1440 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

Yeah, View Royal has made a serious mess of that intersection.

[AllseeingEye]

They better have a traffic plan; I was at VGH last week and traffic is a s*** show out there as it is.....

[Victoria Watcher]

You mean people aren’t biking to the hospital to see loved ones?

[AllseeingEye]

/\ Apparently many folks haven't got the "message" yet....

[Citified.ca]

A rendering of a four-storey, 61-unit purpose-built rental proposal for 7701 East Saanich Road in Central Saanich. The project is planned with residences in studio through three-bedroom layouts, and if approved, will replace an aging collection of ten townhomes.

 

Citified profile: https://victoria.cit...t-saanich-road/

 

Ten rentals could turn into 61 if Central Saanich proposal gets green light

https://victoria.cit...ts-green-light/

[Victoria Watcher]

Saanich council has given initial approval to a rezoning and development application for a nine-unit townhouse project on two lots currently home to single-family homes off Shelbourne Street.

 

The Abstract Developments project, which will see nine three-storey townhomes built at 1661 and 1663 Freeman Ave., won’t go through a public hearing.

 

Coun. Karen Harper said the townhouses are “absolutely consistent with” the Shelbourne Valley action plan, created through a more than an eight-year public engagement process.

“I do believe in public engagement, but I also believe that once we’ve had that public engagement, we should acknowledge it. And the plan is in place now. And these townhomes are part of that plan.”

 

________________

 

The only councillor to vote against the initial approval was Nathalie Chambers, who argued that just because a projects fits within the OCP doesn’t mean it should avoid a public hearing.

Coun. Colin Plant noted the public could still have its say on the project when it comes back to council for first reading.

 

“If residents in the chamber and residents watching online feel that we’ve made a mistake and that this should have a public hearing, send us correspondence, reach out to us, call us,” he said. “I don’t think it’s accurate to say that we are trying to shut people out from the chambers.”

 

 

https://www.timescol...lbourne-7113623

 

 

 

 

Edited by Victoria Watcher, 07 June 2023 - 06:09 PM.

[Nparker]

...I don’t think it’s accurate to say that we are trying to shut people out from the chambers....

Then schedule a public hearing.

[Citified.ca]

As Oak Bay struggles to twist its way into explaining why 14 units of housing in a four-storey building were denied, in between two four-storey buildings with even more density, Sooke appears to be going all in.

 

 

161-unit rental project in Sooke's town centre moves closer towards construction start

https://victoria.cit...truction-start/

[Citified.ca]

It's nice to see this proposal back.

 

Revised Esquimalt rental complex moves forward with 10 car-lite units on Craigflower at Arm

https://victoria.cit...gflower-at-arm/

 

[Lapis Homes]

It's nice to finally be building this one!

 

It's nice to see this proposal back.

 

Revised Esquimalt rental complex moves forward with 10 car-lite units on Craigflower at Arm

https://victoria.cit...gflower-at-arm/

 

812-craigflower-road.jpg

[Mike K.]

Good work you guys!

No MMHI regulation, just a practical council.

[Lapis Homes]

Is that serious in the context of what I went through on this project?

Four years and I received a flat out rejection of my previous proposal that was already well under the official community plan for this location. It almost put me out of doing this stuff.

I can’t see proposing another middle housing project in this municipality unless I find the perfect property (which doesn’t exist) or they introduce a practical missing middle policy.

Good work you guys!

No MMHI regulation, just a practical council.

[lanforod]

What would you change to make that process max 2 years, or 1 year? Do you think what the province is attempting will work?

[Mike K.]

In the context of Oak Bay, Esquimalt is miles ahead!

Wasn’t the feedback in 2020, regarding the four-storey, 12-unit proposal, that the site coverage was just too high for an SFD lot? I recall hearing council didn’t have a problem with the height or massing, but not on a single lot.

[Lapis Homes]

For middle housing, politicians have to get rid of the uncertainty — otherwise these projects remain few and far between. The risks are too high for the payoff compared to much larger projects (it’s why most decent developers tend to go bigger as the work is generally the same).

I’m interested to see what the province does. The rhetoric is positive but as we’ve seen with the challenges of Victoria’s middle housing policy, the details are important, they’ll need to upzone for enough density to make the numbers work in todays environment and they have to treat it exactly like single detached replacements.

What would you change to make that process max 2 years, or 1 year? Do you think what the province is attempting will work?

[Lapis Homes]

The feedback was mixed. They held a pseudo public hearing at second reading without giving me a chance to bring support — as neighbours came out and advocated against it.

Shading of tomato plants and neighbour trees from the four storeys was a big concern.

And yes, my read was that that council had zero lens to imagine how great that building would have been particularly taking a longer term view of the corridor (it would have felt a bit like GMC’s building on cook near Fort, but more vibrant and interactive with the local outdoor coffee shop). Three storeys here is ridiculous if anyone imagines past the next 10 or so years and the compounding crisis we’re facing.

It’s going to be (or better be) the absolute runt on the block, but that’s the problem with applying a site by site rezoning lens with no long term vision or understanding of the population growth we are experiencing.

In the context of Oak Bay, Esquimalt is miles ahead!

Wasn’t the feedback in 2020, regarding the four-storey, 12-unit proposal, that the site coverage was just too high for an SFD lot? I recall hearing council didn’t have a problem with the height or massing, but not on a single lot.

[Mike K.]

Got it, thank you.

If 812 Craigflower was in the CoV, would you have also secured 10 units? I’m trying to gauge how the CoV’s MMHI is better than not having a specific policy, but being willing to approve higher density on single SFD lots (as Esquimalt did here).

[Lapis Homes]

Got it, thank you.

If 812 Craigflower was in the CoV, would you have also secured 10 units? I’m trying to gauge how the CoV’s MMHI is better than not having a specific policy, but being willing to approve higher density on single SFD lots (as Esquimalt did here).

 

No because the CoV's MMHI doesn't apply to mid-rise-designated sites like this, as they want to see higher density housing proposed on higher density designated lots so rezoning would be necessary regardless of CoV's MMHI (I'd argue that if we're serious about the crisis, CoV should upzone mid-rise sites too).

 

There is no apples to apples comparison as CoV's MMHI applies to all "traditional"-designated properties ("low-density" in Esquimalt). Esquimalt is less likely to approve anything beyond a duplex on the vast majority of low-density designated sites (unless the property is ridiculously large and neighbours higher density... but it's still a large risk), so it's really the opposite that Esquimalt is a lot less willing to approve higher density on stand alone single detached lots.

[Mike K.]

Thanks for being patient with me here, I appreciate it.

[Lapis Homes]

No problem, Mike. This project took a lot out of me, so I am a little testy about it.

 

Happy to sit down with you over a coffee later this summer (once we get this building out of the ground) and get into more detail on why it's so important we see MM by right.  

 

Ryan

250-413-7121