Go Back

2226 W 8th Ave and 2415-2421 Yew St rezoning application

Share 2226 W 8th Ave and 2415-2421 Yew St rezoning application on Facebook Share 2226 W 8th Ave and 2415-2421 Yew St rezoning application on Twitter Share 2226 W 8th Ave and 2415-2421 Yew St rezoning application on Linkedin Email 2226 W 8th Ave and 2415-2421 Yew St rezoning application link

The City of Vancouver has received an application to rezone the subject site from RM-4 (Residential) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal is to allow for the development of a 23-storey residential rental building with a four-storey podium and the conservation of two heritage houses. The proposal includes:

  • 224 rental units with 20% of the floor area secured for below-market rental units;
  • A floor space ratio (FSR) of 7.15; and
  • A building height of 72.9 m (239 ft.) with additional height for rooftop amenity space.

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 RM-4 (Residential) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. The proposal is to allow for the development of a 23-storey residential rental building with a four-storey podium and the conservation of two heritage houses. The proposal includes:

  • 224 rental units with 20% of the floor area secured for below-market rental units;
  • A floor space ratio (FSR) of 7.15; and
  • A building height of 72.9 m (239 ft.) with additional height for rooftop amenity space.

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 June 12 to June 25, 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 Is the City considering policy changes to avoid incentivizing orphaning by developers? For instance, will the 20-storey tower limit in Kitsilano North – Area A be revised? Will developers be approved to build additional storeys if they are not able to utilize their full FSR density within current height restrictions? Will floor plate size maximums be revised to allow for larger towers to maximize density and avoid orphaning lots? Will the City consider stepping in to ask Townline for direct approaches to revise their application and take steps to acquire remnant lots at 2238 West 8th Avenue and 2407 Yew St? Does the City agree this would be a triple-win for the developer Townline, the City, and residents including homeowners– as density would be maximized and not left on the table, and quality of life and property value would not be negatively impacted at remnant lots? Does the City agree that a relatively minor delay of a few months to Townline’s rezoning application is well worth the benefits to the City and its residents to maximize density within TOA’s during a housing crisis, and avoid leaving 38,000 sq ft of lost density on the table within 200m of the Arbutus Skytrain Station? on Facebook Share Is the City considering policy changes to avoid incentivizing orphaning by developers? For instance, will the 20-storey tower limit in Kitsilano North – Area A be revised? Will developers be approved to build additional storeys if they are not able to utilize their full FSR density within current height restrictions? Will floor plate size maximums be revised to allow for larger towers to maximize density and avoid orphaning lots? Will the City consider stepping in to ask Townline for direct approaches to revise their application and take steps to acquire remnant lots at 2238 West 8th Avenue and 2407 Yew St? Does the City agree this would be a triple-win for the developer Townline, the City, and residents including homeowners– as density would be maximized and not left on the table, and quality of life and property value would not be negatively impacted at remnant lots? Does the City agree that a relatively minor delay of a few months to Townline’s rezoning application is well worth the benefits to the City and its residents to maximize density within TOA’s during a housing crisis, and avoid leaving 38,000 sq ft of lost density on the table within 200m of the Arbutus Skytrain Station? on Twitter Share Is the City considering policy changes to avoid incentivizing orphaning by developers? For instance, will the 20-storey tower limit in Kitsilano North – Area A be revised? Will developers be approved to build additional storeys if they are not able to utilize their full FSR density within current height restrictions? Will floor plate size maximums be revised to allow for larger towers to maximize density and avoid orphaning lots? Will the City consider stepping in to ask Townline for direct approaches to revise their application and take steps to acquire remnant lots at 2238 West 8th Avenue and 2407 Yew St? Does the City agree this would be a triple-win for the developer Townline, the City, and residents including homeowners– as density would be maximized and not left on the table, and quality of life and property value would not be negatively impacted at remnant lots? Does the City agree that a relatively minor delay of a few months to Townline’s rezoning application is well worth the benefits to the City and its residents to maximize density within TOA’s during a housing crisis, and avoid leaving 38,000 sq ft of lost density on the table within 200m of the Arbutus Skytrain Station? on Linkedin Email Is the City considering policy changes to avoid incentivizing orphaning by developers? For instance, will the 20-storey tower limit in Kitsilano North – Area A be revised? Will developers be approved to build additional storeys if they are not able to utilize their full FSR density within current height restrictions? Will floor plate size maximums be revised to allow for larger towers to maximize density and avoid orphaning lots? Will the City consider stepping in to ask Townline for direct approaches to revise their application and take steps to acquire remnant lots at 2238 West 8th Avenue and 2407 Yew St? Does the City agree this would be a triple-win for the developer Townline, the City, and residents including homeowners– as density would be maximized and not left on the table, and quality of life and property value would not be negatively impacted at remnant lots? Does the City agree that a relatively minor delay of a few months to Townline’s rezoning application is well worth the benefits to the City and its residents to maximize density within TOA’s during a housing crisis, and avoid leaving 38,000 sq ft of lost density on the table within 200m of the Arbutus Skytrain Station? link

