3329-3429 W 41st Ave and 5649-5683 Blenheim St

All responses below have been provided by the applicant team unless otherwise noted.

1. 

Q: How much traffic is expected in the lane with the new rental building and now a seniors care building?

A. The new rental building adjacent to the proposed seniors care building is anticipated to generate about 50-60 vehicle trips during the peak hour periods. The senior home development is anticipated to generate another 45-55 vehicle trips in the peak hours.  So, in combination the two new developments would add about 100-115 vehicle trips during the peak hours.

Q: Is that within acceptable limits?

A. This level of traffic is entirely appropriate for public laneways.

Q: Is there a way to improve traffic flow and noise level?

A. Level of traffic in the lane is typical for a public laneway. In terms of noise, there will be a loading management plan. Residents, much like neighbours, are sensitive to noise. 

2. 

Q: The new lane intersecting Blenheim is a hazard for many students walking to Crofton and Kerrisdale Annex.  Students need to cross that lane with the major increase in traffic from the lane.  Is that within acceptable limits? What improvements can be put in? 

A: As mentioned above, the anticipated two-way vehicle trips anticipated during the peak hours from both the rental and senior development is about 100-115 trips. These trips will be spread across the two laneway intersection and average out to 1-2 vehicles per minute at the Blenheim laneway intersection. Thus, vehicle conflict with pedestrians are anticipated to be very low.

3.

Q: At that same intersection where Blenheim intersects the new lane during peak hours, cars from lane will have difficulty getting out because of the long queue that already exists during peak hours. This will create a "choke point" at that location, and may delay emergency vehicles like ambulances.

A: We acknowledge that traffic may be busy along Blenheim during peak hours, but emergency vehicles should be able to operate per status quo. It is expected that vehicles would follow the rules of the road and yield to emergency vehicles. 

4. 

Q: The traffic analysis by Bunt did not consider the increase traffic flow from the future rental building at W.41/Collingwood, the future 5-stories rental building on W.41st and Blenheim (NE corner), and future rental building directly across W.41 from the proposed Amica Development.  This seems like a MAJOR miss in their traffic analysis, focusing only on existing traffic patterns and old City of Vancouver data, but ignoring significant developments coming into the area.  Can Bunt please comment on this?

A: Our study TOR has been shared, reviewed, and accepted by the City Engineering department. The City did not specify to include the neighbouring rental development, but Bunt did include a blanket background traffic growth of 1% per year, which is to capture future traffic growth in the general area.

 5. Response provided by City Staff.

Q: The neighbors on W.40th are very concerned about increased cars, is it possible for W.40th to only allow parking with PERMITS?

A: Residential permit parking zones are typically created on local neighbourhood streets where there is high demand for parking.  Block residents may request a new permit zone or change to an existing permit zone online.  For more information, or to make a request, please visit https://vancouver.ca/streets-transportation/permit-zone-request.aspx or call 3-1-1.

6.

Q: Bunt recommended restriction on parking for the first 35 meter of Blenheim heading south and northbound.  Are they aware the parking limitation is already there? There is no parking for the first 35m.  A major issue is part of the curb after 35m sticks out into the street, reducing the street to only have 1 lane of traffic for about 100 meters.  This change is what is causing major backlog and long queues at W.41st and Blenheim noted in the report.  To allow for increased traffic flow, having 2 full lanes will reduce the heavy congestions at W.41 and Blenheim southbound during peak hours, as noted in the report. Can Bunt comment on this?

A: Bunt is aware that there are no parking/stopping restrictions already in place. In general, the recommendation still holds to ensure this restriction will continue to be in place. However, it is noted that the current road width does not seem wide enough to formalize two lanes.  We recommend the City secure additional right out way as and when the property at the northwest corner of the intersection redevelops. If the right of way is wide enough for two lanes, continuing to restrict parking/stopping on the southbound and northbound parking for the first 35m would likely help improve operations as the through and right turning vehicles would less likely be stuck waiting behind left turning vehicles.

Thanks for the questions. 

Q: Based on the traffic studies done (by the developer), 41st Ave at peak hours is already at maximum. This study did not consider the already approved rental at the corner of Collingwood and 41st nor the other approvals happening, including Blenheim & 41st. What will the city do to mitigate the traffic added, especially with larger trucks, ambulances, etc

A: The following response has been provided by the City: A Transportation Assessment and Management Study (TAMS) was submitted as part of the rezoning application. The consultant’s traffic study include consideration for background traffic volume growth (which refers to both existing and new traffic from other nearby projects) and concludes that the study intersections currently operate, and will continue to operate, at satisfactory levels overall upon completion of the proposed development.

The development is well-sited to encourage reduced vehicle trip and parking demand.  The site is in close proximity to the frequent transit along Dunbar St and W 41st Ave, as well as bikeways along Dunbar St and W 37th Ave & W 39th Ave.

As part of the rezoning process, Engineering staff review the application with respect transportation impacts and, if identified, may include development conditions for off-site requirements to improve transportation operations and safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists adjacent to the site.

All large vehicles must access sites via the City’s truck routes, per the Street and Traffic Bylaw (reference the City’s Truck Route Map and Guide). The development is conveniently located on a designated truck route and all site generated loading activity is required to be accommodated on-site with access to/from W 41st Ave via the laneway. Ambulance services are not prescribed by the City.  Emergency vehicles choose the safest and most direct route available to a site.

Q: Why is this building so tall (94 feet) compared to other structures built in Dunbar, which seem to be about 50 feet?

A: The following response has been provided by the applicant: Secured rental buildings on corridors at 5-6 storeys or 55’- 65’ plus rooftop amenities of 10’ for a total of 65’ to 75’, are housing. As a Community Care Facility, larger amenity spaces and HVAC are required, adding to the height.

