Committee-of-the-Whole also recommends that council review Official Community Plan “small-town” form and character guidelines; process likely to begin in Spring
By Margot Grant
Gibsons council will likely approve a form and character development permit application for a building with commercial units at grade and 12 residential apartments above at 672 North Road, next to the Heritage Playhouse.
A Committee-of-the-Whole meeting on Tuesday councillors Aleria Ladwig, Stafford Lumley, David Croal and mayor Bill Beamish said they like the design and were in favour of a motion recommending to move approval of the development permit to the council meeting on January 8. Councillor Annemarie De Andrade said she likes the energy-saving design as well but opposed the motion because she thinks the community should be involved in a review of the Official Community Plan form and character guidelines first.
The committee passed a motion recommending that such a review take place sometime next year. Mayor Beamish said it will likely start in the Spring and take “quite a while.”
The building on North Road complies with the C-1 Upper Gibsons commercial district 1 zoning, which allows for retail use, commercial, office space, service and restaurants, with residential use above.
The building is designed to meet “passive house” certification standards — energy use will be reduced by 90 per cent.
The building would be the first “passive house” mixed-use building in Gibsons. The proponent says the energy efficiency of the design cannot be achieved with a more traditional architectural approach.
Director of planning Lesley-Ann Staats had recommended that council issue a development permit for this “unique modern design” because the majority of the design guidelines in the Official Community Plan (OCP) have been met.
However, planning staff had put a question mark beside the OCP form and character guideline that a development should “support and enhance the small-town character.”
The OCP does not give a definition of “small-town character,” but the smart plan goal relating to the guideline is “to preserve Gibsons’ small town character and liveability while allowing for moderate growth and change.”
The Advisory Planning Commission (APC) had the same questions about the building, calling the design “a modern interpretation of a small town that our current guidelines do not address.”
There is a struggle in the community between people who prefer the traditional West Coast design or the modern West Coast design. Some feel the guidelines are dated and do not reflect modern evolutions and efficiencies of buildings.
During the election campaign, several councillors said a review of the OCP form and character guidelines was in order.
This new proposed building next to the playhouse heritage theatre is completely out of character with the OCP vision of seaside village character. It’s up to Council to deal with this and start following the vision. A vision for the Town was agreed upon, however developers insist on ignoring the form and character guidelines. They’ve been allowed to slide. The old Council didn’t enforce the vision and set a precedent that allowed developers a free hand (look at Eagleview) . West Coast Boxy is not what the Town agreed upon. I’m sure its a perfectly wonderful architectural marvel but it doesn’t fit our Town’s vision. Perhaps New York?
Seems to me that a large part of the problem is that “small town character” hasn’t been defined, therefore it can be interpreted any old way. If the OCP is to be updated maybe there ought to be public consultation, specifically, on what this term means.
To me, the idea of ‘seaside character’ should apply more to lower Gibsons specifically as it relates to the area close to the ocean and historical origins. Even there, the OCP guidelines should always seek to serve the most critical imperatives, and the threats from climate change, and our responsibility to respond aggressively to it must take precedent.
Upper Gibsons should and must allow for newer forms that fit with west coast modern architectural trends eg use of natural materials, with emphasis on an efficient use of the land, modern functioning interior spaces, accessibility, sight lines, overlook considerations and high level of energy use efficiency and harvesting, and a roof line that maximizes the potential for solar energy collection.
The emergence of different housing forms that respond to the affordable housing crisis must be allowed to find a place within our community. While this should not be seen as licence to build ugly buildings, it should be an invitation for the community to respond openly and honestly to great a new vision for local and regional growth.
It is antithetical to these higher purposes to place unnecessary limitations on developers. Designs that seek to attain these modern standards while respecting the sensibilities and opinions of the average Gibsons resident should be passed, especially if doing so helps address the affordable housing and climate change crisis. We cannot expect developers to respond to the community’s desire for housing and energy efficiency within their proposals, unless we allow for a reasonable profit and swift application process as well.
I was having the same thoughts as Blake about the need for affordable housing and upper Gibsons being a different situation than the harbour area. I find the building depicted kind of ugly, but that’s just my personal taste. These things tend to mellow with time–trees and other vegetation growing up to soften the starkness. The illustration makes the building look like it’s sticking out like a sore thumb in the middle of a flat landscape. It won’t look like that here.
This building is way out of character for our little town and sets a precedent for acceptable building styles. In my opinion Gibsons is loosing its way, bit by bit. It appears the west coast box look is the new shape and form of our town with our building department and town staff embracing it. Really, it has taken over when you look around. Our town is now a hodgepodge collection of building styles and harder to define as any particular look. This is what has happened on a larger scale in Vancouver and not my idea of a sense of place and not the direction I envisioned for our town. Gibsons has lost its way by not having a clear vision and not adhering to its OCP.