The need for new rental housing units trumped neighbourhood outrage as Victoria council reluctantly moved forward a 16-unit rental project in James Bay.
Council gave initial approval in a narrow 5-4 vote for a four-and-a-half storey project proposed for 50 Government St. by Oeza Developments, but emphasized the proponent needs to make significant changes to the design of the building.
Those changes include reducing the overall size and footprint of the project, providing more outdoor space, trees and landscaping, reducing the impact on neighbouring properties and changing external staircases so they don’t face adjacent properties.
Even councillors who voted in favour of advancing the project said they did so reluctantly.
“Without improvements to this project, it is very likely to be rejected,” said Coun. Dave Thompson.
Noting an earlier motion to decline the project outright had been defeated by one vote, Thompson warned the applicant: “If you do a lot of work to make this better, you might get support, and if you don’t, then it’s very likely to fail.”
Coun. Susan Kim, who voted in favour of the project along with Thompson, Mayor Marianne Alto, Coun. Matt Dell and Coun. Krista Loughton, insisted it return to committee of the whole for further consideration once the developer completes the changes.
Kim said council is listening to the concerns of the neighbourhood, while taking into account the need for more housing in the city.
Dell said the proposed building looks too big and out of character for the neighbourhood, calling it “actually a great development in the wrong spot.”
“This type of project is really innovative. It’s just unfortunately been proposed in a really beautiful, small, charming character heritage neighbourhood.”
Dell said sending Oeza back to the drawing board to make changes will result in a substantially different building.
Coun. Jeremy Caradonna, who voted against the project along with councillors Marg Gardiner, Stephen Hammond and Chris Coleman, said it’s the first time he has voted against housing.
As the council liaison for James Bay, Caradonna said he has yet to find someone who supports the project.
“It takes a lot for me to vote no on housing. We finally found an application that surpasses that threshold.”
He said he had not seen a good-faith effort from the developer to work with city staff or the neighbours to make the project more palatable.
Gardiner said the city is sending the wrong message to developers by not declining the proposal outright.
She said developers are being told “hit this city with whatever you want, this council will not turn you down.”
Hammond, echoing a slew of concerns from James Bay residents, said the project is too tall, too dense and too close to adjacent properties.
“I can’t believe this has come to our council,” he said. “This is so far out of line.”
Two other land-use matters at council found a much smoother path to the next stage.
Council unanimously moved forward a proposal to add a three-unit rental building to a lot at 1132-1134 Empress St. The project would connect the new building to an existing heritage duplex.
The other project that received support was a mixed-use development proposed to replace three old single-family homes on the 100-block of Menzies Street in James Bay.
The four-storey project promises 43 rental residential units built above and behind a commercial component on the ground floor. The building, proposed by Mike Geric Construction, would replace homes at 131, 135 and 139 Menzies St.
“I think it is the right place for a mixed-use development. This is zoned as large urban village and if we can’t contemplate a four-storey, mixed-use building there, then I truly don’t know where it belongs,” said Caradonna. “Forty-three units of purpose-built rental here is going to be a game changer for the village.”
The project has undergone a number of changes over the past two years, including reducing its height to four storeys from five and increasing setbacks.
Gardiner, who along with Hammond voted against the project, said she appreciated the changes but felt it would dominate the block, have an impact on neighbours and take away from the heritage structures that remain in that area.
