Go Back

5562-5688 Manson St rezoning application

Share 5562-5688 Manson St rezoning application on Facebook Share 5562-5688 Manson St rezoning application on Twitter Share 5562-5688 Manson St rezoning application on Linkedin Email 5562-5688 Manson St rezoning application link

This application was approved by Council at Public Hearing on January 17, 2023

We would like your feedback on a rezoning application at 5562-5688 Manson St. The proposal is to allow for the development of two 18-storey residential buildings. The zoning would change from RS-1 (Residential) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. This proposal includes:

  • 392 secured rental units (with 20% of residential floor space provided as below market units)
  • 37-space childcare facility
  • A floor area of 26,605 sq. m (286,360 sq. ft.)
  • A floor space ratio (FSR) of 5.97
  • A building height of 63.8 m (209 ft.)
  • 227 underground parking spaces and 733 bicycle spaces

The application is being considered under the Cambie Corridor 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.

We would like your feedback on a rezoning application at 5562-5688 Manson St. The proposal is to allow for the development of two 18-storey residential buildings. The zoning would change from RS-1 (Residential) District to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development) District. This proposal includes:

  • 392 secured rental units (with 20% of residential floor space provided as below market units)
  • 37-space childcare facility
  • A floor area of 26,605 sq. m (286,360 sq. ft.)
  • A floor space ratio (FSR) of 5.97
  • A building height of 63.8 m (209 ft.)
  • 227 underground parking spaces and 733 bicycle spaces

The application is being considered under the Cambie Corridor 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.

This application was approved by Council at Public Hearing on January 17, 2023

The opportunity to ask questions through the Q&A is available from January 24 to February 13, 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 Why would an application go to the Open House stage if there are significant, seemingly obvious questions as to whether it is compliant with the Plan? Especially some important, defining parts of the Plan? on Facebook Share Why would an application go to the Open House stage if there are significant, seemingly obvious questions as to whether it is compliant with the Plan? Especially some important, defining parts of the Plan? on Twitter Share Why would an application go to the Open House stage if there are significant, seemingly obvious questions as to whether it is compliant with the Plan? Especially some important, defining parts of the Plan? on Linkedin Email Why would an application go to the Open House stage if there are significant, seemingly obvious questions as to whether it is compliant with the Plan? Especially some important, defining parts of the Plan? link

    Why would an application go to the Open House stage if there are significant, seemingly obvious questions as to whether it is compliant with the Plan? Especially some important, defining parts of the Plan?

    MikeL asked almost 3 years ago

    As part of the City’s standard practice, most rezoning applications proceed to an open house in order to gather feedback from the public. This feedback is incorporated into the staff review and summarized in a final report to Council when an application is referred to a Public Hearing.

  • Share The Cambie Plan states that there must be a minimum 27.4 m (90 ft) separation between existing towers and that for the purposes of considering tower separation, towers are defined as those floors of a building exceeding a height of 18.3 m (60 ft). The top of the podiums in this proposal are almost 63 feet high, yet they are only 36'8” apart. How does this meet the minimum separation at the 60' height level? on Facebook Share The Cambie Plan states that there must be a minimum 27.4 m (90 ft) separation between existing towers and that for the purposes of considering tower separation, towers are defined as those floors of a building exceeding a height of 18.3 m (60 ft). The top of the podiums in this proposal are almost 63 feet high, yet they are only 36'8” apart. How does this meet the minimum separation at the 60' height level? on Twitter Share The Cambie Plan states that there must be a minimum 27.4 m (90 ft) separation between existing towers and that for the purposes of considering tower separation, towers are defined as those floors of a building exceeding a height of 18.3 m (60 ft). The top of the podiums in this proposal are almost 63 feet high, yet they are only 36'8” apart. How does this meet the minimum separation at the 60' height level? on Linkedin Email The Cambie Plan states that there must be a minimum 27.4 m (90 ft) separation between existing towers and that for the purposes of considering tower separation, towers are defined as those floors of a building exceeding a height of 18.3 m (60 ft). The top of the podiums in this proposal are almost 63 feet high, yet they are only 36'8” apart. How does this meet the minimum separation at the 60' height level? link

    The Cambie Plan states that there must be a minimum 27.4 m (90 ft) separation between existing towers and that for the purposes of considering tower separation, towers are defined as those floors of a building exceeding a height of 18.3 m (60 ft). The top of the podiums in this proposal are almost 63 feet high, yet they are only 36'8” apart. How does this meet the minimum separation at the 60' height level?

