District of North Vancouver council has voted to send a high-density student housing proposal back to staff for additional negotiation, citing unresolved concerns about affordability, transportation and livability.
The decision follows a revised application from developer Forum for the site at 1578–1590 Hunter Street. While the proposed building was reduced from 25 to 21 storeys, the project still seeks a density of 5.5 FSR, more than double the limit set out in the Official Community Plan.
Mayor Mike Little, who moved the motion for revision, said further work was needed before the project could advance. “I still think there is work to be done on this before it warrants moving to the next stage,” Little said.
He raised specific concerns about how the development would handle the transportation needs of more than 400 students. Without a dedicated shuttle, Little said, students could inadvertently block transit lines at Phibbs Exchange.
“I don’t think that letter [from TransLink] meets my standard for having a transportation plan for it,” he said. “On a Friday night there’s going to be a tremendous number of food deliveries… I don’t think 20 parking stalls is going to be enough.”
Councillor Lisa Muri, who favoured rejecting the project outright, described the proposed density increase as a “doozy” and questioned the pace of the developer’s revisions.
“I have not experienced this type of approach… where in four months we are looking at doubling our FSR,” Muri said. She argued the project should not be prioritized over residents waiting on routine permits, adding, “I do not believe that we have the ability to put valuable staff time after something that is so outside of the OCP… we are giving indication to this project that we will put resources into them and for that I will not be supporting this motion.”
Affordability was a recurring theme during the debate. Councillor Jim Hanson noted that while the proposed units are small, the cost per square foot is close to double the North Shore average.
“These rents… will be in the area of $10 a foot… typical rents with respect to purpose-built rental are less than $5 square foot,” Hanson said. “If we’re enabling a project which is going to exceed the OCP… I’d like to see an affordability component which caters to people of more limited means.”
Councillor Betty Forbes questioned the suitability of the proposed micro-units, some as small as 160 square feet.
“I don’t think that’s mentally stimulating for a student; in fact, I think it’s harmful to them,” Forbes said. She also pointed to the project’s accessibility provisions, noting the developer offered five per cent standard accessibility compared to the district’s 100 per cent requirement. “How can we justify taking what they’re offering… there are too many things wrong here,” she said.
Councillor Herman Mah supported sending the project back for revision, but said the housing could have a “domino effect” by freeing up secondary suites elsewhere on the North Shore.
“Having options for these students to live in North Shore will help to reduce traffic congestion for other members of our community,” Mah said, while agreeing that vehicle access and staging remained significant issues. “I support the staff recommendation to revise, but ask that they also work quickly in a timely manner with the applicant.”
Councillor Catherine Pope initially pushed to move past some staff hurdles, arguing that the project’s all-inclusive model offered built-in affordability.
“It includes all of these amenities — the internet, the furniture — that is an enormous difference to a student,” Pope said. She urged her colleagues to view the proposal as distinct from conventional rental development: “Student housing is a community amenity… there should be no fear that approving this highly specialized student housing will then open the floodgates to developers wanting that kind of density in a regular rental.”
Councillor Jordan Back said he supported student housing but expressed frustration with the ongoing delays.
“Think of the vibrancy that might come from [having that many young people living in the heart of a town centre],” Back said. He ultimately voted for revision to keep the project alive, adding, “It’s disappointing that we can’t provide them more clarity… I’ll support the staff recommendation just so that it has a chance.”
The motion for revision passed, with Muri and Forbes opposed. The developer has cautioned that further delays could push the project’s completion past the 2029–2030 academic year
