Go Back

5455 Balsam St rezoning application

Share 5455 Balsam St rezoning application on Facebook Share 5455 Balsam St rezoning application on Twitter Share 5455 Balsam St rezoning application on Linkedin Email 5455 Balsam St rezoning application link

This application was approved by Council on July 23, 2024, following the Public Hearing on July 9, 2024.

We would like your feedback on a rezoning application at 5455 Balsam St. The proposal is to allow for the addition of a 14-storey infill residential building on this site, with retention of the existing 14-storey residential building including 88 rental residential units. The zoning would change from RM-3 (Multiple Dwelling Residential) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. This proposal includes:

  • 145 secured rental residential units
  • A floor space ratio (FSR) of 3.63
  • A gross floor area of 8,537.2 sq. m (91,894 sq. ft.)
  • A building height of 39.62 m (130 ft.)
  • A total of 142 underground vehicle parking spaces and 312 bicycle parking spaces

The application is being considered under the Secured Rental Policy.

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.

May 10, 2024:

Revised shadow studies have been provided. These shadow studies have accounted for daylight savings.

We would like your feedback on a rezoning application at 5455 Balsam St. The proposal is to allow for the addition of a 14-storey infill residential building on this site, with retention of the existing 14-storey residential building including 88 rental residential units. The zoning would change from RM-3 (Multiple Dwelling Residential) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. This proposal includes:

  • 145 secured rental residential units
  • A floor space ratio (FSR) of 3.63
  • A gross floor area of 8,537.2 sq. m (91,894 sq. ft.)
  • A building height of 39.62 m (130 ft.)
  • A total of 142 underground vehicle parking spaces and 312 bicycle parking spaces

The application is being considered under the Secured Rental Policy.

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.

May 10, 2024:

Revised shadow studies have been provided. These shadow studies have accounted for daylight savings.

This application was approved by Council on July 23, 2024, following the Public Hearing on July 9, 2024.

The opportunity to ask questions through the Q&A is available from January 31 to February 20, 2022.

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 virtual open house time period. The Rezoning Planner can also be contacted directly for any further feedback or questions.

  • Share Will there be outlets to charge electric bikes in the bike parking area? on Facebook Share Will there be outlets to charge electric bikes in the bike parking area? on Twitter Share Will there be outlets to charge electric bikes in the bike parking area? on Linkedin Email Will there be outlets to charge electric bikes in the bike parking area? link

    Will there be outlets to charge electric bikes in the bike parking area?

    Bob G asked over 2 years ago

    Thank you for your question. As this is a technical question, we have reached out to our colleagues Engineering and will have a reply for you soon.

    Update (March 9, 2022): At this time, the applicant proposes one outlet for every two bicycles.

  • Share Will there be EV chargers in the parking spots? on Facebook Share Will there be EV chargers in the parking spots? on Twitter Share Will there be EV chargers in the parking spots? on Linkedin Email Will there be EV chargers in the parking spots? link

    Will there be EV chargers in the parking spots?

    Bob G asked over 2 years ago

    The Parking By-law requires 100% of off-street vehicle parking spaces be designed to accommodate EV charging. As this is a technical question, we have reached out to our colleagues Engineering and will have a reply for you soon.

    Update (March 9, 2022): At this time, the applicant proposes one in four vehicle parking stalls be energized.

  • Share Why does this building need to be so high? The height of 5455 is going to impact all the buildings on the Eastside of the street. If the size had been more reasonable, the affect 5455 would have on it's neighbour's buildings would have been reduced. It would have been looked on more favourably and I think it's height should be reconsidered. on Facebook Share Why does this building need to be so high? The height of 5455 is going to impact all the buildings on the Eastside of the street. If the size had been more reasonable, the affect 5455 would have on it's neighbour's buildings would have been reduced. It would have been looked on more favourably and I think it's height should be reconsidered. on Twitter Share Why does this building need to be so high? The height of 5455 is going to impact all the buildings on the Eastside of the street. If the size had been more reasonable, the affect 5455 would have on it's neighbour's buildings would have been reduced. It would have been looked on more favourably and I think it's height should be reconsidered. on Linkedin Email Why does this building need to be so high? The height of 5455 is going to impact all the buildings on the Eastside of the street. If the size had been more reasonable, the affect 5455 would have on it's neighbour's buildings would have been reduced. It would have been looked on more favourably and I think it's height should be reconsidered. link

    Why does this building need to be so high? The height of 5455 is going to impact all the buildings on the Eastside of the street. If the size had been more reasonable, the affect 5455 would have on it's neighbour's buildings would have been reduced. It would have been looked on more favourably and I think it's height should be reconsidered.