    Is the City considering policy changes to avoid incentivizing orphaning by developers? For instance, will the 20-storey tower limit in Kitsilano North – Area A be revised? Will developers be approved to build additional storeys if they are not able to utilize their full FSR density within current height restrictions? Will floor plate size maximums be revised to allow for larger towers to maximize density and avoid orphaning lots? Will the City consider stepping in to ask Townline for direct approaches to revise their application and take steps to acquire remnant lots at 2238 West 8th Avenue and 2407 Yew St? Does the City agree this would be a triple-win for the developer Townline, the City, and residents including homeowners– as density would be maximized and not left on the table, and quality of life and property value would not be negatively impacted at remnant lots? Does the City agree that a relatively minor delay of a few months to Townline’s rezoning application is well worth the benefits to the City and its residents to maximize density within TOA’s during a housing crisis, and avoid leaving 38,000 sq ft of lost density on the table within 200m of the Arbutus Skytrain Station?

    Steph P asked 5 months ago

    The City assesses “orphan sites” on a case-by-case basis. This rezoning application is still in review by City staff and development potential of adjacent properties will be a considered. In general, it is not expected that every property will be able to have a tower built on it. Smaller remainder lots will still have development potential, either as multiplexes, townhouses, or low-rise apartments. Further, varying lot sizes throughout a block will help create diversity in building form, which is intended with the Broadway Plan. On many blocks, there will be a mix of older heritage homes, multiplexes, low-rise apartments, and tower apartments.

    Currently, the Broadway Plan allows for flexibility for building heights for unique project circumstances, such as larger sites and/or sites providing on-site open space. Through implementation of the Broadway Plan, we have experienced issues where the allowable density cannot be achieved on larger sites within the height limits of the plan. The height limits were calibrated to typical site conditions (e.g. 150 ft. of frontage for a tower). With larger sites where there is more floor area to be accommodated, the uniform height limits can become more challenging. While not all sites will be able to accommodate their maximum permitted density, the City does want to see development occur in the area. City staff believe it is reasonable to allow relatively minor additions to building height to help more housing and job space get built in the area.