This is a Community Care Facility designed for seniors. Amica is committed to enriching the lives of each individual resident, allowing them to age in place, even as their needs change. They create dignified living space to provide a high quality of life. To offer such enriched services and care (including palliative through to end of life support), we need sufficient space to operate. Generally, the floor to floor in Amica buildings is similar to residential buildings with building systems like HVAC in addition which adds to the building height. This means that Assisted Living, Long-term care, and Long-term care with memory care all have their own dedicated dining rooms and lounges, as well as their own activities and sets of supporting team members. This requires space. Plus, residents invite their families and friends over to be a part of activities – and this requires generous amenity space. Ceiling heights are higher to allow for healthy congregate space and airflow. Common amenities, where residents gather, are located throughout the building on levels 1-4 to foster socializing and promote good mental wellbeing.  In addition, ceiling height is needed to facilitate the delivery of complex care (e.g. height allowance for mechanical lifts, etc.).”   

Thanks for the question. The following response has been provided by the applicant:

For onsite trees, there are 50 existing trees of which none are proposed to be retained. However, at project completion 71 trees are proposed (44 at grade and 27 on the building).

Thanks for the questions. The following response has been provided by the applicant:

• The mechanical consultant for this project is citing CSA Z317.2:19 in specifying the required equipment and coordination space for a community care facility. Programming further guides ceiling heights with amenity spaces on levels 1-4 to engender a healthy quality of life. 
• 94’ is the height to the top of the rooftop amenity from the City established building grade (line of base surface), where the rooftop amenity exists (9% of roof), and not in reference to the lane. This measurement does not account for the grading in specific areas. At the rear lane near Blenheim, for example, the proposed building height is 75’9”.
• Setbacks, in addition to dedications (17’ at front and 20’ at back), are proposed at 12’ at the front and 8’ at the rear to be consistent with the adjacent rezoning. This would align the structure, providing a pedestrian street wall. This extends to level 4, then the minimum setback becomes 25’. Significant articulation throughout the rear of the building for patios, gardens and the porte cochere results in high relief setbacks of as much as 55’ or 75’ when counting the dedication. 
• We cannot provide financial projections. 
• Yes, we can provide a winter and summer shadow study. Studies are being prepared.  

The applicant team is open to a discussion to clarify any other questions. You can contact Karly Morgan, Intracorp at kmorgan@intracorphomes.com

Thanks for the question. 

Q: I have noticed that the proposed development exceeds the height limit set in the Dunbar community plan. According to the plan, this area should be four-storey or about 50 feet tall, while the proposal is for 94 feet. I would like to know why this is the case and if any measures are being taken to address this concern.

A: The following response has been provided by City Staff: You are correct. The Dunbar Community Vision allows for consideration of seniors housing for up to four-storeys. A measurement height limit is not provided in the policy. 

The following response has been provided by the applicant: This is a Community Care Facility designed for seniors. Amica is committed to enriching the lives of each individual resident, allowing them to age in place, even as their needs change. They create dignified living space to provide a high quality of life. To offer such enriched services and care (including palliative through to end of life support), we need sufficient space to operate. Generally, the floor to floor in Amica buildings is similar to residential buildings with building systems like HVAC in addition which adds to the building height. This means that Assisted Living, Long-term care, and Long-term care with memory care all have their own dedicated dining rooms and lounges, as well as their own activities and sets of supporting team members. This requires space. Plus, residents invite their families and friends over to be a part of activities – and this requires generous amenity space. Ceiling heights are higher to allow for healthy congregate space and airflow. Common amenities, where residents gather, are located throughout the building on levels 1-4 to foster socializing and promote good mental wellbeing.  In addition, ceiling height is needed to facilitate the delivery of complex care (e.g. height allowance for mechanical lifts, etc.).

Thanks for the questions. The City has an Urban Forest Strategy that seeks to retain as many trees as possible through redevelopment. The tree retention strategy included in the application is being reviewed by staff, along with all other aspects of the proposal.

Thanks for the question. The applicant has proposed a community care facility use intended by the applicant to serve seniors. The application includes assisted living and long term care. The applicant is a private-pay provider.

Thanks for the questions. Please see the responses below:

1.    The City does not have by-laws or requirements regulating ceiling height for community care facilities. The following response has been provided by the applicant: This is an institutional building offering assisted living and long-term care including memory care for those with cognitive decline. Many residents do not leave the building on a regular basis and as such significant amenities and programming are required to ensure a healthy quality of life. Amenity spaces, for congregation, typically need slightly higher ceiling heights than basic residential. These are located on levels 1-4 of the proposed building. Further, community care facilities typically command more robust HVAC systems than in residential, adding to the overall height. 

2.    Response has been provided by the applicant: Location of porte cochere and ramp on the lane is driven by typical engineering standards and planning principles in Vancouver, where vehicular traffic is directed to the lane making streets more pedestrian friendly. This site requires a lane dedication and would be well serviced by it. Further, W41st is part of Vancouver’s Major Road Network, a Local Truck Route, and a Future Rapid Transit Corridor/Major Transit Network route. Placing new driveways on this frontage would detract from this and increase the potential for vehicular/pedestrian/bus conflicts with the existing Translink Frequent Transit Network Rapid Bus line and bus stop. Lastly, locating the porte cochere on the lane aligns with the massing strategy to terrace away from the north adjacent lots.

3.    Where there is opportunity to secure a rear lane the City will seek this through a rezoning. Vehicular access is generally provided from a lane where the opportunity exists.

- Nick

Thanks for the question. The proposed measurement height is 28.1 m (92 ft.). - Nick