    K Durand asked over 2 years ago

    The Secured Rental Policy allows for consideration of rezoning applications for buildings proposing secured rental units consistent with the height of the RM-3 zoning in the area. This rezoning application is under review at this time.

  • Share What assurance is there that Fontainebleau residents, who hold disabled parking placards, will have covered, adjacent, accessible parking, 24/7 during the construction period? on Facebook Share What assurance is there that Fontainebleau residents, who hold disabled parking placards, will have covered, adjacent, accessible parking, 24/7 during the construction period? on Twitter Share What assurance is there that Fontainebleau residents, who hold disabled parking placards, will have covered, adjacent, accessible parking, 24/7 during the construction period? on Linkedin Email What assurance is there that Fontainebleau residents, who hold disabled parking placards, will have covered, adjacent, accessible parking, 24/7 during the construction period? link

    What assurance is there that Fontainebleau residents, who hold disabled parking placards, will have covered, adjacent, accessible parking, 24/7 during the construction period?

    SBliss asked over 2 years ago

    If Council approves this rezoning application at a Public Hearing and it progresses through the development and building permit stages, a transportation construction management plan would be required prior to issuance of any construction permit. This plan would include details for temporary off-street replacement parking meeting the requirements of the Parking By-law, including accessible spaces.

  • Share Upon reading the supporting documents, namely the transportation report, I see that the study was conducted in the first months of 2020 when Vancouver was shut down due to Covid-19. The report acknowledges the pandemic climate in Vancouver at this time saying the report “captures a conservative parking demand profile”. I will speak for my experience during the month of April 2020 - I was ordered to work from home; I drove my car once a week to get groceries (I was able to satisfy the reduced driving credit on my car insurance); I had no visitors; St. Mary’s church was closed; restaurants in Kerrisdale were closed; I and many others were not riding the bus; I avoided the greenway walk to avoid close proximity to people. If you are building a new tower of 145 suites and combined with the existing Fountain Blue tower to the south with 88 suites there will be a total of 233 suites. There will only be 132 parking spots for both towers - a shortfall of 101 suites without parking spots. This is an older neighbourhood with a number of senior citizens - the Fountain Blue is a very popular rental building because of the suite sizes. My questions: how is this development going to address the shortfall of 101 parking stalls and the assumed increased presence of these cars parking on Balsam street (which only allows parking on the east side of the street) and 37th avenue (which is a bike path, with 30km posted speed limit)? I suggest redoing the transit study later this year (2022) when we are fully open and people have returned to work - either by car, bike or bus. This application has been submitted in a timely manner to take advantage of the reduced traffic in this area. on Facebook Share Upon reading the supporting documents, namely the transportation report, I see that the study was conducted in the first months of 2020 when Vancouver was shut down due to Covid-19. The report acknowledges the pandemic climate in Vancouver at this time saying the report “captures a conservative parking demand profile”. I will speak for my experience during the month of April 2020 - I was ordered to work from home; I drove my car once a week to get groceries (I was able to satisfy the reduced driving credit on my car insurance); I had no visitors; St. Mary’s church was closed; restaurants in Kerrisdale were closed; I and many others were not riding the bus; I avoided the greenway walk to avoid close proximity to people. If you are building a new tower of 145 suites and combined with the existing Fountain Blue tower to the south with 88 suites there will be a total of 233 suites. There will only be 132 parking spots for both towers - a shortfall of 101 suites without parking spots. This is an older neighbourhood with a number of senior citizens - the Fountain Blue is a very popular rental building because of the suite sizes. My questions: how is this development going to address the shortfall of 101 parking stalls and the assumed increased presence of these cars parking on Balsam street (which only allows parking on the east side of the street) and 37th avenue (which is a bike path, with 30km posted speed limit)? I suggest redoing the transit study later this year (2022) when we are fully open and people have returned to work - either by car, bike or bus. This application has been submitted in a timely manner to take advantage of the reduced traffic in this area. on Twitter Share