Whatever is going on, there are no tenant improvement BPs issued for the property
APPROVED Cook & Pendergast Uses: condo, commercial Address: 324-328 Cook Street Municipality: Victoria Region: Urban core Storeys: 4 Condo units: (1BR, 2BR, 3BR) Sales status: in planning |
Learn more about Cook & Pendergast on Citified.ca
[Fairfield] Cook & Pendergast (Pic-A-Flic Video site) | Residential and commercial
#101
Posted 22 May 2019 - 03:00 PM
#102
Posted 22 May 2019 - 03:11 PM
Minor detail. LOL
Ask for forgiveness, not permission.
They wouldn't be the first to start demolishing interior walls without having a permit in hand.
#103
Posted 23 May 2019 - 09:43 AM
Whatever is going on, there are no tenant improvement BPs issued for the property
Depending on what is being done, not all tenant improvements need BPs
#104
Posted 23 May 2019 - 09:49 AM
Is that correct, tjv?
Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.
#105
Posted 23 May 2019 - 10:02 AM
Pretty much
#106
Posted 30 May 2019 - 12:15 PM
Looks like a sale or rental centre for the developer, Aragon Properties: "New Showroom for Aragon Discovery Centre" (BP055439); Strip out - non-structural (BP055254).
#107
Posted 13 July 2019 - 02:59 PM
- Mike K. likes this
#109
Posted 28 October 2019 - 12:03 PM
There is a letter on development tracker dated October 9, 2019, and some updated plans (only minimal changes, which appear to be restricted to the design of the Pendergast boulevard only).
CAC of $300K, which includes cash in lieu of subsidized rental for daycare space which was offered and then frustrated.
"We hope that the Mayor and Council can conclude that our application was made under the guidelines existing at that time and evaluate it under those circumstances existing at that time."
I wonder if this is the beginning of a possible legal challenge. The application was originally filed in February 2018.
#110
Posted 13 March 2020 - 04:59 PM
This is going back to CotW on Thursday March 19. Aragon investigated the option of working with BC Housing to secure affordable rentals, but that has turned out to be unfeasible. So Aragon is proposing to scrap the planned daycare facility and contribute its planned subsidy of the facility to the City's housing fund instead; the amount is approx. $161k. See:
https://pub-victoria...ocumentId=51551
#111
Posted 14 March 2020 - 07:14 PM
#112
Posted 15 March 2020 - 05:53 PM
Edited by Jackerbie, 15 March 2020 - 05:55 PM.
#113
Posted 16 March 2020 - 06:38 AM
Note that the daycare facility was scrapped because the strata didn't want it there (it's in a neighbouring building, not located in the proposed development) and as a result Aragon is proposing to sell the commercial strata unit to the City at 25% below cost for expansion of the Cook Street Village Activity Centre
This is becoming a very creative deal with Development & City.
Thanks for the Coles Notes Jackerbie.
“To understand cities, we have to deal outright with combinations or mixtures of uses, not separate uses, as the essential phenomena.”
- Jane Jacobs
#114
Posted 19 March 2020 - 01:29 PM
Did anyone catch the live stream of COTW this morning? I'm just curious to see if this proposal passed and will move forward to a public hearing ...
#115
Posted 19 March 2020 - 01:58 PM
Did anyone catch the live stream of COTW this morning? I'm just curious to see if this proposal passed and will move forward to a public hearing ...
Loveday made a motion to postpone for two weeks. It passed with Helps and Alto opposed.
#116
Posted 19 March 2020 - 03:03 PM
Loveday made a motion to postpone for two weeks. It passed with Helps and Alto opposed.
Any idea why Alto opposed?
“To understand cities, we have to deal outright with combinations or mixtures of uses, not separate uses, as the essential phenomena.”
- Jane Jacobs
#117
Posted 19 March 2020 - 03:25 PM
Any idea why Alto opposed?
I didn't watch the full livestream, but the gist of the motion was that there were more pressing matters than land use on the agenda. In case there was confusion, Helps and Alto opposed the motion to postpone for two weeks. There was no vote and little discussion on whether to send this to a public hearing, as the matter was postponed.
For those interested, the archived video is posted almost immediately after the meeting, so you can watch it online. It's easiest if you click the HTML agenda, which will include a small video window in addition to the agenda. Clicking the item will usually land you pretty close to the right time in the video. https://www.victoria...e-meetings.html
Edited by Jackerbie, 19 March 2020 - 03:28 PM.
#118
Posted 19 March 2020 - 06:33 PM
I didn't watch the full livestream, but the gist of the motion was that there were more pressing matters than land use on the agenda. In case there was confusion, Helps and Alto opposed the motion to postpone for two weeks. There was no vote and little discussion on whether to send this to a public hearing, as the matter was postponed.
For those interested, the archived video is posted almost immediately after the meeting, so you can watch it online. It's easiest if you click the HTML agenda, which will include a small video window in addition to the agenda. Clicking the item will usually land you pretty close to the right time in the video. https://www.victoria...e-meetings.html
Sorry Jackerbie. I got confused.
I thought you said the project passed Public Hearing with Helps and Aalto opposed.
I see now you were just talking about the postponement.
“To understand cities, we have to deal outright with combinations or mixtures of uses, not separate uses, as the essential phenomena.”
- Jane Jacobs
#119
Posted 15 May 2020 - 02:01 PM
This goes back to CotW on Thursday May 21.
- Mike K. likes this
#120
Posted 21 May 2020 - 11:15 AM
Did anyone see if this passed to a public hearing at this morning's CotW meeting?
Edited by Kapten Kapsell, 21 May 2020 - 11:15 AM.
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