District of Squamish planning manager Chris Bishop and Halcrow Consulting representatives delved into the comprehensive zoning bylaw review for a second time during the Committee of the Whole meeting on Tuesday (July 19).
The majority of the discussion surrounded the issue of whether or not to eliminate commercial parking requirements downtown and concerns were raised about a number of issues.
Coun. Corinne Lonsdale said she was under the impression the parking policy would look at enforcing the number of parking stalls, not reducing it, and wondered how much of Halcrow's consulting was done with developers versus "average Joes" on the street.
"I'm concerned because we can sit here and say that people will walk 1,000 metres but did we ask those people or did we just ask developers?" she said.
"It's the customers, the clients of the downtown that we need to be consulting with, not just the developers who would prefer not to pay."
Community Services general manager Cameron Chalmers said staff had done a sufficient level of consultation with customers, business owners and developers.
"I would say we're at a point where the position we're taking is defensible in terms of public process," he said resolutely. "It's not a bad idea to have people walking downtown. I don't think the parking standards in the downtown area are in a situation where people would not be deferred from going there."
Chalmers said it was important that the district reserve the ground floor plane for commercial space, whereas a lot of buildings needed to use the ground floor for parking to accommodate the necessary parking standards.
Mayor Greg Gardner said this was a worry, because one of Squamish's key difficulties is that "we can't put parking underground."
Halcrow Consulting's Brent Elliot reminded council that the absence of a parking requirement doesn't necessarily mean the absence of parking, as most businesses prefer to have some parking available to their customers.
"Our recommendation is to set a zero commercial parking standard and couple that with a policy base that looks at on-street parking and a possible levy and other options," said Elliot.
Sensing council's hesitation, Chalmers suggested council look at Cleveland Avenue, from Pemberton to Vancouver Street, as a separate part of downtown.
"Move forward with small increments by making zero commercial parking standard only in this area and keep the rest the same for now," suggested Chalmers.
Gardner agreed but some council members still hesitated.
"It just sounds like there's trouble no matter which way we go," said Coun. Rob Kirkham. "I'm worried that if parking requirements were lifted, the Home Hardware and Fields parking lots will be developed tomorrow then our window of surplus parking is eliminated quickly."
Coun. Paul Lalli said in his experience it wasn't cash in lieu that was a problem, but maximizing density.
"What about leaving the parking standard as it is but addressing the Cleveland Avenue corridor by not putting a maximum on the number of cash in lieu stalls," suggested Gardner.
Currently developers are only allowed four cash in lieu stalls ($6,000 per stall) providing the rest is mandatory.
The motion to leave parking standards in the zoning bylaw the same but direct staff to come back with a parking requirement that removes the maximum numbers of stalls payable in lieu in the Cleveland corridor was carried unanimously.
"Not as aggressive as you would like, you planner types, but still a step forward," said Gardner.
Council also discussed grade, height and small lot zoning.
Quest application for food primary licence approved
Squamish council voted to recommend that the Liquor Control and Licensing Board (LCLB) issue a food primary (restaurant) licence with a patron participation entertainment endorsement to Quest University.
During the discussion, some council members said they were hesitant to endorse the application because Quest was already being granted several concessions, such as not being required to pay property taxes, and thought this was an unfair advantage in Squamish's struggling restaurant climate.
"I really do believe we have a number of licensed pubs that are struggling and I don't see the added benefit of watering down that any further," Coun. Corinne Lonsdale said.
"It's not part of the university's educational focus."
Gardner said this type of request is a matter to be discussed because Squamish has given Quest such allowances. He said he was under the impression that Quest officials have plans to open a pub in the future and, if that was the university's intention, he expected the university would be paying taxes.
"We can't have a competitive community facility on tax exempt property," he said.
Council voted 5-1 to endorse the application, with Lonsdale opposed. Coun. Patricia Heintzman was not in attendance.
Council hesitates to approve Squamish CAN Farm request
Despite unanimous support for the Squamish Climate Action Network (CAN) farm project, council members were hesitant to grant the three grants in aid requests recommended by staff.
Requests included waiving the $1,200 temporary use permit fee, providing a $3,000 water connection to the property, and up to three years subsidy on annual water rates at $252.29 per year.
"I really like to support Squamish CAN but providing a water connection would be benefitting someone else's property, and a potential future business, at our expense," said Lonsdale.
Kirkham was also keen to support Squamish CAN but said council couldn't bind a future council to provide water subsidies.
"I absolutely want to support Squamish CAN but we do grants in aid requests on an annual basis and let's look at water subsidies on an annual basis rather than committing into the future," he said.
Lalli said although he didn't like looking at grants in aid outside the annual process, he could support waiving the temporary use permit fee and put forward that motion. The motion was carried unanimously.
Kirkham put forward a motion to approve a water subsidy for one year. The motion was carried with Lalli opposed, "because of respect for process."
Hospital Hill residents frustrated at UMBC study delays
Council received correspondence from Hospital Hill residents and property owners expressing frustration that the Upper Mamquam Blind Channel (UMBC) study, requested by council in 2007, had yet to be completed.
"The need for a comprehensive plan for the Upper Mamquam Blind Channel area has been our persistent concern," noted the letter, signed by 71 concerned citizens.
During the past few months, these citizens have held a series of citizen's meetings open to the public to discuss UMBC land use planning, related pedestrian trail safety and connectivity issues.
Included in the council correspondence was a summary of points raised at these meetings.
After the meeting, Hospital Hill resident Eric Anderson expressed frustration because a Request to Appear to present the letter before council had been denied.
"The grounds given for this refusal 'there is a planning process which has provided opportunities to the public to respond to Upper Mamquam Blind Channel land use' is very disappointing considering that the subject of our letter is planning process," said Anderson.
"Our request to appear to present our letter was lost or ignored for three weeks and then denied so we re-submitted the letter (without a Request to Appear, this time), in order that it become part of the public record.
"We are pleased the letter was finally 'received.'"