Upon reading the supporting documents, namely the transportation report, I see that the study was conducted in the first months of 2020 when Vancouver was shut down due to Covid-19. The report acknowledges the pandemic climate in Vancouver at this time saying the report “captures a conservative parking demand profile”. I will speak for my experience during the month of April 2020 - I was ordered to work from home; I drove my car once a week to get groceries (I was able to satisfy the reduced driving credit on my car insurance); I had no visitors; St. Mary’s church was closed; restaurants in Kerrisdale were closed; I and many others were not riding the bus; I avoided the greenway walk to avoid close proximity to people. If you are building a new tower of 145 suites and combined with the existing Fountain Blue tower to the south with 88 suites there will be a total of 233 suites. There will only be 132 parking spots for both towers - a shortfall of 101 suites without parking spots. This is an older neighbourhood with a number of senior citizens - the Fountain Blue is a very popular rental building because of the suite sizes. My questions: how is this development going to address the shortfall of 101 parking stalls and the assumed increased presence of these cars parking on Balsam street (which only allows parking on the east side of the street) and 37th avenue (which is a bike path, with 30km posted speed limit)? I suggest redoing the transit study later this year (2022) when we are fully open and people have returned to work - either by car, bike or bus. This application has been submitted in a timely manner to take advantage of the reduced traffic in this area. on Linkedin Email Upon reading the supporting documents, namely the transportation report, I see that the study was conducted in the first months of 2020 when Vancouver was shut down due to Covid-19. The report acknowledges the pandemic climate in Vancouver at this time saying the report “captures a conservative parking demand profile”. I will speak for my experience during the month of April 2020 - I was ordered to work from home; I drove my car once a week to get groceries (I was able to satisfy the reduced driving credit on my car insurance); I had no visitors; St. Mary’s church was closed; restaurants in Kerrisdale were closed; I and many others were not riding the bus; I avoided the greenway walk to avoid close proximity to people. If you are building a new tower of 145 suites and combined with the existing Fountain Blue tower to the south with 88 suites there will be a total of 233 suites. There will only be 132 parking spots for both towers - a shortfall of 101 suites without parking spots. This is an older neighbourhood with a number of senior citizens - the Fountain Blue is a very popular rental building because of the suite sizes. My questions: how is this development going to address the shortfall of 101 parking stalls and the assumed increased presence of these cars parking on Balsam street (which only allows parking on the east side of the street) and 37th avenue (which is a bike path, with 30km posted speed limit)? I suggest redoing the transit study later this year (2022) when we are fully open and people have returned to work - either by car, bike or bus. This application has been submitted in a timely manner to take advantage of the reduced traffic in this area. link

    Upon reading the supporting documents, namely the transportation report, I see that the study was conducted in the first months of 2020 when Vancouver was shut down due to Covid-19. The report acknowledges the pandemic climate in Vancouver at this time saying the report “captures a conservative parking demand profile”. I will speak for my experience during the month of April 2020 - I was ordered to work from home; I drove my car once a week to get groceries (I was able to satisfy the reduced driving credit on my car insurance); I had no visitors; St. Mary’s church was closed; restaurants in Kerrisdale were closed; I and many others were not riding the bus; I avoided the greenway walk to avoid close proximity to people. If you are building a new tower of 145 suites and combined with the existing Fountain Blue tower to the south with 88 suites there will be a total of 233 suites. There will only be 132 parking spots for both towers - a shortfall of 101 suites without parking spots. This is an older neighbourhood with a number of senior citizens - the Fountain Blue is a very popular rental building because of the suite sizes. My questions: how is this development going to address the shortfall of 101 parking stalls and the assumed increased presence of these cars parking on Balsam street (which only allows parking on the east side of the street) and 37th avenue (which is a bike path, with 30km posted speed limit)? I suggest redoing the transit study later this year (2022) when we are fully open and people have returned to work - either by car, bike or bus. This application has been submitted in a timely manner to take advantage of the reduced traffic in this area.