    MikeL asked almost 3 years ago

    Staff have noted your comment and will be reviewing this application against the built form guidelines in the Plan. Rezoning conditions may be included to revise the building design to satisfy building performance objectives and guidelines in the Plan.

  • Share The plan states that the tower floor plate should have a depth of 85 feet and a width of 52-80 feet depending on the frontage. Yet the towers appear to be 85 to 91 feet wide and 86 to 94 feet deep with the balconies adding to these dimensions, clearly increasing the appearance from the street. How can building forms that exceed the limits be permitted? on Facebook Share The plan states that the tower floor plate should have a depth of 85 feet and a width of 52-80 feet depending on the frontage. Yet the towers appear to be 85 to 91 feet wide and 86 to 94 feet deep with the balconies adding to these dimensions, clearly increasing the appearance from the street. How can building forms that exceed the limits be permitted? on Twitter Share The plan states that the tower floor plate should have a depth of 85 feet and a width of 52-80 feet depending on the frontage. Yet the towers appear to be 85 to 91 feet wide and 86 to 94 feet deep with the balconies adding to these dimensions, clearly increasing the appearance from the street. How can building forms that exceed the limits be permitted? on Linkedin Email The plan states that the tower floor plate should have a depth of 85 feet and a width of 52-80 feet depending on the frontage. Yet the towers appear to be 85 to 91 feet wide and 86 to 94 feet deep with the balconies adding to these dimensions, clearly increasing the appearance from the street. How can building forms that exceed the limits be permitted? link

    The plan states that the tower floor plate should have a depth of 85 feet and a width of 52-80 feet depending on the frontage. Yet the towers appear to be 85 to 91 feet wide and 86 to 94 feet deep with the balconies adding to these dimensions, clearly increasing the appearance from the street. How can building forms that exceed the limits be permitted?

    MikeL asked almost 3 years ago

    As this application is still under review, staff will be reviewing the proposal for its compliance with built form provisions under the Plan and in response to feedback from the public and the Urban Design Panel. Following this review, staff may include rezoning conditions to adjust the design of the buildings, including tower floor plates, to address the built form objectives under the Plan.

  • Share Does having two identical towers so close together still create a distinct visual terminus from street level and when viewing the tower from a distance? on Facebook Share Does having two identical towers so close together still create a distinct visual terminus from street level and when viewing the tower from a distance? on Twitter Share Does having two identical towers so close together still create a distinct visual terminus from street level and when viewing the tower from a distance? on Linkedin Email Does having two identical towers so close together still create a distinct visual terminus from street level and when viewing the tower from a distance? link

    Does having two identical towers so close together still create a distinct visual terminus from street level and when viewing the tower from a distance?

    MikeL asked almost 3 years ago

    As this application is still under review, staff will be reviewing the urban design of the proposal based on its compliance with the Plan and feedback received from the public and the Urban Design Panel. Staff may include rezoning conditions to address the design of the towers following this review.

  • Share How does having two identical towers on podiums right beside each other create a variety of forms and heights and create architectural diversity among towers? on Facebook Share How does having two identical towers on podiums right beside each other create a variety of forms and heights and create architectural diversity among towers? on Twitter Share How does having two identical towers on podiums right beside each other create a variety of forms and heights and create architectural diversity among towers? on Linkedin Email How does having two identical towers on podiums right beside each other create a variety of forms and heights and create architectural diversity among towers? link

    How does having two identical towers on podiums right beside each other create a variety of forms and heights and create architectural diversity among towers?

    MikeL asked almost 3 years ago

    The Plan envisions a diversity of building forms throughout the area, including tower and mid-rise buildings. A minimum 90 ft tower separation is required with a maximum of two towers per block. Following a review of this proposal, and in response to feedback from the public and the Urban Design Panel, staff may include rezoning conditions to further refine the design of the towers.

  • Share How does a 63 foot high, 277 feet of street level sameness (with a 32 foot gap separation - a minuscule 12%) create architectural variety and diversity at the street level and provide visual interest? on Facebook Share How does a 63 foot high, 277 feet of street level sameness (with a 32 foot gap separation - a minuscule 12%) create architectural variety and diversity at the street level and provide visual interest? on Twitter Share How does a 63 foot high, 277 feet of street level sameness (with a 32 foot gap separation - a minuscule 12%) create architectural variety and diversity at the street level and provide visual interest? on Linkedin Email How does a 63 foot high, 277 feet of street level sameness (with a 32 foot gap separation - a minuscule 12%) create architectural variety and diversity at the street level and provide visual interest? link

    How does a 63 foot high, 277 feet of street level sameness (with a 32 foot gap separation - a minuscule 12%) create architectural variety and diversity at the street level and provide visual interest?

