Archive for the ‘Comments’ Category

4410 Kaslo St TMH

leave a comment »

Comment on Development Application DP-2018-00024
4410 Kaslo Street – Temporary Modular Housing



13 February 2017

In general, we support the design of this project. We commend the larger units, the outdoor amenity space, and the commercial kitchen and common dining area. We also commend the small lounge area on the ground floor.

We recommend the following changes to the design:

1.  Reverse the positions of the entrance/vestibule/lobby area and the office/meeting room area on the ground floor near the front entrance. As drawn, the sight line from the front entrance is toward staff space rather than toward common space for the residents. As configured at present, residents would feel that they are being housed in an institution rather than in a home of their own. The placement of the front entrance (with the attached vestibule and lobby) should be shifted so that the sight line when entering the building is toward the common dining area and lounge.

2.  Separate the two dining areas by a half wall rather than a full wall to make the dining area seem like a single space and to allow more natural light. (This may already be the intention.) In addition we call attention to this discrepancy: the larger dining area is described as seating 36, but the drawing shows seating for only 32.

3.  Provide a small lounge area and laundry on each floor. A single ground-floor lounge that seats 8 people seems inadequate for a building with 52 residents. Although convenient to the dining area, that one common area is located far from the rooms of many residents. A small lounge on each floor would provide additional space and would foster social interaction. If a single unit on each of the second and third floors were converted to space for a small lounge and a laundry facility, the total unit count would return to the originally proposed 50 units.

Jeanette and Joseph Jones


Written by eyeonnorquay

15 February 2018 at 10:31 am

Formal Comment on TMH

with one comment

The following formal comment from Jeanette Jones and Joseph Jones was submitted to by email at 9:02 am on 18 December 2017.

Comment on Temporary Housing Proposal for 4410 Kaslo Street —
Community Information Sessions on 13 and 14 December 2017

18 December 2017

We support the concept of building temporary modular housing (TMH) as one way to help house the homeless population of Vancouver. We have particular concerns related to this proposed TMH site.

Location of the site

The site at 4410 Kaslo Street is well situated in relation to transit and to Slocan Park. However, it is not within easy walking distance of most other amenities. The closest area with shops and services is on Kingsway, seven blocks to the south. But much of the streetscape there currently consists of empty buildings awaiting redevelopment under the Norquay Plan. The nearest grocery store is Banana Grove at Slocan and East 22nd Avenue, eight blocks away. The Renfrew Community Centre and the Renfrew Library are equally distant. The shopping area and services around the Joyce SkyTrain Station lie 15 blocks away.

Eight blocks can be a pleasant walk in good weather for healthy people. However, in cold or rainy weather it is a long way to go to supply even minor needs. The difficulty increases for tenants with mobility challenges, or for mothers with infants. Shops and services need to be accessible if tenants are to learn to live independently.

To help mitigate the effects of the distance to shops and services:

       •  Every tenant should be issued a monthly one-zone transit pass
       •  A van and driver should be available to residents on a frequent and regular basis
       •  Both individual units and communal kitchen space should be designed with more than
           standard storage, especially refrigerator space

       •  If tenants lack the skills to plan meals in advance and to shop for groceries
           in an organized way, teaching these skills should be a priority for the service provider

At a more general level,

Easy accessibility of shops and services should be added to the TMH site selection criteria.

Tenant mix

We support designating 4410 Kaslo as a coed residence. The selected operator (Atira) has keen interest and extensive experience in providing housing for women. Therefore,

A majority of the tenants should be women, to take full advantage of the operator’s interest and experience.

Transitioning residents to permanent housing

As the lives of tenants become more stable, many would need to transition to more independent, permanent housing. Favorable outcomes are most likely to be achieved if these tenants have an option to move from TMH into non-market housing while remaining in the same neighbourhood.

The nearby 2400 Motel site at Slocan Street and Kingsway has been identified in the Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre Plan as the heart of the Norquay Village area. Future development of this site is already specified to deliver 500 housing units, with 100 of those non-market. Much needed indoor and outdoor community space as well as additional shops (including a grocery store) and services would also be provided. Seven years into the Norquay Plan, Kingsway is experiencing major redevelopment. Yet the 2400 Motel site has shown no sign of delivering on the major amenity promise to Norquay residents, even though the City of Vancouver (CoV) already owns the land.

The City of Vancouver needs to begin developing the 2400 Motel site according to specifications outlined in the 2010 Norquay Plan and the Norquay Public Benefits Strategy.