    JenB asked over 2 years ago

    This rezoning application proposes to comply with off-street parking regulations as per Parking By-law No. 6059, which includes minimum requirements for accessible parking spaces. The application responds to the Transportation Demand Management (TDM) bulletin, to achieve a possible 40% parking reduction by proposing to accommodate TDM measures such as additional bicycle parking and maintenance facilities. The application is still under review at this time, including reviews by transportation and parking engineers and planners.

  • Share The distance on the plans, between the current building and the Podium section of the new structure, shows a value of 47’. Why should the balconies and amenities on the new building be constructed in a North/South configuration when the existing building has an East/West configuration? This will effectively invade the privacy of every tenant who lives on the North end of the current structure. on Facebook Share The distance on the plans, between the current building and the Podium section of the new structure, shows a value of 47’. Why should the balconies and amenities on the new building be constructed in a North/South configuration when the existing building has an East/West configuration? This will effectively invade the privacy of every tenant who lives on the North end of the current structure. on Twitter Share The distance on the plans, between the current building and the Podium section of the new structure, shows a value of 47’. Why should the balconies and amenities on the new building be constructed in a North/South configuration when the existing building has an East/West configuration? This will effectively invade the privacy of every tenant who lives on the North end of the current structure. on Linkedin Email The distance on the plans, between the current building and the Podium section of the new structure, shows a value of 47’. Why should the balconies and amenities on the new building be constructed in a North/South configuration when the existing building has an East/West configuration? This will effectively invade the privacy of every tenant who lives on the North end of the current structure. link

    The distance on the plans, between the current building and the Podium section of the new structure, shows a value of 47’. Why should the balconies and amenities on the new building be constructed in a North/South configuration when the existing building has an East/West configuration? This will effectively invade the privacy of every tenant who lives on the North end of the current structure.

    SBliss asked over 2 years ago

    The rezoning application including unit layouts and configurations is still under review at this time. This includes reviews against horizontal angle of daylight requirements for unit livability and private outdoor space (balconies).

  • Share NOISE: How can we be assured that a new building next door will be mechanically quiet 24 hours a day? Noise in New Building Ventilation Systems has been experienced recently. NOISE in the underground parking, the lane and street-level sidewalk on Marine Drive is DEAFENING at the new Royal Bank building on the northeast corner of Cambie and Marine Drive (Golden Hollow Tree). Therefore, after one visit, I now bank elsewhere. I never want to experience that noise level again! Having that noise level next door would be a disaster for any neighbourhood. on Facebook Share NOISE: How can we be assured that a new building next door will be mechanically quiet 24 hours a day? Noise in New Building Ventilation Systems has been experienced recently. NOISE in the underground parking, the lane and street-level sidewalk on Marine Drive is DEAFENING at the new Royal Bank building on the northeast corner of Cambie and Marine Drive (Golden Hollow Tree). Therefore, after one visit, I now bank elsewhere. I never want to experience that noise level again! Having that noise level next door would be a disaster for any neighbourhood. on Twitter Share NOISE: How can we be assured that a new building next door will be mechanically quiet 24 hours a day? Noise in New Building Ventilation Systems has been experienced recently. NOISE in the underground parking, the lane and street-level sidewalk on Marine Drive is DEAFENING at the new Royal Bank building on the northeast corner of Cambie and Marine Drive (Golden Hollow Tree). Therefore, after one visit, I now bank elsewhere. I never want to experience that noise level again! Having that noise level next door would be a disaster for any neighbourhood. on Linkedin Email NOISE: How can we be assured that a new building next door will be mechanically quiet 24 hours a day? Noise in New Building Ventilation Systems has been experienced recently. NOISE in the underground parking, the lane and street-level sidewalk on Marine Drive is DEAFENING at the new Royal Bank building on the northeast corner of Cambie and Marine Drive (Golden Hollow Tree). Therefore, after one visit, I now bank elsewhere. I never want to experience that noise level again! Having that noise level next door would be a disaster for any neighbourhood. link

    NOISE: How can we be assured that a new building next door will be mechanically quiet 24 hours a day? Noise in New Building Ventilation Systems has been experienced recently. NOISE in the underground parking, the lane and street-level sidewalk on Marine Drive is DEAFENING at the new Royal Bank building on the northeast corner of Cambie and Marine Drive (Golden Hollow Tree). Therefore, after one visit, I now bank elsewhere. I never want to experience that noise level again! Having that noise level next door would be a disaster for any neighbourhood.

