Position Statement on the Rezoning Proposal for 18th and Commercial (revised)

CCAN members have expressed opposition to a number of aspects of Cressey’s rezoning proposal for 3365 Commercial and 1695 to 1775 East 18th Avenue.  Listed below are some of the ideas that CCAN members brought up.

CEDAR COTTAGE AREA NEIGHBOURS POSITION on the REZONING (revised)

 CCAN members opposed…

Amalgamating 5 lots for this proposal because this makes the site too large.

We would prefer

  • Develop each lot separately in order to maintain more trees on each lot and to retain the character of the neighbourhood.

 CCAN members opposed…

2 townhouses at 3 storeys with a density of 3,222 square feet. A total density of 0.96 FSR on the lot at 1695 East 18th and to the reduction of that lot size to 6,225 sf. Building townhouses that overlook the neighbouring properties creating privacy issues.

We would prefer

  • Build only a 2 storey duplex with a maximum 0.75 FSR on the lot at 1695 E 18th and maintain the current lot size at 7500 sf. Don’t build the townhouses at the back of the lot.

 CCAN members opposed…

4 storey buildings on East 18th with a density of 2.71 FSR.

We would prefer

  • Build 2 storey townhouses with ground-oriented entrances with a density of no more than 0.83 FSR and address them on E 18th.

 CCAN members opposed…

6 storey buildings on Commercial with a density of 2.71 FSR.

We would prefer

  • Build one small apartment building of 2 to 3 storey with a density of no more than 0.90 FSR and address this building on Commercial Drive.

 CCAN members opposed…

The short, small building setbacks form the property lines.

We would prefer

  • Make larger building setbacks from the property lines no smaller than the setbacks required in the RS-2 Zoning District Schedule and without any size relaxations.

 CCAN members opposed…

The block style buildings.

We would prefer

  • Building designs that are compatible with the areas smaller pre 1940’s buildings and buildings on the adjacent properties.

 CCAN members opposed…

The building’s windows overlooking the neighbourhood and to the building’s shadowing neighbouring properties.

We would prefer

  • Build less tall, less dense buildings.

 CCAN members opposed…

The house at 3365 Commercial being retained as a heritage building and receiving the density of 0.96 FSR for doing that. We oppose this house being moved to any other lot.

We would prefer

  • Remove the house at 3365 Commercial or just renovate it where it currently sits. Don’t move it to any other lot. The density to renovate should be no more than that allowed for any other house in the area which is currently 0.60 FSR.   This house should not be on the Heritage Register because Cressey’s Statement of Significance removes too many aspects of the house, it only has a value of 5 out of 100 on the SoS.

 CCAN members opposed…

Removing approximately 40 mature trees on the site and only retaining about 5 trees.

We would prefer

  • Retain the trees on the site by building smaller, less dense buildings.

CCAN members opposed…

The City selling the mid-block lot at 1739 E 18th to Cressey.

We would prefer

  • The City keeps this lot and makes it a green oasis mini-park with the creek bed retained.

   CCAN members opposed…

The parking ramp off of East 18th.

We would prefer

  • Relocate the ramp to Commercial Drive at the north/east corner of the site.

   CCAN members opposed…

The reduced parking allowed of only 81 stalls for 114 units.

We would prefer

  • Provide 1 parking stall per unit plus visitor and loading parking and all within the site.

   CCAN members opposed…

The revised Parking Study shows the proposal adds too much more traffic on East 18th at peak hours in the morning and evening.   The Study also indicates that the already difficult problems with the Catholic Church parking will only be exacerbated by adding 81 new cars to this situation.

We would prefer

  • That the parking ramp for the apartment project be located off Commercial Drive.

   CCAN members opposed…

An exemption from paying of Development Cost Levies (DCL’s).

We would prefer

  • Cressey should pay full development fees to the City since there have already been 2 other affordable housing project within 10 blocks that have not paid DCL. This project adds too much more of a load on community amenities in the area.

   CCAN members opposed…

The City not doing a proper KCC Vision Plan for this one-family RS zone to determine height, density, form of buildings and traffic flow.

We would prefer

  • This KCC Vision area planning process should be done before any rezoning.

   CCAN members opposed…

The changing of the neighbourhood character by building a third tall building of small “Secured Market Rentals” units within a 10 block radius.

We would prefer

  • Do not approve these tall, overbearing buildings and charge full development fees for any new developments in the neighbourhood. Build housing large enough for families.

About leechap

A Community Sympathiser
This entry was posted in Information. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Position Statement on the Rezoning Proposal for 18th and Commercial (revised)

  1. Pingback: Engaged citizens from Cedar Cottage publish Position Statement on rezoning proposal for 18th and Commercial | CityHallWatch: Tools to engage in Vancouver city decisions

  2. Pingback: Open House May 21st: Massive rezoning proposed for Cedar Cottage (18th and Commercial) | CityHallWatch: Tools to engage in Vancouver city decisions

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s