The City of Vancouver is seeking input on proposed zoning changes for Rowhouse, Townhouse and 4-storey Apartment areas in Grandview-Woodland. Comments can be made to the Planning Department until February 18, 2018 via email or in person at open houses at the Wise Hall (1882 Adanac Street) on January 27 (12 – 3pm) and January 31 (5 – 8pm). Details on the CIty’s proposed zones are online at the following webpage: http://vancouver.ca/home-property-development/grandview-woodland-community-plan.aspx The Grandview Woodland Area Council thinks these meetings and the decisions that will result are very important to the neighbourhood and we recommend residents attend the meetings, examine the information provided and ask the planners questions. As an example, here are 9 questions we think the neighbourhood should have answers to:
1. What will be the maximum density for the assembled sites, in terms of both FSR and unit density? Density is measured in two ways: Floor Space Ratio (FSR) and Unit Density. FSR is a ratio that compares the useable floor space in a building to the area of the site. An FSR of 1.0 would apply to a single-storey building that completely covers the site, or a 2-storey building that covers half the site, or a 4-storey building that covers one quarter of the site, etc. Unit density is the number of dwelling units that can be built on 1 hectare of land. ( Eg.In Norquay stacked townhouses and traditional rowhouses are allowed a maximum FSR of 1.2 and a maximum unit density of 132 per hectare. Norquay does not have courtyard rowhouses, but in Marpole courtyard rowhouses are allowed the same FSR and unit density. In both Norquay and Marpole. 4-storey apartments are allowed a maximum FSR of 2.0 and a maximum unit density of 240 per hectare. Maximum density is for assembled sites.?
2. How will you encourage the construction of traditional row-houses as opposed to stacked townhouses in this zone? eg. In Norquay’s RM-7 Rowhouse/Stacked Townhouse zone, we have so far seen 23 applications for stacked townhouses and only 3 for rowhouses. Most developers will favour the building form that produces the largest number of units.
Malcolm Bromley, General Manager Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation cc: Vancouver Park Board cc: Save Templeton Park Pool
Dear Mr. Bromley
Re: Templeton Pool
As Chair of Grandview Woodland Area Council, and on behalf of Grandview Woodland residents, the Council urges you to consider taking steps to save Templeton Park Pool. This is a valuable neighbourhood resource that cannot be replaced with a community pool in the new Britannia Community Services Centre redevelopment. For current Templeton users, switching to Britannia means crossing two additional busy streets, probably in a car, which requires parking; it means a busier pool with less available time for special senior, disabled and youth programs.
Given anticipated density increases along both Nanaimo and Hastings Streets, future needs for a local swimming pool will increase. Driving to a busier pool in the next neighbourhood will probably mean many patrons, current and future, will forgo this healthy activity.
Sincerely, Dana Cromie, Chair Grandview Woodland Area Council
Letters to Park Board in support of keeping Templeton Pool Open were written by MLA Shane Simpson, MP Jenny Kwan, and the Hastings Community Association. These letters are reproduced here for reference. Further information about the “VanSplash” report that may result in the closure of community pools such as Templeton can be found on the City of Vancouver’s website. vancouver.ca/parks-recreation-culture/vansplash-aquatics-strategy.aspx
November 30, 2017
Dear Vancouver Park Board Commissioners,
I am writing this to you on behalf of Hastings Community Association and in the interests of the entire Hastings Sunrise community regarding the Vansplash proposal to decommission Templeton pool.
The Vansplash survey was flawed and did not capture the picture of what this segment of our community truly wants or needs. For one thing, many seniors and children have limited access to the technology to complete the survey. Those who did complete the survey found it quite leading as it did not directly get at the issue of the importance of having a local community pool. It seemed that the questions were phrased in a manner that would get the desired results for Vansplash. Consequently, as a community, we feel strongly that our concerns have not been heard. It feels as though staff and consultants do not fully understand the negative impact on our community the closing of Templeton pool would have.