While District of Squamish councillors are typically in favour of parking variances, a new development for the University Highlands might have found their reduction limits.
At a committee of the whole meeting on May 13, councillors were presented a development permit (DP) for a mixed-use project by Andrews Development Management Corp. at 3295 Mamquam Road, which included a “bold” parking variance.
Committee of the whole meetings are less formal than regular council meetings. They are used for discussions prior to official decisions being made.
Thus, in this meeting, members of council were expressing their opinions on the variance, not their final decision.
The proposed permit application presented would see 340 apartment dwelling units built in five buildings, along with 84 multiplex units. Commercial space is also proposed fronting Helfland Way in Building 1, which would also contain 127 residential rental units—32 of which would be affordable rental housing.
Buildings 2 to 5 would contain 297 of the units, which are all proposed to be for sale strata units.
The application requests a variance to the required parking stalls for the development from 723 spaces to 439 spaces.
District community development planner Bryan Daly told council that the 32 affordable units did not require off-street parking or visitor parking and were not included in the parking calculation.
“The applicants have advised that reducing the required parking spaces improves the financial viability of the project, given the cost associated with constructing parkades, particularly on steep slopes,” Daly said.
“The applicants are proposing time-based shared use of the commercial parking stalls in Building 1. These spaces would be allocated as residential stalls overnight and reserved for commercial use during peak commercial hours.”
While the developers are hoping for an almost 40% reduction in parking, the DP application shows they are almost doubling the number of bike parking stalls provided.
The report to council shows that 23 commercial and 422 residential bike parking stalls are required, but 28 commercial and 873 residential bike stalls are proposed.
“To further encourage the use of public transit, the applicants have agreed to fund the construction of two BC Transit bus shelters in the neighbourhood, given that this infrastructure does not currently exist,” Daly said.
“Staff support the parking variance request given that a reduced parking requirement will help support transit in the neighbourhood, encourage use of alternative forms of transportation, and increase the viability of a project proposing both affordable and market rental residential units.”
Daly said that District staff were seeking council feedback on the parking variance request, “given that meeting the parking requirements of the zoning bylaw would require a significant redesign of the project and likely not include affordable housing units.”
Council comments
Most councillors said they would be in favour of a parking reduction if the developer provided more transportation options, given the location of the development.
“I am usually a very avid proponent of letting the market determine how much parking is necessary and I am the first to be a little bit sad about the fact that we might be turning down 32 affordable units, but this feels like it's too far of a parking reduction for the location that we’re talking about,” Coun. Jenna Stoner said.
“I’m open to other suggestions, but we don’t have car share up here, we don’t have bike share up here. If the proponent were to come forward with presenting those as part of the strata then I would be more open to it.”
She said that even if a grocery store, coffee shop and other neighbourhood commercial businesses were included in the development, people would still be “vehicle dependent in some way, shape or form” due to being at the top of a hill.
“It goes too far for even my comfort zone, and I usually feel like I'm pretty lenient on these pieces.”
Coun. Andrew Hamilton said that for him to support the parking variance, there needed to be a much more substantial contribution to the District’s active transportation and public transportation network to accommodate it.
He noted that if the development were to be built downtown and requested a commercial parking variance, it would cost the developers $30,000 for every car space reduction.
The parking variance for this project asks for a reduction of 81 commercial parking spaces, which Hamilton said would be a “$2.4 million … cash in lieu equivalent if this were a downtown development.”
“To put in two bus shelters in exchange for 280-ish parking stalls does not seem like a well-matched exchange,” Hamilton said.
Both councillors Eric Andersen and Lauren Greenlaw said they were not in support of reducing the parking, given that the neighbourhood is already experiencing parking discomfort.
“There is little room for absorption if insufficient parking is planned for this neighbourhood,” Greenlaw said.
“Given the lack of access for biking, walking, and even transit to this neighbourhood, I don't think it's prudent to allow a reduction of over 30% of parking.”
Coun. Chris Pettingill, who has a reputation for voting in favour of parking reductions, was also not convinced the variance would be appropriate for the development.
“In general, I am a proponent of not putting huge investments into parking, given the mode shift and everything we need to do. Whether or not this is enough parking … is largely dependent on who moves there and what their expectations are,” he said.
