Jump to content

      













Photo

[James Bay] 415/435 Michigan Street | Rentals; townhomes | 3-storeys | Proposed


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Citified.ca

Citified.ca
  • Administrator
  • 1,598 posts
  • LocationVictoria, BC

Posted 03 November 2017 - 10:58 AM

Thanks for the heads-up, shoeflack!

 

12 two-storey townhomes with rooftop terraces, plus 12 studio apartments are slated for the green space between James Bay's Charter House and Regent Tower residential buildings.

 

Townhome-and-studio-apartment-rentals-proposed-for-James-Bays-Michigan-Street.jpg

An artist's rendering of 415/435 Michigan Street, a 24-unit townhome and studio apartment rental complex proposed for land between the 14-storey Charter House (at left) and 13-storey Regent Tower rental buildings in James Bay.

 

Townhome and studio apartment rentals proposed for James Bay's Michigan Street

https://victoria.cit...ichigan-street/


  • Kapten Kapsell, Nparker and shoeflack like this
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.

#2 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,667 posts

Posted 14 March 2018 - 09:30 AM

OMG. I absolutely nailed the objections:

Nparker, on 13 Mar 2018 - 2:03 PM, said:


How long before someone complains it's too tall, too dense, too many trees are being removed, it's too expensive and will have an adverse affect on traffic/parking. In other words, the same objections made every single time increased density is proposed.

 

...C: lives in 3 unit townhouse down the street, with 2 parking spaces/unit, underground, doesn’t believe proposal has adequate parking – will be a lot of push-back since inadequate parking

C: Trees 4 existing tress marked for removal (not 2 as stated) – doesn’t believe parking will be adequate ...
...Q: 415 Michigan resident – concerned about loss of green space in JB – feels the existing green space has been a part of the community for the last 45 yrs+ there is too much density in the area. Feels new structure will be a blight – and cost will require more than what is proposed for number of residents per unit.
...C: don’t need luxury housing

 


  • Mike K. likes this

#3 nagel

nagel
  • Member
  • 5,751 posts

Posted 14 March 2018 - 09:39 AM

I already own property.  Please don't let more people live around here it will make things more difficult for me.  

 

Sincerely,

older people


  • Nparker, jonny, tjv and 1 other like this

#4 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 2,484 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 14 March 2018 - 09:43 AM

What I find terribly ironic is that they need to rezone because the proposed building isn't tall enough


  • aastra, Nparker and grantpalin like this

#5 Baro

Baro
  • Member
  • 4,317 posts

Posted 14 March 2018 - 09:51 AM

Seems pretty disrespectful to the neighbouring buildings to build such a low-density low-height building there.


  • VicHockeyFan likes this
"beats greezy have baked donut-dough"

#6 tjv

tjv
  • Member
  • 2,403 posts

Posted 14 March 2018 - 10:01 AM

I already own property.  Please don't let more people live around here it will make things more difficult for me.  

 

Sincerely,

older people

^You absolutely nailed it!

 

I've parked around there before and the residents feel they own the on street parking.  Luckily I got all the tickets squashed


  • Mike K. and VicHockeyFan like this

#7 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 2,484 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 07 August 2019 - 09:52 AM

This one continues to march along, and the Dev Tracker indicates that staff review is done and it'll be off to CotW, though no date is given. Despite going through 6 revisions, it looks basically the same as the first proposal at the top of this page.

 

Dev Tracker is here: https://tender.victo...Number=REZ00637

 

Given the amount of pain Starlight is going through for these 24 townhouse units in James Bay, I wonder how they're feeling about their Harris Green investment...



#8 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 23,667 posts

Posted 07 August 2019 - 09:56 AM

2 years in the approval process for a relatively small project like this is unacceptable.



#9 aastra

aastra
  • Member
  • 14,953 posts

Posted 07 August 2019 - 11:26 AM

When Victoria was smaller it built bigger, but now that Victoria is bigger it builds smaller. Did I mention the housing crisis is soon to be celebrating its 75th birthday?

 

415-435_Michigan_St.jpg


  • Nparker, grantpalin and Brantastic like this

#10 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 2,484 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 19 September 2019 - 08:12 AM

This one is on Council's agenda today. Staff recommend sending it to a Public Hearing, pending registration of legal agreement securing 100% of the units as rentals in perpetuity (why not just use the new rental tenure zoning???) and two of the units as below-market rate rentals in perpetuity.



#11 IPH

IPH
  • Member
  • 45 posts

Posted 19 September 2019 - 12:03 PM

This one is on Council's agenda today. Staff recommend sending it to a Public Hearing, pending registration of legal agreement securing 100% of the units as rentals in perpetuity (why not just use the new rental tenure zoning???) and two of the units as below-market rate rentals in perpetuity.

Council is requiring a rental housing agreement, as well as, the new rental tenure zoning on any rental rezoning proposals these days. 

I was at the COTW meeting today and Council voted to have staff work with the proponent to see if they can improve the TDM's to compensate for the parking variance requested.  Will have to go back to COTW before proceeding to a public hearing.


Edited by IPH, 19 September 2019 - 12:04 PM.


#12 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 2,484 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 19 September 2019 - 03:33 PM

Council is requiring a rental housing agreement, as well as, the new rental tenure zoning on any rental rezoning proposals these days. 

I was at the COTW meeting today and Council voted to have staff work with the proponent to see if they can improve the TDM's to compensate for the parking variance requested.  Will have to go back to COTW before proceeding to a public hearing.

 

Gotcha, thanks for that



#13 threePs

threePs
  • Member
  • 56 posts

Posted 20 September 2019 - 11:10 AM

This one is on Council's agenda today. Staff recommend sending it to a Public Hearing, pending registration of legal agreement securing 100% of the units as rentals in perpetuity (why not just use the new rental tenure zoning???) and two of the units as below-market rate rentals in perpetuity.

Bylaws can always be varied. Restrictive covenants are much harder to get discharged off title.



#14 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 2,484 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 23 September 2019 - 07:45 AM

Bylaws can always be varied. Restrictive covenants are much harder to get discharged off title.

 

Land use cannot be varied, you would need to amend the bylaw



 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users