Graphic

with 2 comments

 
One of the newest available graphics was selected to illustrate the recent posting Does Not Equal. That summary of open house materials recapped what Vancouver city planners have presented to the the local Norquay community over a period of years.

A subsequent review of the Norquay Plan itself (see full citation below, with linkage to a final official version presented as a 78-page pdf) shows that this graphic is embedded as a specification within the Plan, where the accompanying text reinforces the content of the visual.
 

 
This graphic is located (p. 53) on a page titled Kingsway Rezoning Policies. According to Building Typology Policy No. 3, taken together with the referred to Figure 3 on page 54, the gateway 2220 Kingsway Canadian Tire site obtains

        an increase in height beyond the 10 to 12 storey pattern in exchange for additional public open space.

That open space is further described (p. 56) in Urban Design Policy No. 2 as

        a more expansive (approximately 6,000 to 8,000 sq. ft. in size) public plaza space, landscaped and
        activated on the edges by retail uses
.

The development proposal for 2220 Kingsway has failed to respect a clear Plan intention for unified public space (not just a corridor), open to sunlight and sky above, landscaped, and served by appropriate retail around the edges.

A second significant statement is made about Building Height for Larger Sites in Building Typology No. 2:

        For sites with greater than 150 feet of street frontage, variation in height (i.e., a mix of 4 storeys and
        10 storeys) is desired.

The development proposal for 2220 Kingsway has failed to respect a clear Plan intention for variation in height. Only a sophist would attempt to claim that the wall-like excrescences that connect three 14-storey towers and serve to encircle the entire site constitute the intended variation in heights. The monotony of three dominating 14-storey mesas violates the intended mix of building heights.

The developer’s desire to maximize height and views and separation from the surrounding community seems to have overridden the spirit of the Norquay Plan at two of the biggest turns.

Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre Plan (November 2010)
http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/neighcentres/norquay/pdf/NVNCPlan.pdf
 

Written by eyeonnorquay

26 August 2012 at 9:51 pm

Soon?

leave a comment »

 
The new City of Vancouver (CoV) web site offers up this vagueness about how prospective developers are required to inform the local communities that their new undertakings would impact:

Informing the public

Soon after you apply for rezoning, you will be asked to install a yellow information sign on your site to alert the public to the application (details of sign requirements are provided by staff).

Staff will also mail a letter to registered property owners within approximately two blocks of the site, to further inform them of the application.

Depending on the response to the sign and mail outs, the rezoning planner may hold an open house in the community to provide information about the application, and get the opinions of surrounding property owners and residents.

This mush seems to leave lots of leeway as to whether the developer and/or the planners provide adequate or any notice to the surrounding community. Soon? Asked and not required? Letter mail-out when? Only depending on the response? Most striking in this statement is the absence of timelines. [Don’t you wish CoV would take the same approach to your property tax payment timeline?] This fuzziness seems designed to facilitate the fly-under-the-radar surprise-attack strategies that typify Vancouver planning and development.

The case of 2220 Kingsway provides one timeline testbed.

        8 June 2012  —  Development application submitted to the CoV
        21 June 2012  —  Brief Planning Update notice posted to the web by the CoV
        6 July 2012  —  Development application materials posted to the CoV web site
        21 August 2012  —  Still no yellow information sign at 2220 Kingway

When is “soon”? What does is mean to “ask” the developer — rather than to require?

For more on the topic of inadequate public notice — especially in the form of development application signage — see the recent posting to CityHallWatch that inspires this investigation and monitoring.
 

Written by eyeonnorquay

21 August 2012 at 10:06 am

Posted in Context, CoV Documents

Does Not Equal

with 2 comments

Expectations Created by Norquay Plan ≠ 2220 Kingsway Proposal

 
Introduction

The lifespan of Norquay Working Group ran from its formation after the 25 March 2006 “kickoff” open house for Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre to its abrupt unilateral termination by City of Vancouver (CoV) at a final meeting on 3 February 2011. Over those years, and since then, CoV planners have held numerous “open houses” that created specific expectations of what their planning might hold in store for the future of Norquay.

The graphic at left below was presented to the Norquay community in a February 2011 open house, three months after Vancouver City Council approved the Norquay Plan. This representation does not derive from an intermediate stage in development of the plan. Norquay residents typically encounter the Norquay Plan intentions through open house materials rather than through the formal planning document itself. [The text in the graphic — Panel 6 from February 2011 — can be found in more readable form below.]

