Archive for the ‘RT-11 Comment’ Category
Comment on Development Application DP-2016-00101
under RT-11 Zoning
5 July 2016
This standard FuHo design for an RT-11 development is generally acceptable. We note the following concerns:
1. Only two parking spaces are provided. The Parking ByLaw states that parking in RT-11 zones should be one per unit, i.e. three spaces for this development.
2. There is no existing sidewalk along the East 40th Avenue frontage. Construction of this sidewalk needs to be included as a Condition of Development for this application.
Jeanette Jones and Joseph Jones
When the City of Vancouver fails to follow its own development application protocols, and then fails to acknowledge and correct its own shortcoming in a timely fashion, worries compound. It feels like your neighborhood has become an impervious machine to serve anything-goes developers. Here is a case of a double fail. We now await response to a follow-up communication to administration at City of Vancouver. UPDATE: Same-day response was added at 5:00 pm to Correspondence section below as email # 3.
On Friday 13 November 2015 the City of Vancouver posted two new Norquay RT-11 development applications to its Development Application Information Web Page:
4521 Nanaimo Street — DE419732
5391 Slocan Street — DE419733
Before a development application gets posted to the web site, the developer is supposed to provide the City of Vancouver with a photograph that confirms display of a development application sign on the site proposed for development. (This and other such information may provide grist for a future posting on How to Monitor.)
Here are the photos that Eye on Norquay took of the two sites on Wednesday 18 November 2015.
Zero development application signage on site …
4521 Nanaimo Street
5391 Slocan Street
Email # 1 —
Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 10:22 AM To: Project Coordinator On Friday, November 13, two new development applications were posted on the CoV web site: DE419732 (4521 Nanaimo Street) and DE419733 (5391 Slocan Street). Both these applications are for duplex plus infill developments under RT-11 zoning. As can be seen in the photos above, there is no sign posted at either site. My understanding has been that the applicant is required to send CoV a photo of the posted site sign before the application goes up on the CoV web site. Has this practice changed? Please ask the applicant to post the site sign as soon as possible. The deadline for comment should be adjusted to a date two weeks after the sign is posted. It is important to give opportunity for comment to neighbourhood residents who do not live within the notification area. Jeanette Jones
Email # 2 —
Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 8:17 AM To: Project Coordinator Cc: Supervisor, Processing Centre Development On Thursday, November 19 I sent the email below regarding the absence of site signs at the development sites for these two applications. I have not yet received a reply, and as of 4:00 p.m. on Monday, November 23 no site signs have been posted. Could you please confirm by forwarding me a copy of the relevant photos that the site signs have been posted? The deadline for comments given in the notification letters is November 27, three days from now. This date should be changed to a date two weeks after the signs are posted. Thank you. Jeanette Jones
Email # 3 — City of Vancouver response
Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 11:15 AM To: Jeanette Jones Thank you for bring this error to my attention. I am just in the process of preparing the sign information. Once we receive confirmation that the signs are up, we will adjust the notification deadline on the website. I will also let you know. Sorry for any inconvenience.
Comment on Development Application DE419700 under RT-11 Zoning
17 November 2015
Our main concern with this application is the design of the enhanced side yards.
1. Most importantly, they are far smaller than what is specified in the RT-11 guidelines (Section 4.5). Each enhanced side yard is to be 4.9 metres wide in addition to the standard side yard width of 1.2 metres (see figure 9 on page 10). The side yards shown on the site plan have a total width of only 2.4 metres. Although the guidelines allow for a reduction in the size of side yards on short sites like this one, the excessive proposed reduction results in side yards that are less than half the specified width.
2. The location of the enhanced side yards (between the garage and the fence) makes them almost unusable. To designate that space as “usable vegetable gardens” is fantasy. Few if any vegetables will grow in shady locations like this one, especially on the north side of the garage. Planting western red cedar trees “nearby” (a tree that grows to a height of 50 to 70 ft. and a width of 25 ft. even under cultivation, with branches to the ground) would make it unlikely that anything at all would grow between the houses and the lane.
The side yards of this development should be completely redesigned
in accordance with the RT-11 guidelines.
Jeanette and Joseph Jones
Comment on Development Application DE419342 under RT-11 Zoning
1 October 2015
We support this application. We commend the applicant on the colour selected for the exterior cladding.
Baldwin Street is identified in the Norquay Benefits Strategy as a street that is missing sidewalks on both sides of the street. This is not only a problem for residents of Baldwin Street. This lack has already been identified as a problem for the area surrounding the proposed 4-storey apartment at 2328 Galt Street. Baldwin Street is the connector between this development and General Brock Park. Although the frontage at 4650 Baldwin is very narrow, the developer should contribute to the cost of the sidewalk along Baldwin Street.
Jeanette Jones and Joseph Jones
Comment on Development Application DE418020 under RT-11 Zoning
7 September 2015
The design in this new application shows improvement, notably in the definition of the units and design of open space.
Our main concern is about ground floor windows on the north side of the west building that face a fence. Most of these rooms would have no view and little light. We recommend that both units in the second duplex face East 37th Avenue.
