City hears support and criticism of infill lots

The city seems to have support for its proposal to release six Porter Creek lots, but that didn't come without significant criticism at Monday evening's council meeting.

The city seems to have support for its proposal to release six Porter Creek lots, but that didn’t come without significant criticism at Monday evening’s council meeting.

Before a report on the public feedback to lots was presented at council’s standing committee meeting, Porter Creek resident Doug Brownlee blasted city council for the lot shortage in Whitehorse, complaining of a “totally inadequate” process.

“Basically, the City seems to focus more on what’s correct or politically correct than the basics,” Brownlee told council. “As a taxpayer, that’s starting to upset me.”

Areas that could have been developed have been taken out of planning because of protection issues and things like environmental studies, Brownlee argued. Meanwhile, proper geotech studies aren’t done, he noted.

“I would put that strictly at the feet of this council, previous council and the city administrations,” he said.

“I look at the process and I find it totally inadequate. I find the process that is done by the city administration, basically, I hate to use the word ‘incompetent’; it’s probably not the right word. I’m finding it hard to tie it in because some of this lies with the territorial government.”

While Brownlee said he doesn’t have a problem with single-family homes, and only single-family homes, being put in the six proposed areas, he stressed the city is reacting to the lot shortage that will likely be experienced for the next two or three years at the least.

“I’m tired of people not doing their jobs,” he said.

After his presentation, Coun. Dave Stockdale argued the public has had a role in the lot shortage with objections to development slowing down the process that would see more parcels open up.

Brownlee countered the Whistle Bend development proposed for Porter Creek’s lower bench has been on the city’s books since 1989.

Brownlee also argued it wouldn’t be economical for a developer to build single-family homes on the six properties that would be sold.

Five of the six lots proposed for development are owned by the territory, with the city owning the 1,000-square-metre property at Boxwood Crescent and Wann Road.

After the city announced its plans to open up the properties (which, under the Official Community Plan and zoning bylaw meet requirements for single-family lots) for development, residents had until late June to comment either during a public meeting or through the city’s website.

After the comments were presented at Monday’s meeting, city management recommended that council authorize the territorial government to go ahead selling the land, either through a tender or lottery.

“Support for authorizing the sale of all of these sites was slightly higher than support for not authorizing any site sales,” notes the report to council.

“Most of the respondents who expressed concerns were not against the development completely, but wished to see controls put on development to ensure maintenance of neighbourhood values, most notably trails and existing density levels.”

Few comments came in around the city’s property and two territorial properties on Wann Road and 14th Avenue short of five in support of the sale and one opposed. Another resident asked that there be further meetings with local residents.

The three are the smallest of the lots, with the Wann Road property near Basswood Street at 2,500 square metres and the 14th Avenue site at the corner of Holly Street at 1,900 square metres.

On the fourth 5,500-square-metre site proposed for sale off the corners of Holly Street and 13th Avenue, five people were in favour of it being sold while three were against it.

Residents also told the city to maintain the trail connecting Pine and Holly Streets, not to cut any more trees than necessary when doing ground testing, not cut access to private trails, have more meetings with nearby residents and put in some sort of traffic calming initiative on Holly Street.

The largest lot - 17,000 square metres off Hemlock Street on one side and along the section of road where Mountain View Drive becomes Hickory Street - saw some mixed reaction.

While a total of nine responses came in with five in favour and four against the sale, there was one sent in on behalf of 13 other homeowners in the neighbourhood.

“She did not outright oppose development of Site 5, but had a number of concerns with it and only supported development if done at a lower density than the maximum that would be allowed by the zoning bylaw.”

Among the more specific concerns, residents commented that bedrock blasting required would have a negative impact on neighbouring properties, a density limit such as 835 square metre lot size maximum or only allowing 50 per cent duplex development should be put in place, trails should be maintained, a charette planning exercise for the area should be considered, and seismic testing to determine ground feasibility before the sale should be done.

There were also mixed reactions on the cul-de-sac with one person supporting it and another not. Another person said he or she doesn’t support a connection from the area to Porter Creek Secondary School.

One person noted the amount of greenspace lost would be minimal compared to the amount that would remain in the neighbourhood.

Finally, another suggested the area should be left in reserve for an expansion to the high school.

The last site proposed for sale runs along Grove Street near 9th Avenue and sits at 6,100 square metres.

With five favouring the sale of the property, two were against it.

Once again, residents said they wanted the trail connections at the north and south ends of the site to be maintained.

Respondents also told the city they don’t want to see duplexes built in the area and urged that a small park should be created as part of the new development.

Another respondent suggested the property should remain treed because it is a raven sanctuary.

Other comments came in on the overall development, arguing that there should be no multi-family residential development and duplexes shouldn’t be allowed.

Under the residential single-family zoning, duplexes are allowed where lot sizes are at least 835 square metres.

Council will vote next week on whether to move ahead with the disposition.