    SBliss asked over 2 years ago

    The City's Noise Control By-law regulates noise or sound within the City of Vancouver, including maximum noise limits for mechanical equipment which must be placed in a location that will not cause excess noise for neighbours. Please see the Noise Control By-law for more information on what and how noise is regulated.

  • Share I highly appreciate the efforts of the City of Vancouver to increase density and create homes for families. I also appreciate the foresight and rigorous planning by the City of Vancouver when choosing and implementing new building projects. However, the proposed 5455 Balsam St. tower development project is in my opinion not compatible with the standards and goals of the City of Vancouver where the preservation of our historical and cultural sites goes hand in hand with the sustainable increase in population density. What is the justification for rezoning from RM-3 to CD-1 in a historical part of Vancouver near multiple heritage sites such as the St. Mary’s Anglican Church (a primary and legally protected heritage site)? Why should the developers of this proposed project need a CD-1 zoning in this neighbourhood and in this location? What is the justification of such a high (14 story) tower in a location where the majority of the existing buildings are two to three stories high? The shade footprint of this building is too large and affects multiple surrounding blocks casting a long shadow especially in winter which will have a deleterious affect on the mental health of the surrounding residents. What is the justification for building such a tall tower? The majority of the proposed units in this tower are very small (studio and 1-bedroom) and not suitable for families. Are these tiny units wheelchair accessible? Are these units suitable for seniors? Why does Larco Investments Ltd. (a company with a dubious reputation) propose such a high density of units? The introduction of 100+ additional vehicles into the narrow alleyway and bike-friendly surrounding streets (W37th Ave., W39th Ave. and Balsam St.) does not bode well for the safety of children and seniors. Why not develop this site in a way that would allow it to blend into its current environment and be suitable for families and seniors? A low to mid-rise building with larger units and accessibility would be a better option. Thank you very much for your consideration. on Facebook Share I highly appreciate the efforts of the City of Vancouver to increase density and create homes for families. I also appreciate the foresight and rigorous planning by the City of Vancouver when choosing and implementing new building projects. However, the proposed 5455 Balsam St. tower development project is in my opinion not compatible with the standards and goals of the City of Vancouver where the preservation of our historical and cultural sites goes hand in hand with the sustainable increase in population density. What is the justification for rezoning from RM-3 to CD-1 in a historical part of Vancouver near multiple heritage sites such as the St. Mary’s Anglican Church (a primary and legally protected heritage site)? Why should the developers of this proposed project need a CD-1 zoning in this neighbourhood and in this location? What is the justification of such a high (14 story) tower in a location where the majority of the existing buildings are two to three stories high? The shade footprint of this building is too large and affects multiple surrounding blocks casting a long shadow especially in winter which will have a deleterious affect on the mental health of the surrounding residents. What is the justification for building such a tall tower? The majority of the proposed units in this tower are very small (studio and 1-bedroom) and not suitable for families. Are these tiny units wheelchair accessible? Are these units suitable for seniors? Why does Larco Investments Ltd. (a company with a dubious reputation) propose such a high density of units? The introduction of 100+ additional vehicles into the narrow alleyway and bike-friendly surrounding streets (W37th Ave., W39th Ave. and Balsam St.) does not bode well for the safety of children and seniors. Why not develop this site in a way that would allow it to blend into its current environment and be suitable for families and seniors? A low to mid-rise building with larger units and accessibility would be a better option. Thank you very much for your consideration. on Twitter Share I highly appreciate the efforts of the City of Vancouver to increase density and create homes for families. I also appreciate the foresight and rigorous planning by the City of Vancouver when choosing and implementing new building projects. However, the proposed 5455 Balsam St. tower development project is in my opinion not compatible with the standards and goals of the City of Vancouver where the preservation of our historical and cultural sites goes hand in hand with the sustainable increase in population density. What is the justification for rezoning from RM-3 to CD-1 in a historical part of Vancouver near multiple heritage sites such as the St. Mary’s Anglican Church (a primary and legally protected heritage site)? Why should the developers of this proposed project need a CD-1 zoning in this neighbourhood and in this location? What is the justification of such a high (14 story) tower in a location where the majority of the existing buildings are two to three stories high? The shade footprint of this building is too large and affects multiple surrounding blocks casting a long shadow especially in winter which will have a deleterious affect on the mental health of the surrounding residents. What is the justification for building such a tall tower? The majority of the proposed units in this tower are very small (studio and 1-bedroom) and not suitable for families. Are these tiny units wheelchair accessible? Are these units suitable for seniors? Why does Larco Investments Ltd. (a company with a dubious reputation) propose such a high density of units? The introduction of 100+ additional vehicles into the narrow alleyway and bike-friendly surrounding streets (W37th Ave., W39th Ave. and Balsam St.) does not bode well for the safety of children and seniors. Why not develop this site in a way that would allow it to blend into its current environment and be suitable for families and seniors? A low to mid-rise building with larger units and accessibility would be a better option. Thank you very much for your consideration. on Linkedin Email I highly appreciate the efforts of the City of Vancouver to increase density and create homes for families. I also appreciate the foresight and rigorous planning by the City of Vancouver when choosing and implementing new building projects. However, the proposed 5455 Balsam St. tower development project is in my opinion not compatible with the standards and goals of the City of Vancouver where the preservation of our historical and cultural sites goes hand in hand with the sustainable increase in population density. What is the justification for rezoning from RM-3 to CD-1 in a historical part of Vancouver near multiple heritage sites such as the St. Mary’s Anglican Church (a primary and legally protected heritage site)? Why should the developers of this proposed project need a CD-1 zoning in this neighbourhood and in this location? What is the justification of such a high (14 story) tower in a location where the majority of the existing buildings are two to three stories high? The shade footprint of this building is too large and affects multiple surrounding blocks casting a long shadow especially in winter which will have a deleterious affect on the mental health of the surrounding residents. What is the justification for building such a tall tower? The majority of the proposed units in this tower are very small (studio and 1-bedroom) and not suitable for families. Are these tiny units wheelchair accessible? Are these units suitable for seniors? Why does Larco Investments Ltd. (a company with a dubious reputation) propose such a high density of units? The introduction of 100+ additional vehicles into the narrow alleyway and bike-friendly surrounding streets (W37th Ave., W39th Ave. and Balsam St.) does not bode well for the safety of children and seniors. Why not develop this site in a way that would allow it to blend into its current environment and be suitable for families and seniors? A low to mid-rise building with larger units and accessibility would be a better option. Thank you very much for your consideration. link