    MikeL asked almost 3 years ago

    As this application is still under review, staff will be reviewing the urban design of the proposal based on its compliance with the Plan and feedback received from the public and the Urban Design Panel. Staff may include rezoning conditions to address the design of the towers following this review.

  • Share With the significant massing and imposing length and bulk of the podium on the street level, as well as significant shadowing on nearby buildings and public and pedestrian spaces, shouldn't tower-on-podium forms only be allowed at the north end of blocks, especially if maximizing sunlight is so important? Why doesn't the developer have to use the whole block to put up two towers on podiums on the same block so the diversity of building forms including a mix of tower and mid-rise developments is achieved both at the street level and from a distance? on Facebook Share With the significant massing and imposing length and bulk of the podium on the street level, as well as significant shadowing on nearby buildings and public and pedestrian spaces, shouldn't tower-on-podium forms only be allowed at the north end of blocks, especially if maximizing sunlight is so important? Why doesn't the developer have to use the whole block to put up two towers on podiums on the same block so the diversity of building forms including a mix of tower and mid-rise developments is achieved both at the street level and from a distance? on Twitter Share With the significant massing and imposing length and bulk of the podium on the street level, as well as significant shadowing on nearby buildings and public and pedestrian spaces, shouldn't tower-on-podium forms only be allowed at the north end of blocks, especially if maximizing sunlight is so important? Why doesn't the developer have to use the whole block to put up two towers on podiums on the same block so the diversity of building forms including a mix of tower and mid-rise developments is achieved both at the street level and from a distance? on Linkedin Email With the significant massing and imposing length and bulk of the podium on the street level, as well as significant shadowing on nearby buildings and public and pedestrian spaces, shouldn't tower-on-podium forms only be allowed at the north end of blocks, especially if maximizing sunlight is so important? Why doesn't the developer have to use the whole block to put up two towers on podiums on the same block so the diversity of building forms including a mix of tower and mid-rise developments is achieved both at the street level and from a distance? link

    With the significant massing and imposing length and bulk of the podium on the street level, as well as significant shadowing on nearby buildings and public and pedestrian spaces, shouldn't tower-on-podium forms only be allowed at the north end of blocks, especially if maximizing sunlight is so important? Why doesn't the developer have to use the whole block to put up two towers on podiums on the same block so the diversity of building forms including a mix of tower and mid-rise developments is achieved both at the street level and from a distance?

    MikeL asked almost 3 years ago

    Under Section 4.3.6.1 of the Plan, residential building up to 15 or 18 storeys must have a minimum property frontage of 45.7 m (150 ft) and must maintain a minimum 90 ft tower separation from existing and future towers. Outside of these lot frontage and tower placement requirements, the Plan does not indicate which specific properties may be considered for tower developments on a block for this area.

