District staff are backing a reduction in visitor parking spaces for a proposed townhouse development on Britannia Avenue, citing strong transit access and closeness to Downtown Squamish. The application seeks to rezone properties at 38779 and 38795 Britannia Avenue for 29 townhomes in Dentville, and it comes before the council today.
While the proposal includes only two visitor parking spaces—below the minimum requirement of eight—staff supports the reduction in the parking. “Dentville is well served by transit, and its proximity to Downtown Squamish may encourage overall mode shift by residents and visitors alike,” notes a staff report to the council. Staff also note that on-street parking is available in Dentville and will support future visitor parking demand. A visitor parking space reduction has also been built into the CD116 Zone.
Many Dentville residents disagree with this, and Megan Dukitsch is one of them.
“These are all three-bedroom places, and I guarantee a good chunk of those will have 3 or 4 adult roommates, all of which will have a car. I understand the goal in Squamish is to have everyone ride their bikes, bus, or walk everywhere, which would be nice in theory, but that cannot be expected of people since many people who live in town commute to Whistler or Vancouver. Just because you don’t give them parking spaces does not mean that they will not bring those vehicles, regardless,” she writes.
Many Dentville residents have also said the project far exceeds the density proposed under the new R-1 zone that province allows under new rules.
“The level of density proposed in this application is not appropriate for the neighbourhood; it is too high and does not match the character of the neighborhood,” wrote Dentville resident Caroline Ashkeian. “The land is developable under the existing zoning and can accommodate a substantial increase in density without a rezoning compared to what is currently built onsite.”
Area resident Eric Armour said the current proposal would see far more density than new provincial rules allow. He said residents are not opposed to the density but to the proposed density.
The Britannia Ave lots where these townhomes are proposed currently have two single-family homes. The development proposes three-bedroom townhouses with 1,790 square feet of floor area. It includes 60 parking spaces, with side-by-side garage parking for each unit. The access is proposed off Madill Street.
Amenities include a 6,020-square-foot strata park along Garibaldi Avenue, featuring benches, a bike rack, landscaping, and a shared waste room for residents. A tree protection covenant will also ensure the retention of significant trees in the park, including two American Hornbeam trees deemed “significant” under the District’s Tree Management Bylaw.
The developer has also offered $1,107,887 in cash as part of the Community Amenity Contributions (CAC), which meets district policy. Additional proposed improvements include a traffic circle at the five-way intersection of Madill Street and Garibaldi Avenue, a sidewalk extension along Madill Street to Buckley Avenue, and electricity-powered units with no natural gas connections.
Reja says
No area of Squamish is “well served by transit”. It would almost seem District Staff sees parking variances as a way to increase revenue through fines. Variances have been granted (and encouraged) on just about everything built…then the bylaw officers have something to do – marking tires and issuing tickets. Westwinds is a good example of this. The street parking on that block of Third Avenue does not serve any businesses, it’s strictly residential yet bylaws is out there, marking tires. I’ll just bet lots of those seniors CAN’T ride a bike or walk everywhere they need to go but they can still drive a car. How environmentally friendly is District Staff when they are forcing people to start & move their vehicles every 72 hours, whether they need to or not?
High time we all stood up to District Staff.
Carl Ingraham says
At the intersection of Madill and Newport there are presently 3 stop signs. There isn’t and won’t be enough traffic flow to justify the expense of installing a round about. “Because we can” is not adequate reason to impose the cost on the developer and/or the public.
Don Patrick says
The consultants of the DOS are obsolete … who in the name of reason can jump on transit and return with a normal day purchase … so out comes the vehicle. Transit is a red feather in all planning stages and just gets worse. Life is more than A to B and return.