The proposed four-storey, mixed-use building proposed by Abstract Developments for Bowker Avenue at Cadboro Bay Road is right, according to the majority of Oak Bay council.
After more than six hours of public hearing last week, council deferred discussion and vote to the May 8 council meeting.
After two hours of discussion votes remained as they did leading up to the public hearing and final decision; Couns. Michelle Kirby, Tara Ney, Tom Croft and Mayor Nils Jensen voted for the proposal while Couns. Eric Zhelka, Kevin Murdoch and Hazel Braithwaite opposed.
The bylaw will consolidate 2258, 2268 and 2276 Cadboro Bay Rd. as well as 2247 Bowker Avenue and rezone the consolidated lot to a new Comprehensive Development Use – Bowker Village zone.
Kirby was first to speak, so first to mention the housing crisis in the region.
“This is the place where we need to build in density and we need to do it responsibly. It’s in keeping with the other buildings in the area. … This is the place where we need to build in density and we need to do it responsibly. It’s in keeping with the other buildings in the area,” she said. “I don’t think it’s fair that the rest of the region takes on that problem without our help.”
Her remarks were bookended by fellow supporter Jensen who noted a “slow and steady evolution” in Oak Bay from First Nations communities, to farmland, to rural village and now “urban area.”
“We agreed (during the OCP review) … as a municipal council to accept a 0.5 per cent growth annually which works out to about 90 people,” Jensen said. Oak Bay growth was limited to 79 people over the past five years.
“It provides us with an opportunity to increase our housing options in the community,” Ney said, adding it was a key focus of the OCP during its review and 2014 adoption.
The plan offers a rental housing stock, with no age restrictions, addresses housing, “extraordinary” landscape plan, amenities for pedestrian and traffic safety, she added.
Croft feels the building marks the corner, in a good way, and is a “good use of the land.”
“We have the need for increased density where we can increase it,” Croft said. “Land is a scarce resource.”
Croft said the planned building fits within adjacent large buildings and changes made early on include stepping back the fourth floor on Cadboro and the third floor on Bowker to address concerns of citizen advisory boards and neighbours, he said.
“The developer in the design and the material used in the building are going to mitigate the massing,” Croft said.
Murdoch noted the Advisory Planning Commission did raise concerns over massing, height, transition with adjacent buildings, impact on reduction of parking and lack of affordable housing,
“I’m not sure we’ve resolved their concerns,” Murdoch said. “I still believe quite strongly that we’re going to have to get down to the brass tacks of it and make a community plan.”
Lot coverage and floor area ratio continue to be a primary concern for Murdoch.
“It’s a very tall building to be that close to when you’re on the sidewalk,” he said. “This sets a standard that existing buildings can be built right up against the sidewalk. …
If these standards are set as a standard 88 per cent lot coverage … we’re looking at zero green space in that block.”
Jensen noted that the site is deemed secondary village, on an arterial road and flanked by two buildings that are four-storeys.
“There are no other sites of that nature to my knowledge,” “Is it a new normal? No it’s specific to that lot,” Jensen said. “So there is no precedent in my mind.”
Zhelka suggested a taller slimmer building, with terracing of the top floors might have appealed more.
“The density proposed for the site is defensible,” Zhelka said. “However, what might be a deficiency in our OCP is we have a transition problem here. To the immediate north is a single family residential … I see a real problem with the transition between this building and the current and future uses of the properties to the north.
“I want to have a housing strategy as quickly as possible,” he added.
Braithwaite feels the planned building isn’t compatible with the neighbourhood visually or functionally.
“We all are willing to give some concession based on the shape of the site and what it would bring to this corner and that area of Oak Bay, however, we have to think about how fits into Oak Bay,” she said. While others noted the impressive tree canopy replacement: “That tree canopy will not come into being for another 20 to 50 years, in the meantime we lose that tree canopy that we have now,” she said.
She reiterated concerns over approving based on improvements to the adjacent intersection. Abstract will commit $100,000 for work there.
“If there’s an issue with this corner we as a municipality should be fixing that if there’s something wrong,” Braithwaite said.
