New land use policy for Rupert/Renfrew Stations

[BaddieB]

Oh wow, 40 storeys! Vancouver is definitely doing more than it needs to. I sense that, with comments Ken Sim has made before, that even if a new provincial government comes in an abolishes the fall housing legislation, Vancouver will keep it. And also the upzoning going far further than 800 meters. What is going on? I am very confused by the sudden YIMBY shift in the same governments all of a sudden.

[chowhou]

Originally Posted by BaddieB

Oh wow, 40 storeys! Vancouver is definitely doing more than it needs to. I sense that, with comments Ken Sim has made before, that even if a new provincial government comes in an abolishes the fall housing legislation, Vancouver will keep it. And also the upzoning going far further than 800 meters. What is going on? I am very confused by the sudden YIMBY shift in the same governments all of a sudden.

Technically this plan predates the BC TOD legislation, it was just updated to better adhere to what the province is requiring.

[madog222]

Originally Posted by logan5

I was hoping for more residential closer to the stations, but the City has opted to retain the existing commercial zones that contain mostly big box stores with their huge parking lots. It's not really industrial to begin with, but that's what they are designating these areas as, though that's what they initially indicated would happen.

That is due to the floodplain, right?

[csbvan]

Originally Posted by madog222

That is due to the floodplain, right?

And Metro Regional Growth Strategy employment designations. The City would need to get an amendment to the RGS to make those areas General Urban. They are doing this for the MST development of the old BCL distribution branch, but those are special circumstances.

[CB-Thompson]

The way I'm reading it, the wording on the 3FSR job space seems to imply that only the industrial 2FSR requirement is flexible, but not the overall 3FSR job space minimum.

*For sites along Grandview Hwy, flexibility on 2FSR industrial to allow for retail uses

I would like to see it higher and some firm lower bounds on that Grandview retail carve-out, but the area covered by these mixed industrial, office and retail zonings are quite large at 1.5km end-to-end. Fully built-out it would represent a very large employment district.

[mcj]

Originally Posted by CB-Thompson

The way I'm reading it, the wording on the 3FSR job space seems to imply that only the industrial 2FSR requirement is flexible, but not the overall 3FSR job space minimum.

I read it as 2 FSR minimum industrial, 3 FSR maximum, implying there can be 1 FSR worth of non-industrial.

A good way to get rid of the large surface parking lots.

[Changing City]

Originally Posted by mcj

I read it as 2 FSR minimum industrial, 3 FSR maximum, implying there can be 1 FSR worth of non-industrial.

A good way to get rid of the large surface parking lots.

In the 3 FSR zone, it's 2 FSR minimum industrial, except on Grandview Highway there's flexibility for some of that space to be retail. The plan specifically mentions big-box grocery stores, so presumably they're contemplating a redeveloped Superstore. The other 1 FSR could be industrial, or office. There's an extra twist because near Still Creek there's a limit on underground parking in the industrial zones, so some of the floorspace allowance could be a parkade. There's a suggestion that additional height and density could be allowed to offset the costs of mitigating the high groundwater consequences, so any parkade FSR could be discounted, but any redevelopment will be complicated and potentially expensive. (The parkade approach already exists with the Canadian Tire / Save On Foods at Bentall Street).

As far as I can see, the 3 FSR parts of the area have the same zoning that prevails today, I-2. The 3.5 and 5.0 FSR zones alloow potentially more space.

[Lexus]

2024, Sep 1

Untitled by Lexus LX, on Flickr

Untitled by Lexus LX, on Flickr

Untitled by Lexus LX, on Flickr

Untitled by Lexus LX, on Flickr