Whitehorse Daily Star

Image title

Photo by Whitehorse Star

Sean McAskie

Whistle Bend plan approved amid road concerns

Amid concerns over a connector road leading to the new neighbourhood, city council approved the master plan for Whistle Bend at its meeting Monday night.

By Stephanie Waddell on February 24, 2009

Amid concerns over a connector road leading to the new neighbourhood, city council approved the master plan for Whistle Bend at its meeting Monday night.

Tamarack Drive resident Sean McAskie began his presentation to council by stating he is not against the Whistle Bend development itself.

However, he told the city, he has concerns over the traffic the new development on Porter Creek's lower bench will bring.

The proposed access road would be about 200 metres from Tamarack property lines, connecting Mountainview Drive with the subdivision.

The city has asked its residents if it supports a sustainable, progressive neighbourhood. However, those living in Porter Creek have not been asked if they support up to four times the amount of traffic along with a new road going through a site currently used as trails, he pointed out.

"There's been no public presentation or discussion about the social and environmental cost of a new development on the existing neighbourhood in Porter Creek," McAskie said, suggesting it's an unbalanced approach.

A charette or community café on the overall development is a very different thing than a meeting with those in the area who would be directly impacted by a road, he pointed out.

Due process, he said, should also include consultation with residents on Tamarack.

With no access road placed on concept maps on the city's website, he said, there's been misinformation about the new road.

"The exclusion of this road from the concept maps has misled many Porter Creek residents into believing that the Whistle Bend connector was (to be) located 700 m south of the alignment shown on the final plan," McAskie said.

The connector has made its way on to other city maps, including the green space map used in the past city plebiscite, the various maps show a 100-metre difference in where the road will go.

Coun. Dave Stockdale was quick to point out the road had been the topic of discussion a number of years ago during the development of Porter Creek D. He asked McAskie about why he didn't oppose it at that time, McAskie explained he didn't live in the area then.

McAskie also commented that no reasons have been provided by the city on why the current site for the road was chosen.

Later in the meeting, when questioned about the access by Mayor Bev Buckway, city operations manager Brian Crist explained the site was selected when the other possibility put it closer to McIntyre Creek, which presented a steeper grade and more environmental concerns.

He also said the transportation plan for the area would address any road upgrades to roads like Range Road, Mountainview Drive and Clyde Wann Road needed to accommodate the new neighbourhood.

It was also noted by city staff that while the master plan addresses the overall design for the entire area - including a grid pattern of streets, mixed housing types, commercial areas and community sites which lead to a town square - the upcoming zoning and subdivision for the first two phases will deal with exactly what the lots will look like.

It's expected Whistle Bend will serve as the city's next major development area for years to come.

Comments (6)

Up 0 Down 0

KC on Mar 3, 2009 at 10:54 am

Its only ill thought out because it "impacts" on your backyard Tamarck--although I'd question whether a road 200 meters from your back yard "impacts" you in any substantive way. The city offered reasons why that location was chosen. This is the same tactic we've seen for year from NIMBYists: delay, stall, and hinder development. We need to get on to building the subdivision.

Up 0 Down 0

Tamarack on Mar 2, 2009 at 12:11 pm

So oversimplified KC, without even knowing the whole story you've dismissed legit concerns as NIMBY. Residents are simply asking for better planning, and planning that actually involves the residents most impacted, not just those who support geothermal technology and high density housing.

Sure just throw roads everywhere, even where we don't need them. Because clearly, by your logic, ill-thought out road locations will get you a home you can afford.

Up 0 Down 0

Arn Anderson on Feb 27, 2009 at 1:56 pm

Public consultation is a big problem nowadays. When the idea was first being implemented it was a good idea because finally citizens had a voice and can express concern over the projects.

But like all gov't agencies including municipal gov't do not like to give up power. Sure they can listen, hear peoples frustrations and applauses but it doesnt mean they have to act on it whatsoever. The idea of public input is a farce and has no real power in it, it serves as a step to the projects implamentation. However some points with enough voice are listened with concern and mitagated, but thats the problem, enough voice or voices to make sure they can hear.

Bottom line is that all forms of gov't do not like to give up power to anyone or anybody and we take democracy for granted by not attending any public info or consultation and letting the people in power make decisions on whats good for us.

Up 0 Down 0

KC on Feb 26, 2009 at 12:30 pm

As someone who recently bought a duplex for significantly more than $200,000; forgive me if I am unsympathetic to someone's complaint that "traffic will go within 200 meters of their backyard". Its hard for me to even say without a mocking whiny tone. People on both Tamarack and Evergreen are NOT far from the woods even with the new access road to Whistle Bend.

Trying to keep a small town feel is all well and good but pricing people out of the housing market isn't right either. I'm glad the city is finally standing up to NIMBYism. I was born and raised in Whitehorse and had to paid dearly for a modest home because past councils were too cowardly to stand up to those who wont give even a little so others can have affordable housing. Personally I think making some walk a few minutes to the woods is a small price to pay for reasonable housing prices.

Up 0 Down 0

L. Miller-Goodall on Feb 25, 2009 at 9:53 am

Was there ever any question that Whistle Bend would not be approved? This city has put on it's little act to make people "feel heard" - public meetings, blah, blah, blah . . .

Many of us stopped going to them long ago when it appear to be nothing more than an act to placate the residents of the neighbouring communities. It doesn't matter what we say or how much we object one of their options was getting pushed through. Well - goodbye to a very nice place to walk in the woods - hello "big city" neighbourhood - in a word, YUCK!

Up 0 Down 0

Francias Pillman on Feb 24, 2009 at 1:12 pm

Act now, worry about it later seems the attitude of the ones running this town. Heck the City can't even faclitate its current residents. But hey, whats another 10,000 people. Power is another issue, but hey I speak with logic. It seems BUCKway wants to leave her mark on this town, no matter what the cost. Wheres the investment in roads, schools? During these uncertain times how can a project of this size even be considered? There are less people working here then there was last year. But again, who cares about thinking things out. The residents of Whitehorse support this dangerous way of thinking, and it will be your downfall.

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.