+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Land Development and Real Estate (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Urban Areas (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=5)
+--- Thread: Victoria Commons (/showthread.php?tid=105)
RE: Victoria Commons - kevinchoi519 - 09-27-2016
(09-27-2016, 04:55 PM)KitWat Wrote: I have occupied a condo in phase 1 after years and years of delays and there are still a lot of incomplete items in the condo building. I heard there is a lot of commercial interest from big brands and local shops but who knows when Phase 3 will actually be built. The piazza was suppose to be done for Phase 1 for the townhouse and phase 1 condo owners but I think plans have changed anyone know anything?
phase 3, 4 and 5 dont even have site plan approval...phase 1 and 2 are 100 perecent residential and the 3 4 and 5 phases/buildings were suppose to have commercial but they have no approvals and may never be built....
RE: Victoria Commons - JCnb - 11-20-2016
Photo update Nov 20th, phase II building receiving brick. Townhomes are complete, exterior common areas and roads getting finished off. Nothing has progressed on the green space anywhere on site including the public park. Still looks the same today as when photos were posted here back in September.
RE: Victoria Commons - Chris - 08-08-2017
Some photos of the finished condos and town homes on St. Leger. They have also paved the path out to Louisa from inside the development.
RE: Victoria Commons - Markster - 08-08-2017
Thanks for the pictures, I just biked through there on the weekend, and was thinking this needed an update.
The "Grand Common" is still a long way away. I guess it shouldn't be a surprise that it will be the last item completed, after the remaining condo buildings.
Some notes:
*) There is no exit from the neighbourhood to the northwest. No pedestrian paths out to Blucher or Margaret. This will need to be fixed. I'm sure a muddy track will appear in short order, but they really need formalized access to the #8 bus.
*) The interior roads are shockingly uninviting. The ground level is largely just garage doors and front doors, with nothing else. Many units don't really have a yard to speak of at all. (though I suppose they have back yards that don't front on roads)
*) It feels very dense, which makes the absence of any commercial in the development even more conspicuous. There are a lot of people here who need sundries and could use a community gathering spot, and none exists. Hopefully with the delay in starting the remaining 3 apartment-style buildings, this will be able to change.
RE: Victoria Commons - panamaniac - 08-08-2017
(08-08-2017, 01:13 PM)Markster Wrote: Thanks for the pictures, I just biked through there on the weekend, and was thinking this needed an update.
The "Grand Common" is still a long way away. I guess it shouldn't be a surprise that it will be the last item completed, after the remaining condo buildings.
Some notes:
*) There is no exit from the neighbourhood to the northwest. No pedestrian paths out to Blucher or Margaret. This will need to be fixed. I'm sure a muddy track will appear in short order, but they really need formalized access to the #8 bus.
*) The interior roads are shockingly uninviting. The ground level is largely just garage doors and front doors, with nothing else. Many units don't really have a yard to speak of at all. (though I suppose they have back yards that don't front on roads)
*) It feels very dense, which makes the absence of any commercial in the development even more conspicuous. There are a lot of people here who need sundries and could use a community gathering spot, and none exists. Hopefully with the delay in starting the remaining 3 apartment-style buildings, this will be able to change.
Iirc, they tried and failed to work out an access arrangement with the New Apostolic Church.
RE: Victoria Commons - Markster - 08-08-2017
(08-08-2017, 01:27 PM)panamaniac Wrote: Iirc, they tried and failed to work out an access arrangement with the New Apostolic Church.
Yes, there was an initial idea to have driveway access to Margaret, but that fell through.
Even then, the real pedestrian path that is missing would be through the property of the apartment tower at the north west. Going through the church property would not be on-the-way for most people living in the townhomes along the north part.
RE: Victoria Commons - panamaniac - 08-08-2017
If there is no fence there (is there?) I could imagine people "informally" getting to Margaret along the north edge of the apartment tower's property. I'm assuming some of that land belongs to the apartment rather than to the neighbouring house. I have no idea, however, whether the apartment's management would put up with that.
RE: Victoria Commons - Markster - 08-08-2017
(08-08-2017, 01:39 PM)panamaniac Wrote: If there is no fence there (is there?) I could imagine people "informally" getting to Margaret along the north edge of the apartment tower's property.
No fence at the apartment building, hence my comment "I'm sure a muddy track will appear in short order"
Quote:I'm assuming some of that land belongs to the apartment rather than to the neighbouring house. I have no idea, however, whether the apartment's management would put up with that.
And "but they really need formalized access [to Margaret]"
RE: Victoria Commons - ijmorlan - 08-08-2017
(08-08-2017, 01:31 PM)Markster Wrote:(08-08-2017, 01:27 PM)panamaniac Wrote: Iirc, they tried and failed to work out an access arrangement with the New Apostolic Church.
Yes, there was an initial idea to have driveway access to Margaret, but that fell through.
Even then, the real pedestrian path that is missing would be through the property of the apartment tower at the north west. Going through the church property would not be on-the-way for most people living in the townhomes along the north part.
