604 replies to this topic

[ZGsta]

^True, but I knew someone who lived in Saxe Point and said it was a beautiful area but it was something "look at what I have to drive thru to get there"

You should see the slums I have to drive through to get to Uplands! Nothing but a mischief ridden war zone.

[concorde]

I didn't say it so don't kill the messenger

[Gary H]

I understand that these units will likley have basements.

 

Looks that way.

 

From June 23rd.

[Mike K.]

The next 4-storey building is currently making its way through the process and goes before the Planning and Lund Use Committee this Thursday for a review of the "development permit with variances."

[concorde]

^I hear that will break ground this year

[thundergun]

Heard that the set of townhouses that are nearing completion (not the next, and last row noted in post 183 above) but have been delayed by 3 weeks from end of August to mid-September. No word as to what the hold up is - last time I passed by they looked pretty close to finished.

[Gary H]

I don't know if this was done by the Railyards but it was a nice landscaping upgrade on this part of the Goose.  Can't see it in this pic but they also cleaned up and replanted the area under the Bay Bridge. 

 

[KAS]

The developer caused it to be put in -the guy checking out the working of the sprinklers said he had been hired by Campbell to do the install.. Reading the City Planning and Land Use committee minutes (available online. I love the interweb) - to see what variances the developer was after for the next phase of Bonds landing- it seems he got a relaxation of the parking requirements in exchange for proceeding with the park amenity that had been promised.

[concorde]

The next 4-storey building is currently making its way through the process and goes before the Planning and Lund Use Committee this Thursday for a review of the "development permit with variances."

I understand that should be starting next month, maybe November at the latest

[KAS]

There's a public hearing this Thursday - the developer wants to reduce the number of parking spaces for phases 2 and 3.

Phase 2 has, I believe, been built, and is 21 units. Phase 3, per the Condo sellers website is to be 49. They want to reduce the parking from 74 spaces to 63' and reduce visitor spaces from 10 to 6. They also got a similar reduction on phase 1.

So, I must correct my previous post. I'm not fully familiar on how these things work, but would it be that the City would consider the parking request only after the delivery of an amenity?

Edited by KAS, 22 September 2014 - 06:52 AM.

[Coreyburger]

So, I must correct my previous post. I'm not fully familiar on how these things work, but would it be that the City would consider the parking request only after the delivery of an amenity?

 

Maybe, but a reduction in parking will likely be supported, given the location of the building (almost downtown on the Galloping Goose Regional Trail).

[Baro]

I hope one day we get rid of parking requirements all together.  Let "the market" decide on the amount of parking stalls.

[G-Man]

^ I agree completely. If people want to pay for a parking spot they will and the market will respond.

[Mr Cook Street]

I hope one day we get rid of parking requirements all together.  Let "the market" decide on the amount of parking stalls.

You could argue that requirements like that are a large contributor to the high price of housing in Victoria. 

[KAS]

So, how, when there's a finite footprint for a residential building, does the market dictate the number of parking stalls included with the construction?  Granted, I'm out of a lot of loops, but I've never heard of anyone 'returning' the parking spot that comes with their unit.  Or deciding that they wouldn't buy a unit because a parking spot was an amenity that they just couldn't live with.

[KAS]

And, you posse of hobby-horse riders missed my actual question:   would it be that the City would consider the parking reduction request only after the delivery of an amenity?

[Mike K.]

Railyards has already provided significant amenities to the city including allow the cycling path to run along private property. I doubt the city will force Lefevre to provide an amenity for the public but Lefevre may include more amenities for residents of the building in the form of bicycle storage, etc.

[Coreyburger]

[snip]residents of the building in the form of bicycle storage, etc.

 

Bicycle storage aka bicycle parking is not an amenity but a requirement under the City's bylaws.

[Mike K.]

It's still an amenity of a building whether or not its required.

 

A "public amenity" is a different story as that's money coming out of the home owners pocket to provide something for everyone and not just residents of a particular building.

[Coreyburger]

Right, but you implied that motor vehicle parking is not amenity while bicycle parking is. Both are, and should be, requirements of bylaws (although how little motor vehicle parking one needs to provide is up for debate).