  • Share Adverse shadow impacts are created on the two lots to the north as they will receive little to no sunlight during the day, especially since they can only be 4 storeys high. This creates an insensitive transition in scale between this proposed development and any future development(s) on the two lots and therefore appears to preclude adequate development of those lots. Why is this development allowed to have the massing and height that it does as it orphans the neighbouring lots to the north? Shouldn't those two lots be included in the development so there is more sunlight to more residents? Does the location of the two towers as they are located preclude fewer towers on Ash and on the other side of Manson due to the 90' separation meaning fewer units overall can be built? The space between the two towers seems quite narrow and well shaded most of the time. The wider part of the active link is on the east side of the development, meaning the larger public space will be in deep shadow with no chance of filtered sunshine during the late afternoon and evening. Also, the development does not appear to match the evenly, well-spaced buildings with plenty of greenery around them as the perspective of potential block consolidations in the Cambie Corridor Plan illustrates. Does this proposal really meet the requirements for public spaces in terms of sunlight, contributing to the public realm, and adequate trees and other plantings? From the many apparent problems with it, why would the City set such a detrimental, short-sighted precedent in allowing this development to proceed where there can obviously be no synergy between this development and any future forms and therefore doesn't meet the intent of the Cambie Corridor Plan of “contributing to a complete community”? on Facebook Share Adverse shadow impacts are created on the two lots to the north as they will receive little to no sunlight during the day, especially since they can only be 4 storeys high. This creates an insensitive transition in scale between this proposed development and any future development(s) on the two lots and therefore appears to preclude adequate development of those lots. Why is this development allowed to have the massing and height that it does as it orphans the neighbouring lots to the north? Shouldn't those two lots be included in the development so there is more sunlight to more residents? Does the location of the two towers as they are located preclude fewer towers on Ash and on the other side of Manson due to the 90' separation meaning fewer units overall can be built? The space between the two towers seems quite narrow and well shaded most of the time. The wider part of the active link is on the east side of the development, meaning the larger public space will be in deep shadow with no chance of filtered sunshine during the late afternoon and evening. Also, the development does not appear to match the evenly, well-spaced buildings with plenty of greenery around them as the perspective of potential block consolidations in the Cambie Corridor Plan illustrates. Does this proposal really meet the requirements for public spaces in terms of sunlight, contributing to the public realm, and adequate trees and other plantings? From the many apparent problems with it, why would the City set such a detrimental, short-sighted precedent in allowing this development to proceed where there can obviously be no synergy between this development and any future forms and therefore doesn't meet the intent of the Cambie Corridor Plan of “contributing to a complete community”? on Twitter Share Adverse shadow impacts are created on the two lots to the north as they will receive little to no sunlight during the day, especially since they can only be 4 storeys high. This creates an insensitive transition in scale between this proposed development and any future development(s) on the two lots and therefore appears to preclude adequate development of those lots. Why is this development allowed to have the massing and height that it does as it orphans the neighbouring lots to the north? Shouldn't those two lots be included in the development so there is more sunlight to more residents? Does the location of the two towers as they are located preclude fewer towers on Ash and on the other side of Manson due to the 90' separation meaning fewer units overall can be built? The space between the two towers seems quite narrow and well shaded most of the time. The wider part of the active link is on the east side of the development, meaning the larger public space will be in deep shadow with no chance of filtered sunshine during the late afternoon and evening. Also, the development does not appear to match the evenly, well-spaced buildings with plenty of greenery around them as the perspective of potential block consolidations in the Cambie Corridor Plan illustrates. Does this proposal really meet the requirements for public spaces in terms of sunlight, contributing to the public realm, and adequate trees and other plantings? From the many apparent problems with it, why would the City set such a detrimental, short-sighted precedent in allowing this development to proceed where there can obviously be no synergy between this development and any future forms and therefore doesn't meet the intent of the Cambie Corridor Plan of “contributing to a complete community”? on Linkedin Email Adverse shadow impacts are created on the two lots to the north as they will receive little to no sunlight during the day, especially since they can only be 4 storeys high. This creates an insensitive transition in scale between this proposed development and any future development(s) on the two lots and therefore appears to preclude adequate development of those lots. Why is this development allowed to have the massing and height that it does as it orphans the neighbouring lots to the north? Shouldn't those two lots be included in the development so there is more sunlight to more residents? Does the location of the two towers as they are located preclude fewer towers on Ash and on the other side of Manson due to the 90' separation meaning fewer units overall can be built? The space between the two towers seems quite narrow and well shaded most of the time. The wider part of the active link is on the east side of the development, meaning the larger public space will be in deep shadow with no chance of filtered sunshine during the late afternoon and evening. Also, the development does not appear to match the evenly, well-spaced buildings with plenty of greenery around them as the perspective of potential block consolidations in the Cambie Corridor Plan illustrates. Does this proposal really meet the requirements for public spaces in terms of sunlight, contributing to the public realm, and adequate trees and other plantings? From the many apparent problems with it, why would the City set such a detrimental, short-sighted precedent in allowing this development to proceed where there can obviously be no synergy between this development and any future forms and therefore doesn't meet the intent of the Cambie Corridor Plan of “contributing to a complete community”? link

