Whitehorse Daily Star

Image title

Photo by Whitehorse Star

Pictured Above: JAN BRO, PAUL INGLIS and LAURA MARKLE

Residents want door closed to housing plan

Hillcrest residents continued to urge city council Monday night not to rezone four properties on Hillcrest Drive.

By Stephanie Waddell on September 12, 2012

Hillcrest residents continued to urge city council Monday night not to rezone four properties on Hillcrest Drive.

Kirn Dhillon is proposing to tear down his family's four steelox duplexes and replace them with three-level townhouses. There would be four townhouse units taking up the space of one duplex.

Dhillon has applied to have the zoning changed to Comprehensive Residential Townhouse (restricted) from Residential Single Detached. That move doesn't sit well with many residents of the neighbourhood who have been letting city officials know.

"I don't want to see the steelox (duplexes) demolished,” Jan Bro, one of seven people to speak on the rezoning, said at the public hearing.

She argued the housing style common in the neighbourhood is part of the city's history and should be preserved.

She recalled a recent trip to Saint John's, Nfld. and the century-old homes that are still being used there.

The steelox duplexes, built in the 1940s and 1950s as military housing, are a major part of the Hillcrest neighbourhood, Bro said.

She also argued the neighbourhood's aging infrastructure needs to be updated before there can be any kind of increase in density.

Many have opposed the doubling of density that would come if the townhouse project goes ahead.

Paul Inglis, for example, noted that while each townhouse unit is proposed to have two parking spots, there's still likely to be more vehicles being parked on the street.

"This needs to be looked at in more depth,” Inglis said in requesting that council reject the rezoning application.

As another delegate told council that one of the parking spots will be in a garage on the bottom level of each townhouse, and it's not uncommon for garages to be used for storage rather than vehicle parking.

Even if some people do use their garages for parking, many households have three vehicles between their transportation and recreational pursuits, which means at least one would end up parked on the narrow street.

"Hillcrest Drive is not meant to accommodate this kind of parking,” it was argued.

With little yard space, children would likely be playing on the road too, Inglis said.

Others painted a picture of a changed neighbourhood where the single-storey duplex homes that help define the neighbourhood are torn down, forever changing the character of Hillcrest.

"This is precedent-setting for the community,” Laura Markle said.

While there are changes happening, she added, there's been nothing requiring the demolition of the steelox structures.

The proposed buildings' height – three levels, including the garage/basement – has been an issue for many residents who pointed to the shadows the taller buildings would create.

Coun. Dave Stockdale noted that even under the current zoning, a three-level house could be built on the site with the maximum height for the zone at 10 metres.

As he did with many delegates, Stockdale asked Markle what she could live with in terms of development on the site. He pointed out the maximum height limit could allow for a three-floor development regardless of whether the zoning changes.

Markle responded by saying she believes there needs to be an overall community consultation on the future of Hillcrest.

"I think we need a broad picture,” she said.

City staff will also have another 44 written submissions to consider as they prepare a report on Monday's public hearing for next week's council meeting.

Rob Fendrick, the city's director of administrative services, said of those, three offered their support for the proposal, 11 noted concerns they have with it and 30 were opposed.

Second and third readings of the rezoning are scheduled to come forward at council's Sept. 24 meeting.

Comments (8)

Up 0 Down 0

Kirn Dhillon on Sep 14, 2012 at 8:48 am

@ Jeff – When you rent, the deal is you supply a clean liveable rental unit to tenants, and they give the place back to you the way the received it. The deal is NOT that the renter trashes the place, expects the landlord to pick-up after them, and leaves without providing the requisite 30 days notice. The deal is NOT to refuse to pay last month's rent before you are kicked out, thus leaving no security deposit for the landlord to clean up the mess you left behind.

Unfortunately, the understanding that once existed between landlord and tenant is quickly eroding. We are not running an assisted living establishment. We will leave that to the Government's domain. Once people leave, or refuse to pay rent and get kicked out, the places will get cleaned up and rented again. However, as long as the government social assistant cheques keep arriving, we really have no grounds to kick people out. And what would the headlines say if we booted out someone on social assistance right before winter?

People think that being a landlord is easy. Let me assure you from personal experience that it is NOT! Jeff, you don't like the current situation in your neighbourhood, then please let us replace these steeloxes with brand new energy efficient homes that home owners can be proud of!

