[Harris Green] 1010 Fort Street | Rentals, commercial | 12-storeys | Proposed

What about this block of Fort Street suggests large ground floor setbacks are required?

Huge ground floor setbacks?
 

OK, he didn't say "huge" but claimed his south Jukebox ground floor setbacks were about twice what the adjacent 1010 Fort's were. And McColl didn't mention what his View St. street level setbacks were but I assume they are substantial. Someone will have to pull the plans and check. 

It was acknowledged that overall the 1010 setbacks were well below what's allowed except for those two top floors where it can't realistically be pulled in any more due to the narrowness of the lot.

Abstract said they tried very hard to get the adjacent Noodle House property but were unsuccessful.

OK, he didn't say "huge" but claimed his south Jukebox ground floor setbacks were about twice what the adjacent 1010 Fort's were. ..

Did he acknowledge the ground level of the 1000 block of Fort Street is almost entirely commercial in nature while the same block on View is mostly residential*? I am not sure how the two streets can be compared in this aspect.

*I imagine that in the not too distant future the car lots along the 1000 block of View Street will be replaced by residential buildings.

^No, well, the Abstract guy should have brought that up--that the City wants that block of View to be ground floor residential.

Pam Madoff attended but didn't make any comments or questions during the time I was there.

Abstract was adamant that the amenity was the offered density itself. That the City wants high density in Harris Green, especially rentals, and they are providing it.

Edited by Rob Randall, 17 July 2019 - 10:17 AM.

One person commented that Abstract are bad neighbours. That the workers on the Black and White project are bothersome, leaving garbage everywhere, noisy, rude, starting work before 6 am.

I'm surprised there wasn't a huge outcry about the lack of parking from the surrounding residents and businesses? We're proposing 10 stalls for 24 units a couple of blocks from this location and the surrounding properties are going ballistic! 

7 stalls for 55 units seems low, even in this walkable/bike-able and transit orientated location.  If every unit in the building is under 45 m2 (which is unlikely), Schedule C requires 0.5 stalls per market rental dwelling unit plus 0.1 visitors stalls per unit in the core area.  That would equate to a requirement of 33 parking stalls not 7.  Any units larger than 45 m2 require a greater number of parking stalls.

At the public meeting for Abstracts first plan for this site there were a lot of residents from the Mosaic & Jigsaw that were quite vocal about the lack of parking.  Businesses along Fort have also been quite critical about the bike lane impacts on available street parking, so I suspect quite a few of them will also object to only 7 parking stalls for 55 units. 

Welcome to VV!

That particular property does not require any parking, actually. Parking requirements are nixed if the street frontage of a property is below a certain distance, and 1010 Fort Street is, or the area of the property is below a certain square footage (which I think 1010 Fort Street also is).

Thanks Mike,

do you know were the parking exemption is documented?  I thought schedule C applies to all properties and wasn't aware of that exemption.  Would be interested in tracking what sites meet the no parking requirement.

Ah, found it, its in the Harris Green Green Commercial District CA-42 Zone.  But that zone also restricts the building to 4 storeys.  They are asking for rezoning so they will need that exemption carried over to the new zone.

Apparently due to soil conditions the cost of providing adequate parking is about twice as much as normal. Prohibitively expensive. 

It's sort of the worst of both worlds. Not nearly enough parking to satisfy demand but a large parking entrance takes up much of the street frontage.

Apparently due to soil conditions the cost of providing adequate parking is about twice as much as normal. Prohibitively expensive. 

 

It's sort of the worst of both worlds. Not nearly enough parking to satisfy demand but a large parking entrance takes up much of the street frontage.

This is one reason why I wish that our city had more lanes/alleys so that parking could be accessed from the rear of the structure, allowing more of the street frontage to be utilized as commercial or live/work spaces.

^View Street access would have been great here.

A mid-block walkway wasn't mandated in this area. For one thing, the immediate commercial neighbours objected and no strong reason why you would want to pull pedestrians off Fort onto View since it is not commercial.

Edited by Rob Randall, 17 July 2019 - 12:39 PM.