Jeanette Jones and Joseph Jones
The comment copied below, about the 15 June 2015 posting Slapdash Negligence, came in to Eye on Norquay on 18 August 2015. (Also see our 8 July 2015 assessment of the application at 5441 Wales Street.)
Heather Submitted on 2015/08/18 at 1:20 pm Hi, Can you explain a little simpler what this means. I live at 5XXX Wales Street. The development notification sign was taken down the other week. I’m not sure what this means since I thought they were required to be up for six months. My landlord's very vague with his answers, my next step was going to be to phone the city for an explanation. Thanks,
Back from end-of-August slacking off, Eye on Norquay has just been reviewing the problem-riddled file for 5441 Wales Street. Here’s a 4 September 2015 photo of the site:
NO DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION SIGN !
Note to Heather: “Explain a little simpler” rarely seems to be an option when dealing with City of Vancouver planning and development. After years of slogging, we routinely encounter new twists. A cynic might say that City of Vancouver likes it that way, because obscurity and complexity help to fence out everybody except planners and the developers. We hope you have phoned the city and received an explanation. Now we also want an explanation. Back to this situation, which we pursue.
Shortly after distribution of the 8 July 2015 revision of the deficient 12 June 2015 application letter, Eye on Norquay observed a revised application sign posted at the site. That sign obviously is not there now, and almost certainly the sign had already disappeared by “the other week” before Heather’s August 18 comment. Based on considerable experience with watching the development application pipeline, it seems unlikely that this development application would have been approved at that point — and improbable that the application has yet been approved, since the information is still posted as of 4 September 2015.
What follows, hopefully, is a public lesson in how to get an answer to this question. At this point, the missing sign offers area residents no way to contact anybody. (Best of luck with old 311, that so often sends a questioner off to eternal voice mail limbo. Why bother with that?)
In the meantime, any persons concerned about 5441 Wales Street should understand that comment on a particular development application will be received and considered up to the point where the application is approved.
The City of Vancouver development application web site for 5441 Wales Street provides the best first-level contact information: an email address and telephone for the project coordinator.
Eye on Norquay is sending the following email to that address, and requesting a response by email, to be posted below when received.
• • • • • •
Dear Project Coordinator for 5441 Wales Street — DE418819
There appear to be multiple and ongoing problems with this development application. The specific current problem seems to be the absence of the required development application sign at the site. As well as we can determine, the sign has been missing at least since early to mid-August. See the 4 September 2015 Eye on Norquay posting for details.
This circumstance seems unacceptable, since that signage offers a primary way for affected individuals nearby to understand what is happening to their neighborhood. It could be argued that the development application becomes illegitimate without the signage.
Please look into this situation. It seems appropriate that the City of Vancouver would
• suspend temporarily further consideration of the application
• instruct the developer to provide the signage
• require evidence from the developer that this has been done
• inform us that this negligence has ceased
We look forward to posting an email response at Eye on Norquay. In the unlikely event that the application was approved, and signage was no longer required after early to mid-August, we could accept that as a reasonable explanation.
There needs to be a more systematic means for Vancouver residents to track the progress of development applications. It seems unprofessional to communicate approval of application simply by disappearing the information from the development application web site.
• • • • • •
Eye on Norquay offers a thank-you to City of Vancouver planning for the prompt and effective communication which follows. This phrase deserves extraction and highlight as a notice to developers that Norquay residents expect protocols to be respected, and is keeping watch on development activities:
Due to their negligence, they will miss their scheduled decision date
date: Tue, Sep 8, 2015 at 9:15 AM subject: RE: 5441 Wales Street — DE418819 mailed-by: vancouver.ca I had asked Heather to provide a photo of the missing sign which I did not get. I unfortunately don’t have time to run around checking my signs are installed at all times; however, I will, and have asked that the sign be reinstalled. The sign shall be installed until a decision is made, and due to their negligence, they will miss their scheduled decision date. A two week period will be required, sign installed, before a decision date is scheduled.
[ The foregoing material was added on 9 September 2015 at 12:50 am ]
• • • • • •
date: Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 3:11 PM subject: Re: 5441 Wales Street — DE418819 mailed-by: gmail.com Thank you for your prompt and appropriate response to my communication of concerns about development signage for 5441 Wales Street — DE418819.
[ The foregoing material was added on 9 September 2015 at 3:20 pm ]
• • • • • •
Comment on Development Application DE419165 under RT-11 Zoning
21 August 2015
This application is very similar to one that was recently approved in the same block of Horley Street. We would expect the current application to incorporate the changes required at 2757 Horley Street (e.g. relocation of several living rooms). Some of the windows at the ends of the building are much smaller. They should be similar in size to those at 2757 Horley Street to maximize light and cross ventilation.
The contemporary style and materials of this development will help to differentiate it from the more traditional style of 2757 Horley Street. We appreciate the desire of the builders to reuse plans, but we would like to see more separation between developments built according to the same basic plan. Perhaps a good criterion would be that they should not both be visible from any specific location along the street.
Jeanette Jones and Joseph Jones