  • Share According to Heritage policies “Façade-only retention is generally not considered to be an appropriate heritage conservation procedure. A proposal based on this approach may not be supportable and will not typically be eligible for heritage incentives.” Is the proposed retention of the houses, with a connection via glass cube to the other building, considered a facade only retention or full retention? on Facebook Share According to Heritage policies “Façade-only retention is generally not considered to be an appropriate heritage conservation procedure. A proposal based on this approach may not be supportable and will not typically be eligible for heritage incentives.” Is the proposed retention of the houses, with a connection via glass cube to the other building, considered a facade only retention or full retention? on Twitter Share According to Heritage policies “Façade-only retention is generally not considered to be an appropriate heritage conservation procedure. A proposal based on this approach may not be supportable and will not typically be eligible for heritage incentives.” Is the proposed retention of the houses, with a connection via glass cube to the other building, considered a facade only retention or full retention? on Linkedin Email According to Heritage policies “Façade-only retention is generally not considered to be an appropriate heritage conservation procedure. A proposal based on this approach may not be supportable and will not typically be eligible for heritage incentives.” Is the proposed retention of the houses, with a connection via glass cube to the other building, considered a facade only retention or full retention? link

    According to Heritage policies “Façade-only retention is generally not considered to be an appropriate heritage conservation procedure. A proposal based on this approach may not be supportable and will not typically be eligible for heritage incentives.” Is the proposed retention of the houses, with a connection via glass cube to the other building, considered a facade only retention or full retention?

    Dakota asked 5 months ago

    Based on preliminary review, the applicant is proposing a character-retention scheme, which is not considered to be a heritage conservation scheme. Review by the Heritage Planning Group is ongoing to determine the appropriate incentives in exchange for the verifiable conservation scope of work.

  • Share I note your answer to the question about heritage status didn’t fully answer the second part of the question: Will Townline be required to be listed as heritage prior to the rezoning application being approved? Process wise, how does this work? The heritage policies linked to are not clear about sequencing of approvals and by when it is required for the building to legally be registered as a heritage site to qualify for a density bonus per the Broadway Plan. on Facebook Share I note your answer to the question about heritage status didn’t fully answer the second part of the question: Will Townline be required to be listed as heritage prior to the rezoning application being approved? Process wise, how does this work? The heritage policies linked to are not clear about sequencing of approvals and by when it is required for the building to legally be registered as a heritage site to qualify for a density bonus per the Broadway Plan. on Twitter Share I note your answer to the question about heritage status didn’t fully answer the second part of the question: Will Townline be required to be listed as heritage prior to the rezoning application being approved? Process wise, how does this work? The heritage policies linked to are not clear about sequencing of approvals and by when it is required for the building to legally be registered as a heritage site to qualify for a density bonus per the Broadway Plan. on Linkedin Email I note your answer to the question about heritage status didn’t fully answer the second part of the question: Will Townline be required to be listed as heritage prior to the rezoning application being approved? Process wise, how does this work? The heritage policies linked to are not clear about sequencing of approvals and by when it is required for the building to legally be registered as a heritage site to qualify for a density bonus per the Broadway Plan. link

    I note your answer to the question about heritage status didn’t fully answer the second part of the question: Will Townline be required to be listed as heritage prior to the rezoning application being approved? Process wise, how does this work? The heritage policies linked to are not clear about sequencing of approvals and by when it is required for the building to legally be registered as a heritage site to qualify for a density bonus per the Broadway Plan.

    Dakota asked 5 months ago

    The application is under staff review. If a proposal meets a high level of retention and conservation, and the application is approved by Council following Public Hearing, the conditions for rezoning enactment would typically include legal protection by designation and registration of a restoration covenant on title. More information can be found at the Protecting Heritage Sites Through Legal Designation webpage.

  • Share How will the houses be protected from damage during excavation? What happens if the houses are damaged or destroyed during their movement and restoration? How will damage impact their proposed heritage status and corresponding density bonus? on Facebook Share How will the houses be protected from damage during excavation? What happens if the houses are damaged or destroyed during their movement and restoration? How will damage impact their proposed heritage status and corresponding density bonus? on Twitter Share How will the houses be protected from damage during excavation? What happens if the houses are damaged or destroyed during their movement and restoration? How will damage impact their proposed heritage status and corresponding density bonus? on Linkedin Email How will the houses be protected from damage during excavation? What happens if the houses are damaged or destroyed during their movement and restoration? How will damage impact their proposed heritage status and corresponding density bonus? link

    How will the houses be protected from damage during excavation? What happens if the houses are damaged or destroyed during their movement and restoration? How will damage impact their proposed heritage status and corresponding density bonus?