    Adverse shadow impacts are created on the two lots to the north as they will receive little to no sunlight during the day, especially since they can only be 4 storeys high. This creates an insensitive transition in scale between this proposed development and any future development(s) on the two lots and therefore appears to preclude adequate development of those lots. Why is this development allowed to have the massing and height that it does as it orphans the neighbouring lots to the north? Shouldn't those two lots be included in the development so there is more sunlight to more residents? Does the location of the two towers as they are located preclude fewer towers on Ash and on the other side of Manson due to the 90' separation meaning fewer units overall can be built? The space between the two towers seems quite narrow and well shaded most of the time. The wider part of the active link is on the east side of the development, meaning the larger public space will be in deep shadow with no chance of filtered sunshine during the late afternoon and evening. Also, the development does not appear to match the evenly, well-spaced buildings with plenty of greenery around them as the perspective of potential block consolidations in the Cambie Corridor Plan illustrates. Does this proposal really meet the requirements for public spaces in terms of sunlight, contributing to the public realm, and adequate trees and other plantings? From the many apparent problems with it, why would the City set such a detrimental, short-sighted precedent in allowing this development to proceed where there can obviously be no synergy between this development and any future forms and therefore doesn't meet the intent of the Cambie Corridor Plan of “contributing to a complete community”?

    MikeL asked almost 3 years ago

    Staff will be reviewing this application against the built form guidelines in the Cambie Corridor Plan and feedback received from the public and the Urban Design Panel. This site is located within Section 4.3.6 of the Plan, which is an area identified for high-density residential uses and a diversity of building forms including a mix of tower and mid-rise developments. Towers on podiums should create an urban street edge, with active entries to dwelling units and engaging private space adjacent to the street. A minimum tower separation of 90 feet is required under the Plan, with a maximum of two towers per block. 

    Staff will review the application to ensure the tower placement ensures future tower spacing of 90 feet across the street and across the lane. This proposal will also be reviewed against its conformance with the Cambie Corridor Public Realm Plan, which includes ensuring sufficient landscaping is provided and reviewing the buildings’ interface with the active link. Based on the review of this proposal and public feedback received, staff may include rezoning conditions to further enhance the public realm or revise the design of the buildings to address urban design objectives. A further consolidation with neighbouring lots is not required under the Plan. Neighbouring properties that are precluded from tower development may develop into 4- or 6- storey midrise buildings as envisioned under the Plan.

  • Share This is an invasion into a residential area way beyond the townhouse height. It is just too much from every standpoint. Wh as t would happen to the residents in the area ? There will be tremendous traffic flow in the area considering the OAkridge development. This invasion into side streets is stupid and irresponsible . These buildings should be restricted to main arteries such as Cambie . It would be best to wait for OAkridge to be completed. As a resident of the area I don’t want to see a West end debacle . on Facebook Share This is an invasion into a residential area way beyond the townhouse height. It is just too much from every standpoint. Wh as t would happen to the residents in the area ? There will be tremendous traffic flow in the area considering the OAkridge development. This invasion into side streets is stupid and irresponsible . These buildings should be restricted to main arteries such as Cambie . It would be best to wait for OAkridge to be completed. As a resident of the area I don’t want to see a West end debacle . on Twitter Share This is an invasion into a residential area way beyond the townhouse height. It is just too much from every standpoint. Wh as t would happen to the residents in the area ? There will be tremendous traffic flow in the area considering the OAkridge development. This invasion into side streets is stupid and irresponsible . These buildings should be restricted to main arteries such as Cambie . It would be best to wait for OAkridge to be completed. As a resident of the area I don’t want to see a West end debacle . on Linkedin Email This is an invasion into a residential area way beyond the townhouse height. It is just too much from every standpoint. Wh as t would happen to the residents in the area ? There will be tremendous traffic flow in the area considering the OAkridge development. This invasion into side streets is stupid and irresponsible . These buildings should be restricted to main arteries such as Cambie . It would be best to wait for OAkridge to be completed. As a resident of the area I don’t want to see a West end debacle . link

    This is an invasion into a residential area way beyond the townhouse height. It is just too much from every standpoint. Wh as t would happen to the residents in the area ? There will be tremendous traffic flow in the area considering the OAkridge development. This invasion into side streets is stupid and irresponsible . These buildings should be restricted to main arteries such as Cambie . It would be best to wait for OAkridge to be completed. As a resident of the area I don’t want to see a West end debacle .

    B Miles asked almost 3 years ago

    Thank you for your comments. This site is located within the Oakridge Municipal Town Centre (MTC) which is identified as a regionally-significant urban centre under the Cambie Corridor Plan. Under Section 4.3.6.1 of the Plan, the sub-area in which the site is located is envisioned to develop into a high density residential area. The intent is to enable a variety of new affordable housing types and tenures and allow more people to live in this vibrant urban area. Oakridge is rich in amenities and services to support existing and future residents and the area is serviced by the Canada Line and major bus routes. Residents will have access to additional amenities as large sites undergo redevelopment.