Distribution of TMH sites

Like every other Vancouver neighbourhood, Norquay / Renfrew-Collingwood needs to do its share to house Vancouver’s homeless population. We look forward to additional TMH proposals that will distribute this housing more equitably across the entire city.

Neighbourhoods that do not help the homeless by hosting a TMH site should pay a surtax designated toward provision of new non-market housing.


The December 13 and 14 meetings were advertised as “Community Information Sessions.” But very little concrete information was available.

The community’s most pressing question — Who is going to be living in this particular TMH facility? — remains largely unanswered. The closest approximation to an answer that we were able to ascertain could be summarized as: “Tenants will be male and female homeless people already living in the neighbourhood. We don’t know who they are, how many of them there are, or where they are. But everything will work out fine — just trust us.” This response does not reassure current community residents. Instead, it leaves us feeling frustrated at best (if we believe that CoV and its partners honestly don’t have the information) or cynical and angry at worst (if we believe that CoV and its partners have the information but won’t share it with us).

Community consultation at this early stage does make it more possible for community residents to have real input on some issues. But until we have a better idea of who the tenants of the building will be, it is difficult to make meaningful comment on other topics.

The CoV desire to get TMH built as quickly as possible is understandable. However, a complex network of city, provincial and non-profit agencies is involved in making this happen. Proceeding too quickly creates stress, confusion and communication problems. Not all staff at the information session was on the same page.

Information is not always presented in a timely and forthright manner. Several community residents attending the sessions were looking for a distribution map of identified TMH sites and a list of criteria for choosing these sites. CoV has this information and it should have been provided on boards at the session. Community residents unable to attend either of the information sessions need to have timely web access to the posted boards if we are to submit comment by the December 22 deadline. As of this morning (Monday, December 18) the boards from the information sessions have not yet been made available on CoV’s TMH web site.

The next community information session needs to be scheduled as soon as CoV and its partners have a more accurate picture of who will be living in this building. This should not be a matter of simply presenting a proposed development project. Community residents would like to be informed of the approximate tenant mix in terms of service level, current area of residence, male vs. female, and single vs. family (if applicable).

The City of Vancouver has not built a relationship of trust with this particular area of Renfrew-Collingwood. The area around the 29th Avenue SkyTrain Station was abruptly cut off from Norquay in 2009 after 3½ years of the planning process for the Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre. Specific promises made in connection with the future development of Ravine Way (a linear park/pedestrian connection between Slocan Park and Norquay Park) have been retracted. Much better attention needs to be paid to process if CoV intends to introduce a SkyTrain Station Area Planning initiative here in early 2018.

Jeanette and Joseph Jones

Written by eyeonnorquay

18 December 2017 at 9:42 am

Housing Vancouver Strategy

with one comment

On 29 November 2017 Vancouver City Council heard from speakers to the 248-page report

Housing Vancouver Strategy (2018 – 2027) and 3-Year Action Plan (2018 – 2020)

Eye on Norquay producers Joseph Jones and Jeanette Jones saw this occasion as a valuable opportunity to mesh Norquay concerns with this new expression of City of Vancouver policy direction. Here is what each of us said to Council as speakers 10 and 11 to the agenda item.

Joseph Jones on Housing Vancouver Strategy

The following comment focuses on two concepts mentioned — but scarcely mentioned — in the new Housing Vancouver Strategy. Those two concepts are amenities and Neighbourhood Centres.

Yesterday Gil Kelley mentioned amenities once. He stated that amenities should be for QUOTE not just a few good neighborhoods UNQUOTE. Thank you for that, Gil Kelley.

Throughout the 248 pages of the report, “amenities” are almost always taken for granted, and they are presented as something that already exists. On only three pages * does the report in any way contemplate the provision of amenity — but even then, always as “other community amenities” subordinated to housing, and always as something vague that might somehow be extracted from new density somewhere at some future time.

I move on to Neighborhood Centres. Five separate pages in the report mention “neighbourhood centres.” **

Over a period of fifteen years, the City of Vancouver put many millions of dollars into a massive city planning program.

Neighbourhood Centres was a core concept. During that undertaking, city planners remade two adjacent local areas along Kingsway in the heart of East Vancouver. Both projects encompassed hundreds of acres. In 2004 the City mass rezoned 1,577 properties, and in 2010 another 1,912.

