Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Rezoning 1569 W6th Ave, by Ian Adam, P.Eng, M.Sc., 19-Oct-2010, for Public Hearing

519 views

Published on

Presentation by a citizen to Vancouver City Council in Public Hearing, Oct 19, 2010 on the rezoning of 1569 West 6th Ave.

Published in: Real Estate
  • Finally found a service provider which actually supplies an essay with an engaging introduction leading to the main body of the exposition Here is the site ⇒⇒⇒WRITE-MY-PAPER.net ⇐⇐⇐
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • Be the first to like this

Rezoning 1569 W6th Ave, by Ian Adam, P.Eng, M.Sc., 19-Oct-2010, for Public Hearing

  1. 1. Proposed Rezoning 1569 West 6 th Ave Objectionable Issues : <ul><li>1. Views – Public and Private </li></ul><ul><li>2. Height </li></ul><ul><li>3. Density </li></ul><ul><li>4. Privacy, Shadowing, Crowding </li></ul>
  2. 2. Burrard Slopes Guidelines <ul><li>Approved by Council </li></ul><ul><li>All other developments have complied with them </li></ul><ul><li>This project is within the area – it should comply as well </li></ul><ul><li>Guidelines survive rezoning </li></ul>
  3. 3. Burrard Slopes Guidelines
  4. 4. 1. Views – Public and Private <ul><li>preserve scenic public views from major routes and bridges </li></ul><ul><li>limit heights which can be achieved in bridge deck areas. </li></ul><ul><li>minimize the disruption of significant distant views from surrounding sites </li></ul>Section 2.1, 2.4 of Guidelines :
  5. 5. Public Views <ul><li>From Fir Street/ramp sidewalk </li></ul>
  6. 6. Public Views <ul><li>From Fir Street/ramp sidewalk </li></ul>
  7. 7. Private Views <ul><li>From 1570 West 7 th Ave </li></ul>
  8. 8. Private Views <ul><li>From 1570 West 7 th Ave </li></ul>
  9. 9. Private Views <ul><li>From 1570 West 7 th Ave </li></ul>
  10. 10. 2. Guidelines: Maximum Height “ The built form should enhance the topographic bowl ...the Broadway ridge should remain more dominant.”
  11. 11. Maximum Height: <ul><li>4.3.1: The maximum height of a building shall be 9.2 m. (40 feet) </li></ul><ul><li>… may permit an increase…considering: </li></ul><ul><li>(a) ... guidelines adopted by Council and the relationship with nearby residential areas; </li></ul><ul><li>(f) the submission of any advisory group, property owner or tenant. </li></ul>
  12. 12. Maximum Height: <ul><li>(c) a maximum height of 30.5 m. (100 ft) </li></ul><ul><li>(d) Mid-rise elements…over 12.2 m and under 22 m. (40 to 72 ft) </li></ul><ul><li>Limit heights in bridge deck areas </li></ul><ul><li>Because this site is in the topographic bowl, and in the bridge deck zone, it should be limited to the mid-rise height. </li></ul><ul><li>All buildings in the area have complied with these rules </li></ul>
  13. 13. Maximum Height <ul><li>Nearby buildings have met the mid-rise standard. </li></ul>
  14. 14. Maximum Height <ul><li>2 brand-new buildings built to the same mid-rise standard. </li></ul>1680 West 4 th Ave 1635 West 3 rd Ave
  15. 15. Maximum Height (f) Where development occurs beside older buildings, the massing should be organized to respect their scale.
  16. 16. 3. Density <ul><li>residential is a conditional use . It must meet requirements before being approved at all. </li></ul><ul><li>The floor space ratio shall not exceed 1.00. </li></ul><ul><li>may permit an increase up to 3.00, considering: </li></ul><ul><li>(a) all applicable policies and guidelines adopted by Council </li></ul><ul><li>- the relationship of the development with nearby residential areas; </li></ul><ul><li>(b) the height, bulk, location ... and its effect on surrounding buildings and streets, and existing views; </li></ul>
  17. 17. Density <ul><li>may permit a heritage increase up to 10% </li></ul><ul><li>So IF all conditions were met, maximum density would be 3.30 </li></ul><ul><li>The applicant seeks 4.96, an increase of 65% over existing. </li></ul><ul><li>Why should this be granted, when the basic guidelines have not been met? </li></ul>
  18. 18. 4. Privacy, shadowing, crowding <ul><li>Privacy is a crucial aspect of livability </li></ul><ul><li>massing guidelines ... to ensure sun access, light, and privacy; </li></ul><ul><li>Shadowing of public and semi-private open spaces should be minimized during the hours of likely use. </li></ul>Guidelines:
  19. 19. Privacy, shadowing, crowding
  20. 20. Privacy, shadowing, crowding <ul><li>semi-private open space would be permanently shadowed. </li></ul><ul><li>Building would face a concrete wall on the property line, and a 150-foot vertical wall of windows & balconies. </li></ul><ul><li>all south-side units would face 100% loss of privacy </li></ul><ul><li>the building will almost never see sunlight: </li></ul>
  21. 21. Conclusions <ul><li>this project would not comply with existing zoning. </li></ul><ul><li>It does not comply with Council Guidelines, which survive any rezoning. </li></ul><ul><li>Both public and private views are affected. </li></ul><ul><li>Under established neighbourhood Guidelines, height should be 40 to 72 feet. </li></ul><ul><li>the increase in height (112%) and density (65%) are not justified, based on Guidelines. </li></ul><ul><li>the impacts on the neighbourhood pioneers, and on public views, are substantial. </li></ul><ul><li>All other buildings in the area, both older buildings and recent additions, have complied with the Guidelines. </li></ul><ul><li>Approve the previous conforming application for the site. </li></ul>

×