Hillcrest developments to be focus of meeting
With two new developments in the planning stages, parts of the Hillcrest neighbourhood could have a very different look in the coming years.
With two new developments in the planning stages, parts of the Hillcrest neighbourhood could have a very different look in the coming years.
The changing face of Hillcrest is set to be the topic of discussion in the coming days, with developer Kirn Dhillon scheduled to make a presentation about his plans for new townhouses on Hillcrest Drive at tonight's council meeting.
There will also be a separate meeting for residents on Thursday to discuss both the townhouse plans and the development plans for the former tank farm site.
As well, public hearings are scheduled for next Monday's council meeting on amendments to both zoning and the Official Community Plan so each development can proceed.
First reading of the OCP amendment that would allow contaminated soil to be removed from the tank farm site was passed in late July.
The land sits between the Alaska Highway on the east, Hamilton Boulevard on the west, Valleyview on the north and Hillcrest to the south. It served as a storage facility for petroleum between 1942 and 1996.
The owners of the property – under the company name of 46447 Yukon Inc. – want to redevelop the site for residential use, with anywhere from 500 to 800 housing units expected.
Soil remediation is expected to start next year and take anywhere from two to five years.
In early August, council also gave first reading of a bylaw to change the zoning of four of Dhillon's properties on Hillcrest Drive from Residential Single Detached to Comprehensive Residential Townhouse (restricted).
Dhillon is proposing to get rid of the steelox duplexes and build four townhouses where each duplex is for a total of 16 townhouse units.
The Hillcrest Community Association webpage (www.hillcrestcommunity.wordpress.com) notes a meeting is set for 7 p.m. to 9 p.m. Thursday at the Sport Yukon building on Fourth Avenue for an "informal discussion” on both development proposals.
"They (residents) can share ideas or hone their presentation or submissions if they are submitting any to the city by the Sept. 10 (public hearing) deadline,” it's noted on the website.
Dhillon is set to be at the meeting to answer questions about his proposed development, with Dalton Trail resident Jim Gilpin scheduled to share his presentation ideas in order to get discussion started.
There have also been ongoing comments about the development on the community association's Facebook page.
Comments have been varied, with some expressing support and many opposed to the plans.
Others have wondered about issues like parking, with Dhillon continuing to explain the plans.
Comments in support have stated it's time for something different in the neighbourhood and noted that higher density would help prevent more urban sprawl.
Those opposed have argued the steelox duplexes are part of the neighbourhood's character and should be renovated, rather than having entirely new buildings constructed.
Dhillon has responded by noting the age of the duplexes and cost of heating them make them less desirable rental units. He noted there are also ongoing repair bills with the buildings.
He pointed to the plans for the new buildings (available on the community association's website), noting each unit will have two parking spaces.
In an interview last month, Dhillon said his tenants living in the duplexes slated for replacement would be given the option to buy a townhouse.
If they chose not to, Dhillon said, his family has other rental units, and if any of those are available, they would be given the option of moving there.
While the future market place will dictate price, Dhillon said if it remains the same when the townhouses are built, the units would likely be priced in the $450,000 to $500,000 range for the 2,600 square feet of living space.
The townhouses would feature three levels, including a lower level for parking and an office.
On the main floor, stairs outside would lead to a porch and inside would be the kitchen, dining room and living room with a deck outside of the living room.
Three bedrooms and two washrooms (one being an ensuite off of the master bedroom) would be located upstairs.
The townhouses are also proposed to be energy-efficient, with the possibility of using solar panels on the units.
While the public hearing on the rezoning isn't until council's Sept. 10 meeting, Dhillon is scheduled to make a presentation tonight on the plans.
No presentations are scheduled tonight on the tank farm property, but the association's web page notes director Heather Swynstun may make a presentation about that development at Thursday's meeting.
Officials with the community association could not be reached for comment.
Comments (9)
Up 0 Down 0
Kirn Dhillon on Sep 9, 2012 at 4:11 pm
Interesting comments. From my perspective, this development is about sustainability and reducing the ecological footprint of our city so that future generations can enjoy our virgin wild lands. The folks that are opposed to this are essentially saying " We are all for sustainable development, just do it somewhere else!"
Up 0 Down 0
CJ on Sep 8, 2012 at 2:47 pm
It is pretty amazing that no steeloxes have ever been torn down. I don't know about energy efficiency, but aesthetically they really take to renovation. Those high ceilings make for a really nice feeling.
