Crossing lights coming to Delbrook and Windsor

If you find this article interesting, please use the buttons at the end of the article to share it with your neighbours on social media.

DNV Councillor Jim Hanson has sent a message to the Delbrook Community Association (DCA) telling us we can expect pedestrian cross lights to be installed at the Delbrook and Windsor crossing on the Delbrook Speedway within the next few weeks.

This is really good news because we understand they will be in place before school returns in September.

This has been a very dangerous crossing, particularly for kids. Watch the video below courtesy of Bev Parslow, a Delbrook area resident who has been working unrelentingly to have something done about speeding on Delbrook. In the video as the car approaches from the North, we see two cars blow through the crosswalk from the South. Only then does a third car stop and allow a group of children to cross the street.

This has been so common at this intersection that people have just been waiting for something serious to happen.

This is great news for the DCA and for Delbrook residents. More needs to be done. The Evergreen crossing is an issue, particularly for kids crossing to go to school.  The complete absence of speed limit enforcement on the street is a continuing problem.

Work has already started at Windsor. In the picture below DNV workers trim hedges at the site to allow clear lines of sight for the awaited lights.

On a personal note, I almost got run down crossing there a few days ago. I shouted “crosswalk” at the driver and was rewarded with a one finger salute out the driver’s window as she drove south.

We have posted earlier on this subject.

DNV responds to Delbrook traffic concerns. Changes “considered” and dependent on “capital funding”

Follow the Delbrook Community Association by subscribing to this page, or

Following us on Facebook at Delbrook Community Association, North Vancouver, or

Following us on Twitter @delbrookca

29th Avenue, Queens Road, Ridgewood Avenue and Edgemont Village targeted for “density bonussing” at DNV workshop

If you find this article interesting, please use the buttons at the end of the article to share it with your neighbours on social media.

North Vancouver District Council will be discussing a proposal at a workshop Tuesday, July 17 that may see upzoning and “density bonussing” for future projects in a number of areas including 29^th Avenue, Queens Road, Ridgewood Drive and Edgemont Village. A number of other areas shown on a map of the proposal show potential density bonussing all the way to Deep Cove.

The discussion will occur under the agenda item “Density Bonus Options for Incentvizing Market and non-Market Rental Housing.”

The discussion arises from a resolution at a June 11, 2018 meeting directing staff to “draft option for Council consideration to incentivize the construction of market and non-market rental homes in the Town and village Centre, and on the Corridors, as identified in the Official Community Plan (OCP).”

The areas targeted by the discussion include the four town and village centres “plus Edgemont Village (because of the relatively recent Edgemont Refresh). Also included along existing and planned “Future Transit Networks (FTN),” which includes a future transit corridor between the Lynn Valley Mall and Park Royal along 29^th, Queens Road and Ridgewood Drive.

The agenda for the Tuesday meeting included a map on page 50 showing areas considered for density bonussing.

Areas in blue targeted for density bonussing

While the map is hard to read it shows the current commercial area at Lonsdale and Queens is also included. It appears that the Thorncliffe area off Edgemont Village and Garden Avenue area off Marine is also included.

At present there has been no consultation on the ideas presented in the report. The Delbrook Community Association has presented concerns that the current planned six storey complex at 600 Queens Road will set a precedent for big buildings along the corridor. Interestingly, one of the members of the DNV’s Advisory Design Panel at a meeting about the Delbrook Lands Complex on July 12^th made the observation that , “It presents itself as a very big building. If you have some vision you might be able to see larger buildings in the area. It might relate when buildings on both sides were larger.” (see https://delbrookca.wordpress.com/2018/07/13/dnv-design-panel-raises-questions-about-delbrook-lands-project/)

There appears to have been little discussion of “ground oriented” housing which was identified by the DNV’s Official Community Plan review group as the missing element of new housing in the DNV.

The report suggests in discussing the proposal that “the public, at a minimum, have a chance to participate at a public hearing.”

