Summary#
Vancouver City Council unanimously approved in principle a rezoning for 1905 Ogden Avenue, where the City owns the land. The stated goal is to keep the museum and park uses and add a beauty and wellness centre, proposed as a floating barge with hydrotherapy activities. The rezoning and related by-law changes are not yet in force: the City would need to enact the CD-1 by-law.
- The site would change from R1-1 (Residential Inclusive) zoning to CD-1 (Comprehensive Development), a site-specific zoning.
- The Vancouver Maritime Museum and archive use would be permitted, with a maximum building height of 27.0 m (89 ft), measured geodetically, instead of 11.5 m (35 ft), measured from the base surface.
- A floating beauty and wellness centre would be permitted, up to 12.1 m (40 ft) above the water line. The proposed barge is three storeys high.
- The site’s density would remain at 0.70 FSR (floor space ratio, a measure of building floor area relative to site area).
- If the CD-1 by-law is enacted, the City would also amend the Sign By-law and Subdivision By-law for this site.
What it means for you#
- Museum and park visitors: The change would allow the existing Vancouver Maritime Museum and park uses to continue under the new site-specific zoning. It would also allow the proposed floating centre if the by-law is enacted.
- Nearby residents and other users of the area: The decision approves the proposed uses and building-height limits in principle. The supplied material does not describe effects on neighbours or public access.
- The City and property owner: The City must still enact the CD-1 by-law for the rezoning to take effect. Council’s approval in principle creates no legal rights and does not require the City to enact it. The property owner bears costs it incurs to meet rezoning conditions.
- Sign and subdivision rules: The related by-law changes are conditional on approval of the CD-1 by-law; the Subdivision By-law amendment is to be brought forward when that by-law is enacted.
Money#
No publicly available information on project or City costs is included in the supplied material.
- The decision does not give a spending estimate, fee, or funding source.
- It says costs incurred by the property owner to meet rezoning conditions are at the owner’s risk.
What is unclear#
- The supplied material does not include the staff report’s conditions of approval, the draft CD-1 by-law, or the additional-information memorandum. Their detailed requirements are therefore unclear.
- The rezoning’s enactment date, if any, is not stated.
- The material reports 139 pieces of correspondence supporting the application and 90 opposing it, but does not give the reasons people raised.
- The material does not explain how the new uses would affect park access or nearby residents.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the change is that it would allow the existing maritime museum and archive use to continue while adding a proposed wellness use.
- The stated density would remain at 0.70 FSR, even as the permitted height limits change.
- The application received 139 pieces of correspondence in support. The material does not say what those correspondents’ reasons were.
Case against#
- One concern is that the decision would allow a higher maximum height for the museum and archive use, and a new floating wellness use at the site.
- The application received 90 pieces of correspondence in opposition. The material does not explain those correspondents’ concerns, so their specific arguments cannot be assessed here.
- The City is not required to enact the rezoning after this approval in principle, leaving the final legal outcome unsettled.