Whitehorse Daily Star

Infill proposals met with ‘mixed emotions'

The city will keep moving ahead with plans to develop five small pockets in Porter Creek and Crestview, despite the public's "mixed emotions” on it.

By Stephanie Waddell on February 18, 2011

The city will keep moving ahead with plans to develop five small pockets in Porter Creek and Crestview, despite the public's "mixed emotions” on it.

"It appears we again have a case of competing interests,” planning manager Mike Gau told reporters at a press conference this morning.

During a public comment period last month, some residents told the city they want the greenspace protected, while others pointed to the need for more lots, given the housing shortage in Whitehorse. A total of 140 people gave the city their views.

Provided rezoning and subdivision goes ahead, the plan would allow for the development of a 4,500 square metre site in Crestview on Klukshu Avenue near Rainbow Road.

In Porter Creek, development would occur over approximately 6,000 square metres on the south side of Boxwood Crescent, 3,000 square metres at 12th Avenue and Centennial Street, 7,200 square metres at the north end of Elm Street and 4,000 square metres next to the Guild Hall.

Many opposed to the rezoning of the sites (with some slated to move from Environmental Protection to a residential zone) have argued Whistle Bend should be developed instead of the infill sites.

However, Gau was quick to point out that given the city's projected two to three per cent growth annually outlined in the Official Community Plan (OCP), all of the sites and more will need to be developed to keep pace with demand.

Further infill sites and expansion areas like Porter Creek D have also been identified for residential lots in the OCP as well.

"We, in fact, need both to happen,” Gau stressed, reminding reporters of the 65 per cent of the city set aside as greenspace in the community plan.

In a statement this morning, Mayor Bev Buckway also pointed to the city's growth creating a need for housing.

"With a population increasing by over two per cent a year, rising housing prices, and an extremely limited vacancy rate, the city has been tasked with providing new places for residents to live,” she said.

"In line with the OCP and the sustainability plan, the city is aiming to maximize existing resources and protect untouched wilderness areas by focusing development close to existing development.

"With a growing population, we need to provide places for families to live while ensuring that our city does not continue to sprawl into untouched areas.”

Outlined in the more detailed infill plans now are provisions to protect some of the greenspace .

At Rainbow Road and Klukshu Avenue, five single-family lots are proposed, ranging from 625 square metres to 813 square metres, with the corner section to remain as greenspace.

Duplexes could not be built on the lots, in keeping with the residents' desire for large single-family lots to match the existing neighbourhood.

At 12th Avenue and Centennial Street, two lots are suggested at 1,098 square metres and 768 square metres.

While the sites would be zoned for single-family homes, the size of the larger lot would allow for a duplex.

The length of each lot would be limited to 45 metres to reduce the potential conflicts with a toboggan hill behind the new properties. A trail connection at the site is also proposed to be relocated.

Meanwhile, if the rezoning moves forward for the land near the Guild Hall, it could mean a new playground for local pre-schoolers. As Gau said, the site sits in the current location of a playground that's in need of repairs and equipment replacement.

With the Jack Hulland Elementary School nearby complete with its own playground equipment for older kids, city officials have suggested the playground closest to the Guild be relocated two blocks away at Elm Street and 14th Avenue. Revenue from the lot sales would go to setting up a playground for kids aged two to five.

Gau said council was receptive to that idea along with a proposal to use other revenues from the lot sales for the rehabilitation of Versluice Meadows, something the Porter Creek Community Association has been seeking in recent years. He also added, however, that council would have to formally approve both ideas before they could go ahead.

Along with the change to the playground, the site near the Guild Hall would see four single-family lots ranging from 948 square metres to 1,158 square metres. The space between the Guild and residential lots would be kept for a future community use after a number of residents suggested the area be remain as is for a future hall, library or other community use.

On the south side of Boxwood Crescent, planners have drafted a proposal for five single-family lots that could also accommodate duplexes ranging from 955 square metres to 1,113 square metres, with the lot boundaries now pulled back from the slope to retain trees.

While a number of residents opposed to development at the Boxwood site suggested there are drainage, erosion and watercourse issues, the city pointed to a recent EBA report showing there are no geotechnical issues with the site.

Finally, the Elm Street site is the lone property suggested to house a multi-family lot at 4,030 square metres along with two other single-family lots at 834 square metres each.

A road connector between the three properties would link Elm Street with Versluice Place and the 30-metre riparian setback would be in place.

As both Gau and planner Ben Campbell stressed, the proposals are at this point simply that – proposals. It will ultimately be up to council to approve or turn down any rezoning or subdivisions that come forward to allow for the infill.

The city will again meet with residents next Tuesday at Porter Creek Secondary School with a public meeting scheduled from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m.

After that, city staff will look at the plans again and make any changes based on that input before bringing it forward to council for rezoning and subdivision.

Residents will again get a chance to comment on the plans, with public hearings being part of the rezoning process.

If the rezoning and subdivision are approved, the project would then be handed off to the city's engineering department for detailed designs on roads and services needed.

Construction would then get underway, with the new properties expected to be sold through a lottery in the fall.

Comments (11)

Up 0 Down 0

Anthony on Feb 23, 2011 at 6:24 am

Jack Malone wrote:

"If people want to walk on the trails or enjoy the peace and quiet of the bush - get on a bike and ride for 15 mins in any direction."