Full details of the report to Council for the Tuesday workshop can be found at http://app.dnv.org/OpenDocument/Default.aspx?docNum=3635332. A slightly better copy of the map showing the area discussed for density bonussing may be found at page 50.

Follow the Delbrook Community Association by subscribing to this page, or

Following us on Facebook at Delbrook Community Association, North Vancouver, or

Following us on Twitter @delbrookca

DNV Design Panel raises questions about Delbrook Lands project

If you find this article interesting, please use the buttons at the end of the article to share it with your neighbours on social media.

The District of North Vancouver’s advisory body that looks at design issues in projects has raised some questions about the planned Catalyst Development project for the Delbrook Lands.

While passing a motion in support of the concept pending possible changes, several members of the panel raised concerns about the mass of the project.

The Advisory Design Panel (ADP) was established in 1987. It may have up to 11 members including architects, engineers, representatives of people with disabilities and an RCMP crime prevention expert. The panel also includes members of the development industry and the building industry.

The panel’s mandate for development permits and siting area amendments is to advise Council on “all aspects of the site layout, the exterior design of proposed buildings and structures, landscaping, and environmental quality.” The panel also examines proposed developments in terms of their conformity with District design objectives or guidelines.

The Tuesday, July 12 meeting of the ADP had its first look at the proposed design for the Delbrook lands under the agenda item, “600 West Queens Rd, Detailed Planning Application – Rezoning with Development Permit for a 5-storey mixed-use building with 80 non-market rentals and a seniors respite care facility.”

Following presentations by District staff, the projects architect and the landscape architect, panel members touched on a number of issues but the most frequently mentioned subject was the mass of the building.

The following, while not verbatim, were comments from panel members taken from notes made during the meeting.

• I like to think that the architect was thinking about the massing and long façade. It presents itself as a very big building. If you have some vision you might be able to see larger buildings in the area. It might relate when buildings on both sides were larger. For pedestrians on Queens it comes down to the height of the parkade and how much it sticks out. It is very noticeably higher. There has been a lot of effort to mitigate that but it is still high.
• The building is “overbearing on the east and west end.” Speaking later this panel member said it was a complicated building with a lot of storeys.
• I don’t believe stepping the walls is sufficient to bring it down to the street. It is so far forward and high up.
• The building should slope down to the west. The overall design is kind of busy.

Another issue that came out in discussion was that while described as a five storey building, it is really six storeys because, “the parkade is entirely above ground and more than above ground.” The street appearance of the parkade also raised issues, particularly at the southwest end of the building adjacent to the neighboring condominium complex.

There were comments on a number of other areas, particularly related to parking access off Queens. People were also particularly concerned about the appearance of the parkade wall on the west side.

Responding, the architect said he had heard the comments about the building ends and the need to step it down.

The ADP gave concept support and said they looked forward to seeing it at a later stage in the project stage.

In response to a request for a copy of the staff presentations to the ADP at the meeting, the DNV staff liaison to the Panel responded, “the Advisory Design Panel does not keep the “presentation” as that is verbal / live thing.”

This panel hearing came after first reading of the bylaw for the project which took place on June 25^th. It came two days after the planed public hearing on the project which was planned for July 10^th but cancelled because of a possible fire. In contrast, the ADP’s comments came in before either of these things happened for the Whitely Court project.

The public hearing for the Delbrook Project has not yet been rescheduled.

Follow the Delbrook Community Association by subscribing to this page, or

Following us on Facebook at Delbrook Community Association, North Vancouver, or

Following us on Twitter @delbrookca

North Shore Kiwanis give a master class in getting community onside with development

If you find this article interesting, please use the buttons at the end of the article to share it with your neighbours on social media.

District of North Vancouver Council was set to have two sets of public hearings Tuesday night July 10^th. The first was on a Kiwanis North Shore Housing Society proposal for 106 units of non-profit below-market rental accommodations for seniors at Whiteley Court.

