208 replies to this topic

[Phil McAvity]

Yeah, thanks for the research Rob.


This is yet another example of a commercial building replaced by a residential building.

And what's the commercial vacancy rate again?

[jklymak]

? I thought this was going to be offices...

[Kapten Kapsell]

? I thought this was going to be offices...

I think that the building will primarily be a combination office/residential structure (like SoMa on Broughton), but there will be street-fronting retail on Fort.

[G-Man]

^ No it is just office with ground floor commercial. The residential portion has been nixed.

[aastra]

How many examples do we have of commercial buildings that were replaced by residential buildings that didn't include at least as much commercial space as the buildings they replaced?

The only one that comes to mind is the Mosaic on Fort Street. Any others? Corazon was a parking lot, right?

[Phil McAvity]

^Corazon wasn't just a parking lot, but a gravel parking lot. I'm surprised the axis of heritage didn't whine about the loss of that parking lot since it was reminiscent of the nineteenth century.

The Ministry of Forests building on Government street was entirely replaced by residential/retail as was, I believe, the old building around the corner on Johnson.

^ No it is just office with ground floor commercial. The residential portion has been nixed.

Wow, weird.

It doesn't look like an office building, but okay.

[Phil McAvity]

double post

[Rob Randall]

It doesn't look like an office building, but okay.

That's because it was originally designed by Jan Zak as primary residential. Another couple of architectural firms tweaked the design over the last couple of years on its way to the final proposal which is primary office. The Fort St. retail units and the Meares St. townhouse units remain from the initial design, however.

The increased ceiling height needed for office means there will be a slight increase in overall height to the building that will need to be approved by City Hall.

Here's a letter we just received which may clarify things for you. I hope it does because I tried to read it and my head started to hurt. The feeling among our Land Use Committee is "just build the damn thing already".

947 Fort Holdings Ltd.
PO Box 50040
15-1594 Fairfield Road
Victoria, BC
V8S 1G0

Planning and Development Department March 06, 2009
#1 Centennial Square
Victoria, BC
V8W 1P6
Attention: Mayor and Council

RE: Development Permit Application: Lot 1 of Lots 722 & 741, Victoria City, Plan 26075 - 947 Fort Street.

Background:
On September 14, 2006, Council issued a development permit for the above referenced property
to allow development of a six storey building. At that time the approved plans consisted of retail
on the ground floor level facing Fort Street, and residential townhouses on the ground floor level
facing Meares Street. The five floors above were dedicated to residential condominiums.
Shortly after the development permit was approved market conditions for condominium sales
began to weaken and the applicant elected not to proceed with the development. With the
condominium market still unsettled the applicant has elected to pursue an office building
development rather than the approved condominium scenario. Demolition of the existing building
commenced in January 2009 and excavation is underway. It should be noted that the Fort Street
retail and the Meares Street townhouses have been retained with the office scenario. This
development permit application is simply intended to amend/replace the current development
permit to accommodate three variances.

Discussion:

It is very important to maintain a finished floor level for the proposed residential units so that
they remain slightly above the Meares Street sidewalk elevation. To have residential units in this
location, situated at or below grade, would not be in keeping with CPTED principles, nor would it
make for good neighbourhood interaction, privacy, and enjoyment of the individual units. In
addition, as a result of the switch from residential to office use, the floor to floor height has been
increased to accommodate the necessary mechanical equipment/ducting associated with an office
building. Every effort has been expended to minimize the overall effect of these changes such that
the overall building height increase is only 2.6m (from 20.5 m to 23.1 m).
The second required variance pertains to parking. This site is located in a part of the city that is
well known for its difficult soil conditions and abundance of blue clay. The geotechnical engineer
has designed a ‘mat foundation system’ that will support the building slightly above the level of
bedrock. This recommended depth will accommodate two and one half levels of underground
parking and 49 stalls. The parking bylaw requirement for office use is slightly higher than the
residential standard and therefore a parking variance of 15 stalls is required. While it may be
technically possible to excavate further and switch to a foundation set on piles embedded in
bedrock, the process would be prohibitively expensive and immensely disruptive to the
surrounding properties.
The third variance is really a housekeeping issue left over from the rezoning and development
permit approval of 2006. The new zone created for this site, CA-58, references the CA-42 zone
for the list of permitted uses. The CA-42 zone regulates a large portion of Fort Street and
prohibits ground level residential. This restriction was intended to ensure that developments
would provide and maintain an active street level retail environment with residential uses on the
floors above. This site has double frontage - it faces both Fort and Meares streets. The south side
of Meares Street is characterized by its predominantly residential use. In 2006, as a condition of
the rezoning, area residents, council and the Downtown Residents Association insisted that the
ground floor level of Meares Street contain a residential component. This ground level residential
would ensure that the established Meares Street residents would not be viewing the ‘back side’ of
the development but rather would have an opportunity to interact with their new neighbours.
There should have been a notation in the CA-58 zone to allow ground level residential on Meares
Street. This application is simply maintaining and formalizing the residential use previously
provided.
It should also be noted that this is a LEED gold office building and as such it is equipped with an
abundance of bicycle parking, shower and locker facilities for office staff, and a fitness/yoga
room. Car pooling/van pooling will be encouraged as outlined in the LEED design manual, and
Fort Street offers and abundance of transit options. A complete LEED certification checklist for
the project is attached.
Further support for the proposed parking variance comes from the fact that the committed
tenants, all currently located in other buildings in the downtown core area, are taking a 15 year
lease with options to renew. As part of the lease they have asked for 32 parking spaces. Based on
their floor area leased, the number of stalls ‘allocated’ to their space by Schedule ‘C’ is 46 stalls,
so they are only taking 70% of their expected allocation.

Data Table Summary:

Bylaw req.
CA-58 Zone
Proposed Variance
Height 20.5 m -seven
storeys
23.1 m – six
storeys
2.6 m
Parking 64 49 15

The proposed variances requested above have been reviewed by the Downtown Residents
Association and a letter with their comments dated February 26th, 2009 is included with this
application.
I trust you will find the requested variances to be reasonable and to be within the form and
character parameters of the existing development permit.

Sincerely,
Roger Tinney MCIP
Project Planner

[D notes]

I wonder if we will see any concrete on this project soon.

[concorde]

I wonder if we will see any concrete on this project soon.

Around summer time last time I spoke with the team

[D notes]

thanks concorde,any word on who's doing the formwork

[concorde]

not yet

[Phil McAvity]

That's because it was originally designed by Jan Zak as primary residential.

Ahhh, so that's why it looks residential. I expect the develeper wasn't interested in paying Zak to completely redesign the thing so he just re-purposed the building.

While a building that is 75 feet tall isn't exactly a towering skyscraper, I can't imagine the people in your building are too thrilled about this project.

[concorde]

There is trouble behind the scenes on this one. Don't expect construction to start for a bit...

[Rob Randall]

Trouble? This project already has had every pitfall imaginable thrown at it.

[D notes]

money problems??????

[concorde]

no, but I will provide details in time.

[Ms. B. Havin]

^ If it's not money, I'm guessing soil conditions/ engineering issues. (But that's a wild guess.)

<sigh>

We should invent a group noun word for construction sites that slow or stall after either an otherwise serviceable building has been torn down or a giant pit has been dug, and the site is left unusable for other things.

Like, "a murder of crows," these would be...?

An eyesore of unbuilts?

[Nparker]

An eyesore of unbuilts?

"A ruin of Radii"

[D notes]

Drove by at 3pm today nothing going on at all.Site looked clean thou.