    Dakota asked 5 months ago

    The applicant has provided Conservation Plans for each of the houses, which typically include how the building will be protected before, during and after construction. It is also reflected in the retention documentation that identifies the verifiable scope and method of retention of the existing buildings.

  • Share Will the City confirm that the rear laneway will be graded in such a way that the properties at 2238 and 2246 West 8th Ave will have unobstructed access to the laneway at a grade that integrates seamlessly with the properties? Has the City identified Townline's current application proposes to grade 0.98m or 3.2 ft lower than the current laneway elevation, which will result in a sharp drop of 3.2 feet from these properties to the new laneway? Will the City step in and direct Townline to correct this? on Facebook Share Will the City confirm that the rear laneway will be graded in such a way that the properties at 2238 and 2246 West 8th Ave will have unobstructed access to the laneway at a grade that integrates seamlessly with the properties? Has the City identified Townline's current application proposes to grade 0.98m or 3.2 ft lower than the current laneway elevation, which will result in a sharp drop of 3.2 feet from these properties to the new laneway? Will the City step in and direct Townline to correct this? on Twitter Share Will the City confirm that the rear laneway will be graded in such a way that the properties at 2238 and 2246 West 8th Ave will have unobstructed access to the laneway at a grade that integrates seamlessly with the properties? Has the City identified Townline's current application proposes to grade 0.98m or 3.2 ft lower than the current laneway elevation, which will result in a sharp drop of 3.2 feet from these properties to the new laneway? Will the City step in and direct Townline to correct this? on Linkedin Email Will the City confirm that the rear laneway will be graded in such a way that the properties at 2238 and 2246 West 8th Ave will have unobstructed access to the laneway at a grade that integrates seamlessly with the properties? Has the City identified Townline's current application proposes to grade 0.98m or 3.2 ft lower than the current laneway elevation, which will result in a sharp drop of 3.2 feet from these properties to the new laneway? Will the City step in and direct Townline to correct this? link

    Will the City confirm that the rear laneway will be graded in such a way that the properties at 2238 and 2246 West 8th Ave will have unobstructed access to the laneway at a grade that integrates seamlessly with the properties? Has the City identified Townline's current application proposes to grade 0.98m or 3.2 ft lower than the current laneway elevation, which will result in a sharp drop of 3.2 feet from these properties to the new laneway? Will the City step in and direct Townline to correct this?

    Steph P asked 5 months ago

    Thank you for your comments. They will be forwarded to Urban Design and Engineering staff for consideration in their reviews of the application.