    I highly appreciate the efforts of the City of Vancouver to increase density and create homes for families. I also appreciate the foresight and rigorous planning by the City of Vancouver when choosing and implementing new building projects. However, the proposed 5455 Balsam St. tower development project is in my opinion not compatible with the standards and goals of the City of Vancouver where the preservation of our historical and cultural sites goes hand in hand with the sustainable increase in population density. What is the justification for rezoning from RM-3 to CD-1 in a historical part of Vancouver near multiple heritage sites such as the St. Mary’s Anglican Church (a primary and legally protected heritage site)? Why should the developers of this proposed project need a CD-1 zoning in this neighbourhood and in this location? What is the justification of such a high (14 story) tower in a location where the majority of the existing buildings are two to three stories high? The shade footprint of this building is too large and affects multiple surrounding blocks casting a long shadow especially in winter which will have a deleterious affect on the mental health of the surrounding residents. What is the justification for building such a tall tower? The majority of the proposed units in this tower are very small (studio and 1-bedroom) and not suitable for families. Are these tiny units wheelchair accessible? Are these units suitable for seniors? Why does Larco Investments Ltd. (a company with a dubious reputation) propose such a high density of units? The introduction of 100+ additional vehicles into the narrow alleyway and bike-friendly surrounding streets (W37th Ave., W39th Ave. and Balsam St.) does not bode well for the safety of children and seniors. Why not develop this site in a way that would allow it to blend into its current environment and be suitable for families and seniors? A low to mid-rise building with larger units and accessibility would be a better option. Thank you very much for your consideration.

