Gibsons council voted to ask a developer to decrease the height of a proposed waterfront project on Marine Drive, at its Oct. 3 meeting.
The application for 458 Marine Drive sought to increase maximum building height by three metres to allow a second storey on Marine Drive, reduce the parking requirements by one space, and reduce the flood setback from 15 metres to three metres from the sea’s natural boundary. To build the mixed-use building with nine residential units, one commercial unit and underground parking, the applicant proposes to consolidate two lots.
The site is currently vacant. Next door is the Bayview Szechuan Chinese Restaurant and seven apartment units.
The agenda item Oct. 3 required a revote after council members expressed confusion about the motion. Initially three members of council passed a motion to deny the proposal for not meeting the view protection regulations (and deny the requested variance for a height increase and parking reduction), but council had concluded in discussion to defeat the motion and bring forward an amended version. Denying the proposal would mean the applicant couldn’t resubmit for six months — if they do come back, Mayor Silas White added.
After defeating the original motion, council voted in favour of amending the proposal to decrease the height.
Coun. Annemarie De Andrade cast the only vote in opposition to the motion to ask for the redesign.
Mayor Silas White suggested an amendment that was also passed, saying he wants cash in lieu of a required parking space. That would cost the developer $30,000.
Coun. Stafford Lumley said, “Let’s see what they come back with.”
The proposal first came to council at the Sept. 26 committee of the whole meeting, where multiple members of the public and local business community spoke out against the application. (It had previously been seen by the Advisory Design Panel, but council noted the panel did not discuss the height.) At that meeting, council chose to recommend denying the development variance permit and the form and character development permit, but consider a flood exemption if the project meets the view protection requirements and setbacks.
“As the property is 25 m deep and the building setback is 15 m from the natural boundary of the sea, this regulation renders much of the property undevelopable without a Flood Exemption,” the Sept. 26 staff report stated.
All 15 letters submitted by the public regarding the proposal were opposed to the variance requests. They cited traffic concerns, congestion, lack of parking, impact to business, and were against the height variance.
During the Sept. 26 meeting, a member of the public asked about vehicle sizes and additional storage, sharing their concern with the garage and space within it to turn around. Citizens also stated their concern about increasing a “choke point,” for traffic.
Another member of the public raised concerns about climate change and flood exemption, and encouraged cutting back residences to meet parking requirements. While they said they’d like to see the development smaller, including in height, they added they are happy something is going to go there.
Council members also shared their reservations about the proposal and Coun. Stafford Lumley said he’d like to see a 3-D model of the project. White commented that it would be nice to have something at that location and that he hopes the developer continues to work on the project, acknowledging the properties on Marine drive are challenging.
At the Oct. 3 meeting, Coun. David Croal said the proposal seems ambitious for the site, and the project still has a lot of hoops to go through. While he supports something being built there, he’d like to see it scaled down slightly.
White said he was opposed to the first motion — to deny the application — because he is “appalled” by what is at the site now. He is concerned for safety and lack of pedestrian access. White said there have been many attempts over the years to propose development for that location. He said the lack of support from the business community is a problem and he’d like to see the proponent come back and engage with the site’s neighbours to see what could work.