From what we residents can see so far, that flipping of thousands of properties over to a denser zoning was all that the City of Vancouver ever really cared about.

The planning for the first neighbourhood centre at Kingsway & Knight was never completed. To take that approach could fairly be called hit and run. Then the City of Vancouver web site remake of 2012 mysteriously disappeared Kingsway & Knight from the list of active planning areas.

On page pdf-56/A-34 the new report presents Norquay as a Case Study applicable to the future of much of the rest of Vancouver. Mention is made there of 172 Norquay development applications received as of February 2017. Our own current count is 206, a number that leaves out the megaprojects along Kingsway. That rate of development computes as about 11% of our houses in about 4 years.

The planning for Norquay eventually produced some documents about public realm that specified public benefits. But after seven years we see little delivery on any of the promises made to Norquay. At this stage, we feel ripped off. In terms of amenities, our existing community pretty much started out with nothing — and we still have nothing, except new dwellings for more people who also have nothing.

Look at the single biggest promise made to Norquay. The 2400 Motel site on Kingsway. The City of Vancouver owns those 3.5 acres. In addition to significant new community space, that site is supposed to provide 100 units of non-market housing.

You already have the land. You need to find the will to deliver on what you promised. If you started tomorrow, we residents would be lucky to see payback by the mid-point of the Norquay Plan’s stated lifespan.

*  amenities on:  pdf 109 / B-7 ; pdf 112 / B-10 ; pdf 120 / B-18

**  Neighbourhood Centre on:  pdf 12 / report 12 ; pdf 13 / report 13 ; pdf 53 / A-31 ; pdf 55 / A-33 ; pdf 111 / B-9

Jeanette Jones on Housing Vancouver Strategy

I would like to concentrate on one proposal in this report to address Vancouver’s housing crisis. The Housing Vancouver Strategy sets the construction of 5000 two and three bedroom townhouses as a target to be reached by 2027. I have chosen to focus on this item because I live in Norquay, an area of Vancouver that has traditionally housed a high proportion of families.

The 2010 Norquay Plan rezoned the entire residential part of our neighbourhood for duplexes, townhouses, coach houses and four-storey apartments. Norquay is a demonstration project for this strategy to make family housing more affordable. Here we can already begin to see what is real rather than aspirational.

Our first three projects for rowhouses and stacked townhouses have been completed in 2017, and I have attended open houses for at least one unit in each of them. I have also viewed quite a few duplexes and coach houses. They are more affordable than a new single family house. But they are still not affordable to most Norquay working class families. Even that limited affordability often comes at the cost of livability.

My biggest concern is so many tiny bedrooms and inadequate living rooms. Bedrooms can be as small as 7’1″ x 8’2″, unable to hold much more than a bed. There is often no place for a child to play, or even to do homework. Many units are narrow, and the main floor is usually an open area. By the time space has been made for a kitchen and a dining area, very little remains for a living room. A rowhouse that costs $1.34M for 1974 sq.ft. should be able to seat more than four people in the living room. Where can families work and play together? Or entertain friends?

Surely, I thought, the City of Vancouver has guidelines for room sizes. But the only relevant guidelines I could find — the High Density Housing for Families With Children Guidelines — do not even mention living rooms. The specifications for bedrooms do not include any actual measurements. By way of contrast, BC Housing Design Guidelines for 3 bedroom social housing units require a minimum bedroom size of 92 sq.ft. and a living room that seats at least 6 people on sofas, loveseats, or armchairs.

I am happy to see that Housing Strategy #4 lists as its first action “Review and modernize the High-Density Housing for Families With Children Guidelines,” and that this action is already underway. However, the topics to be considered are stated as “family unit sizes, amenity requirements, and design flexibilities such as interior bedrooms.” There is no mention of room sizes.

Completing the review of these guidelines should be a priority action. Adequate minimum room sizes for bedrooms and living rooms need to be specified, before any of the proposed 5000 townhouses are approved. Unless new family housing is both affordable and livable, families will continue to move out of the City of Vancouver.

Postscript: The comment made by speaker 2 Aaron Leung (Chair of Children, Youth & Families Advisory Committee) stated many of these same concerns.