 

 
The development proposal for 2220 Kingsway that was unveiled in July 2012 provides an ultimate testbed for comparing what planners presented to the community with what a developer seeks to impose. The 2.3 acre site at the southeast corner of Kingsway and Gladstone is one of only three large yet-to-be-developed sites that lie along Norquay’s one-mile stretch of Kingsway. The Canadian Tire site is the first to go into play — even before the broad Norquay planning has been completed.

The following materials selected from various open houses relate directly to these few large “special sites.” The purpose here is to gather and to arrange those intimations, those virtual promises, so that they can be read while holding the specifics of the 2220 Kingsway development proposal in mind. It is left to the reader to form a preparatory notion of the three 14-storey towers as part of a compound that is completely walled-off from and looking down on the surrounding neighborhood.

What follows below consists only of directly quoted words and square-bracketed description of accompanying graphics. The emphases in boldface have been added. Linkage allows for comparison with actual CoV panel. In one instance brief elaboration has been added in curly braces.

[Note: In August 2012 CoV rolled out a new web site, broke linkages to most of the existing materials, brought forward almost none of the previous planning documents, and created great doubt about the reliability of future access to public record. Beginning with this posting, Eye on Norquay will routinely reproduce CoV materials to ensure that previous planning representations cannot be disappeared at the flip of a web server.]

 
January 2010

Panel 13: Kingsway Design Principles

An enhanced public realm in the form of wide sidewalks, outdoor patios, a major public gathering space, and smaller public plazas. The quality of this public realm is directly affected by the height and form of the buildings around them. Building heights can be restricted or allowed to vary, each with different impacts on shadows, views, ground-level open space and effect on Kingsway and the surrounding neighbourhood.

OPEN SPACE:  Allowing building heights above 8 storeys would free up more public space on the ground plane in the form of wide sidewalks, plazas and public squares. In turn, these would provide more areas for public art, heritage retention, commercial patios, recreation and social activities.

STREET ENCLOSURE AND CHARACTER:  A lower streetwall punctuated by a few taller building elements would feel more open but less urban in character.

 
June 2010

Panel 12: Kingsway Building Typology

SPECIAL ‘GATEWAY SITES (2 SITES):  Allowing up to 12 storeys of building height on the 2 ‘gateway’ sites (Purdy’s and Canadian Tire) creates an opportunity for public plazas or pedestrian mews, without allowing for increased density. [Accompanying graphic shows significant public passageway and open space at ground level.]

Panel 13: Kingsway Design Guidelines

Wider sidewalks, more public spaces, friendlier building frontages, small-scale retail spaces, and careful attention to urban design and context are a few of the objectives of proposed design guidelines for the Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre Plan.

BUILDING DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION:  High-quality building materials and architectural quality are key to the durability and visual appeal of development. Exterior finishes should be composed of durable materials such as brick and concrete and urban design review can be used to ensure high quality design.

PUBLIC PLAZAS AND OUTDOOR SPACES:  On larger sites, plazas and outdoor public gathering spaces can be created, as well as other opportunities to create outdoor spaces such as pocket parks and mid-block pedestrian access to Kingsway from surrounding streets. [Three accompanying graphics show pleasant open spaces that serve as more than fragmented corridor dead-ending toward big-box retail.]

Panel 15: 20-Year Outlook Along Kingsway

2015-2020:  This scenario shows redevelopment of large parcels that currently have limited site coverage (large parking lots or open space). [Accompanying graphic shows redeveloped Canadian Tire site at upper left with a single taller tower and site openness at ground level.]

 
February 2011

Panel 6: Kingsway: Height and Density

SPECIAL SITES — GATEWAY SITES:  Two large ‘gateway’ sites (currently in use by Canadian Tire and Purdy’s Chocolates) will allow buildings up to 14 storeys in height to allow for public plazas (minimum 8,000 square feet). [Accompanying graphic shows significant public passageway and open space at ground level. This graphic is also reproduced within this posting.]

Panel 8: Kingsway: Visual Impact of Height

One of the urban design goals for Kingsway has been to create a varied and eclectic ‘streetscape’ with care to ensure that buildings are not ‘bulky’ and do not overwhelm the street and sidewalk. Even with the increase in density, new buildings along Kingsway will fit well along the street and City staff proposes a mix of 10-storey building heights with lower (4-6 storey) podiums to create a ‘peak and valley’ effect to allow for views and sun on the sidewalk.

