Summary#
Vancouver City Council unanimously approved in principle an amendment to the Vancouver Official Development Plan (ODP) and a rezoning for 6333–6369 Yukon Street. The stated goal is to permit a 23-storey residential building with 276 rental homes; the approval does not guarantee that the by-laws will be enacted.
- The ODP designation for 6333 Yukon Street would change from Residential Mid-Rise to Residential High-Rise 1.
- The zoning for 6333–6369 Yukon Street would change from R1-1 to a site-specific Comprehensive Development (CD-1) district. The proposed maximum height would rise from 11.5 m to 70 m, and the maximum floor space ratio (FSR, the amount of floor area compared with site area) from 0.6 to 6.55.
- The approval is subject to conditions in a staff report. The ODP amendment can proceed to enactment only if conditions for the CD-1 by-law are met. The CD-1 by-law would follow enactment of the ODP amendment.
- A Housing Agreement by-law must be prepared for enactment before the CD-1 by-law. Council also approved in principle a related Subdivision By-law amendment.
- The motion was moved by Councillor Lisa Dominato and seconded by Councillor Sarah Kirby-Yung. One piece of correspondence supported the application and four opposed it.
What it means for you#
- People looking to rent: If the by-laws are enacted and the project proceeds, the zoning would permit a building with 276 rental homes. The decision does not say how many would be below-market or set out rents.
- Nearby residents: The approved-in-principle zoning allows a much taller and denser building than current zoning. The decision does not itself approve construction or guarantee the project will be built.
- Property owner and applicant: They must meet the conditions before the relevant by-laws can be enacted. The decision says the City is not obliged to enact them, and costs to meet rezoning conditions are at the owner’s risk.
- City: Council’s decision does not create a legal right for the applicant or direct City officials in how they use their authority.
Money#
No cost estimate is provided in the available material.
- The decision gives no amount for City spending, staffing, fees, or the project’s costs.
- Any expenditure or costs are at the risk of the person incurring them; the property owner bears costs of fulfilling rezoning conditions.
What is unclear#
- The conditions in the staff report’s Appendix C are not included here. No publicly available information.
- The Housing Agreement’s terms, including any affordability requirements, are not provided. No publicly available information.
- The decision does not state when the by-laws might be enacted or whether the project will proceed.
- The reasons given in the four opposing pieces of correspondence are not included. No publicly available information.
Case for#
- A possible argument for the decision is that it would allow 276 rental homes on the site, if the by-laws are enacted and the project proceeds.
- The change in height and density could allow more homes on the site than current zoning permits.
- The approval is conditional: the by-laws can proceed only after specified requirements are met.
Case against#
- The approved-in-principle change is substantial: maximum height rises from 11.5 m to 70 m, and maximum FSR from 0.6 to 6.55.
- The decision does not explain the effects of that increase on the surrounding area or provide the conditions that would address them.
- Four pieces of correspondence opposed the application, but their concerns are not available in the supplied material.