Jump to content

      












APPROVED
Unity Commons
Uses: rental, commercial
Address: 1303 Fairfield Road
Municipality: Victoria
Region: Urban core
Storeys: 4
Unity Commons is a mixed-use, four-storey rental complex and ground floor commercial development in the City o... (view full profile)
Learn more about Unity Commons on Citified.ca
Photo

[Fairfield] Unity Commons (Fairfield United Church) | Rentals, commercial | Approved


  • Please log in to reply
144 replies to this topic

#81 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,757 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 15 May 2018 - 09:40 AM

It seems like they're gaming the system and I've never seen this done before.  Is it just getting creative with zoning & the OCP?  Why not just spot zone the damn thing and stop confusing the discussion; though, I'm open to being persuaded that the Large Urban Village designation is the right move for this site.

 

Can't spot zone without changing the OCP, unfortunately. Local Government Act does not allow Council to adopt a bylaw that is inconsistent with the land use designations in the OCP, so they need to change that in order to permit the slight increase in density proposed by the developer and supported by staff. The proposal appears to meet every other aspect of the Small Urban Village designation.

 

The draft Fairfield LAP has provisions to support the requested density, and if adopted it would supersede the land use designation in the OCP.


  • Bob Fugger, lanforod and nerka like this

#82 Bob Fugger

Bob Fugger

    Chief Factor

  • Member
  • 3,181 posts
  • LocationSouth Central CSV

Posted 15 May 2018 - 09:43 AM

Can't spot zone without changing the OCP, unfortunately. Local Government Act does not allow Council to adopt a bylaw that is inconsistent with the land use designations in the OCP, so they need to change that in order to permit the slight increase in density proposed by the developer and supported by staff. The proposal appears to meet every other aspect of the Small Urban Village designation.

 

The draft Fairfield LAP has provisions to support the requested density, and if adopted it would supersede the land use designation in the OCP.

Hey, thanks for this very good, technical response!  It makes sense but I didn't connect the pieces like you have.  Thanks!


  • Jackerbie likes this

#83 nerka

nerka
  • Member
  • 1,234 posts

Posted 15 May 2018 - 03:02 PM

Fairfield/Gonzalez is a rapidly aging neighbourhood and young families are being squeezed out of the community. Enrolment decline at Margaret Jenkins is approaching 10% despite the fact that our region is experiencing an increase in children and school boards are expanding educational spaces.

 

SJD across the street from this development is essentially 100% full and turned away students I understand. SJD catchment does draw from an area with greater diversity of housing (and more rentals) than the Margaret Jenkins catchment.



#84 nerka

nerka
  • Member
  • 1,234 posts

Posted 15 May 2018 - 03:06 PM

Does anyone know when the proposed rezoning/OCP amendment is going to council?  I'd consider a letter in support of this proposal.

 

The "No to Large Urban Village" signs that I have seen are far enough away from this development that I have no idea why the folks even care. I could at least understand why a next door neighbour or near neighbour would care about an extra story, but why folks 200 metres even care is beyond me.

 

Maybe by a trick of atmospheric physics it will block the view of Sooke Hills.



#85 PPPdev

PPPdev
  • Member
  • 313 posts

Posted 15 May 2018 - 05:13 PM

Can't spot zone without changing the OCP, unfortunately. Local Government Act does not allow Council to adopt a bylaw that is inconsistent with the land use designations in the OCP, so they need to change that in order to permit the slight increase in density proposed by the developer and supported by staff. The proposal appears to meet every other aspect of the Small Urban Village designation.

 

The draft Fairfield LAP has provisions to support the requested density, and if adopted it would supersede the land use designation in the OCP.

 

I only bring this up as a point of interest but your statement is partially true. Check out Rogers v. Saanich (1983), where the courts have stated “the written efforts of planners are really objectives and unless there is an absolute and direction collision...they should be regarded, generally speaking, as statements of policy and not be construed as would-be Acts of Parliament”.

 

This was further affirmed in a more recent court case on April 18, 2011 where the BC Supreme Court delivered a reasons for judgment in Residents and Ratepayers of Central Saanich Society v. Central Saanich (District).

