Jump to content

      












PROPOSED
1811 Oak Bay Avenue
Use: condo
Address: 1811 Oak Bay Avenue
Municipality: Victoria
Region: Urban core
Storeys: 5
Condo units: 15 (1BR, 2BR)
Sales status: in planning
1811 Oak Bay Avenue is a proposal to build a five-storey condominium proposal for the 1800-block of Oak Bay Av... (view full profile)
Learn more about 1811 Oak Bay Avenue on Citified.ca
Photo

[Rockland] 1811 Oak Bay Avenue | Condos | 5-storeys | Proposed


  • Please log in to reply
43 replies to this topic

#21 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,755 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 25 July 2019 - 09:07 AM

Public Hearing closed temporarily, Isitt wants to ask legal questions. I can only make assumptions, but I imagine the questions will be about municipal powers through the Local Government Act when considering development permits and variances.



#22 IPH

IPH
  • Member
  • 155 posts

Posted 25 July 2019 - 09:19 AM

Public Hearing closed temporarily, Isitt wants to ask legal questions. I can only make assumptions, but I imagine the questions will be about municipal powers through the Local Government Act when considering development permits and variances.

He is probably asking what power council has to make all the units free to all his comrades that voted for him.
  • Nparker likes this

#23 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 3,107 posts

Posted 25 July 2019 - 09:22 AM

I'm at work so I can't watch the meeting.  Jackerbie:  do councilors seem generally supportive of the application and its chances to move to a public hearing?



#24 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,755 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 25 July 2019 - 09:31 AM

I'm at work so I can't watch the meeting.  Jackerbie:  do councilors seem generally supportive of the application and its chances to move to a public hearing?

 

The questions seem weird and not entirely related to the application. So far there's been discussion on:

- rental versus strata (which is not up for consideration)

- the tenant relocation plan (which is a voluntary program and not up for consideration)

- the size of the replacement trees,

- the lack of a commercial component (which is not permitted in the zone)

- neighbourhood concerns with height (the proposal is within both the zoning and OCP height limits and no height variance is requested), and

- the configuration of the new sidewalk and other frontage improvements


Edited by Jackerbie, 25 July 2019 - 09:35 AM.

  • Mike K., Rob Randall and Kapten Kapsell like this

#25 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 29,186 posts

Posted 25 July 2019 - 09:38 AM

OMG this council wastes an enormous amount of time.  :whyme:



#26 Rob Randall

Rob Randall

    BIG TEXAS FORUMER

  • Member
  • 16,050 posts

Posted 25 July 2019 - 09:42 AM

This should be a rubber stamp unless there is something outrageous about the application. The onus is on council to put up or shut up. 

 

Advisory Design and the other expert committees will have already weighed in on this project.


  • Mike K. likes 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.”


#27 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,755 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 25 July 2019 - 10:05 AM

Moved forward with two opposed, Young and Isitt.

 

I've been in and out of the stream so not sure what Isitt's reasons were, but Young's primary concerns seemed to be with the City policies on road widening and statutory rights-of-way. He though the 3.35 m SRW for a new sidewalk and boulevard was excessive, and pushed the building too far back from the street and too near the lower density properties to the south.

 

I had to check out during his comments, but Young did speak to Council considering a greater range of residential housing forms near the arterials in order to buffer the 4-6 storey apartment buildings from the single-family and duplex dwellings elsewhere. Again, not sure if he made a motion on this but would be very good if he did.


  • Nparker likes this

#28 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 29,186 posts

Posted 25 July 2019 - 10:09 AM

Moved forward with two opposed, Young and Isitt...not sure what Isitt's reasons were...

Proposal doesn't offer free housing to everyone who voted for/plans to vote for him.



#29 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 63,886 posts

Posted 25 July 2019 - 10:36 AM

Can we officially designate this as approved?

 

Btw, is anyone else having trouble accessing the DT? https://tender.victo...ero/search.aspx


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


#30 Nparker

Nparker
  • Member
  • 29,186 posts

Posted 25 July 2019 - 10:40 AM

...Btw, is anyone else having trouble accessing the DT? https://tender.victo...ero/search.aspx

yes.