Just to make it clear, Abstract is not obligated to provide any public amenities, cash or otherwise.

The City's policy is here: https://pub-victoria...ocumentId=36307

Abstract had initially aired the option of providing ten units of below-market housing as part of this project, but they may now opt to do a cash payout to the City in lieu of those units at 1010 Fort and focus their below-market efforts elsewhere.

 

In other words, there was no set-in-stone requirement to have those units within this project, but it was aired as a workable option at the time.

Correct. The Housing Agreement with respect to 1201 Fort requires 5 Low Income Units and 5 Moderate Income Units. Abstract can enter into a Replacement Housing Agreement for these units. If they are not provided by December 31, 2020, then they pay $250K ($25K/unit) to the City as an amenity payment (the CoV is holding the monies in trust). There was no designation in the Housing Agreement of 1010 Fort as being the location of the affordable units, although it was always talked about by Abstract as being a possibility. They could locate them anywhere in the CoV, assuming that they met the requirements. It was part of the approval documents related to the Bellewood Park project.

There was no designation in the Housing Agreement of 1010 Fort as being the location of the affordable units, although it was always talked about by Abstract as being a possibility. 

It wasn't just talked about, it was a written commitment that they backed out of--but only after they informed the neighbourhood it was a done deal as soon as the rezoning was approved. 

I am simply reading By-law NO. 18-042 HOUSING AGREEMENT (1201 FORT STREET & 1050 PENTRELEW PLACE AFFORDABLE HOUSING). If City Council didn't include it in the re-zoning conditions, how was it a written commitment?

I am simply reading By-law NO. 18-042 HOUSING AGREEMENT (1201 FORT STREET & 1050 PENTRELEW PLACE AFFORDABLE HOUSING). If City Council didn't include it in the re-zoning conditions, how was it a written commitment?

That's because you're reading an old document. A subsequent agreement promised 1010 Fort would get 1201's 10 low/moderate income units.

The timeline follows:

• March 2018: An agreement was made for 1201 Fort (Truth Centre) to have 10 affordable units.
• April 2018: Abstract indicates at a public meeting the intention to transfer those affordable units to 1010 Fort.
• October 2018: Times Colonist article stating that 1201's affordable units would be transferred to 1010.
• June 2019: Abstract formally recommits unit transfer in writing.
• July 2019: Abstract denies transfer was promised; blames miscommunication. 

Edited by Rob Randall, 18 July 2019 - 08:27 AM.

I watched much of the public meeting for 1201 Fort (Truth Centre / Bellewood Park), and I recall Abstract pitching the affordable units for 1010 Fort as part of their push to win approval for the strata development (at 1201 Fort).  I also recall that the proximity of 1010 Fort to 1201 Fort as being part of the broader discussion as the affordable units were within a few blocks of the market condos, and Mayor Helps specifically cited that 1010 Fort affordable units as part of her justification for voting in favour of Bellewood Park. 

From the April 2018 meeting, the DRA's land use committee also noted that they strongly object to the tethering of a commitment from one project to another, and believe that this is a de-facto security for support for a separate project.

"Subsequent to the Community meeting it was learned that the 10 “affordable” housing units promoted at the CALUC meeting for this project were actually a commitment made to leverage Council approval for another project 500 meters distant at 1201 Fort Street in the Rockland neighbourhood. No other type of amenity was offered for the 1010 Fort Street application. The DRA LUC strongly objects to Council considering amenity transfers tied to projects that are subject to concurrent/subsequent re-zoning applications. This situation clearly demonstrates the potential conflict by proposing an amenity for one site and not disclosing that it is actually a commitment made for another while at the same time fettering Council’s discretion; obligating one rezoning to serve the commitments of another."

 

So Abstract appears to have pivoted to parallel the DRA's point of view, and is now contemplating paying into the City's housing reserve fund for 1010 Fort Street as a standalone amenity contribution, while pushing the delivery of 10-units of below-market rentals to another site.

I'm not saying this will be the case, but Abstract/NVision are currently refurbishing The Stanley, a building constructed in 1913. This building may be a target for some form of below-market unit(s).