What if you're 8? You don't foresee any issues with a kid walking/riding through a dense urban area to get to a natural play area? Jack, your issue is that you are only thinking about YOU and how YOU live. Think about the kids, seniors families, animals et al that use these areas. These are public green belts, bulldozing a park for 2 or 3 houses isn't going to solve the housing crisis

DG Wrote:

"Regarding taking things away: Residents do not own anything outside their lot. Greenspace is public. It has no owner except the city and the Yukon government."

Exactly Wrong!!!

City/Yukon owned land is public land which is to say that it is owned by the tax payers and residents. So yes, we DO have a say in how public land gets used by way of elections, charrettes, petitions or directly contacting publicly elected officials. It is beyond our control (until the next election) if those official chose to ignore the public as the current crop has been doing.

Up 0 Down 0

DG on Feb 22, 2011 at 12:26 pm

Regarding taking things away: Residents do not own anything outside their lot. Greenspace is public. It has no owner except the city and the Yukon government.

If the city or feds decide that something needs to change to meet a need (ie, housing, new school, new park etc. etc.) then it is a requirement to locate and change what needs to be change. These naysayers are only NIMBY's.

Up 0 Down 0

Miriam Smith on Feb 22, 2011 at 5:56 am

I have lived in the Yukon since 1987 - grew up in Manitoba - places that I played in as a child - made way for new homes and families - some green space was lost, but we did not loose our lifestyle - Whitehorse not only has new people moving in, but now - 3 and 4 generations of Klondike families who settled here in addition the First Nations who have proudly called Yukon home. We complain that our youth are leaving Yukon for jobs, now people are complaining that these same Yukoners have chosen to stay, build homes and families where their immediate families are. Those who truly enjoy the outdoor pursuits will still be able to do so.. There is room for all - change happens - your angry words only divide.

Up 0 Down 0

Max Mack on Feb 22, 2011 at 4:00 am

CoW has consistently shown that the opinions of residents do not matter -- unless citizens are saying what the City wants to hear. Worse, CoW has shown that it will bully residents into silence if you make too strong a point (case in point: Marianne Darragh).

Infill is a highly contentious issue and rightly so. In some cases, CoW is planning to take away green spaces that have been planned (or zoned) as parks (or equivalent) for decades. The infill debate speaks to our underlying values about where we live and why we live there.

Throwing sophistic phrases at residents does little to alleviate the tremendous anxiety that people feel when they lose things that are so vital, like their nearby green spaces.

Bottom line, infill takes something away from people that is very important and gives them next to nothing in return.

Up 0 Down 0

DG on Feb 21, 2011 at 3:53 pm

One hardly needs to ride 15 mins you could walk for 15 mins from anywhere and be within a forested area. Even from Main street (yes I include the trees on the claycliffs). Plus walking for 15 mins is way better for your health.

I've lived here for 25 yrs and like Jack says their will always be changes. Opposing them makes no sense, approve them and work to make them manageable for all. I read in the News that the park that is gonna be removed in Porter Creek will allow for more houses. That park needs replacing hopefully these naysayers get on board and get themselves a new one with the money that the city will generate from selling the lots.

Up 0 Down 0

Jack Malone on Feb 21, 2011 at 6:44 am

I have lived in the COW for almost 40 years - there have been a lot of changes. Subdivisions now exist where I used to play as a child. New roads, houses, etc. have been built on trails, green spaces, etc. I don't get the whining of people. Look - let's minimize our urban footprint and maximize the use of space within existing subdivisions. If people want to walk on the trails or enjoy the peace and quiet of the bush - get on a bike and ride for 15 mins in any direction. If you want to live in the bush without neighbours, move out of the core of the COW.

Up 0 Down 0

Anthony on Feb 21, 2011 at 5:00 am

I agree that the 'consulting' is a joke and COW will proceed with their agenda as they see fit.

However their shortsightedness and inept planning will hurt neighborhoods indefinitely. For AT LEAST ten years they have known about the impending land crunch and have not reacted quick enough.

Bulldozing small pockets of neighbourhood green space for at best a dozen new homes would be laughable if it weren't so sad. Those are the very place kids play, people run their dogs, a haven for birds and small wild life. I suggest the planners get off their duffs and get going with Whistle Bend, Porter Creek D and Beyond Copper Ridge now. Our resource based economy is poised on the brink of a massive explosion. A large supply of building lots is required to keep market pricing in check

Up 0 Down 0

northone on Feb 19, 2011 at 11:02 am

Yup, the charettes are a joke. The city is bowing to pressure from the real estate and constructon industries. Our green space and our quality of life is of no concern - getting the maximum number of taxpayers into a given area is the priority.

Up 0 Down 0

brian on Feb 19, 2011 at 6:48 am

All I see is the city completing existing sud-divisions. Something that should've been done alone time ago. I know these lots won't make that much of a difference, but every little bit helps.

Up 0 Down 0

Bruce Fast on Feb 18, 2011 at 1:56 pm

Home owners of Whitehorse, please note the precedent being set by our city council. Land zoned environmental is being rezoned as residential. That means that the green-space near you is no longer protected no matter what it is zoned!

Up 0 Down 0

Discouraged in Whitehorse on Feb 18, 2011 at 12:11 pm

I have to wonder why they even pretend to "consult" with the public when they have their minds up already.

From what I've seen from the city lately, the planning charettes and public consultations are a total farce.

Add your comments or reply via Twitter @whitehorsestar

In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.

Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.