THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF WEST VANCOUVER DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER THURSDAY, JULY 19, 2018

Transcription

1 THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF WEST VANCOUVER DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES MUNICIPAL HALL COUNCIL CHAMBER THURSDAY, JULY 19, 2018 Members Present: Voting Members: Shelley Craig (Chair); Annerieke van Hoek; Jason McDougall; Liane McKenna; Nick Milkovich Non-Voting Members: Councillor Craig Cameron; Councillor Christine Cassidy Members Absent: Frank Ducote (Vice-chair); Don Harrison; Bo Helliwell; Benjamin Nelson Staff Present: Staff Liaisons: James Allan, Senior Community Planner: Recording Secretary: Mandy Emery, Permits Clerk Supervisor 1. CALL TO ORDER The meeting was called to order at 4:32 p.m. 2. APPROVAL OF AGENDA THAT the July 19, 2018 Design Review Committee meeting agenda be approved as circulated. 3. ADOPTION OF MINUTES THAT the minutes of the June 21, 2018 Design Review Committee meeting be adopted as circulated. 4. INTRODUCTION The Chair outlined the meeting procedure. 5. APPLICATIONS FOR CONSIDERATION MARINE DRIVE, NEW DUPLEX Background: Senior Community Planner James Allan introduced the proposal. JULY 19, 2018 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES M-1

2 Project Presentation: Architect Matthew Cheng provided a presentation, including: Site zoned RD1, proposal conforms to the zoning regulations - no variances requested. Existing house in good condition and owner trying to save existing house by relocating. Each duplex unit to have a 3 bedrooms with family suite in basement and 2 car garage accessed from Marine Drive. The proposal adheres to new step code regulations to be certified by a sustainability energy advisory. Proposal fits into the neighbourhood context as all duplexes in area. Basement suite accessed by going through side yard to sunken patio entrance in back yard. Sizeable sunken patio that terraces up to rear yard. Main duplex accessed from staircase leading from driveway to front door. Architectural character is Contemporary style with flat roof and large expanse of windows facing south. Material include: Swisspearl cladding, with natural ledge stone at base of building, aluminum garage doors with frosted glass panels, glass railing and aluminum fence at property line for privacy screening. To respect neighbors privacy screening east side of property with trees to. Went over shadow impact, 3D images and landscape plan. Committee Questions: The Committee went on to question the presenters, with the applicants and staff responses in italics: Plans show a sidewalk on either side of driveway but does not seem to be expressed on landscape plan, is intent that pathway there? Yes, there will be a pedestrian walkway. Do you have details on materiality of large gate? Don t have material details but proposing 2 small gates with auto gate in middle. What is purpose of accessory building? Workshop or office for owners who will be living there. No context on neighbours grades, is walkways on side of house above or below neighbours grades? Sidewalk trying to match neighbours existing grade. How wide are retained terraced area? Terrace about 4 ft. Was the intent to plant that up? Yes it will be fully planted. Was any thought to expand the area not terraced to make sunken patio area? Feel sunken patio area is adequate for outdoor dining. Clarify side elevation materials? Side elevations Swisspearl panel in white and a darker shade. No stucco proposed for building. Exposed concrete at back of building into family suite. Is there a lane at back? No, just easement. Did you bring material board? No. Any information on the 16 diameter cedar being removed and percentage of lot covered by non-permeable landscape material? No, don t have that information. Committee Comments: The Committee went on to provide comments on the presentation, including: Feel that successful pedestrian and vehicle entry to principle building. The drawings are hard to read on how people would need to navigate and move around to the family suite, especially if elderly you would need good barrier free access need clarification. Massing is successful by stepping between the 2 buildings. Like the materials as nice and durable and happy to hear that stucco will not be used. Secondary suite could be nice but have concern on how to access to it. Concern with secondary suite and areas attributed to spaces for outdoor use. When put planting in raised terrace fear it will make the space feel closed in and create some extra JULY 19, 2018 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES M-2