I think it was originally marketed as “1 Adam St.” and possibly even what is now Victoria Marie Ct. would simply have been called Adam St.
I’m confused by the northwest corner access — the property had a driveway out to Blucher St. Did they really not pave it as a pedestrian access path? If not that’s just ridiculous and irresponsible.
RE: Victoria Commons - highlander - 08-08-2017
(08-08-2017, 03:31 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: I’m confused by the northwest corner access — the property had a driveway out to Blucher St. Did they really not pave it as a pedestrian access path? If not that’s just ridiculous and irresponsible.
Agreed, surely the plan is to add a path between 173 and 179 Blucher St.?
RE: Victoria Commons - JCnb - 08-09-2017
(08-08-2017, 03:42 PM)highlander Wrote:(08-08-2017, 03:31 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: I’m confused by the northwest corner access — the property had a driveway out to Blucher St. Did they really not pave it as a pedestrian access path? If not that’s just ridiculous and irresponsible.
Agreed, surely the plan is to add a path between 173 and 179 Blucher St.?
Yes, the plan is to add a pedestrian path here. The site lighting is already installed to light the path in fact. When it will be completed is anyone's guess. The pace of construction here has been painfully slow.
RE: Victoria Commons - Markster - 08-09-2017
Ah, I knew about the plan for a path, but on the ground, there was no sign of anything there. Just a hard curb, and brush that seemed to just be a side yard or something. And checking their website, the site plans don't show a path particularly clearly, so I wasn't sure if it was still the plan.
RE: Victoria Commons - westwardloo - 02-28-2025
Looks like the developer of victoria commons is proposing three high-rise towers (36, 33 & 21 floors) as the final phases of Victoria Commons. If they turnout anything like the mid-rises they should look pretty good. based on the Architectural plans they look better then most proposals in our Region. Documents can be found on the City's planning GIS site.
RE: Victoria Commons - ZEBuilder - 02-28-2025
This is certainly a development where it wouldn't be surprising if the city were to completely oppose this however the one complicating factor is that the amendments are to a specific block of the subdivision but the overall subdivision isn't requiring any OPA/ZBA amendments. The amendments that the developer is looking to get aren't all that arduous all things considered the only thing is it isn't in a MTSA which will be half of plannings issue with it.
For the OPA the developer is requesting an amendment to the existing Specific Policy Area 23 to allow for a max FSR of 5.21 on Block 9 of the Victoria Commons development instead of the the as of right (AOR) FSR of 4.0, the developer is also requesting an increase in the maximum height in Specific Policy Area 23 to 110m instead of the AOR 36m.
For the ZBA the developer is requesting an amendment to Site Specific Provision 323 of Zoning By-law 2019-051 to allow a maximum FSR of 5.21, A maximum building height of 102m and 33 storeys for Building C, 66m and 21 storeys for Building D and 110m and 35 storeys for building E, allowing a lot without frontage on a public street, and a parking rate of 0.66 spaces per unit with a visitor parking rate of 0.1 spaces per unit.
The Victoria Commons subdivision as a whole allows for a maximum FSR of 2.0 on the entire site (this will be useful for later).
The proposal calls for 1151 total units, 33 of which are studio, 198 1bdrm, 588 1bdrm+den, 284 2bdrm and 48 3bdrm units. 1747 sqm of indoor amenity space will be provided as well as 1737 sqm of outdoor amenity space (through a sizeable pops), there will also be 879 vehicle spaces and 588 bike spaces. All the parking will be underground in a 4 floor underground parking garage.
The proposal does do a surprisingly good job at conforming to and using the AOR restrictions to their advantage so there's certainly a decent justification to be made for the additional height. The first justification for the additional height (and by virtue additional FSR) is that the maximum FSR allowed on the entire site is 2.0, since these are the last developable lands on the site they are using all of the FSR that is still available, effectively leaving nothing on the table. In order to do this they require the particular amendments to Block 9 for a FSR of 5.21 instead of 4.0 which isn't anything insane. The next justification which certainly works in their favor is the existing AOR zoning for Block 9 allows for a rather steep angular plane, which the taller buildings take full advantage of. By having the taller buildings it allows for smaller floor plates than the contemplated midrises in 2012, which means the shadow impacts are dispersed more equitably over the surroundings. With the midrises the shadows move significantly slower which means more shadowing impacts for longer periods of times when compared to the current proposal.
The only department who I could see having an issue with it is planning, obviously the public will but that's a different matter. Transportation should be satisfied with the TIS, there's no real issues made worse by this development itself. The locations which did have adverse LOS (level of service) had signal warrants conducted as per OTM book 12 but the results didn't show a signal being required. Engineering won't have any issues either since the buildings can be serviced off of the previously installed services during the construction of the rest of the subdivision. So overall the only people who will have an issue is planning unless something changes.
RE: Victoria Commons - Rainrider22 - 03-01-2025
It looks like it will be a nice addition. Thanks for your in depth analysis