  • Share Will the City step in and ask Townline to revise their application to address serious gaps in the integration with the neighbouring property at 2238 West 8th Ave? - Have the City and Townline identified that Townline is proposing unauthorized removal or destruction of 5 mature trees from this adjacent lot? Has the City considered that 4 of these mature trees are located in close proximity to the foundation at 2238, and that removal or destruction of these trees will cause serious permanent damage to the foundation, as the roots are very closely associated with the 1912 foundation? - Has the City and Townline realized that a grade difference of 1.56m or 5.12 ft has been completely overlooked, and that a retaining wall of this size will be required but has not been proposed or allotted for in setbacks? - Is the City aware Townline does not propose to "notch" their grading within the SW corner of their lot, and that they will destroy the mature maple tree at 2238 West 8th when they grade 1.78m lower than the maple tree on the other side of the property line from the tree (the is adjacent to the property line), and that this will immediately kill the tree? - Has the City identified that Townline's pit excavation plan is not viable, as they propose to excavate to the property line, but the house at 2238 was built in 1912 and sits on or may overhand the property line? **Will the City require on Facebook Share Will the City step in and ask Townline to revise their application to address serious gaps in the integration with the neighbouring property at 2238 West 8th Ave? - Have the City and Townline identified that Townline is proposing unauthorized removal or destruction of 5 mature trees from this adjacent lot? Has the City considered that 4 of these mature trees are located in close proximity to the foundation at 2238, and that removal or destruction of these trees will cause serious permanent damage to the foundation, as the roots are very closely associated with the 1912 foundation? - Has the City and Townline realized that a grade difference of 1.56m or 5.12 ft has been completely overlooked, and that a retaining wall of this size will be required but has not been proposed or allotted for in setbacks? - Is the City aware Townline does not propose to "notch" their grading within the SW corner of their lot, and that they will destroy the mature maple tree at 2238 West 8th when they grade 1.78m lower than the maple tree on the other side of the property line from the tree (the is adjacent to the property line), and that this will immediately kill the tree? - Has the City identified that Townline's pit excavation plan is not viable, as they propose to excavate to the property line, but the house at 2238 was built in 1912 and sits on or may overhand the property line? **Will the City require on Twitter Share Will the City step in and ask Townline to revise their application to address serious gaps in the integration with the neighbouring property at 2238 West 8th Ave? - Have the City and Townline identified that Townline is proposing unauthorized removal or destruction of 5 mature trees from this adjacent lot? Has the City considered that 4 of these mature trees are located in close proximity to the foundation at 2238, and that removal or destruction of these trees will cause serious permanent damage to the foundation, as the roots are very closely associated with the 1912 foundation? - Has the City and Townline realized that a grade difference of 1.56m or 5.12 ft has been completely overlooked, and that a retaining wall of this size will be required but has not been proposed or allotted for in setbacks? - Is the City aware Townline does not propose to "notch" their grading within the SW corner of their lot, and that they will destroy the mature maple tree at 2238 West 8th when they grade 1.78m lower than the maple tree on the other side of the property line from the tree (the is adjacent to the property line), and that this will immediately kill the tree? - Has the City identified that Townline's pit excavation plan is not viable, as they propose to excavate to the property line, but the house at 2238 was built in 1912 and sits on or may overhand the property line? **Will the City require on Linkedin Email Will the City step in and ask Townline to revise their application to address serious gaps in the integration with the neighbouring property at 2238 West 8th Ave? - Have the City and Townline identified that Townline is proposing unauthorized removal or destruction of 5 mature trees from this adjacent lot? Has the City considered that 4 of these mature trees are located in close proximity to the foundation at 2238, and that removal or destruction of these trees will cause serious permanent damage to the foundation, as the roots are very closely associated with the 1912 foundation? - Has the City and Townline realized that a grade difference of 1.56m or 5.12 ft has been completely overlooked, and that a retaining wall of this size will be required but has not been proposed or allotted for in setbacks? - Is the City aware Townline does not propose to "notch" their grading within the SW corner of their lot, and that they will destroy the mature maple tree at 2238 West 8th when they grade 1.78m lower than the maple tree on the other side of the property line from the tree (the is adjacent to the property line), and that this will immediately kill the tree? - Has the City identified that Townline's pit excavation plan is not viable, as they propose to excavate to the property line, but the house at 2238 was built in 1912 and sits on or may overhand the property line? **Will the City require link

    Will the City step in and ask Townline to revise their application to address serious gaps in the integration with the neighbouring property at 2238 West 8th Ave? - Have the City and Townline identified that Townline is proposing unauthorized removal or destruction of 5 mature trees from this adjacent lot? Has the City considered that 4 of these mature trees are located in close proximity to the foundation at 2238, and that removal or destruction of these trees will cause serious permanent damage to the foundation, as the roots are very closely associated with the 1912 foundation? - Has the City and Townline realized that a grade difference of 1.56m or 5.12 ft has been completely overlooked, and that a retaining wall of this size will be required but has not been proposed or allotted for in setbacks? - Is the City aware Townline does not propose to "notch" their grading within the SW corner of their lot, and that they will destroy the mature maple tree at 2238 West 8th when they grade 1.78m lower than the maple tree on the other side of the property line from the tree (the is adjacent to the property line), and that this will immediately kill the tree? - Has the City identified that Townline's pit excavation plan is not viable, as they propose to excavate to the property line, but the house at 2238 was built in 1912 and sits on or may overhand the property line? **Will the City require

