Potential North Van renters got good news and then bad at the latest city council meeting.
Council voted 4-3 during the April 23 session in favour of going ahead with a 40-unit rental development at 2601 Lonsdale Ave., while an action-packed public hearing on whether to permit the development of three infill residential buildings consisting of 40 rental units at 151 East Keith Rd. was defeated.
Developer Pezzente Holdings originally proposed building a six-storey 44-unit development of mixed strata and rental, but recently agreed to make its project entirely rental and said it would limit it to five storeys following a public hearing last week that saw a horde of residents and neighbours weigh in on the fate of the project.
Many who spoke expressed concern with the developer鈥檚 plan to pay the city for a 9,625-square-foot stretch of roadway as well as a small greenspace to make room for the project鈥檚 floor space.
鈥淚 heard loud and clear at the public hearing last week that people want 26th Street open on an eastbound basis to facilitate traffic movement in the neighbourhood,鈥� said Coun. Rod Clark, who voted against it. 鈥淲here鈥檚 the commonality? Where鈥檚 the middle ground? The middle ground is keeping 26th open.鈥�
Coun. Pam Bookham criticized what she called the 鈥渇atal flaw鈥� in the way that council went about contemplating the sale of density to the developer on the assumption that 26th Street would be closed. 鈥淲e did that without any consultation with the neighbours who would be immediately impacted by that,鈥� she said.
In lieu of 26th Street access and the community green space, Pezzente has said it will build a walkway connecting Lonsdale and Western avenues. The development also includes 36 underground parking spots.
鈥淚 think it鈥檚 a right place to put the density in this situation,鈥� said Mayor Darrell Mussatto. 鈥淚t鈥檚 on Lonsdale, it鈥檚 going to be half a block from the new Harry Jerome, it鈥檚 on the major transportation network, (and) it鈥檚 close to the highway for people driving.鈥�
The project was also supported by Couns. Holly Back, Linda Buchanan, and Craig Keating.
Council, however, rejected a proposal by developer Starlight Investments that was looking to add three infill buildings totalling 40 rental units at 151 East Keith Rd.
Starlight already owns a 15-storey 89-unit rental building on site and was proposing building three infills 鈥� two four-storey buildings and one two-storey 鈥� on top of the its existing parkade structure.
Around 20 people spoke during Monday鈥檚 public hearing on the proposal, with many arguing that more rental housing was essential amid the city鈥檚 housing crisis, while others insisting that the proposal鈥檚 reduced setbacks would mean the new buildings would encroach on nearby Victoria Park.
鈥淚 really don鈥檛 think it鈥檚 a good idea to crowd the park,鈥� said Coun. Holly Back, who voted against sending the development forward. 鈥淚 think rental property is necessary but I also think it鈥檚 very necessary that we keep the people of our city happy.
Coun. Don Bell said he was not convinced 鈥渢his particular location is the right location for what is being proposed,鈥� while Coun. Clark lamented the idea to 鈥渟hoehorn density everywhere in the city, especially around Victoria Park, which is a gem in the entire city.鈥�
Starlight鈥檚 proposal would add 0.91 floor space ratio 鈥� which measures the proposed infill buildings鈥� total floor space against its lot size 鈥� and would have a maximum building height of 59 feet.
Coun. Linda Buchanan acknowledged neighbourhood concerns over what the addition of 40 new units might mean for parking, traffic, and surrounding greenspace, but she ultimately was in favour of the project. 鈥淗ere鈥檚 what I value as well: I value ensuring that everybody in our community has a home.鈥�
Starlight was also proposing connecting with Hollyburn Family Services to earmark four of the 40 proposed rental units for low-income seniors.
However, Coun. Bookham rejected the dichotomy that council鈥檚 decision had to be a choice between doing what鈥檚 popular and what鈥檚 necessary.
鈥淭he first speaker mentioned that in Victoria Park there鈥檚 a feeling of breathing space, and I believe that that intangible is going to be needed more than ever as we continue to densify throughout the rest of the city,鈥� she said.
Couns. Back, Bell, Bookham, and Clark voted against sending the project forward following the public hearing and ensuing discussion. The development was defeated 4-3.
The mayor bemoaned the challenges that cities face 鈥� and the few tools they really have to deal with housing people 鈥� and urged council to consider the project on the basis of providing rental.
鈥淲e need to really look at ourselves and say, 鈥楬ow are we going to let young people stay here to enjoy what we鈥檝e got?鈥欌�� he said.