Up 0 Down 0

jeff blackburn on Sep 14, 2012 at 5:27 am

What I have a problem with is that the landlords have never done anything, ever, to maintain or clean up their properties and the result is visible, I am sick of the garbage, bottles and kids toys thrown out into the street and wrecked vehicles in their yards. The only time I have have seen any cleaning up was recent, when this proposal was new. If there is some kind of promise that this new development will be different, well ok, I am all for it, I just don't want more of the same crap going on. I don't want to see slum dwelling overtake what is to me a nice neighborhood.

Up 0 Down 0

Anonymous on Sep 14, 2012 at 1:37 am

I'm sorry but do these people complaining own the air rights to the property pending development? It definitely seems that they don't; therefore, they don't really have any legal entitlement to put a restriction on the height of any building being built on that lot.

Up 0 Down 0

DMZ on Sep 13, 2012 at 1:41 pm

Residents can have things like "access to the sun" and "specific views" stipulated in the zoning bylaw. More typically, OCPs and zoning bylaws stipulate density and parking and numerous other items that contribute to quality of life.

Zoning bylaws are about as stable as the shifting sands of time here. So regardless of whether a certain allowance is in there or not, it will be soon enough, if a developer has the wit to offer "solar panels" and what-have-you.

As for the architectural significance of the steeloxes -- there is a case to be made that they represent a certain period of time and resourcefulness of Yukon residents, in all their incarnations. Some people here have an elitist view of what kinds of building should be deemed important, but that's not what it's about.

The steeloxes helped build this city too.

Up 0 Down 0

Billy Polson on Sep 13, 2012 at 4:41 am

It is a common trend for neighbourhoods in Whitehorse and beyond in the Yukon to reel in despair when a new development is proposed around them. While it's easy to call it nimbyism it is also easy to see some of their points. I'd agree the parking issue needs to be further developed, but it could be developed to a grade satisfactory to everyone, just need to see if it's possible, like a parking lot somewhere in the area or something....what should never be attemped is to compare those steel boxes with withering paint jobs and dubious interior conditions with any form of century homes throughout the rest of Canada. That is not an argument that can be accepted, in fact based on that alone you could argue those steel boxes need to go.

Up 0 Down 0

jeff blackburn on Sep 12, 2012 at 3:32 pm

Not to mention they would impair our view of the mountains...if I wanted to see a city landscape I would live where I could be surrounded by apt buildings, as it is I can sit in my living room and have a beautiful view of the mountains. I don't want to look out and see buildings, I really don't.

Up 1 Down 0

Kirn Dhillon on Sep 12, 2012 at 12:50 pm

As the developer, I acknowledge the legitimate concerns that neighbours have concerning height, density, and parking. I have bent over backwards to address those concerns and am prepared to offer yet more concessions, if necessary, to alleviate concerns. However, the premise that the steeloxes are comparable to Frank Lloyd Wright masterpieces is really a concept that I struggle to come to grips with, and I am being diplomatic here.

The RCAF had these pre-fabricated housing kits (steeloxes) shipped up from the deep south of the United States, not because they wanted aesthetically pleasing and energy efficient homes in a vibrant neighbourhood, but because they needed a quick and cheap solution for housing their military staff. Once the initial demand was met, the RCAF opted for the sturdier and more aesthetically pleasing stick-built home styles that are seen on Kluane Crescent, Chalet Crescent, and Sunset Drive.

Maybe the RCAF knew something about these buildings and that's why they stopped procuring them? Who knows? Change can be scary, but sometimes change is required in the interest of urban renewal, neighbourhood rejuvenation, and sustainability. The process is working well in Takhini North. Why can't it work in Hillcrest?

Up 1 Down 0

Scott Holmes on Sep 12, 2012 at 7:59 am

Again, it is completely mystifying why the residents of Whitehorse continuously reject the renewal and development of housing in their little corners of the city. Where in your lot survey does it stipulate the access to sun or a specific view. This "owner" wants to bring forth a fresh, new development and remove a structure that was built with a 10 year lifespan. Comparison to century homes in the maritimes is ludicrous as the Steelox building is a metal clad box without any historical value or character. Please end this NIMBYism and let others enjoy Whitehorse as well.

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.