Photo by Whitehorse Star
Pictured Above: Diane Nikitiuk, Cam Kof, Craig Tuton
Photo by Whitehorse Star
Pictured Above: Diane Nikitiuk, Cam Kof, Craig Tuton
Neighbours of 1204 Centennial St. hope a meeting tonight will see some big changes to the proposal for a multi-family housing development on the site.
Neighbours of 1204 Centennial St. hope a meeting tonight will see some big changes to the proposal for a multi-family housing development on the site.
In separate presentations to city council Monday night, Diane Nikitiuk and Cam Kof argued against the rezoning application. They said property owner Craig Tuton should have to stick to the regulations of the Residential Single Detached zone when he redevelops the property at the corner of 12th Avenue.
Tuton has applied to rezone the treed lot to develop the six-plex. An older, vacant house on the lot would be removed.
Nikitiuk was among a number of residents to speak out against the concept during a public hearing on the rezoning in late August. That was followed by another presentation last week where she convinced council to put off further readings of the bylaw until Tuton met with nearby residents.
That encounter is set for 7:00 tonight at the Canada Games Centre.
At last night's council meeting, Nikitiuk continued to argue against the development, countering a number of points city staff made in a report to council from the public hearing.
City staff stated parking on the road isn't expected to increase significantly and that 12th Avenue is wide enough to support on-street parking.
Nikitiuk argued there are, indeed, problems with any expanded parking on the road.
Tuton is proposing to provide two off-street parking spots for each unit at the six-plex.
Nikitiuk commented that parked vehicles on the road would make it difficult for drivers to see properly in making left turns, and that school buses would end up competing with vehicles parked along the roads.
Increased traffic also raises concerns for her about pedestrians crossing the streets to get to spots like the neighbourhood toboggan hill.
Nikitiuk also argued that her own research, including a Statistics Canada report, has shown crime increases in areas of greater density.
She made that point despite city staff bringing forward another study to support their statement that there's no connection between higher-density development and increased crime.
Finally, Nikitiuk said she agrees with city staff's statement that infill development can actually raise the value of surrounding properties "as long as the scale of construction is compatible with existing development.”
In this case though, she noted, the proposed multi-family development does not fit in with the numerous single-family homes in the neighbourhood.
Personally, Nikitiuk said, she wouldn't buy a house that had a large apartment behind it.
She went on to argue the property owner "has shown contempt” by leaving the property an eyesore for a number of years.
A mix of housing can be achieved without rezoning the site, she commented.
Kof agreed.
While he thanked the city for organizing tonight's meeting, he pointed out that there are no other multi-family zoned developments along Centennial Street (though there are cases of multi-family homes on single-family zoned lots).
An informal survey of the street didn't turn up anyone in support of the development after Kof spoke with all but two residents, he said.
He suggested the property should be redeveloped, but within the current regulations.
The situation could open a door throughout the city to rezone sites and create developments that don't fit with the neighbourhood, he suggested.
"Porter Creek appears to be an easy target due to the large lots,” he said.
Kof suggested the bigger size of properties in Porter Creek is thanks to good planning.
Coun. Doug Graham, however, was quick to note the lots were developed that way to accommodate water and septic systems on the sites that weren't then on the city system.
The reason why many people buy in Porter Creek now though, Kof countered, is that the lots are larger.
Taking single-family lots away from the neighbourhood would be an injustice, and it would open the door to other such moves in other parts of town, he added.
What would happen, he questioned, if someone bought one of the new properties in Takhini North and wanted to rezone it to open a 7-11 convenience store?
"When will it end?” he asked.
Later, questioned by Coun. Dave Austin about the possibility of the site having three duplexes (totalling six homes), which would be allowed under the current zoning if the property is subdivided into three lots, Kof noted he would rather see that as there would be front-end parking and the homes would be more likely to be owner-occupied.
The bylaw to rezone the site is expected to come back to council next week.
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.
Comments (6)
Up 0 Down 0
Sally on Sep 23, 2010 at 8:58 am
The residents are forgetting that the developer can already build a six-plex. He can subdivide the lot three times and build a duplex on each lot.
This is no different than the people who complained about the size of the triplexes that have been built downtown when the developers of those properties could already build a house that large, they were only asking for another unit.
My favourite thing has to be the residents implying that only thieves, troublemakers and pedophiles will live in these sixplexes.
Up 0 Down 0
Doug Rutherford on Sep 23, 2010 at 7:51 am
There should be some grounds for compromise here. Decreasing the number of townhouses, for example might meet the other residents wishes while still allowing the developer to profit.
That being said, property owners should remember always that neighbourhoods change.
Up 0 Down 0
Barbara Geoghegan on Sep 22, 2010 at 4:35 am
People buy the Porter Creek properties because they are large lots. We can live on these lots without having to look into our neighbors windows and still be in city limits. We have too many "Large City living People" moving into the Yukon and wanting to live on each others doorsteps. Wanting to change everything about the Yukon. A lot of people who buy these properties and fixing them up and living in them, not tearing them down.
Barbara
Up 0 Down 0
bobby bitman on Sep 22, 2010 at 2:58 am
People bought in that neighbourhood with existing standards and zoning. They should be able to count on that. Housing is the biggest asset most people own. If Craig cannot convince these people that their investment will not be impacted by his project, it should not go through. They should not pay a price in terms of property value so that he can re-zone something and gain financially on the backs of the people who live in the area.
Up 0 Down 0
Heather on Sep 21, 2010 at 9:51 am
Tuton, all about himself and the almighty dollar.
Up 0 Down 0
Jack Malone on Sep 21, 2010 at 8:43 am
This is why we have a housing problem in Whitehorse. People oppose everything. The original lots in Porter Creek were 0.5 acre and larger and rural in nature. Now more than 40 years later these older neighbourhoods must be renewed as the houses deteriorate and they represent opportunities to provide higher-density housing. Why build a single house on such a large lot which is now located in the middle of a paved urban subdivision? If you don't believe there is a housing problem in Whitehorse, try to rent a decent place. I may not agree with Tuton's politics, but there is nothing unreasonable about his proposal.