Written by eyeonnorquay

29 November 2017 at 9:32 pm

Posted in Comments

4459 Rupert Street

with one comment

The following formal comment has been submitted to City of Vancouver following the 8 November 2017 open house on 4459 Rupert Street. Although this particular rezoning proposal falls outside the boundaries of Norquay, the issues that it raises, and the precedents that it seeks to set, should concern all Vancouver residents, particularly those who live in East Vancouver. Many unhappy local area residents showed up for the open house. We hope that the details provided in this comment will inspire others with less “schooling” in the details of what the City of Vancouver is prepared to take into account. Comments can be made through the online feedback form that is linked to the rezoning and permit development application materials that are posted to the City of Vancouver web site (link below).

Comment on Application to Rezone 4459 Rupert Street from C-1 to CD-1



9 November 2017

The design of the proposed building at 4459 Rupert Street is said to be adapted from the original “Monad-on-Fourth” building at 3351 West Fourth Avenue. Both buildings are 4 storeys high, with 3 storeys of residential units over 1 storey of commercial space. Both buildings are on a single lot (33 x 112 ft. on Fourth Avenue, 38 x 112 ft. on Rupert Street). But while the building on Fourth Avenue provides 4 spacious residential units, the proposal for Rupert Street anticipates 12 cramped residential units.

We oppose the current rezoning application for these reasons:

1.  Excessive Building Height, Density and Massing

This application proposes a building height of 14.9 m. and an FSR of 2.4. Maximum allowable height in C-1 zoned areas is 10.7 m. and allowable FSR is 1.2. Although the project is eligible for increased floor area under the Secured Rental Housing Policy, to increase the zoned density by 100% is excessive and unprecedented for a Rental 100 development. Compare this with the recently approved rezoning of 2153 Kingsway under the same policy: an FSR increase from 2.5 (C-2 zoning) to 3.37, an increase of approximately 35%. The much larger Kingsway project locates 101 units across from a 14-storey development with three towers. This proposed 4-storey development will be conspicuously out of scale in the middle of a block of single-family houses, especially since there is minimal front yard setback and zero setback of the upper storeys at the front of the building. No development proposal should be permitted to apply abstract specifications to a single parcel with such severe disregard shown to the local area context of the site (as has caused great difficulties at 105 Keefer Street).

2.  Substandard Size of Residential Units

The unit density for the three residential storeys in this project works out to more than 300 units per hectare. By way of contrast, the maximum unit density for residential 4-storey apartment buldings in the RM-9A zone of nearby Norquay is 140 units per hectare (and for a single lot, considerably less at 100 per hectare).

The proposed units are tiny, especially the 1-bedroom units. A comparison of average unit sizes with two current Rental 100 projects on Kingsway yields these statistics:

                  Studio           1 Bedroom         2 Bedroom

4459 Rupert St       379 sq.ft.       410 sq.ft.        663 sq.ft.

855 Kingsway         376 sq.ft.       529 sq.ft.        699 sq.ft.

2153 Kingsway        435 sq.ft.       562 sq.ft.        767 sq.ft.                 


Most of the 2-bedroom units are less than 700 sq.ft. with small living areas, and thus are not suitable for families.

3.  Unacceptable Residential Unit Design for 1-Bedroom and 2-Bedroom Units

Studio Units (2)  — The studio units are small but well designed, with two light exposures for each unit.

One Bedroom Units (4)  — These units do not contain an actual bedroom. They have the same basic floor plan as the studio units. Two of the “one-bedroom” units are approximately the same size as the studio units; the other two units are only slightly larger. The main distinguishing feature seems to be that “one-bedroom” units contain a sliding wall that is able to shut off the area where the bed is located. This design cannot accurately be described as “one-bedroom.”

Two Bedroom Units (6)  — These units are inappropriate for families. The second bedroom is often less than 80 sq.ft. (Units 201, 202, 401, 403), too small for children to play or even to do homework. Some units do not have functional balconies (Units 204, 305, 403). There is no common indoor or outdoor play space for children. The drawings show some units without bedroom doors or closets, but this may be an oversight.

4.  Inadequate Parking and Lane Access

The only parking for this development is one car share space. This is grossly insufficient. There are 47 tenant parking spaces in the approved 101-unit Rental 100 development at 2153 Kingsway, even with a 20% transit reduction. The Rupert Street site is much less well served by transit.

Two of the four parcels in the block between East 29th and East 28th Avenues are 119 ft. long, exceeding the characteristic 112 ft. Consequently, the width of the lane is reduced to 13 ft. behind these two parcels. One of the long parcels is immediately to the north of the subject site. It is difficult to see how garbage trucks or emergency vehicles would be able to service a 12-unit building adequately.