    Steph P asked 5 months ago

    Thank you for your comments. They will be forwarded to Urban Design and Landscape staff for consideration in their reviews of the application.

  • Share If Townline is unwilling to revise their proposal to incorporate our remnant lot to stay compliant with the Broadway Plan and avoid leaving valuable density on the table in an area within 200m of the skytrain, will the City reject Townline’s application to allow room for new proposals that do not cause significant impacts and are better-aligned with the interests of the City and general public? on Facebook Share If Townline is unwilling to revise their proposal to incorporate our remnant lot to stay compliant with the Broadway Plan and avoid leaving valuable density on the table in an area within 200m of the skytrain, will the City reject Townline’s application to allow room for new proposals that do not cause significant impacts and are better-aligned with the interests of the City and general public? on Twitter Share If Townline is unwilling to revise their proposal to incorporate our remnant lot to stay compliant with the Broadway Plan and avoid leaving valuable density on the table in an area within 200m of the skytrain, will the City reject Townline’s application to allow room for new proposals that do not cause significant impacts and are better-aligned with the interests of the City and general public? on Linkedin Email If Townline is unwilling to revise their proposal to incorporate our remnant lot to stay compliant with the Broadway Plan and avoid leaving valuable density on the table in an area within 200m of the skytrain, will the City reject Townline’s application to allow room for new proposals that do not cause significant impacts and are better-aligned with the interests of the City and general public? link

    If Townline is unwilling to revise their proposal to incorporate our remnant lot to stay compliant with the Broadway Plan and avoid leaving valuable density on the table in an area within 200m of the skytrain, will the City reject Townline’s application to allow room for new proposals that do not cause significant impacts and are better-aligned with the interests of the City and general public?

    Steph P asked 5 months ago

    This application is in the public consultation and staff review stage. The decision on whether this development is approved or not is made by Council, following receipt of a staff report and hearing from the public at Public Hearing.

