The following letter went to Vancouver City Council.
January 20, 2020
City of Vancouver Council
Dear Mayor Kennedy Stewart and Councillors,
RE: Item 3. Rezoning Application – 1956 – 1990 Stainsbury Avenue Public Hearing Jan 21,2020
The Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods (CVN) opposes this rezoning application. We are concerned that many issues have been raised by the local community group Cedar Cottage Area Neighbours (CCAN), including such as the following:
• the local community have had to absorb many spot rezonings that are unsupported
• these types of rezoning projects render moot the effectiveness of the years-down-the-road mirage of a City-wide Plan
• this would be a blockbuster setting a precedent for additional large buildings in the middle of a quiet residential area.
• the building height is overbearing to the houses next to it; 18 m (59.2 feet) tall is equivalent to a 6 storey building
• the density doesn’t conform to 1.5 FSR in the Stainsbury triangle as on the North side so why allow 2.59 FSR on the South side in an RS 1 zone (small detached homes area)
• only 34 parking stalls for 80 units in an area already overburdened with on-street parking problems
area schools are already overcrowded; the community centre is too crowded with no space for small children; and with the waiver of CACs as a bonus to developer, no money to change this situation!
• there is nothing that staff can point to indicating general support for this in the ‘community plan’ as there was no household survey
• the large mature street trees will be destroyed; trees are a significant part of local heritage and a community amenity
• There have already been 3 projects of this type in this immediate neighbourhood approved in the last 5 years, this will be the 4th. The policy of limiting developments with inadequate parking to a minimum of 10 blocks apart has been totally disregarded.
Density and affordable housing are good. This design, on this site, is not. The Coalition of Vancouver Neighbourhoods joins the Cedar Cottage Area Neighbours in recommending that this application be rejected.
Larry Benge, Dorothy Barkeley