A public hearing on three bylaw amendments for the Oceanfront Squamish development is on its way.
The District of Squamish council voted in favour of giving the three amendments their first and second reading at their regular council meeting on April 1.
The changes
The Oceanfront Squamish development is set to comprise six neighbourhoods, each with its own style and purpose.
The bylaw amendments are for a portion of The Works neighbourhood in the south west portion of the development.
“This development proposes to amend three bylaws to permit a mixed-use development consisting of primarily light industrial uses and residential rental, and a dedicated child care facility and arts centre on Lot O of the Oceanfront Peninsula,” reads a report to council.
Last year, developer Matthews West had proposed a climbing gym be built above the child care facility, but have since decided to construct the sporting facility in another location.
Instead, the District manager of current planning, Jessie Fletcher, revealed this has changed and the building would now be shared with Squamish Arts.
“The applicant proposes a child care use and a public art use which would include securing 390 square meters as child care space and dedicating 98 sq m to Squamish Arts at a $1 lease rate plus triple net for a minimum term of 25 years,” Fletcher said.
The proposed child care facility could accommodate approximately 12 infant/toddler spaces (aged between 0 and 2 years) and 25 spaces for older children (ages 3 to 5).
She noted that the climbing gym location will be decided at a later date.
In a letter to council, Squamish Arts executive director Clea Young said she was “pleased” to formally confirm their interest in the space at the Oceanfront.
“The space will be designed to meet all required building code standards at the time it’s handed Squamish Arts and will offer the flexibility to support a variety of uses, ranging from storage to gallery exhibitions and other arts-related activities,” Young wrote.
“We are excited about the potential for this space to contribute to the growth and accessibility of the arts in Squamish, and we look forward to working with the developer to ensure it serves the needs of the community effectively.”
According to Fletcher, the child care centre and Squamish Arts area would need to be delivered prior to the construction of the 120th residential unit.
Another amendment would see the employment use changed from marine employment and marine accessory uses to light industrial uses more generally.
According to the report to council, “some small-scale marine adjacent uses are still permitted” in the proposal.
Above the light industrial use area would be 207 rental units, 20% of which would be three-bedroom units, and 20% would be adaptable housing.
Included in the amendment is a parking reduction, which Fletcher noted “would still be higher than the downtown rate of one stall per unit but slightly lower than the community-wide ratio.”
However the ratio for employment uses is to remain the same.
A restriction around tenants having to be employees of businesses located at the Oceanfront and downtown has also been removed.
“[The applicant] has agreed to add a policy addendum to the housing agreement to prioritize local workforce first, but this would avoid penalizing employees if they could no longer work or lost their local employment,” Fletcher said.
No boat launch
While marine employment was originally selected as the purpose of this workspace, an analysis completed by the applicant and senior planning staff from the District revealed it was no longer feasible.
“During the master planning process and development of the Catermole Shoreline with Carbon Engineering, it has become apparent that the area is insufficiently deep or wide to accommodate a boat launch,” Fletcher said.
“This is further exacerbated by the fact that the flood construction level accounts for sea level rise and raises the land significantly as it relates to the high water mark.”
Because the application is not currently in alignment with the Official Community Plan, a public hearing is required before the development can proceed.
On the motion
Councillors voted 5-2 in favour of moving ahead to a public hearing.
While in favour of the application, Coun. Eric Andersen said he was concerned about where the marine light industrial area would be moved to if it was no longer possible in the original location.
“I’d like to express regret that we are not giving attention to the central issue in this whole proposal; we now do not know where we’re going to locate marine light industrial,” Andersen said.
“There's a deja vu for me here. The same occurred during the same proposal of converting marine light industrial to mixed-use residential at Waterfront Landing. There was an earlier sub-area plan and an earlier zoning which provided for light industrial space, marine-oriented light industrial activities such as small boat building, repair and maintenance in marinas within the mixed-use area.
“The developer came along and presented us with a study in 2016 and suggested that … although the demand for these marine uses could be located at Waterfront Landing, basically it’s not our vision.
“We’re doing the same thing again. We’re bouncing around not knowing where to locate the marine light industrial … I think it’s a serious issue and it’s not properly highlighted here.”
Coun. Chris Pettingill was against the proposal as he wanted a no-gas covenant to be placed on the entire lot, not just residential spaces.
“Without [a no-gas covenant for all uses] this is not supportable for me. I understand this will be coming back, I believe to a public hearing, maybe I’m being optimistic, but I would love to hear the developer come with a resolution here,” he said.
“I would love to find a workable collaborative solution, I don’t want to totally throw this out, but until this piece is resolved, I would not be able to support [it].”
Also not supporting the motion was Coun. Lauren Greenlaw, who said she believed the reduction in parking was excessive and the child care centre would be too big for any business to operate.
“I also won’t be supporting the motion on the floor in part because of the no gas conversation but also [because] I do have concerns that the 4,800 foot child care facility will not be feasible and it’ll be difficult to find a tenant at Squamish prices,” she said.
“But mostly, I was uncharacteristically on board with reduced parking proposed [at an earlier Committee of the Whole meeting], but this further reduction, I feel will be too much.”
A public hearing is currently tentatively scheduled for May 6.