“I bike to a higher elevation frequently, and it is an obstacle, even with an e-bike. I would love to find a way to make this level of parking reduction work, but I don’t think I see the pieces in place.
“It doesn’t seem like a workable variance at this point, even for someone like me who is pretty aggressive on parking reductions generally.”
Both Mayor Armand Hurford and Coun. John French, however, was closer to being swayed in favour of the reduction.
Mayor Armand Hurford said that with some mechanisms to “better manage the expectations of the new residents in this area” and further transit solutions, he could “generally see where this could go” as well as the benefits the development would offer to the neighbourhood.
Coun. French, who is a former resident of the neighbourhood, said the “bold parking request” was “a little bit exciting”.
“I know all about the traffic issues going in and out of the university, and I am totally with the mayor in his thinking around if there are a whole lot more parking spots built up there, that’s just going to lead to a whole lot more cars,” he said.
“I’m not sure that’s what we’re looking for in that university culture that is being built in that particular area. And that’s really what this is going to take for this kind of reduction to be successful, is a culture that is not centred around cars.”
He also said that the key to the project's success was information and making sure that people “understand that’s the culture that we’re trying to achieve in this particular location.”
“So those who are buying or renting in this area are clear that they can’t have five cars and live in this neighbourhood,” he said.
Developer comments
Ryan Andrews of Andrews Development Management Corp. told The Squamish Chief that they plan to address the community’s concerns at a public information meeting next month.
“We completely understand the community's concern around the potential development, whether that be the parking variance, or the stewardship of the environment, which is another concern that we've heard,” Andrews said.
“We plan to address these to the public on June 4 at our public information meeting, which we'll be putting on at Capilano University, with a full presentation of all the various ways we plan to mitigate concerns around neighbourhood parking and traffic flow.”
Andrews said he has heard from councillors that a cash contribution to their transit fund was a priority, as well as exploring car and bike share programs and ensuring that every unit has a minimum of one-to-one parking.
“The university will ultimately be growing to 1,200 students, that is the current capacity and beyond that, as they become more successful in running their programming. We feel like our development will be bringing neighbourhood commercial, which will actually be vital to the future operation of the university,” he said.
“[It will] alleviate a lot of pressure on the traffic down the hill, as people in the neighbourhood will have shopping options close to them. A small grocer, a coffee shop, restaurant, daycare; these are some of the things that we were talking about as the tenants for our commercial space.
“So we feel that, rather than having 1,200 students go up and down that hill all day long, whether it be via buses or cars, bikes, whatever, they would be better served by a neighbourhood commercial and creating a local community up there.”
Andrews wanted to reassure residents that the trail network in the land they own behind the development would not be affected by the project.
“Initially, there was some concern around the trail system, so that's staying, and we've offered to enhance the trail system in any way that the District will allow us,” he said.
As for the parking variance, Andrews said they have taken a lot of “remedial measures” to try to combat the issues it may cause.
“We don't feel that adding 300 more stalls to the project to comply with the zoning actually solves the concerns of the community,” he said.
Addressing Daly’s comment on the community potentially losing the affordable housing element if they were forced to comply with more parking, Andrews said that would not be the case.
“I've been committed to affordable housing for over a decade. It is actually a value that I hold and a priority of my business to continue to deliver affordable housing despite regulatory and market challenges,” he said.
“It was never an ultimatum that we said we need [the parking variance] or we're taking this away. In fact, it was mentioned in the report that we offered it. It was not really a condition of a negotiation.
“If the parking variance isn't approved in its current form, it will pose a significant redesign challenge to the entire project, so it may involve increasing the density.”
As for who he envisions calling the new development home, the answer is simple—people who don’t own multiple cars.
“We don't expect that prospective buyers with a three-car family are going to buy that unit. We expect that people who are looking for space for their vehicles will probably have to purchase somewhere else where they have that,” he said.
“The market that I'm hoping for is maybe a couple that shares a vehicle and has a kid in the daycare below. Maybe the wife is taking programs at the university, and the husband is working for some company in Squamish. We want an authentic target market for the community.”
Councillors voted unanimously to provide and incorporate feedback on the requested parking variance in the development permit application.
To read more about upcoming developments, visit the District of Squamish website.