5.  Poorly Chosen Location

Although Rupert Street is classified as an arterial street, the existing C-1 zoned area around the intersection of Rupert Street and East 29th Avenue has not yet been built out. Two of the four retail units in the only existing commercial building have been untenanted for a long time. It seems unlikely that a vibrant residential/shopping area can develop at East 29th Avenue and Rupert Street in the foreseeable future.

Considerable commercial/residential development is already underway nearby at East 22nd Avenue and Rupert Street. That location has more existing commercial development, is closer to a range of community amenities (schools, library, park, community centre), and is better served by transit. This area would be a far more suitable location for such an extremely dense housing form.

6.  Failure to Meet Family Housing Guidelines

Six of the proposed twelve units are 2-bedroom units classified by City of Vancouver as family housing. This project fails to meet the following High Density Housing for Families With Children Guidelines:

2.3.2 Neighbourhood Compatibility
Family housing developments should be compatible in scale, character, and materials to their surrounding neighbourhood.

3.2.1 Common Open Space
There should be appropriate open space to meet the on-site needs of children and adults.

3.7.1 Common Indoor Amenity Space
Provide appropriate common indoor amenity space for families with children where individual units are not suited to desired indoor activities.

4.1.1 Unit Size and Interior Layout
The size and layout of units should be appropriate to meet the needs of families with children.

Each bedroom should be large enough to accommodate a single bed, a dresser, a desk or table, and in children’s bedrooms, some floor space for playing.


The applicant has made commendable efforts to compensate for the small size of the units by designing for efficient use of space. The courtyard separating the front and the rear sections of the building on the residential levels lets additional light into the units. The rooftop garden is a welcome addition that provides much-needed open space.

But the project as currently proposed is too high and too dense. The units are too small. This type of housing is not livable for families. If extremely dense housing projects are to be allowed on a single lot, they should contain only studio and 1-bedroom units. They should be confined to areas that already have a considerable amount of commercial and residential redevelopment, and they should be close to neighbourhood amenities and good transit.

We ask that the FSR for this project be reduced to 1.8 (a generous 50% above the zoned FSR of 1.2), that the height be limited to 3 storeys, and that at least 4 parking spaces be included in addition to the car share space. The number of units should be reduced to nine, and they should be limited to studio and genuine one-bedroom apartments. These recommended adjustments should go a long way toward mitigating the impacts of attempting this kind of development on a single parcel — an approach that fails to achieve the land assembly deemed imperative by comparable RM-9A zoning in Norquay. This precedent-setting development should be identified as a demonstration project and made available for public viewing and public comment before being occupied.

Jeanette and Joseph Jones

Written by eyeonnorquay

9 November 2017 at 4:56 pm

2153-2199 Kingsway

leave a comment »

Comment on 17 October 2016 Open House for 2153-2199 Kingsway


Development Application

On the whole, the development proposed for 2153-2199 Kingsway, as presented at the open house on 17 October 2016, will enhance the local area and provide needed rental accomodation.

The corner at Kingsway and Gladstone is a place-making opportunity, and much of the potential has been realized. I favor the alignment of roofline with the side of the building. The orientation of the building toward the path of the sun means that shadow impact will be minimized in any case. Enhanced sidewalk width along Kingsway toward Gladstone is appreciated.

The orientation of the main residential street entrance toward Gladstone Street is a good choice. That feature will encourage passing social acquaintance of renters with other local area residents.

The location of underground parking entrance toward the western end of the building on the lane side is appropriate. That will somewhat mitigate traffic concerns by distributing activity toward both ends of the lane. At present, pedestrians and cyclists suffer considerable hazard from the blinded lane entry onto Gladstone.

The placement of an underground parking exhaust vent on Gladstone, right beside the residential entrance, is the single greatest failure of the proposal. That vent should be relocated to the lane side, perhaps at the intersection of the T lane running northward, to mitigate impact on sites north of the lane. Efficiency of exhaust suggests that a more midpoint location in the length of the building would better serve the physics of venting than would the far end of 231 feet. The mechanics of providing underground parking spaces must take second place to this concern.

Other public realm concerns toward the Gladstone end of the building include: assurance that Bus Stop and Litter Bin are retained on Kingsway; complete redevelopment of the Gladstone sidewalk to eliminate present extensive curb cuts; specification that all Gladstone curbside is designated for short-period loading/unloading only with absolutely no parking; no parking signage is needed for the 24 foot segment of east-side curb opposite the recently installed corner bulge at Gladstone and Kingsway; relocation of the large black electrical box recently dumped onto the corner.