When it comes to a sense of comfort and ‘human scale’, the most important attribute is the design of the lower portion of the building along the sidewalk. More specifically, the ‘feel’ of Kingsway is affected by design features such as how finely detailed the building façade is and how tall the building is along the sidewalk (the ‘pedestrian perception zone’). An additional two storeys in height, if properly located, will not noticeably impact the perception of height at the street level. {Sidewalk and street level must include the Gladstone side of the Kingsway corner.}

[Two accompanying graphics show sensible height variation, not close mechanical repetition of maximum height mesas with narrow deep clefts.]

Panel 10: Kingsway: Design Strategies

BUILDING SETBACKS:  Staff Recommendation: Upper storeys should be set back from the building podium in order to reduce the appearance of building height and bulk.

ARCHITECTURAL EXPRESSION:  The community has commented that they would like to see high quality, highly detailed, and well designed buildings along Kingsway that are distinctive to the neighbourhood centre (i.e. no glass towers).
 

Written by eyeonnorquay

19 August 2012 at 9:02 pm

4½ Reasons

To Like the July 2012 Proposal for 2220 Kingsway

In a first detailed comment on the 2220 Kingsway proposal, Eye on Norquay sets itself the task of seeking things to like about the proposal. More and other will follow.

 
1  —  Traffic Access

Main traffic access would be from Kingsway via a laneway along the east side of the site. This configuration would help to keep vehicle traffic on Kingsway and off of adjacent residential streets. A signal-light-controlled crossing at that new intersection would improve local pedestrian life and reduce speeds along Kingsway. Current Kingsway curb cuts would be reduced from two to one.

 
1  —  Traffic Reduction on Gladstone

East 30th Avenue along the site would be constrained to an L-turn south onto Gladstone. This bicycle route traffic calming measure was already proposed by the City of Vancouver. With the proposed redevelopment, diversion at this five-way intersection becomes critical to the livability of the surrounding neighborhood.

 
1  —  Stepdown to East 30th Avenue

A row of townhouses and four-storey flanks to the south tower provides reasonable transition to the existing single-family residential area on the south side of East 30th Avenue. (The same reasonable transition needs to be achieved along Gladstone, especially since Gladstone is the western boundary of the Norquay mass rezoning.)

 
1  —  Location and Footprint of Two Towers

The northeast tower is best situated to mitigate impacts of bulk and shadow. The south tower (best shape) would have moderate impact — given the presupposition of 3.8 FSR for the site: bulk to the south, shadow to the west. (Nothing positive can be said about the west tower.)

 
½  —  Human Scale Along Kingsway

This can only be half a reason, because the dark corollary is three looming 14-storey towers. A five-storey height at Kingsway is a devil’s deal, since the Norquay Plan has established an unwanted out-of-human-scale 10-storey base height along all of Kingsway in Norquay. Future buildout could make the proposed 2220 Kingsway seem even more out of context. It might be better to consider 10 storeys adjacent to Kingsway in order to reduce the western tower to something less overwhelming. Perhaps six storeys with upper-level setback?
 

Written by eyeonnorquay

17 August 2012 at 8:16 am

Posted in Statements

2220 Kingsway #3

leave a comment »

 
Announcement distributed to Norquay local area email list on 9 August 2012

 
Three 14-Storey Towers
95% of Site Walled-Off to Neighborhood
Greenery Hidden in Private Courtyard and on Rooftops

Come to a Local Community Meeting about the New Development Proposed for

2220 Kingsway Canadian Tire Site

Monday  —  20 August 2012  —  7:00 pm to 9:30 pm
Meeting Room in Back of Tipper Restaurant
2066 Kingsway (just east of Victoria Drive)

 

This Meeting Is Organized by and for Residents of the Surrounding Neighborhood
[ Not Developers and Not City of Vancouver Officials ]

     Learn more about what has been proposed for the 2.3 acre site
     See how the proposal does and does not match up with the Norquay Plan
     Understand what the sequence in the official “process” will be
     Find out how to get changes made to the proposal
     Discuss the situation with other local residents

Details of the Rezoning Application can be viewed at
http://former.vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/2220kingsway/index.htm

Ongoing news and analysis about the 2220 Kingsway development application can be found at
https://eyeonnorquay.wordpress.com/rezonings/2220-kingsway/
 

Written by eyeonnorquay

9 August 2012 at 9:52 pm

Posted in Events, News

Shut Out

leave a comment »

 
How is Norquay different from five other large areas that the City of Vancouver is subjecting to “new planning”?  Why is Norquay the only neighborhood that is being allowed no participation through an ongoing community-based group?