 

I only post for interest, maybe there are some other planner legal nerds here  :banana:


  • Jackerbie likes this

#86 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 3,107 posts

Posted 02 August 2018 - 04:01 PM

The existing building is now boarded up and the congregation is meeting at the community center across the street.

Revised plans were submitted a few weeks ago (July 20). The number of rental apartments dropped to 15 (from 16) and the top floor was reduced in size. Other changes were made to the exterior and balconies.

Latest renderings:

EF7E9716-71AE-40FF-8CD6-AAFD28578C9C.jpeg

5CA31570-4323-48C6-BA59-EDC32988EEB9.jpeg

#87 Bob Fugger

Bob Fugger

    Chief Factor

  • Member
  • 3,181 posts
  • LocationSouth Central CSV

Posted 02 August 2018 - 04:25 PM

I'm going to look at these renderings tonight to help me get to sleep.  Jesus Christ of the United Church, it's bland!



#88 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 29,192 posts

Posted 02 August 2018 - 04:38 PM

It's not much, but it's better than some of the previous incarnations...and it's an architectural masterpiece compared to the latest plans for the Beacon Arms project.



#89 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,757 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 03 August 2018 - 09:01 AM

I still think that the tall corner element, which is clearly supposed to be reminiscent of the existing bell tower, should be designed and clad to evoke what it is replacing. It would be an easy way to both honour the historical building/use, as well as a give the new building some additional character.


  • Nparker likes this

#90 Rob Randall

Rob Randall

    BIG TEXAS FORUMER

  • Member
  • 16,061 posts

Posted 03 August 2018 - 09:24 AM

It's a project that really looks like it's torn between taking its place as the obvious bold focal point of the neighbourhood and trying to look as quiet and inconspicuous as possible to soothe the haters.


  • Baro, Jackerbie and Casual Kev like this

“I mean I just don’t understand the big Texas part, like maybe he’s from Texas? I want to know the back story.”


#91 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 3,107 posts

Posted 30 November 2018 - 04:39 PM

This is back before CotW next week.

#92 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 63,905 posts

Posted 30 November 2018 - 04:45 PM

Good grief. How many years has this been dragged out now?

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#93 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 3,107 posts

Posted 30 November 2018 - 05:02 PM

There are still signs in the neighbourhood opposing this project zzz

#94 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 29,192 posts

Posted 30 November 2018 - 05:37 PM

...How many years has this been dragged out now?

UC doesn't come close to the Northern Junk nightmare. The latter's progress is best measured in geologic time units.



#95 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 63,905 posts

Posted 30 November 2018 - 06:22 PM

2.5 years in the works now. Yeesh.

Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#96 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,757 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 06 December 2018 - 10:08 AM

Bunch of changes to this project in response to "community concerns." Notable ones include: drop in unit count from 16 to 15, setbacks shifted around, decreased sustainability target from BC Step Code 4 (Passive Haus) to Step 3, and the addition of a dog fountain.


Edited by Jackerbie, 06 December 2018 - 10:10 AM.


#97 Rob Randall

Rob Randall

    BIG TEXAS FORUMER

  • Member
  • 16,061 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 10:13 AM

and the addition of a dog fountain.

 

Sounds disastrous.

 

download.jpg


  • aastra and nerka like this

“I mean I just don’t understand the big Texas part, like maybe he’s from Texas? I want to know the back story.”


#98 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,757 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 06 December 2018 - 10:18 AM

Council is taking a quick break, this application is next up. You can watch or read the report here: https://pub-victoria...English&Item=13



#99 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 17,175 posts

Posted 06 December 2018 - 10:20 AM

I have to admit, 16 did seem to be extremely high. 15 is much better.

 

And I think we can all agree that the dog fountain issue needed to be addressed before any redevelopment could proceed.


  • Mike K., Nparker, Bob Fugger and 1 other like this

#100 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,757 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 06 December 2018 - 10:33 AM

^ Passiv Haus also sounds very foreign, so it's good that they are going with a BC Step Code 3 design, which seems like it will fit better in the local context.



You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users