Horseshoe Bay Local Area Plan: Phase 3 Public Engagement Transcript | August 2020 Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW ............................................................................... 1 2. OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT ................................................................................ 1 I. Advisory Roundtable ......................................................................................................................... 1 Meeting #5 – Meeting Notes ................................................................................................................ 1 Meeting #6 – Meeting Notes ................................................................................................................ 5 II. RefineHSB Survey ............................................................................................................................. 10 A. Comments in response to survey question #1: Bay Street ......................................................... 10 B. Comments in response to survey question #2: Eastern Village Entrance by BC Ferries ............ 16 C. Comments in response to survey question #3: Southern Village Arrival on Bruce and Royal ... 22 D. Comments in response to survey question #4: New Townhome Areas ..................................... 26 E. Comments in response to survey question #5: New Townhome Areas ..................................... 32 F. Comments in response to survey question #6: Multiplex Area .................................................. 36 G. Comments in response to survey question #7: Cottage & Small Home Infill Area..................... 40 H. Comments in response to survey question #8: Enhancing Spaces in Between Buildings .......... 46 I. Comments in response to survey question #9: Place‐making & Street Life ............................... 50 J. Comments in response to survey question #10: Connectivity & Mobility ................................. 56 K. Comments in response to survey question #11: Further Comments ......................................... 62 *The feedback contained in this document was provided by respondents as part of the Horseshoe Bay Local Area Plan consultation process. Portions of these records have been redacted in accordance with section 22 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in order to protect the personal information of the respondents who provided feedback. 1. INTRODUCTION & OVERVIEW The District of West Vancouver is preparing a Local Area Plan (LAP) for Horseshoe Bay in accordance with Council’s direction on March 11, 2019 and an approved Terms of Reference. This report provides a full transcript of all input and comments received during Phase 3 – Foundation, of the LAP for Horseshoe Bay. 2. OUTREACH & ENGAGEMENT I. Advisory Roundtable The members of the Horseshoe Bay LAP Advisory Roundtable include Andre Berard, Andy Krawczyk, Barbara McMillan, Benjamin Nelson, Chris Adshead, David Weiser, Geoff Jopson, Holly Kemp, Joanne McKenna, Karen Harrison, Karen Kallweit Graham, Kim Whittall, Megan Sewell, Robert McCullough, and Susie Alexander. The Advisory Roundtable held two meetings during Phase 3 (having also held two meetings in Phase 2). The first meeting of Phase 3 was held on March 10, 2020 with the second scheduled for January 21, 2020. The meeting notes are as follows. Meeting #5 – Meeting Notes 1. Staff welcomed Advisory Roundtable members, provided a presentation on process to date and introduced guest consultants from Urban Forum Associates. 2. Planning and Design Workshop: Urban Forum Associates provided an introduction of the work to date, explanation of draft materials presented (e.g., draft land use map and proof of concepts), and the general protocol and objective of the workshop (e.g., open dialogue, review of various housing forms on generic sites and design options and consideration of siting, footprint, etc., rather than actual building design). Discussion on mixed-use commercial village area: Mixed-use will most likely be commercial retail-at-grade with residential uses from second floor upwards (can sometimes have second floor offices but generally less common and desirable). Considerations for 5-6 storeys on Keith between Bay and Bruce: o There are trade-offs to situate a grocery store on this side of the village. o The advantage would be less view impacts with 5-6 storey building. o Concerns about traffic conflicts with “back-of-house”, loading and parkade access functions with creating a more “active” lane on Little Bay. o Need to address the realities of servicing and parking access for development (i.e., new businesses and buildings need service and parking access just as existing buildings do). The current challenges won’t necessary go away, but we can shift the balance of uses to prioritize pedestrian functions in the lane. 1 o Design guideline can require additional building set-back to widen the lane (as shown on the draft proof of concept) to accommodate separated pedestrian space and improved public realm in the lane through redevelopment. o Could the lane be changed to one-way only? o What about putting the grocery store at the current Bay Market location (SW Bruce & Royal corner)? . Height distribution is key, 5-6 storey is less acceptable in the centre of the village. Not a large enough site for grocery. Being close to the ferry can help attract a grocery store (example: Sewell’s was unable to attract a grocery store as it was far from the potential ferry demand). o The future grocery store is likely a modest grocery store (i.e., not a Superstore), like a boutique grocery, which seems to be more desired for the community. Considerations for 5-6 storey on Bay & Royal key corner site: o Design rationale for 5-6 storey here is to break up massing on Bay St by varying height; however, there is likely greater sensitivity on view impacts. o Select sites for 5-6 storey is likely the only way to get things like 2nd floor office and rental. o Suggestion to place 5-6 storey on the both east and west ends of Bay St instead of the middle to reduce view impacts. o An east-west transect along Bay St and a north-east transect along Royal Ave can help illustrate what the height changes could look like. Considerations for 3.5-4 storey mixed-use on a typical 2-lot mixed-use commercial (example: NW Bruce & Royal): o Enabling new development in this intersection is key to providing active retail and residential uses that could frame and make the village square successful and not feel abandoned. o Shaping the top fourth floor (e.g., step-back and different rooflines) helps reduce massing. o Upper storey step-backs can also provide for balcony spaces that activate the building. o Design guidelines that require buildings to relate, but not be identical, to neighbouring properties could help add character to the village without compromising neighbourly feel. o Do commercial retail uses (CRUs) on street-level require higher ceiling heights? From a design perspective, a larger CRU typically require higher ceiling height (14 ft vs 10 ft) to be workable. Live-work options for ground-level units can be enabled through “choice of use” to give flexibility for property owners to respond to market demands (i.e., property owner can choose to make ground-level live-work, or CRU, or residential, depending on market demand at the time of redevelopment through the 20 year lifetime of the LAP). 2 Discussion on row/townhouse area: Row/townhouses can be in varying height forms (2 to 3-storey stacked), with shared party walls, and could either be parallel to fronting street or perpendicular (on a deeper lot). Parking for townhouses is typically surface at-grade but underground parking is possible with higher density (>1.2 FAR). Does this mean all duplexes will be gone in the row/townhouse zoned area? The reality is that the density considered is marginal; market absorption is expected to be low and slow over the lifetime of the plan. Townhouse form requires 2-lot assembly (100 feet frontages). o 5 unit option at 0.8 FAR: existing duplex + basement exemption is already at about 0.75 FAR, 0.8 FAR townhouse option unlikely to be economically unviable. o 10 unit option at 1.2 FAR with stacked townhouse/courtyard townhouse design with relaxed setback could allow for underground parking. o 10 unit perpendicular option with surface park and relaxed setbacks is more ideal on sites along Royal Ave (i.e., “eyes on Royal”). o 8 unit option (larger units) at 1.2 FAR underground parking could enable up to 2 stalls per unit: . Should be planning for less cars – keep 1 stall per unit. Younger generations are less and less car inclined. Don’t set parking maximums but regulate through minimum (i.e., if developer feels that they need more parking to market the units, that becomes their choice and costs). Height: o Same massing and height along the street is less preferred. o Bruce St should be 3.5/4 storey at higher density so the residential side doesn’t “sink” into the topography and transitions better from the mixed-use zone. Potential for 2 level above 2 level stacked townhomes (total . 3.5-4 storeys with a portion of top storey stepped-back to create varying rooflines). 3.5-4 storeys also provide more options for live-work and/or lock-off suites on the bottom. o Enable up to 2.5/3 storeys for Douglas St to transition to the multiplex area. What advantages do townhomes have over duplexes? o Greater housing diversity and options, which have been identified as a key community desire and long term