    Ar asked over 2 years ago

    The Council-approved Secured Rental Policy allows for consideration of rezoning applications for buildings proposing secured rental units consistent with the height of the RM-3 zoning in this area, such as this rezoning application. The City's Family Room Housing Mix Policy for Rezonings applies to this proposal, requiring 35% family units (units having two or more bedrooms), and staff are continuing to review the proposed unit sizes and unit mix along with all other aspects of the proposal.

  • Share Why would this development be approved when it will cause, long-term Vancouver City taxpayers, home-owners (now renters), community contributors and voters mistreatment in their retirement years? City council must recognize that this population hold a strong voting voice and continues to exercise their franchise. A high percentage of Kerrisdale apartment renters have sold city properties to provide the income required to enable continuation of comfortable Vancouver housing and city lifestyle. on Facebook Share Why would this development be approved when it will cause, long-term Vancouver City taxpayers, home-owners (now renters), community contributors and voters mistreatment in their retirement years? City council must recognize that this population hold a strong voting voice and continues to exercise their franchise. A high percentage of Kerrisdale apartment renters have sold city properties to provide the income required to enable continuation of comfortable Vancouver housing and city lifestyle. on Twitter Share Why would this development be approved when it will cause, long-term Vancouver City taxpayers, home-owners (now renters), community contributors and voters mistreatment in their retirement years? City council must recognize that this population hold a strong voting voice and continues to exercise their franchise. A high percentage of Kerrisdale apartment renters have sold city properties to provide the income required to enable continuation of comfortable Vancouver housing and city lifestyle. on Linkedin Email Why would this development be approved when it will cause, long-term Vancouver City taxpayers, home-owners (now renters), community contributors and voters mistreatment in their retirement years? City council must recognize that this population hold a strong voting voice and continues to exercise their franchise. A high percentage of Kerrisdale apartment renters have sold city properties to provide the income required to enable continuation of comfortable Vancouver housing and city lifestyle. link

    Why would this development be approved when it will cause, long-term Vancouver City taxpayers, home-owners (now renters), community contributors and voters mistreatment in their retirement years? City council must recognize that this population hold a strong voting voice and continues to exercise their franchise. A high percentage of Kerrisdale apartment renters have sold city properties to provide the income required to enable continuation of comfortable Vancouver housing and city lifestyle.

    SBliss asked over 2 years ago

    The Council-approved Secured Rental Policy allows for consideration of this rezoning application for a new residential building with secured rental units. The rezoning application is still under review and no approval has been given. Only Council may approve a rezoning application at a Public Hearing. Please see the Housing Vancouver Strategy for more information on how the City is addressing housing for people of all incomes and backgrounds to participate in their communities.

  • Share Why would approval be given supporting such a drastic and immediate change in the demographic of Kerrisdale which has an exemplary, monumental history and reputation. on Facebook Share Why would approval be given supporting such a drastic and immediate change in the demographic of Kerrisdale which has an exemplary, monumental history and reputation. on Twitter Share Why would approval be given supporting such a drastic and immediate change in the demographic of Kerrisdale which has an exemplary, monumental history and reputation. on Linkedin Email Why would approval be given supporting such a drastic and immediate change in the demographic of Kerrisdale which has an exemplary, monumental history and reputation. link

    Why would approval be given supporting such a drastic and immediate change in the demographic of Kerrisdale which has an exemplary, monumental history and reputation.

    SBliss asked over 2 years ago

    The Council-approved Secured Rental Policy allows for consideration of this rezoning application for a new residential building with secured rental units. The rezoning application is still under review and no approval has been given. Only Council may approve a rezoning application at a Public Hearing.