3 darkness behind that area. Look at extent of retaining walls and consider expanding the patio enough to add more outdoor furniture. Give consideration to making stairs sufficiently well-lit for people to have good visibility to go down stairs and manoeuver into building. Clear and good presentation, find the secondary suite facing north quite deep and lighting is going to be minimal, it will not be the nicest place to live, difficult space to plan when bury a building. Materiality and expression seem fine. Concern with the front façade of the building as the garage stone wall becomes a parapet for the floor above plus with a rail on top it makes the facade almost 20 ft. high and is not a friendly residential face to the building. If there was more articulation in the garage or rail could setback so don t have this tall façade. Hard to see how the building and landscape sits on the street, the drawings could use more articulation in the front elevation to show the building behind and how gate and planting sequence works. Would like to see summary of trees to be removed and to show extent of the tree protection around large oak will be saving, like to see on the plan as soon as possible for continuation of protection of tree. Confused about how grading works in relation to side yards and adjacent neighbour. Need further clarity, not enough information to let us figure out what is relationship to some of the existing grade. Concern about suite access along the side of property, think project would be more successful if this was eliminated and used existing lower entry at front of house to go down to suite and up to main unit, this might help provide clarity around the front entry. Like concept of simple entry court but need to see increased landscape and relationship between landscape at front, streetscape, edges of courtyard and relationship to neighbours. Share concern about the front elevation and look at possibility of introducing some planters along the edge of the front terrace and have greenery topple down over edge of parapet. Think it is hard for applicant to resolve how to make the basement more livable without making rear yards less livable. The back yard is chopped up into dangerous retaining walls to get light into the basement level, but as north facing this may not necessary be adequate light. Applicant doing great job providing livable units on top 2 floors but don t see a livable suite at lower floor and can see you are pushing up against maximum height. Having reviewed the application and heard the presentation provided by the applicant: THAT the Design Review Committee SUPPORT the application subject to further review by staff of the following items: concern around pedestrian access along the side of the house in relationship to the existing grades of the project; a review of the secondary suite to try and achieve more useable outdoor area and increasing the access to natural light in the north elevation; review the extent of retaining walls at the north rear yard and also to resubmit drawings that show clarity of location of retaining walls at east and west property lines; consider access to secondary suite from the main entrance area thus eliminating the need for side yard walkways; review height of the garage wall at the front entry, consider introduction of planting or revised railing detail KEITH ROAD, NEW DUPLEX Background: Senior Community Planner James Allan introduced the proposal. JULY 19, 2018 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES M-3

4 Project Presentation: Architect Farzin Yadegari advised that the owners are two West Vancouver senior citizen families who are wanting to downsize, mover within walking distance to the shops and reduce their carbon footprint. They want to live next door to each other and work together on the landscape. He advised that the massing, setbacks and landscape are designed as if it was a single family dwelling, materials selected are suitable for a single family houses and fit within the streetscape. He provided a material sample board. There will be no legal suite within the duplexes. He noted that feedback and assistance from the Planning Department greatly improved the duplex design. The Committee were in agreement that due to insufficient information they cannot comment on the application. The Chair advised the applicant that the package presented is incomplete and is missing dimensions, floor plans, context, heights, sectional drawings showing relationship to grade or site and relationship with landscape plans, and recommended that the applicant return with a complete submission before the Committee review it. THAT the Design Review Committee DO NOT SUPPORT the application as presented due to the following concerns: Applicant return with complete package for review by the committee ARGYLE AVENUE, NEW DUPLEX Project Presentation: The builder and the designer for the project provided a presentation and addressed the items from the previous motion including: Improved basement livability by relocating the basement suite entry patio to the front of house and increased size of patio, providing lots of planters and different elevations to break up sunken patio with different seating areas. Suite will have large windows to maximize light into suite. Roof top patio to have planters for privacy screening and more natural green elements. Units are flush which allows more area in front and rear yard, both have 400 sq.ft. of greenery in back. Walkway leads to the back parking and detached garage. Trying to maximize amount of greenery and outdoor space can use. Increase amount of sustainability by having a lot of sustainable planters, rain collection barrels and composting area. Moved from imitation grass to natural grass. Reduced size of house to allow more dimension and detail and moved to a more modern design. Reduced exterior finishes to smooth stucco and hardi board on duplex and smooth stucco on garage, removed window trim and proposing a punched style window for a clean modern look. Keeping the grade as neutral as possible by trying to maintain same height but segmented into walkway. Simplified garage, keep simple with smooth stucco finish and wood covered for street parking. Committee Questions: The Committee went on to question the presenters, with the applicants and staff responses in italics: What is the setback from Argyle Avenue to the building? Meets minimum requirements for all setbacks to the property, front yard entry patios are flush with the setbacks. JULY 19, 2018 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES M-4

