By Gagandeep Ghuman
Published: Jan. 21, 2013
After residential developments, it’s the turn of a commercial development to ask for development extension.
At a regular council meeting on Tuesday, Jan. 15, Squamish council passed a motion to grant a one-year extension to Ramada Hotel.
Squamish councillors have seen a steady stream of developers coming before them, asking for permit extensions.
They have obliged, but on the Jan. 15th council meeting, some councillors raised their concern.
“I’d like to see some action on this,” said Coun. Ted Prior.
“I have supported it this year, but I’m not sure I will be able to support this next year,” he said.
Coum. Doug Race also echoed his views, saying there needs to be some kind of a deadline beyond which the extensions can’t be granted.
The Ramada hotel, which was to be located on Highway 99, right next to the now empty KFC restaurant, was first granted a development permit in 2008.
With 81 rooms, a common area, business centre, and meeting room, it was supposed to be second largest hotel in Squamish after the Executive Inn.
The four storey hotel would also have an interior climbing wall, which would be visible from the highway.
But those plans have only remained on paper.
In fact, this is the second time the proponent, Platinum West Developments, have appeared before the council asking for an extension.
The proponents have cited a downturn in the hotel and hospitality industry as a reason for an extension.
According to Tourism Squamish, there are 1,127 total rooms available in Squamish.
Of these, there were 476 hotel rooms, followed by 73 motel rooms, 30 B&Bs, and 548 RV/Camping facilities available for tourists.
Owner of D’s B&B in Brackendale, Danielle Harbin said her business has contracted since the Olympics, although she still hosts guests who are looking for a more affordable option to Vancouver and Squamish.
Tourism Squamish, she says, should work towards marketing Squamish more to the world.
Similar arguments of a downturn have been made by residential and commercial developers in the past one year.
There’s been a hardly a council meeting last year where developers haven’t asked for extensions.
Recently, the council granted extensions to a housing and commercial development on Second Ave, a condo development on Bailey Street, and another townhouse development in Downtown Squamish.
Donald says
Isn’t Council, which owns the SODC lands trying to get a hotel to locate there as the jewel to the development ?
If Council refuses the Ramada extension , are they not open to a challenge of conflic of interest , with any succesful judgement award coming out of our packet?
Eric Andersen says
Notice all of the high-density blocks of housing right along the railroad tracks in the photo illustration for the old Waterfront Landing plan.
moe says
Eric, I appreciate your wanting and willingness to help create jobs that pay a living
wage. Unfortunately Squamish made the choice to be a bedroom community . So to think that idea is changing any time soon is naive. What you see is what you will get. Look to The Burnco gravel proposal and how groups opposed miss represent the facts . In turn often times proponents pad the good side , hoping to meet in the middle. These would be 20 years of domestic high paid jobs.
Eric Andersen says
Moe, you say a lot in six sentences. I could have been more clear in my one. What I was trying to point out, in the foreground of the picture, was that such housing density immediately next to the rail tracks, and the manner in which this was addressed by the District, does not comply with either the Federation of Cdn. Municipalities-Railway Assoc. of Canada guidelines or CN’s own railway proximity guidelines.
As for the background in the picture… Firstly, what we see (the towers) is not what was shown to the public or Council when the rezoning and development application was presented — which was nothing. This rendering drawn of the proposed towers was not displayed. The later Ramada Inn information package for Council was the first public revealing of this rendering for the Waterfront Landing project towers — after Council had approved them. Secondly, the Waterfront Landing project is dead. What we see in the picture is not likely to be what we’re going to get. I understand that the sellers and, so far, each of the prospective buyers are suggesting a new plan.
moe says
I do say a lot in six sentences.
The point being housing development seems to always get preferential treatment over long term land use planning. Not sure why this is? Quick flip of investor dollars?