The George (proposed)

[Jezebella]

Gibsons Advisory Planning Commission (APC) sat on November 15 (for over 5 hours) and deliberated over the proposed George after a presentation by the developer's team (planning consultant, architect, landscape designer, and financial analyst). Commission members had a lot to say about size, massing, scale, height, views, setbacks, public spaces, public amenities, and character. I’d say that if Council accepts their resolutions/recommendations, the proponent’s team has a lot of work to do.

The "notwithstanding" clause, which the developer has used as virtually his sole guiding principle for the project, was discussed. Although it was put into the Harbour Plan, like a poison pill IMO, because this project was on the horizon, it was never envisaged that an exception of this magnitude would come forth, opined the chair. One member pointed out that the clause says a project outside the guidelines "may" be approved, not that it would necessarily be approved. The clause does have criteria attached, and there was general agreement it is not a carte blanche.

Winegarden Park, the public park in the centre of the harbour area, will suffer so many impacts the commission decided it needed a separate session to address those once more is known about the specific implications. The long side of the 98-foot-high condo building of the complex abuts the park with no setback at all and looms over it, casting shadows across this popular area. The existing band shell, which is raised and lowered with underground mechanics, and its concrete stage would have to be moved. The open water in front of the park would be taken over as marina space for the hotel. No compensation is ever entertained. The town and the people are supposed to be grateful for the "improvements" the developer is providing.

Although it is outside the commission’s mandate (they deal with form and character, DPAs, variances, zoning bylaw amendments and such), they did recommend an economic analysis by an independent expert. Very wise as the figures released publicly to get the general public/taxpayers and local business all excited are pure smoke and mirrors--unsubstantiated by anything.

The commission also resolved to recommend to council that the project come back to the APC for a second look once all their many comments are addressed and that it be accompanied by a 3-D computer modelling of how the project will look as a person walks through town and around the complex. The proponent has resisted this request in the past and today showed up with a table-top maquette of the complex "instead." Of course, it shows no relativity to other buildings and features of the town.

Despite the many reservations voiced and resolutions for change passed over the course of the deliberations, one member pushed hard at the end to have a resolution stating that the Commission supports the project. It was finally agreed to, subject to the concerns raised being addressed. More about these concerns in future posts.

Jez