 
Like a kid set loose in a candy store, the City of Vancouver (CoV) has gone on a rampage and left a huge planning mess in its wake. First it licked at the Norquay sucker a little and took a nibble off the side. Then it moved along to the Mount Pleasant candy bar, ripped off the wrapper, and has been chewing at one end. Then the possiblity of getting into three separate neighborhoods at the same time seemed appealing, so the CoV kid busted a big jar of sweets and stuffed its mouth full with Marpole, West End, and Grandview-Woodland. There seemed to be room left to cram yet one more piece in, so the CoV kid also managed to get a corner of its tongue wrapped around the Downtown Eastside. Five different candy flavors all together make for a colorful sticky face, but may not taste so good. Queasiness seems to have left the Norquay goodie dropped in a corner and covered with acid reflux.

On 3 February 2011 three planners met with nine Norquay Working Group (NWG) members and told them out of the blue that the group was “over.” NWG was also told that two February 2011 open houses would provide opportunity to sign up for participation in two new groups: public realm planning, development of amenities and benefits strategy. But two weeks later at the open houses, Norquay residents were told a flipflop different story: no sign-up sheets, and no participation. Twenty-one months later, Norquay just languishes in limbo while CoV avidly puts newer territories into play.

To parallel Norquay with Mount Pleasant is instructive. The development of the Norquay Plan ran from March 2006 to November 2010. The development of the Mount Pleasant Plan ran from May 2007 to November 2010. Despite this almost simultaneous planning, these two neighborhoods have been treated very differently. In clearest terms, Norquay lies further to the east of Vancouver’s great divide. Consistent differences probably can be found across factors like recency of immigration, extent of cultural integration, first language facility in English, and levels of education and income.

One striking and indisputable difference can be seen in CoV attitude toward ongoing neighborhood participation. In early 2012 city planners began meeting with Mount Pleasant about Terms of Reference for a Mount Pleasant Implementation Committee. The two specific groups that vanished overnight in Norquay are also explicitly named aspects of the ongoing Mount Pleasant public consultation. Compare below the extracted materials from CoV statements on Mount Pleasant and Norquay.

In the larger picture, the City of Vancouver is currently working with five local community planning groups in Mount Pleasant, Marpole, West End, Grandview-Woodland, and Downtown Eastside. Meanwhile, Norquay seems to have gotten segregated off into a special deprived category of residents to be excluded from any significant role in determining their own future.

Perhaps all CoV ever wanted out of Norquay was a phony process to meet the formalities required for a quickie mass rezoning. And now CoV seems to be getting ready to plow ahead with handover of 2.3 acres at 2220 Kingsway [fiat creation of a “property right” to FSR 3.8 and height of 14 storeys] to speculator profiteering while ignoring or shortchanging even the few ameliorations set forth in the broadly unsupported Norquay Plan. Somehow such “rights” do not seem to extend to the existing thousands of residents in the Norquay community.

 
•   •   •   •   •   •

 
Mount Pleasant

Mount Pleasant Community Planning Program
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/cpp/mountpleasant/index.htm

Work Underway

City staff and members of the Mount Pleasant Community are now working on implementation of the Mount Pleasant Community Plan. Work is being completed to finalize a Terms of Reference to guide the Mount Pleasant Implementation Committee (MPIC).

The MPIC will assist with Plan implementation including providing advice on public engagement, and helping with other implementation directions to develop a strategy for Broadway East revitalization, a community-wide public benefits and infrastructure strategy and a public realm plan for Mount Pleasant.

 
Mount Pleasant Community Plan — 6.2 Steps to Begin Community Plan Implementation  [p. 32]
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/cpp/mountpleasant/pdf/MPcommunityplan.pdf

Public Benefits and Infrastructure Strategy

A Public Benefits and Infrastructure Strategy will be devised for Mount Pleasant to enable the delivery of multiple public benefits identified in the community plan. This Strategy will identify the capital costs for new public amenities and facilities requested in the community plan (e.g., childcare, parks, engineering infrastructure, cultural spaces including artist studios and live/work, affordable housing, and heritage retention), potential revenue expected from new development and other sources (e.g., DCLs, CACs, Capital Plan), and the allocation of that revenue to support the construction and operation of new amenities and facilities. The Strategy will also seek to ensure that new development on both City and private land pays a fair share towards public benefits needed to meet demands created by the new population.

