Public getting say on towers planned near Mayfair centre
A proposal to built two 12-storey residential towers across from Mayfair Shopping Centre is going to public hearing.
But Victoria councillors have remained steadfast in not allowing any wiggle room on a city required $975,000 contribution for amenities.
Oakwood Parks Estates is proposing to build two residential towers over ground- floor commercial valued at $52 million on Frances and Speed avenues. But the company has balked at the amount of the required amenity contribution, believed to be the largest ever demanded by the city.
Victoria policy requires developers to make an amenity contribution tied to changes in zoning that increase allowable density, which increases the value of the land. For properties outside the core, city policy calls for an amenity contribution equivalent to 75 per cent of the additional value of the land, as determined by an independent consultant.
In this case, the potential increase is estimated at $1.3 million, so the amenity contribution would be $975,000.
The developer has long been trying to negotiate a reduction in the amenity fee, but on the advice of staff, council has remained steadfast.
Last week, councillors refused a request from the developer to allow the amenity contribution be paid at occupancy (with a convenant committing payment) rather than the building permit application. City staff, again, recommended against.
Senior planner Brian Sickstrom said it’s common practice to require payment at the permit stage. The city would be assuming the risk of non-payment should the project stall or not be completed and “should the building be completed with purchasers expecting to move in, refusing occupancy due to nonpayment of the community amenity contribution would put the city in a difficult position despite the covenant.”
Coun. Marianne Alto, who in April failed to get council support to reduce the payment amount to $540,000, proposed splitting the payment into two instalments, 50 per cent at issuance of building permit and the balance at occupancy. But again, she didn’t get support.
Director of sustainable development Jonathan Tinney said the same issues arise.
He said a similar situation is playing out in Philadelphia where a building has been completed. A payment is due for affordable housing and a number of purchasers are waiting to move in to their suites, but the city is refusing occupancy until payment is made.
“So the city is in an unfortunate situation politically as well as reputationally where they are holding people from entering their suites because of a payment issue,” Tinney said.
The staff view is that fees for amenity payments and development cost charges are required at building-permit stage because “this is when typically developers will pull together all of their financing, all of their payments and start to undertake their financial commitments that they need to make in order to move the process forward,” Tinney said.
Accepting payment at another time would set a precedent for other developers and other required payments.
Alto noted the application has been in process for five years.
“I have to say that I’m astounded that the applicant is still at the table trying to make this work and I’m astounded that we’re making it so difficult,” Alto said, adding that it is exactly the type of development the city needs in this part of the city.
“It’s going to be a very important transit corridor. It’s going to be a very important highly densified corridor. It’s going to be a very important area for bringing life to that part of the city as we grow into a larger municipality with the restrictions of our boundaries,” she said.
But Coun. Pam Madoff, who has not supported the application from the outset, said her lack of support had nothing to do with the amenity contribution, but everything to do with “planning being dictated by the happenstance of property ownership.”
Madoff noted that this type of development has not been contemplated for this area and it could have significant impact on the existing commercial and industrial uses in the area.
She also questioned how “a neighbourhood that could see this kind of population densification without the basic amenities of a park or a school or anything like that.”
Oakwood Parks Estates consultant Deane Strongitharm declined to comment.