When condos are proposed they're touted as allowing affordable home ownership. That's exactly what buying an older property like the steeloxes did. Many people entered the market by accepting that they couldn't afford all the bells and whistles and making the best of what's available.
It's kind of funny, for years Hillcrest has been a model of what the city says it wants. With all the duplexes it had higher density than most neighbourhoods, it was affordable for first-home buyers, and it has mixed development, with a balance of housing options and styles, and a balance of rental/home ownership, and a balance of green space, and it's within walking distance of downtown. Even with some properties being run down, I bet there's no derelict/abandoned properties there.
But now, no doubt, the residents are in for a round of NIMBY-calling and the rest of it, because there's no such thing as a modest proposal in Whitehorse anymore. And by the time the kids at city planning are finished with it, it won't be recognizable anymore.
Up 0 Down 0
Jim Rodder on Sep 7, 2012 at 1:41 am
Cam Kos,So if I want to buy a brand new development from a developer that is energy efficient and safe I am a "uncaring" "self-centered" narcissist?
You have been here 3 years and feel you know what Yukoners need and want? These "developers" live and spend money in the community. Most have been here for a lot longer then 3 years.
Have a nice weekend.
Up 0 Down 0
p hickman on Sep 6, 2012 at 2:10 pm
Thank goodness we are having a city election soon. Maybe then we can just stick with the zoning we have in place and not go through this over and over again.
Up 0 Down 0
Geoffrey Capp on Sep 6, 2012 at 10:15 am
I think the condo proposal would BRING home-ownership in. Condo residents aren't just renters, they own a piece of where they live.
On the other hand, if the existing houses in Hillcrest (and I notice there are at least three distinct styles of house including the more modern ones on Sunset North) are important, they should be renovated and revamped inside the walls. Take the siding off, rebuild the walls and roofs for insulation and integrity, the restore the siding to maintain the original character of the neighbourhood. It would add to the value.
If people are content to leave houses in a dilapidated or drafty state, that's hardly of historic value or colourful character. If they mean something, put care and attention into keeping the meaning by making it attractive, energy-efficient and a value to sell to someone with the intention of home ownership for equity.
Up 0 Down 0
Cam Kos on Sep 6, 2012 at 6:59 am
Yukonlinda, for those folks who have not bought into the global developers and planners attempts to insult and belittle the home-owners when home-owners and residents question neighbourhood changing projects, being called a NIMBY is actually a badge of honour.
It shows that residents and home-owners CARE about their neighbourhoods and want to BUILD and FOSTER a stronger community.
Too bad so many people buy into the mass media illusion that NIMBY should be used as an insult by intellectuals towards residents who won't buy into the plans of a developer.
Without NIMBY's no community would be strong and would only consist of people; constantly moving in and out, who don't care, out to make a buck, or other reasons, instead of putting down family roots, fostering relationships with neighbours, and creating a better stronger community. Perhaps I'm the disillusioned one here, but I refuse to lose hope. I think putting less influence on the concerns and feelings of our neighbours will contribute to a society that will end up with a pile of uncaring, self-centered, narcissists.
I still respect your opinion, and all others, but I always consider the location of the source, as for example my opinion about how to redevelop Copper Ridge or Granger should not hold as much weight as the opinions of those that live there. A councilor or politician must put the concerns of the public over their own.
Have a nice weekend.
Up 0 Down 0
yukonlinda on Sep 5, 2012 at 8:26 am
I can't believe that people would rather keep those falling down duplexes in place in Hillcrest than see new buildings go in there. Those places are damp, dark, dank, and the wind blows through the walls. It figures in Whitehorse, that we have a community member who wants to build something up to code and decent enough to live in and it brings all the NIMBY's out. Housing problem? What housing problem? We only accept solutions if they're in somebody else's backyard.
Up 0 Down 0
Tom Banks on Sep 4, 2012 at 11:55 pm
Attended last nights meeting- residents of Hillcrest not informed of meeting- most who attended found out just before meeting.
I was most disappointed in City Council. Example-Council member and Mayor stating no one ever had complained about other non conforming structures being built in Hillcrest. I was concerned as I had contacted both- both had informed me they were aware of concerns around that particular project.
Up 0 Down 0
anonymous on Sep 4, 2012 at 10:47 am
You couldnt pick one of the areas of town that isnt literally falling apart? Why would anyone who is dropping half a million dollars on a house buy there with all the development going on in signifigantly nicer areas... you know.... not next to the flight paths and not in one of the least maintained areas of town. I guess what im saying... who the hell would waste their money on this?