Everything possible should be done to improve articulation along the 231 feet of the Kingway side of the building. There has been improvement from the pre-application open house. More seems achievable. A 231 foot long battleship should not eradicate a streetscape that presently offers the organic variety of five different faces sited on seven parcels. In the block to the east, the relatively recent C-2 development is only at four storeys and extends only for about 175 feet without interruption.

That 2339 Kingsway development has managed to achieve small-retail without consolidating those spaces or presenting a massive dead face to the street, as Royal Bank notoriously has done at 2300 Kingsway. To quote open house panel 1: this development is supposed to “contribute to an inviting and revitalized pedestrian realm on Kingsway through new retail storefronts.” There seems little excuse for this new development to fall short of achieving that goal.

For the most part, the proposed detailing seems acceptable. The extent of brick and its two colors are welcome. I question the orange that is proposed on two grounds. First is the current prevalence of that color, which promises to make it look dated very soon. Think avocado appliances. The second is how close the orange comes to the intrusive local corporate color of VanCity Credit Union. A shift toward reds would solve these problems and play better with the greens to come at 2220 Kingsway. The variegation of the shades among the panels is a good approach.

Joseph Jones 19 October 2016

Written by eyeonnorquay

19 October 2016 at 3:27 pm

2395-2469 Kingsway

leave a comment »

Comment on Rezoning Application at Public Hearing of 18 October 2016

Rezoning Application

Public Hearing

In general, we support this application. We believe that it is consistent with the policy set out in the Norquay Plan for the Kingsway Rezoning Area. We strongly support these added conditions:

Condition (b)1 (Urban Design) requiring design development to widen the proposed mid-block pedestrian mews and to include integrated permanent seating.

Condition (b)4 (Urban Design) requiring design development to use more brick masonry.

We encourage staff to continue to address potential road congestion around the site.

We have the following concerns:

1.  Public Benefits. The target CAC for the Kingsway Rezoning Area is currently set at $11.08 per sq.ft. of additional density, by far the lowest rate in the five areas of the City of Vancouver that have target CACs. According to the Norquay Public Benefits Strategy, 50% of CACs generated in Norquay are to be allocated to affordable housing. That has been done in this case.

The other two categories that are eligible to receive CAC funding are “Childcare” and “Other Community Facilities.” For this application, staff has allocated the remaining 50% of CACs to a combined category labeled “Childcare and Other Community Facilities.” These are two separate categories in the Public Benefits Policy, and they should receive separate allocations. To date, none of the CACs generated by the three applications in the Kingsway Rezoning Area has been specifically allocated to “Other Community Facilities.” (See CAC Allocations Under the Norquay Plan below.)

The “Other Community Facility” designated by the Norquay Plan is the 15,000 sq.ft. of new community indoor space and the 20,000 sq.ft. of community outdoor space that will be included in the redevelopment of the 2400 Motel site. The City of Vancouver is the owner of this property. We call on the City to move forward as quickly as possible to develop the 2400 Motel site so that Norquay can begin to enjoy the community facility that residents have rated as their most desired amenity.

2.  Landscaping. Failure to maintain landscaping is presenting one of the greatest problems in the implementation of the Norquay Plan. Conditions need to be included for this application to specify that:

(a) An irrigation system for the landscaping will be provided.

(b) The development is responsible for maintenance of the landscaping, including the mid-block pedestrian mews and the part of the Kingsway sidewalk on private land.

3.  Building Design. We object to the use of a “bridge” to connect the two buildings. The bridge impinges on the pedestrian mews and looms over and shadows what is supposed to be public open space. This concern should outweigh the desire of the applicant to avoid the expense of providing a second elevator for the development.

Jeanette and Joseph Jones

15 October 2016


CAC Allocations under the Norquay Plan

               2300 Kingsway *
           0   Affordable Housing
      $2.4 M   Childcare
           0   Other Community Facilities
           0   Other
           0   Unallocated
               2689 Kingsway
           0   Affordable Housing
    $105,846   Childcare
           0   Other Community Facilities
           0   Other
           0   Unallocated
               2220 Kingsway
           0   Affordable Housing
           0   Childcare
  $1,011,720   Other Community Facilities **
           0   Other
        $3 M   Unallocated
               2395 Kingsway
    $439,765   Affordable Housing
    $439,765   Childcare ***
           0   Other Community Facilities
           0   Other
           0   Unallocated

* This development was approved as a site specific rezoning in 2006. Construction was
completed after the adoption of the Norquay Plan in 2010. It is included here because
it is contemporaneous with the Norquay Plan, and because it is a large development
generating a significant amount of CACs.

