671 replies to this topic

[VicHockeyFan]

Yeah there have not been any public meetings. This will not be breaking ground in any form till 2014.

Yes, it is strange then that they say this on the website:

Unitech is proud to announce the award of the Construction and Project Management contract for a 10 and 14 storey residential and commercial development, above 1 and 2 levels of underground parking, at 1075 Pandora Avenue in Victoria, BC.

Pandora | Unitech Construction Management

[MarkoJ]

[renthefinn]

^is that just a mast for a drill rig, could be enviro or geotech drilling, required for design and permitting purposes...

[Downtownguy99]

I sent an email off to the downtown community association (Harris Green) asking if there had been any news about this proposal. The reply from the chair was that they were changes made to the application.....I am still waiting to hear what those are....in the meantime has anyone heard anything about this?

[Mike K.]

That's all they told you? Sheesh, gone are the days of Robert Randall, I guess.

[Downtownguy99]

Just got word back from the downtown community association that this proposal has gone to the city planning department for the first round....I have requested information from them to see what was submitted but nothing yet.
As far as I heard the 10 story on Johnson st is still the same with no variances for zoning...

[Mike K.]

Thanks for keeping us updated, dg!

[G-Man]

^^ I don't think they need a variance. It seems in keeping with the zoning so long as they have an ample density bonus plan.

[Rob Randall]

I'm amazed this doesn't need a variance and is conforming to the City's building separation rules. I wonder what the actual distances are. They must conform down to the inch.

[MarkoJ]

They need zero offset from property line? Isn't the lot only 60' wide?

[Rob Randall]

They only get zero clearance if it's a streetwall (like Old Town) or if there are no windows. Once you put windows in you have to pull back. Living room and bedroom windows have to be farther away than hallway or other non-living space windows.

[MarkoJ]

Don't they have windows?

[Downtownguy99]

Many of us in Sutton East at 1034 are quite concerned about this proposal, keeping with how tight they are going to be to our property line. We saw the guys out surveying during the summer looking at exactly where our property line is to your comment about confirming down to the inch...
What I dont understand is how this could be allowed given the proximity to our building, this will completely cut off of natural light to our living areas, (bedrooms, living and dining areas) and that we will loose completely our sight lines to any sky at all other than a small narrow window to the south and north.

It is interesting when you read the OCP for this area and see the wording on varying heights to add interest and density etc. yet this proposal seems to fly in the face of what the city wants in terms of look and feel of this end of the block - who wants 4 ten story buildings all in a row at an anchor point (end point) of a block?

I cant wait for the public meetings for this one....

[Rob Randall]

I can assure you that any reasonably presented concerns about proximity will be seriously considered by Council, especially if you address what's covered in the OCP (which has more enforceable rules than previous "design guidelines").

This is an important test case for the new OCP.

It doesn't look like there are any "living area" windows facing Sutton, maybe glass block if anything. So they technically can come quite close.

My gut feeling based on my knowledge of City Hall is that even if Staff recommend this go forward as presented (doubtful) that Council will probably want it reduced in size based on the OCP. It's not just the proximity, it's the table top skyline they won't like.

[jonny]

In general, I don't have a problem with two buildings being close to each other, but in this location it seems odd given all of the open space around the area. From an urban planning perspective, there are much higher priority properties for redevelopment IMO; however, the landowner has the right to develop their property (within applicable laws and regulations of course), so it'll be interesting to see where this one lands.

[Downtownguy99]

With regards to this proposal going through the city and the process - what is the best way to keep informed of its progress and when meetings may be held etc.?

[G-Man]

As has been discussed previously in this thread this meets the new OCP so long as the density bonus scheme is met to the city's liking.

That said I expect the city to cut this in half at least before allowing it to go ahead especially because due to the proximity the density bonus will have to be VERY generous. If I had a concern this is where I would push the city. Owners X are losing out to Y degree and the city is only getting Z.

Still there will likely be something built here no matter what. Even a four storey building is going to impact some people in Sutton East. So expect animosity if those on higher levels win while those further down still lose.

I think that those trees are pretty much just on the Sutton side of the property line which would give them about 3 or four feet on their side of the line.

[jklymak]

^ Even if you are on the 2nd floor, there is a big difference between having 10 stories beside you and 4. There is no way, in my opinion, that a 10 storey building should be allowed on that narrow lot. Density on that block is used up - development should be somewhere else.

[G-Man]

I agree that a ten storey building is too high here but how is density used up on a block? The owner gets to build to zoning at the least which is 3:1 fsr the city cannot stop that, that means at least a three storey building though likely higher.

[Downtownguy99]

I have received word that the city has the proposals now which includes the 13 story apartment on the Pandora side and the 10 story Condo / Commercial building on the Johnson street side.
Still think they are going to have a tough time getting the 10 story through the city - as another user has pointed out - certainly will look very 'table top' at the end of Johnson if this goes ahead in its present state.
That being said I would never chant NIMBY as living downtown you have to pro-development but with that it has to be development that is carefully considered in terms of visual effects and livability to the other residents in the area.