The second was on the proposed development on the Delbrook lands on Queens Road. That hearing never took place due to a fire alarm that cleared the building.

Public hearing interrupted by fire threat

But the first meeting gave a remarkable example of getting people onside with a project that provides a dramatic comparison to what has happened with other projects in the DNV including the Delbrook proposal.

Patrick McLaughlin, chair of the Kiwanis North Shore Housing Society and project architect Greg Voute presented to Council on their activities leading to the proposed seniors housing development. One thing that stood out was the level of contact between the Kiwanis and their neighbours for the project. Consultations led to changes in the design and siting of the project as well as access to the site and park amenities. None of this happened in discussions of the Delbrook site

Clearly, those efforts had an impact as representatives from a neighboring co-op turned out to support the project.

People had a clear understanding of what the project would look like because the project had already gone to the DNV Advisory Design Panel (ADP). The DNV had not planned to send the Delbrook project to the ADP until July 12^th, two days after the planned public hearing.

A staff report to Council stated that Council “has made minimizing the impact of construction a key objective and has created a construction management department to oversee implementation of individual developments…A draft construction management plan has been submitted and a final accepted version will be required prior to building permit issuance. No discussion of construction management has taken place with respect to the Delbrook site.

One neighbor had expressed concern about construction traffic and trades parking on the street. Kiwanis went out and found parking for trades parking. None of the speakers following the presentations raised issues of construction management.

Kiwanis dotted their “i”s and crossed their “t”s. They got the community on side. For the DNV this is a welcome and rare example of planning. For the Delbrook site, much of this has not even begun. It is interesting that the DNV has taken these steps for the Whiteley site and not for others including Delbrook.

Follow the Delbrook Community Association by subscribing to this page, or

Following us on Facebook at Delbrook Community Association, North Vancouver, or

Following us on Twitter @delbrookca

So why doesn’t the Delbrook Lands project get a Construction Management Plan before the hearing at the District of North Vancouver?

If you find this article interesting, please use the buttons at the end of the article to share it with your neighbours on social media.

As with any project, Delbrook neighbours are concerned about the impact of construction on their community. Where will the dump trucks be staged to take out hundreds of truckloads of cement and soil from the south parking lot to prepare foundations and dig the underground parking lot? Where will the cement trucks be staged? Will they be staged on residential streets? Where will the construction workers park?

Queens is a major thoroughfare and staging trucks would affect traffic. For construction at Edgemont a separate parking lot was prepared. For construction at North Vancouver’s new sewage facility workers are being bussed in.

What will the impact be, particularly for children crossing at neighboring streets to attend the area’s six schools?

Neighbours for the Whiteley Court project appear to know this. In supplementary information provided for the Whiteley Court hearing one of the documents listed is, “Construction Management Plan – Prepared by Creus Engineering Ltd dated April 2018.”

Why has no construction management plan been prepared for the Delbrook project?

Follow the Delbrook Community Association by subscribing to this page, or

Following us on Facebook at Delbrook Community Association, North Vancouver, or

Following us on Twitter @delbrookca

 

The odd timelines for the Delbrook Community Lands Project

If you find this article interesting, please use the buttons at the end of the article to share it with your neighbours on social media.

People who attended the Delbrook Lands project open house in May were led to believe this project would move forward in a measured way; the following is from one of the boards that were posted at the open house.

From this timeline, people expected several months to pass before this process was approved. Instead the time lag between the public information meeting and the first reading was less than 30 days. The time between first reading and the public hearing was two weeks. The Rezoning Application Procedure published on the Districts Website (http://www.dnv.org/sites/default/files/edocs/rezoning-application-procedure.pdf) says, “Notification and Public Hearing–Following newspaper advertising and written notification to surrounding property owners/occupiers, which normally requires three to four weeks, the Public Hearing is held. “
Another curious timing issue is the lack of a reference to the Advisory Design Panel. The role of the ADP is to advise Council on applications for rezoning. Various matters are considered including character, siting, form and massing of buildings, landscaping, parking layout and access. The ADP also review draft design guidelines, building schemes and other methods of development control. The ADP’s motion may require revisions to project details, which will necessitate further consideration at a subsequent meeting prior to adoption of a final recommendation to be forwarded to Council.