#31 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,755 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 25 July 2019 - 10:46 AM

Can we officially designate this as approved?

 

Btw, is anyone else having trouble accessing the DT? https://tender.victo...ero/search.aspx

 

Not approved. It's been moved forward for public comment (technically not a Public Hearing as this isn't a zoning amendment bylaw, it's just a development permit). The development permit has not been issued.


  • Mike K. likes this

#32 Mattjvd

Mattjvd
  • Member
  • 989 posts

Posted 25 July 2019 - 10:55 AM

Not approved. It's been moved forward for public comment (technically not a Public Hearing as this isn't a zoning amendment bylaw, it's just a development permit). The development permit has not been issued.


Wait, why does it need to go to public comment of there is no zoning change or variance requested?

#33 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 63,886 posts

Posted 25 July 2019 - 11:09 AM

So I've been thinking. Was this project shifted over to condominiums to circumvent any below-market requirements the City may have wanted to impose, even though the number of units is below 60 and would not fall under the 20% of units must be below-market requirement?

 

As part of an approval process would this project have been required to, in good faith, to allocate 1-3 units as below-market?


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


#34 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,755 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 25 July 2019 - 11:17 AM

So I've been thinking. Was this project shifted over to condominiums to circumvent any below-market requirements the City may have wanted to impose, even though the number of units is below 60 and would not fall under the 20% of units must be below-market requirement?

 

As part of an approval process would this project have been required to, in good faith, to allocate 1-3 units as below-market?

 

No, the application does not involve a change in zoning, so none of the community amenity or affordable housing policies are triggered. Under the Local Government Act, the City can only consider matters related the the design, character, and landscaping of the proposed development.

 

Wait, why does it need to go to public comment of there is no zoning change or variance requested?

 

Variances are requested, just not to height.


  • Kapten Kapsell and Mattjvd like this

#35 Kapten Kapsell

Kapten Kapsell
  • Member
  • 3,107 posts

Posted 25 July 2019 - 12:41 PM

So I've been thinking. Was this project shifted over to condominiums to circumvent any below-market requirements the City may have wanted to impose, even though the number of units is below 60 and would not fall under the 20% of units must be below-market requirement?

 

As part of an approval process would this project have been required to, in good faith, to allocate 1-3 units as below-market?

I think that there is a lot of purpose built rental in the pipeline at various stages (in planning, under construction etc) and so perhaps the developers saw an opportunity to move forward with a market condo project.  And there really aren't any new construction condos being marketed in Fairfield East / Oak Bay Border at the moment... 



#36 IPH

IPH
  • Member
  • 155 posts

Posted 25 July 2019 - 12:59 PM

variances are for lot size, site overage, open space, and set backs on 4 sides.

#37 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 63,886 posts

Posted 25 July 2019 - 01:05 PM

No, the application does not involve a change in zoning, so none of the community amenity or affordable housing policies are triggered. Under the Local Government Act, the City can only consider matters related the the design, character, and landscaping of the proposed development.


Variances are requested, just not to height.


Gotcha. So there are no requirements set out by the CoV requiring below-market inventory/cash-in-lieu if there is no rezoning being triggered on a property?

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


#38 Jackerbie

Jackerbie
  • Member
  • 3,755 posts
  • LocationRichmond, BC

Posted 25 July 2019 - 01:19 PM

Gotcha. So there are no requirements set out by the CoV requiring below-market inventory/cash-in-lieu if there is no rezoning being triggered on a property?

 

Correct. Staff can suggest the developer consider doing things out of the goodness of their heart, but at the end of the day the measuring stick is whatever form and character guidelines are contained in the Official Community Plan. That's a Local Government Act thing, not a CoV thing.

 

We recently ran into this same situation in Richmond with the redevelopment of Richmond Centre, which was pre-zoned decades ago for higher density development.



#39 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 63,886 posts

Posted 25 July 2019 - 01:40 PM

Got it. 

 

Thank you for the clarification.


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


#40 Mattjvd

Mattjvd
  • Member
  • 989 posts

Posted 25 July 2019 - 02:15 PM



Variances are requested, just not to height.


That makes sense, thanks Jackerbie.

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