The proponent behind an all-rental building on Tantalus Road in Garibaldi Estates is asking the district for a parking variance of 24 spaces.
As many as 142 rental units are proposed on a 3.7-acre site in two, eight-storey buildings, located in the Garibaldi Estates neighbourhood, north of the Tantalus Fire hall at 40480 Tantalus Road.
The mixed-use development proposal consists of two eight-storey buildings with a partially sunken parkade shared between the two buildings. Along with 142 residential units, the proponent also plans 29,000 square feet of commercial space.
The applicant is proposing a residential parking of 1.33 spaces per unit. In other words, a variance on 24 residential parking spaces is being asked for.
The applicant also wants the required 36 visitor spaces to be shared with commercial spaces.
Outside of downtown, district has only granted parking reductions to projects that propose 100% affordable housing.
According to staff report, this project does not address housing affordability, although staff says the project will increase housing options and add significant supply to the rental market.
District staff notes that the majority of the proposed development is high-density rental apartment, and is located along core transit points. A reduction in parking spaces would encourage other means of transportation, such as walking, biking and use of local transit, staff added.
The development also proposes 29,000 square-feet of commercial space, which also enables more onsite employment space in town, staff says.
“If parking requirements are reduced as per the applicant’s request, this will support dis-incentivizing private vehicle use,” staff says.
Meanwhile, the district could also require the developer to use noise dampening construction material because of the site’s proximity to Highway 99.
A traffic impact study will be conducted by the proponents before the public hearing. Council will be discussing the proposal and the request for variances today.
David Lassmann says
This article raises a number of issues, some of which are new to me.
First is the issue of affordability. What developer builds housing units with the intent of doing so at a loss? Any housing that gets build will of necessity be affordable for the prospective buyers. In Squamish “affordable” is a euphemism for “subsidized”.
Next, the proposed development is said to be largely for rental units. What assurance do we have that they will remain so? Will there be a covenant placed on the titles to ensure this?
The intended shortage of parking is supposed to encourage the use of alternate transportation. Will the number of cars owned by residents be somehow restricted? What about the employees and customers of the businesses located in the commercial space? Will they also favour the use of alternate transportation? Even in the winter when it snows?
These kinds of issues may eventually be resolved in the way being suggested, but for the foreseeable future we can expect to see the surrounding area crowded with cars. Perhaps a survey could be taken of other recent developments to determine what the actual practice is likely to be.