  • Share Has the City considered that orphaning of the lots at 2238 West 8th and 2407 Yew St will result in over 38,000 sq ft of lost density being left on the table within 200m of the Arbutus Skytrain Station (3125 sq ft x 7.15 FSR and 2250 sq ft x 7.15 FSR, respectively). Has the City considered this lost density will be forever locked-in and isolated? Why is the City considering Townline's proposal when it does not align with City and provincial mandates or the Broadway Plan policy to maximize density within Transit Oriented Areas? Why did the City allow Townline's application to propose a deviation from the Broadway Plan (23 storeys instead of the allowed 20), and immediately throw out the product of years of public engagement, when Townline did not first try to solve their issues in ways that would be compliant with the Broadway Plan? For instance, why did the City not require Townline to align with policy and acquire remnant lots and expand wider to be able to use their leftover density, before they allowed them to build more storeys to use their remainder density? on Facebook Share Has the City considered that orphaning of the lots at 2238 West 8th and 2407 Yew St will result in over 38,000 sq ft of lost density being left on the table within 200m of the Arbutus Skytrain Station (3125 sq ft x 7.15 FSR and 2250 sq ft x 7.15 FSR, respectively). Has the City considered this lost density will be forever locked-in and isolated? Why is the City considering Townline's proposal when it does not align with City and provincial mandates or the Broadway Plan policy to maximize density within Transit Oriented Areas? Why did the City allow Townline's application to propose a deviation from the Broadway Plan (23 storeys instead of the allowed 20), and immediately throw out the product of years of public engagement, when Townline did not first try to solve their issues in ways that would be compliant with the Broadway Plan? For instance, why did the City not require Townline to align with policy and acquire remnant lots and expand wider to be able to use their leftover density, before they allowed them to build more storeys to use their remainder density? on Twitter Share Has the City considered that orphaning of the lots at 2238 West 8th and 2407 Yew St will result in over 38,000 sq ft of lost density being left on the table within 200m of the Arbutus Skytrain Station (3125 sq ft x 7.15 FSR and 2250 sq ft x 7.15 FSR, respectively). Has the City considered this lost density will be forever locked-in and isolated? Why is the City considering Townline's proposal when it does not align with City and provincial mandates or the Broadway Plan policy to maximize density within Transit Oriented Areas? Why did the City allow Townline's application to propose a deviation from the Broadway Plan (23 storeys instead of the allowed 20), and immediately throw out the product of years of public engagement, when Townline did not first try to solve their issues in ways that would be compliant with the Broadway Plan? For instance, why did the City not require Townline to align with policy and acquire remnant lots and expand wider to be able to use their leftover density, before they allowed them to build more storeys to use their remainder density? on Linkedin Email Has the City considered that orphaning of the lots at 2238 West 8th and 2407 Yew St will result in over 38,000 sq ft of lost density being left on the table within 200m of the Arbutus Skytrain Station (3125 sq ft x 7.15 FSR and 2250 sq ft x 7.15 FSR, respectively). Has the City considered this lost density will be forever locked-in and isolated? Why is the City considering Townline's proposal when it does not align with City and provincial mandates or the Broadway Plan policy to maximize density within Transit Oriented Areas? Why did the City allow Townline's application to propose a deviation from the Broadway Plan (23 storeys instead of the allowed 20), and immediately throw out the product of years of public engagement, when Townline did not first try to solve their issues in ways that would be compliant with the Broadway Plan? For instance, why did the City not require Townline to align with policy and acquire remnant lots and expand wider to be able to use their leftover density, before they allowed them to build more storeys to use their remainder density? link

    Has the City considered that orphaning of the lots at 2238 West 8th and 2407 Yew St will result in over 38,000 sq ft of lost density being left on the table within 200m of the Arbutus Skytrain Station (3125 sq ft x 7.15 FSR and 2250 sq ft x 7.15 FSR, respectively). Has the City considered this lost density will be forever locked-in and isolated? Why is the City considering Townline's proposal when it does not align with City and provincial mandates or the Broadway Plan policy to maximize density within Transit Oriented Areas? Why did the City allow Townline's application to propose a deviation from the Broadway Plan (23 storeys instead of the allowed 20), and immediately throw out the product of years of public engagement, when Townline did not first try to solve their issues in ways that would be compliant with the Broadway Plan? For instance, why did the City not require Townline to align with policy and acquire remnant lots and expand wider to be able to use their leftover density, before they allowed them to build more storeys to use their remainder density?

    Steph P asked 5 months ago

    As noted in previously posted responses to similar questions on build-out scenarios and additional height and density permitted for heritage retention, applicant studies and staff reviews are on-going. In addition to density, staff reviews also consider Broadway Plan Built Form and Site Design Policies, including minimum residential tower separation of 24.4 m (80 ft.) and maximum tower floor plate of 604 sq. m (6,500 sq. ft.).