5 Access to main level unit, how wide is that walkway? 6 ft. wide. What is width of the stairway going down to sunken patio? 4 ft. wide with staircase down. What is sunken patio square footage? Total including staircase 200 sq. ft and 100 sq. ft of actual sitting area. Is there privacy for the sunken patio? Could put in some cedar fencing to give more privacy but don t want to bring in more concrete or could put in taller trees for screening from walkway. Need to explore options for allowing as much light as can but still find a way to achieve privacy. Are you hitting maximum height at the roof? Yes, 25 ft. to railing at the top of house. The stairs at the front entry are they following grade down? Yes, stair from Argyle will follow existing grade. Do you have retaining wall along property line at east and west side? Yes. Committee Comments: The Committee went on to provide comments on the presentation, including: Thank for illustrating the differences, the elimination of offset successful in providing more equal opportunity for outdoor spaces and basement suite is more livable, commend applicant for trying to do something different. Appreciate landscape drawing and for seeing that doing sunken patio in front needs much care and consideration to make it look good in the streetscape. This space needs a lot of attention to become successful from the street and for the improvement on livability of suite. Materiality between the garage and the main building, you have adopted more of the garage finishes in the main building, like to see more cladding on main building rather than the other way around. Realizing it is a hard design consideration but I think front elevation needs more consideration because it looks like the back elevation and needs more strengthening of horizontal lines to make it more prominent. Strengthen design to make it look like a true front elevation. Appreciate presentation and the thought given to the changes. Appreciate that the back yard area is more useful and also think that there will be time for further review and further detail work on front sunken patio, access to the patio, the grade up to Argyle Avenue and how the landscape is treated. Encourage to consider the privacy question and look at thought and alternative ideas on how to make it better. Good work done addressing a lot of the issues that focused around the suite. Find the suites bereft of light, the climate in Vancouver is very grey and light wells are not the nicest thing to look out of, don t feel you would want to spend a lot of time down there. Find there is a substantial amount of paved roof area on site, hope trees grow and become substantial to green it up. Glad you cleaned up materiality, but stucco is the easy way out in some ways. Roof line needs organizing and give strength and unity, lines this prominent will give you the read of the building as much as anything else. The flat roof on second floor not the nicest thing to look over, could get some green roof or low rooftop planting to help soften a bit. Also when looking from the rear deck to the view over garage the roof top is a big surface to look over. You have done some reasonable work but could go a bit more. Thank you for presentation and quality of plans they are easy to read, materiality seems to show well on main architectural plan and landscape plan. Think the roof top deck is a sea of asphalt. I think a missed opportunity to do more and encourage to look at different options to green up or make a visual amenity. Need to look at how the front of the building addresses Argyle Avenue and make more of a presence along the streetscape and to settle down pathways into the building and also opportunity for lights. The changes proposed are moving in the right direction. It is an important consideration when standing at Argyle Avenue looking at building you are half way up the ground floor level, need to consider how you perceive relationship of building to grade. Think Building is sitting too low down, if able to lift up the building would help a lot. Feel this is driven by roof top patio, find roof top patios that are not off main living space are seldom used. Suggest eliminate roof top garden which would allow you to eliminate railing height and have an extra 3 ft to raise the building. This would resolve a lot of the problems with retaining walls at side yard and going down 1 ½ storey to get to basement suite and going down 1/2 storey to main JULY 19, 2018 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES M-5

6 unit and this would help start to simplify some of the massing. The railing piece is adding another form to the building itself. SUPPORT Having reviewed the application and heard the presentation provided [by/on behalf of] the applicant: THAT the Design Review Committee SUPPORT the application subject to further review by staff of the following items: exploring issues around access, depth and light to sunken patios; looking at nature and extent of cladding materials, more cladding rather than stucco materials; reviewing necessity for roof deck and access to the roof deck; some simplification of complex roof lines; if roof deck is to remains then consideration of a green roof rather than gravel; consider integration of planters where windows are looking over built up roof membranes such as the front entry. 6. REPORTS, REFERRALS OR UNFINISHED BUSINESS No reports received. 7. NEXT MEETING The next meeting is scheduled for September 20, PUBLIC QUESTIONS No questions presented. 9. ADJOURNMENT THAT the July 19, 2018 Design Review Committee meeting be adjourned. The meeting adjourned at 5:50 p.m. Shelly Craig, CHAIR James Allan, STAFF LIAISON JULY 19, 2018 DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE MINUTES M-6