Public Realm Plan

A Public Realm Plan will be drafted to co-ordinate the public realm improvements identified in the community plan. In general, the public realm plan should address issues of connectivity across Mount Pleasant (e.g., with pathways, bikeways, and Laneways), street vibrancy, provision and design of public spaces, and sustainability (e.g., rainwater management, wildlife habitat, and other ecological considerations). A key consideration will be approaches to daylighting and marking Mount Pleasant’s streams.

Public Engagement Review

The overarching goal of this review is to improve civic decision-making, addressing issues of representativeness, diversity, trust, and creativity in neighbourhood decision-making, while building community capacity to solve problems. It will involve an investigation into creating a governance structure and process mechanism to engage representatives of the Mount Pleasant community, design professionals, and the City to collaborate on design solutions and implementation strategies for the Mount Pleasant Community Plan. As a first step, various models and best practices used in other neighbourhoods and municipalities will be reviewed, including neighbourhood design panels and co-design processes. This would be followed by further dialogue with community stakeholders to jointly determine the best approach to adopt in Mount Pleasant. This review will be co-ordinated with the City’s own on-going review of public engagement practices.

 
•   •   •   •   •   •

 
Norquay

Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre Plan
http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/cclerk/20101104/documents/penv2.pdf

 
Public Amenities  [p. 15, pdf 15]

Amenities, such as recreational facilities, parks and libraries, are important elements of a vibrant and livable community. As part of the Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre planning process, the community identified a number of desired (and needed) public amenities which were then translated into a preliminary Public Benefits Strategy with directions and priorities for the delivery of amenities within the neighbourhood.

As part of the implementation phase, the City (in consultation with the community) will develop more detailed strategies for service and amenity improvements and ensure that new development on both City and private land pays a fair share towards public benefits to meet the demands created by the additional population.

 
NEXT STEPS  [p. 23, pdf 23]

Following adoption of the proposed Plan, further steps are required to fully realize its potential. Primary among these steps are the two major components of the Implementation Plan:

Zoning By-law Development

The Neighbourhood Centre Plan proposes four new residential zones that require drafting, testing, and refining new District Schedules and Design Guidelines to implement. The new zoning documents will amend the Zoning and Development By-law to enable new ground- oriented housing to be developed in the Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre without requiring rezoning approval. Development of these documents will also include public consultation to ensure they are well-calibrated to community preferences.

Public Amenities and Infrastructure Financing Strategy

More detailed work is required to develop a complete Public Amenities and Infrastructure Financing Strategy appropriate to the amount of new development planned in the Neighbourhood Centre. This includes more detailed analysis of Development Cost Levy and Community Amenity Contribution potential and mechanisms to ensure that the local area benefits from new development. Also included in this strategy will be consideration of other funding sources and steps, including Capital Plans, required to finance improvements needed to ensure a complete and sustainable Neighbourhood Centre.

Placemaking and Public Realm Plan

In addition to the Public Realm and Transportation Improvement Plan, further work is planned to develop more detailed Public Realm improvements and placemaking guidelines to fully realize the potential of the Kingsway shopping area. Included in this effort will be more detailed work to identify public art opportunities and to develop public realm elements specific to Norquay Village.

 
6.0 Community Amenities and Facilities  [APPENDIX A, page 35 of 40; pdf 60]

Amenities — such as recreational facilities, parks and libraries are important elements of a vibrant and livable community. And as the Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre grows and evolves over time, new amenities and facilities will be needed to ensure the continued livability and desirability of the area. This section outlines directions and priorities for future amenities within the Neighbourhood Centre, in response to needs and preferences identified by community members and forecasted demand. As well, this plan recognizes that new development should also contribute by paying a fair share towards public benefits to meet the demands created by the new population.

As part of the implementation program for this plan, a detailed public Amenity and Infrastructure Financing Strategy will be developed that outlines proposed funding and delivery of new amenities in the Neighbourhood Centre. The detailed Strategy will consider the impact of increased population and the mechanisms needed to pay for the benefits (i.e. capital expenditures, Development Cost Levies, and Community Amenity Contributions). This section will inform develop of that Strategy as well as rezonings completed in accordance with this plan. The section is divided into three main sub- areas: parks and Open Spaces, Community Gathering Spaces and Other Amenities and Services.

 
•   •   •   •   •   •
 

Written by eyeonnorquay

6 August 2012 at 12:01 pm