District of 麻豆社国产councillors have approved a development permit for a mixed-use building with 39 rental units in the heart of downtown.
At the regular council meeting on June 3, councillors voted 4-3 in favour of the development permit that would see a seven-storey building be constructed at 38026 Second Avenue.
District planner Bryan Daly told elected members that three variances were requested as part of the application put forward by developer 38026 Holdings Ltd.
“This application is seeking three variances to the zoning bylaw; an increase in the maximum height from 20 metres to 21.9 metres, reduction in the required employment space from 20% of the building's gross floor area to 12.59% and a reduction in the required off-street residential parking spaces from 39 spaces to 28 spaces,” Daly said.
“The variances are requested in order to maximize the number of rental units the project can deliver. The height increase allows for an additional eight units of rental housing.
“Staff are supportive of the variance requests, given that the residential units will be secured as 100% market rental while still providing a reasonable amount of employment space and off-street parking.”
Included in the building is 340 square metres of commercial space provided on the ground floor.
The reduction in residential car park spaces would mean that not every unit would be entitled to one parking stall, as is typically seen with downtown developments.
The application also shows that while seven commercial parking stalls are required, only two will be provided. For the remaining five stalls, a cash-in-lieu payment of $150,000 will be provided to the District.
Council comments
Despite all councillors being uncertain about at least one of the variances, the development permit application was approved, albeit narrowly.
“I do think that there are some trade-offs that we are making here, most certainly, and I appreciate the comments that have been submitted by the public in terms of the concerns with the variances requested,” Coun. Jenna Stoner said.
“I do think that all developments are a balancing act of trade-offs, and we know that there is a significant need for rental housing in our community. And so I think moving forward with this application that will provide 39 units of market rental housing in our community is important.”
Stoner said that she was hesitant about the addition of an extra floor that had been added as part of the height variance.
“I do think that it is different than some of the other variances that we have granted that allow things like an elevator protruding. This really is an additional 1.9 metres in height. But I think that is what is going to make the market rental component of this project viable,” she said.
“This is a development permit, so there is a timeline on it. If it's not starting construction within two years, then it lapses, and there's an opportunity to renegotiate that at that time. But I think that there's enough opportunity here to see 39 units actually come to fruition in a two-year time period, and that is something that we should all be working towards.”
Coun. Eric Andersen shared some of the submitted comments from residents which included concerns over an already evident lack of parking in the area, as well as a suggestion from one local to remove on street parking to improve bike safety.
“I think that they're very important observations that have been made and we shouldn't lose sight of them,” Andersen said of the submissions.
Coun. John French said he supported the project because of the location.
“If we're going to do something like this, this location is the place to do it. Downtown is our best served by transit, a transit system that we're working very hard to improve,” he said.
“I'll [also] encourage the landowner and the developer to demolish the existing building in as sustainable a method as possible. There are ways to do it, and I would like for this landowner to show the rest of the world just how well that can be done.”
Coun. Eric Andersen echoed Coun. French’s comments about encouraging the developers to ethically demolish the current building on site.
Also in support of the development was Mayor Armand Hurford.
“Our downtown is an incredibly challenging area to work with, both from a landowner's perspective and as those of us sitting here making these decisions,” he said.
“The rental tenure here, I think, is really important, and makes the other pieces worth considering. And for me, they meet that threshold.”
However, Hurford noted that this building wouldn’t be suited for people with multiple cars.
“If your household requires three parking spots that might not be available to you here,” he said.
“This is an opportunity to not be paying for parking as part of your rent, should you not need it.”
Opposed to the application were councillors Chris Pettingill, Lauren Greenlaw and Andrew Hamilton.
“I have significant concerns about the suggested parking. I don't think we can afford a further reduction in parking spaces in our downtown core,” Greenlaw said.
“So many of the emails that I get, in general, are complaints that there is not sufficient parking downtown already, and that is without the occupation of new builds or the loss of parking from some of the proposed projects downtown.
She also noted that the majority of parking stalls provided are classified as ‘small cars’, which would cause issues for parents with car seats.
“[It] basically means you can't use them with a car seat when you reduce the width of these spaces, it's really difficult to get a child in and out of your car seat,” she said.
“So I don't think they're very usable, frankly, for families who are moving into this town.”
Coun. Pettingill said that he would have been supportive of the project if the employment space hadn’t been reduced.
“In general, I would be okay with the height and even parking reduction, but I'm not okay with the employment reduction even at 20%, given the zoning,” he said.
“Market rental is important, but there has to be matching employment when we're reducing parking. I think we need to send a message that we expect suitable employment for the housing so that we're not building housing for commuters, so that we're not introducing parking challenges.”
Also on the fence was Coun. Hamilton, who said his main issue was with the height variance.
“I am supportive of a lot of this application. I've got no issue with parking variances,” he said.
“My issue is with the height variance. When we set a height limit, that's what we expect everybody to follow. And if we keep pushing for one reason or another, up above that height limit, we're treating each lot, case by case, and each developer, case by case.”
He suggested instead that councillors should stop allowing height variances as a whole.
“To consistently see variances requesting height changes is a sign that either we need to change our zoning or developers need to change their expectations of what they build, but continually requesting and granting height variances, I think is something we need to stop doing, and the only way I think we can do that is by saying no to a height variance,” he said.
The development permit was approved 4-3, with councillors Pettingill, Greenlaw and Hamilton opposed.
A housing agreement bylaw for the project was also given its first three readings at the meeting, this time, however, it was unanimously approved.