The rezoning Application Procedure suggests comments from the Advisory Design Panel should come before first reading. In fact, this is what happened with the rezoning application for Whiteley Court where the Advisory Design Panel Meeting was held on May 10^th. The Whiteley Court public hearing will alsl be May 7th. The ADP meeting for Delbrook is planned for July 12^th, two days after the public hearing.

If the ADP suggests changes, the public will have had no opportunity to see what is going forward either at the Open House Held by Catalyst in May or at the Public Hearing on the 10^th.

Why have the rules been changed for the Delbrook project? There appears to be quite a rush.

 

What the report to DNV Council on the May 30th Delbrook Open House didn’t tell us

If you find this article interesting, please use the buttons at the end of the article to share it with your neighbours on social media.

On May 30^th Catalyst Developments held an open house at the Delbrook Recreation Centre to talk about their plans for a project on the Delbrook Lands. District of North Vancouver staff were present and subsequently reported back to Council on the written comments people had submitted after seeing the Catalyst plans.

Unfortunately, the report to Council presented so little information that it was virtually meaningless. The report stated that 65 people had attended and 41 had submitted written comments. It then went on to list 17 subject areas that had received comments but it failed to point out that some of these areas had received many more comments than others. There was no attempt to weigh the number of the comments on each subject.

The 41 comment sheets themselves were not presented to Council on the night of first reading, however they have been included as background to the imminent July 10 public hearing on the project.

People were not asked to comment on specific aspects of the project – the forms were open ended. Several people offered blanket support. However, the majority of responses raised concerns. The following outlines the major areas covered and offers a few examples of comments made.

Height of the Complex

Nearly half of respondents raised concerns about the height of the complex saying five storeys was too tall for the neighbourhood.

Existing Condos on the left, proposed 5 storey development on the right

• Take one floor off the top. Does a 5 storey fit with the neighbourhood and OCP – No!!
• Why is the building five storeys? This is higher than any building n Edgemont and noticeably higher than the adjacent condo building. The building should be lower to fit with the character of the neighbourhood.

Lack of Parking

13 respondents said they felt the project had inadequate parking and that cars would be pushed out onto neighbouring streets.

• The parking plan is completely inadequate.
• What if people have two cars?

Lack of Attention to Park Space

10 respondents complained abut the lack of attention to a promised park on the site while this development was proceeding.

The statement above comes from a presentation at the Open House. The original plan had been to have additional child care on the main floor. Now it appears they plan to take away even more park space.

• Why is the development being separated from the park when it comes to permiting?
• Rest of the space should be guaranteed parkland before the project is approved.

Lack of Attention to Family Housing

8 respondents were concerned about how little of the housing would be available to families with children.

• I am extremely disappointed at the complete lack of attention paid to families. The real losers in today’s real estate market are families requiring 3 bedroom accommodation. A project providing 8 – 3BR and 41 – 1BR is a failure.
• 25% family housing is not enough. Where is the market study supporting housing mix.

Traffic

5 people raised specific traffic concerns.

• My other concern is traffic safety – turning into the proposed parking entrance will be a problem. Drivers assume once you pass Stanley Avenue you are going west and turn on right turn signal that you are turning at Delbrook
• What steps will be taken to ensure children can cross safely at Delbrook/Windsor, Windsor/Stanley, and Stanley/Queens?

 

These comments came off the top of the head for people attending the open house. It wold have been interesting to survey them and specifically ask if they thought five storeys was too tall or if planned parking was insufficient. Questions on the amount of family housing, park space and traffic safety would also have been useful.

Follow the Delbrook Community Association by subscribing to this page, or

Following us on Facebook at Delbrook Community Association, North Vancouver, or

Following us on Twitter @delbrookca