  • Share Per the Broadway Plan policy requirement from Chapter 7 Land Use, has Townline completed the requirement that “rezoning applicants will be expected to demonstrate that sites that are “left behind” can be reasonably developed with consideration for building massing, separations, site-specific conditions (such as existing trees), and project economics”? Has the adjacent lot at 2238 West 8th been considered in this exercise, and is the City aware this lot will be orphaned between Townline’s proposed development to the east and an existing stratified 4-plex development to the west? Has the City considered the corner property at 2407 Yew St will also be orphaned? on Facebook Share Per the Broadway Plan policy requirement from Chapter 7 Land Use, has Townline completed the requirement that “rezoning applicants will be expected to demonstrate that sites that are “left behind” can be reasonably developed with consideration for building massing, separations, site-specific conditions (such as existing trees), and project economics”? Has the adjacent lot at 2238 West 8th been considered in this exercise, and is the City aware this lot will be orphaned between Townline’s proposed development to the east and an existing stratified 4-plex development to the west? Has the City considered the corner property at 2407 Yew St will also be orphaned? on Twitter Share Per the Broadway Plan policy requirement from Chapter 7 Land Use, has Townline completed the requirement that “rezoning applicants will be expected to demonstrate that sites that are “left behind” can be reasonably developed with consideration for building massing, separations, site-specific conditions (such as existing trees), and project economics”? Has the adjacent lot at 2238 West 8th been considered in this exercise, and is the City aware this lot will be orphaned between Townline’s proposed development to the east and an existing stratified 4-plex development to the west? Has the City considered the corner property at 2407 Yew St will also be orphaned? on Linkedin Email Per the Broadway Plan policy requirement from Chapter 7 Land Use, has Townline completed the requirement that “rezoning applicants will be expected to demonstrate that sites that are “left behind” can be reasonably developed with consideration for building massing, separations, site-specific conditions (such as existing trees), and project economics”? Has the adjacent lot at 2238 West 8th been considered in this exercise, and is the City aware this lot will be orphaned between Townline’s proposed development to the east and an existing stratified 4-plex development to the west? Has the City considered the corner property at 2407 Yew St will also be orphaned? link

    Per the Broadway Plan policy requirement from Chapter 7 Land Use, has Townline completed the requirement that “rezoning applicants will be expected to demonstrate that sites that are “left behind” can be reasonably developed with consideration for building massing, separations, site-specific conditions (such as existing trees), and project economics”? Has the adjacent lot at 2238 West 8th been considered in this exercise, and is the City aware this lot will be orphaned between Townline’s proposed development to the east and an existing stratified 4-plex development to the west? Has the City considered the corner property at 2407 Yew St will also be orphaned?

    Steph P asked 5 months ago

    As part of the rezoning review process, City staff are working with the applicant to address Broadway Plan policies, including those to avoid precluding future opportunities. Applicants are asked to provide studies to demonstrate redevelopment potential in accordance with the Broadway Plan, including build-out scenarios for the block, tower separation and options for non-tower sites. These studies are being prepared by the applicant. City staff are aware of the properties at 2246-2238 West 8th Avenue and 2407 Yew Street.

  • Share Given the proposed revision to the Broadway plan that would allow an extra 1-5 stories more than existing Broadway Plan guidance, could Townline be acquiring adjacent lots and adding height to the building? on Facebook Share Given the proposed revision to the Broadway plan that would allow an extra 1-5 stories more than existing Broadway Plan guidance, could Townline be acquiring adjacent lots and adding height to the building? on Twitter Share Given the proposed revision to the Broadway plan that would allow an extra 1-5 stories more than existing Broadway Plan guidance, could Townline be acquiring adjacent lots and adding height to the building? on Linkedin Email Given the proposed revision to the Broadway plan that would allow an extra 1-5 stories more than existing Broadway Plan guidance, could Townline be acquiring adjacent lots and adding height to the building? link

    Given the proposed revision to the Broadway plan that would allow an extra 1-5 stories more than existing Broadway Plan guidance, could Townline be acquiring adjacent lots and adding height to the building?

    Kits Parent asked 5 months ago

    A similar question has been asked previously. Here is a copy of our earlier response: This rezoning is subject to the existing Broadway Plan policy. The policies for our engagement under the “Broadway Plan Review” will be considered by Council in November 2024.

Page last updated: 26 Jun 2024, 09:29 AM