Parking, traffic send Brackendale apartment project back to drawing board

A 36-unit rental apartment building on Government Road in Brackendale was sent back to the drawing board by council over concerns about parking and traffic.

The development permit for the five-storey building at 41312 Government Road proposed a mix of 10 one-bedroom units, and 26 two-bedroom units ranging in size from 675 sq. ft. to 942 sq. ft.

The developer is proposing market rental in perpetuity through a housing agreement but asked for three variances.

The first variance was to change the definition of shared open space to allow the shared open space to be in a required front yard setback.

The second was a parking variance to allow for 20 residential parking spaces to be located on the adjacent parcel at 41340 Government Road. The development requires 67 parking stalls, but the proponent wanted 20 of them to be located at the adjacent property, also owned by the proponent.

The third variance request was to eliminate the requirement for a 2 m landscape buffer along the eastern property line.

Supporting the variance, district staff said the proponent had provided a traffic study prepared by a traffic engineer demonstrating that there was capacity to accommodate the 21 deficient stalls.

Council, however, chose to not grant the permit and sent the proposal back to the drawing board.

Councillor Jenna Stoner brought forward the motion to refer the project back to staff for a parking and traffic study. She said she was generally in favour of diverse forms of housing, but the study did miss the mark on other issues.

“It is not getting us closer to where we need to be on the affordability spectrum. I think the parking and traffic study missed the mark as it was done in mid-January, which is not the height of demand for the area,” she said.

Councillor Doug Race echoed her comments, and said he was also concerned with parking and the accuracy of traffic study.

Councillor Eric Andersen said he was very concerned with the parking implications.

“I am skeptical, and I want to see a lot more assurance to the outcomes for the parking and issues related to congestion and safety with the entrance and egress. We have tourist areas not far away, and I am concerned about congestion, and also uncomfortable with the scale of this building. I also can’t support the setbacks and it is reflective of a massing scale that I am not comfortable with,” he said.

Mayor Karen Elliott and Councillor John French also raised issues about parking and consideration to public art and supported Stoner’s motion to send the project back to the developer.

Councillor Chris Pettingill, however, was the sole dissenting voice.

He said affordability and market rentals were significant and said the council couldn’t afford to plan new developments where everyone has two-three vehicles.

“We really have to figure out a way where our developments are not planned around cars, and our quality of life is not planned over cars. If we are doing things right as a community, the parking problems we have today will diminish,” he said.

“There is an assumption that more people means more cars. As we get more people, we have to get less cars and with new technology this is a direction we are heading in.”