** This amount was allocated to Transportation Infrastructure and to an on-site pocket
park. (These categories do not relate to the Public Benefits Strategy.)

*** For both Childcare and Other Community Facilities.


Written by eyeonnorquay

15 October 2016 at 11:00 am

New RM-9A Zone

leave a comment »

Comment Made to City of Vancouver on the Proposed Zone and Design Guidelines for the Norquay Village Transition Area (RM-9A), Presented at an Open House on 23 September 2015

28 September 2015

The proposed new zoning regulations accord with the Norquay Village Apartment Transition Area Rezoning Policy of 2013 in the following ways:

        •  Maximum height is l3.7 m / 45 ft
        •  Minimum frontage is 15.2 m / 50 ft
        •  Front, rear, and side yard setbacks have not changed (although more discretion is allowed
            for variation)
        •  Building setbacks have changed slightly
        •  Courtyard width has been reduced by more than 10% — from 9.1 m / 30 ft to 8 m / 26 ft
        •  FSR remains the same
        •  Unit density remains the same for apartment buildings
        •  Parking is underground [with new clarification: at least one parking space per unit must be provided]
        •  Amenity contribution is $162 per sq m / $15 per sq ft

In these respects the proposed zoning for the most part implements the spirit and intent of the Norquay Village Neighbourhood Centre Plan of 2010.

However, one major change raises great concern. The proposed zoning regulations would allow multiple stacked townhouses to be built on sites larger than 7212 square feet. This area is equivalent to two 33 x 110 ft. lots. The change would make it possible to build stacked townhouses in most of the RM-9A zone. Under the Transition Area Rezoning Policy, only a single 4-storey apartment building has been possible on any site in this zone.

Stacked townhouses should not be permitted in the RM-9A zone for the following reasons:

1 —  To allow stacked townhouses in this zone would reduce housing options in Norquay instead of increasing them. The design guidelines for apartments in this zone result in units with desirable features. The “alphabet-shaped” buildings have front or rear courtyards and more than four corners. Consequently the larger units have multiple exposures to encourage natural light and ventilation. They offer a very attractive option to many people.

The RM-9A zone is the only place in Norquay where 4-storey apartments can be built on residential streets. The far larger rowhouse/stacked townhouse zone (RM-7) already allows for enough of the stacked townhouse form. Developers are building many stacked townhouses in the RM-7 zone (14 proposals since 2013), but very few rowhouses (1 proposal since 2013). A similar outcome for the RM-9A zone would seriously compromise the design of the Norquay Plan. It seems likely that developers will be tempted to avoid the cost of an elevator by building stacked townhouses, even though the allowable density is less.

2 —  Stacked townhouses will not be accessible to people with mobility issues — seniors, persons with disabilities, young children and others. There is no elevator in stacked townhouses, only multiple flights of stairs. The Norquay Plan (p. 6) claims as a foundation the CityPlan direction

         To increase neighbourhood housing variety, so that people will have more opportunities
         to live in neighbourhoods at various ages and stages in their lives.

In addition, concern for appropriate seniors housing was expressed repeatedly during the 2009 Norquay process. Seniors who downsize from single-family homes are supposed to be able to “age in place.” Many of them would like to continue to live on one of Norquay’s residential streets rather than in a tower on Kingsway. They will not be able to do this in buildings without elevators.

3 —  Developers should not need further incentives to initiate new construction in the new RM-9A zone. Most small developers have not been prepared or willing to go through the expensive and time-consuming rezoning process required by the Rezoning Policy. Even so, three proposals for apartment buildings in this zone have already been made public within the past 18 months (one formal application and two pre-application open houses). Taken together, these three projects propose to redevelop 10 properties out of approximately 250 — a rate of 4%. According to developer representatives, Norquay can expect an increase in the number of proposals when the RM-9A District Schedule and Guidelines replace the Rezoning Policy, even if the only building form allowed is 4-storey apartments.

Jeanette and Joseph Jones

Written by eyeonnorquay

27 September 2015 at 11:35 pm

Posted in Comments