District of Squamish councillors have referred a development permit application for a mixed-use rental building in Valleycliffe back to council over concerns over a height variance.
The proposed development by developer Jirout Martin, Westway Center Corp., located at 38201 Westway Ave., consists of a six-storey building featuring commercial space at grade, surface parking, four rental residential levels (45 units), and a rooftop indoor and outdoor amenity area.
Four zoning bylaw variances were requested as part of the development application:
- A building height variance from 10.68 m to 20.57 m
- A change of usable open space from 1,670 square meters to 312 sq. m.
- A parking variance from 96 spaces to 82
- To change the number of trees per off-street parking spaces from one tree per eight parking spaces to one tree per 13 parking spaces
On Jan. 7, the District held a public hearing during their regular council meeting to allow the public to voice their opinions on the development, which has been two years in the making.
District planner Philip Gibbins gave a rundown of the proposal before public comment. He explained the current uses of the site include a 鈥渕ixed use building to be retained, attached commercial building unit to be demolished and associated parking.鈥�
鈥淭he proposed development is a purpose-built rental which is to be secured in perpetuity,鈥� Gibbins said.
鈥淭he proposed commercial space 鈥� includes three new smaller units to replace the existing larger unit which, according to the applicant, had been difficult to find a tenant for.鈥�
Public comment
The general themes from the public hearing were both for and against the development.
One Valleycliffe resident said he was in favour of the development as it would 鈥渁lleviate the current housing shortage in the Squamish鈥� and 鈥渞ejuvenate the entire neighbourhood, replacing the outdated structure with a modern and appealing building.鈥�
Another resident said they were glad it would provide more Squamish renters with a sense of security that they wouldn鈥檛 lose their home due to owners 鈥渕oving back in.鈥�
鈥淭here's a critical difference between purpose-built rentals like these units and a basement suite. There's no owner to move in to kick you out. You're fully protected by 小蓝视频 tenant laws,鈥� they said.
鈥淭his project is an opportunity for housing security for those who might never be able to afford the million-plus dollar price tag on the single-family homes; we desperately need more apartments of this type in Squamish.鈥�
Opposition concerns
For those who were against the development, the main issues were around the proximity to a riparian area, and how the height variance would reduce light to existing buildings nearby.
鈥淲e saw from some of the diagrams that on the two median days of the year, never mind throughout the entire winter, it is going to significantly limit the access to sunlight with the development to the northeast鈥攖hat would be one of my major concerns,鈥� Squamish local Spencer Fitschen said.
Thomasina Pidgeon said that market-rate rentals wouldn鈥檛 equate to affordable housing, which is what Squamish needs.
鈥淚'd just like to speak as someone that has lived here for like, 26 years. Market rate is not affordable; making the spaces smaller, and then calling it affordable because it's smaller 鈥� so it's going to be a little bit cheaper, doesn't also make it affordable. It's still a market rate,鈥� she said.
鈥淲ho wants to pay an arm and a leg to live in a cubby? You might as well live in a vehicle, which helps explain other things in this town and you can't call that affordable. That's actually called elitism.鈥�
Council comments
Despite the staff recommendation to authorize a development application, council opted to send it back 鈥渇or more information.鈥�
Coun. John French initiated the motion, saying that the large solar impact the proposed building would have on the Creekside townhomes made the application 鈥渟imply unsupportable.鈥�
鈥淚 could stomach the proposed height increase if the shade impacts on neighbouring property weren't as drastic as what is expected through this proposal. The other variances are reasonable, I can wrap my head around them,鈥� French said.
鈥淚n addition to my shade concerns, I'm hearing too many other concerns from my council colleagues to allow this to move forward, so I'd like to see this come back to us, reconfigured, to address the significant solar impacts on neighbouring property and the other concerns expressed by my council colleagues.鈥�
Coun. Andrew Hamilton said he was supportive of a unit like the one proposed, as well as the rental tenure that would be supported by it, but had concerns over the height variance.
鈥淚 am concerned about the variance in height, and it's not fundamentally because I don't think that buildings should be that tall in Valleycliffe,鈥� he said.
鈥淚 think that in that zone of Valleycliffe, that's a central, sort of commercial hub 鈥� I think that the buildings will get that high. My concern is that this variance is a 10- metre variance on a 10-metre limit; that's a very large variance in my mind.鈥�
Coun. Lauren Greenlaw also supported sending the application back to staff because it was 鈥渃onsistent with the majority of the written public feedback鈥� they received.
鈥淒oubling the height of a building and quartering the usable open space is a significant change 鈥� Our housing needs reports indicate that, yes, we need rentals, but more specifically, we need affordable rentals, and even more specifically, two to three-bedroom rentals,鈥� she said.
鈥淰ery few of the families would care to live in a 460 square foot studio apartment together without any storage.鈥�
Greenlaw was also concerned that the proposal would affect the salmon population due to the proximity of the development to the riparian area.
鈥淭here is a direct correlation between salmon population decline and runoff from roadways. I'm already concerned with the proximity of the developments on this site, with the active spawning creek behind this building, and ... to not only ignore that, but to compound it with significantly increasing the traffic in immediate proximity to the salmon habitat just does not seem prudent in the land of the salmon people,鈥� she said.
Coun. Chris Pettingill echoed many of previous councillors' comments and suggested the application might be 鈥渂etter as a full site rezoning鈥� but had trust in staff to pass on their feedback so that the developers could return with 鈥渟omething workable as a variance.鈥�
While he said he would support the motion purely on the issues of additional height and shadowing Coun. Eric Andersen said he was mostly in favour of the development.
鈥淎s a long-time resident of this area of Hospital Hill, I know that this provides attractive commercial space, and we're moving towards the commercial hub that Valleycliffe and Hospital Hill deserve. I think this is a good value in addition to the market rental and the smaller units, which I support,鈥� he said.
He also addressed the riparian zone from the perspective of someone who is a 鈥渃aretaker鈥� of it.
鈥淭his is a riparian zone I'm intimately familiar with, and have been a caretaker of this immediate area for a number of years with other community volunteers,鈥� he said.
鈥淚'm very happy with the clarifications made by the development proposal team regarding the parking lot, and I will only repeat that a robust fence is necessary. The key issue for protecting this riparian zone at this location is to restrict access, especially if we have housing introduced to this block.鈥�
Coun. Jenna Stoner and Mayor Armand Hurford both said they were hesitant to support sending the application back to staff as they weren鈥檛 sure it would achieve what council wanted in the long run.
鈥淚 think the refer back to staff and a change in height might just be the same as voting this down, as far as the viability of the project. I think that it's important to recognize that we arrived here considering this and being asked for what is a sizable variance in height, in an effort to not displace the tenants,鈥� Hurford said.
鈥淚 think that referring this back might just kill this project and see it come back in a form that may not be better for the community, so I'm very hesitant to support this motion as it sits.鈥�
Council voted 4-3 in support of sending the application back to staff for more information with Mayor Hurford and councillors Andersen and Stoner opposed.
To read the report on the Westway development visit the
