Multi-Family Development Proposed For South Fort George
Saturday, March 3, 2012 @ 6:13 AM
Prince George, B.C. – An open house is being held next week to gather public input on plans for the construction of a multiple-family dwelling in South Fort George.
The City of Prince George is considering an amendment to an Official Community Plan bylaw to change the classification of a portion of South Fort George, bordered by Queensway, the Fraser River, Hamilton Avenue and Regents Crescent from Transitional Residential Area B to Transitional Residential Area G.
This OCP Amendment will facilitate a rezoning application to allow for the construction of a multi-family development. Transitional Residential Area G will permit medium density multi-family townhouses and low rise apartments.
The public open house will be held Thursday, March 8th, 2012 at the South Fort George Family Resource Centre from 5:30 p.m. until 7:30 p.m.
If you are unable to attend the Open House and would like to provide comments you’re asked to forward written submissions by Monday, March 19, 2012 to the Community Planning Division at 1100 Patricia Boulevard, PG V2L 3V9, Fax: 561-7721, Email: cbasalle@city.pg.bc.ca<mailto:cbasalle@city.pg.bc.ca>
Comments
Official Community Plan….that’s the binder sitting in Bates’ office covered in dust and cobwebs, right? Often hear of a vague reference to it when something is being rammed down area residents throats.
OCP? Just a guideline. Specifics probably edited out.
I suppose this development is in the 100 year flood plain. Seems they cant leave well enough alone. Or does the City own the property?
Cheers
What is with this city……we keep hearing how we need to revitilize the downtown core – right downtown. Why can it not go right downtown?
As for this OCP what a joke – City changes it at whim. How many court cases will it take?
Haldi Road is suing the city in Supreme Court and it will be heard the week of April 23/12 for two days according to the court papers. The Haldi Road petition was for one day and City wants two days – what a waste of our courts and city taxpayer monies. Start listening to the neighbourhoods!
I would like to make a suggestion to the people of this area and the ones for the proposed nightclub residents – get ahold of the Haldi Road people….they have a lot of information on the so called process. Citizens need to back each other and support each other. What is the old saying – Support in numbers? The city likes to dictate to the taxpayers.
Gotta another comment – Why are there no neighbourhood meetings in any area of the City that the city keeps saying they are going to have?
Just answered my own question because neighbourhoods do not count and they do not know what is the “better” for the community. Kind of insulting isn’t it………..
Maybe not a good idea right downtown – could be in competition with Commonwealth:)
guesswhat says “Haldi Road is suing the city in Supreme Court and it will be heard the week of April 23/12 for two days according to the court papers. The Haldi Road petition was for one day and City wants two days – what a waste of our courts and city taxpayer monies. Start listening to the neighbourhoods”
I also understand that the city hired a Vancouver lawyer. Whats up with that?
I am assuming that those questioning the rezoning idea are aware of the specific neighourhood. If you were you would know that it is not in any flood plain. In actual fact, some of the land is excellent view property.
I am also assuming that those questioning the OCP have read it and understand what an OCP is:
an OCP is a statement of objectives and policies to guide decisions on planning and land use management, within the area covered by the plan, respecting the purposes of local government.
Any plan that is cast in stone is exactly that, frozen in time. Thus the need for public input, like this newspaper article explains in great detail.
Exactly as Runner46 stated regarding the flood plane.
The river at that point is at an elevation of around 566m above sea level
LaSalle and Hazelton intersection is at about 576m, several metres above the new 200 year flood plane
Regents Crescent which to the west of Paddlewheel park a bit up river from the proposed rezoning is at elevation 571/572 m
That is a common limit to the high water line.
The concerns expressed by Councillor Stolz at Council, for instance, showed his lack of knowledge about the flood plane, even though he has easy access to the City’s flood plane mapping.
There is a steep bank in that area with a local pocket park which occupies the street LaSalle street right of way that goes right to the water line as I recall.
That park is well below the street level and just below the new flood plane.
The street, however, and the property in question are nowhere near the flood plane with respect to elevation, which is the key consideration when speaking about water.
The other thing is that the riverbank in that area is in the inside curve which is the side where the water deposits aggregates. The shoreline which is in jeopardy of continuing scouring is the CN track side of the river in that area, the very reason why the track bed occasionally subsides.
Lasalle is South od Hamilton and not included in the mentioned zone. There is only one place that a building that size could be built and that is on the Queensway. Either 2200 0r 2400 block — and they would have to puchase the land first.
Not in the flood plain though.
“Lasalle is South od Hamilton and not included in the mentioned zone”
The description of the area in the article above is not very good.
The area concerned is actually a triangular area bounded primarily by Hamilton, Queensway and the River.
The properties in question are on the north west corner of LaSalle and Hazelton.
The request was in front of Council at the last meeting.
Here is the location of the properties.
http://princegeorge.ca/cityhall/mayorcouncil/councilagendasminutes/agendas/2012/2012_02_20/documents/CP100067_location.pdf
Here is the full report
http://princegeorge.ca/cityhall/mayorcouncil/councilagendasminutes/agendas/2012/2012_02_20/documents/BL8398_8132_rpt_MERGED.pdf
Comments for this article are closed.