New Subdivision In the Works

Monday, March 02, 2009 09:02 PM

Map on left shows area of discussion and existing zoning, while map on right shows subdivision plan

Prince George, B.C. - There will be another subdivision in Prince George, this one in the Davis Drive, Barnes Drive area.

The applicant's representative (L&M Engineering) appeared before Prince George City Council with a request to amend the OCP designation and rezone the subject properties in order to develop a new residential neighbourhood. The proposed residential development would consist of single residential housing on 96 lots, and one residential cluster located close to the centre of the subdivision.

The neighbourhood will be developed over an 8-10 year period.

At the south west corner of the proposed subdivision, there will be a 0.45 ha neighbourhood park. The proposed residential development will include the provision of green-space to the north and east to provide wildlife connectivity, accessibility to a trail system to the north, and protection of environmentally sensitive areas.

The applicant (Pollyco) plans to develop the subject property in five phases. The first phase of this application would consist of approximately 27 residential lots, located north of Barnes Drive.

There were six letters of opposition presented to Council. Neighbours expressed concerns about the loss of natural habitat for the variety of wildlife in the area, the stability of the hillside, and drainage as there have been flooding issues for a couple of homes because of run off.

Derek Sale says he has lived in the neighburhood for 18 years. He told Council that when developers came in and cleared land two years ago, the clearing has left bears with nowhere to find food but in the garbage cans in the neighbourhood, and "scraggly moose" are making their way into the neighbourhood as well. He told Council he believes much of the soil is clay and there is no water absorbtion.

He told Council the people feel very very angry that the City would consider deforestation at a time when there is no economic activity to support the residential growth."At the moment, there is really no need for 94 lots in the City."

Speaking on behalf of the applicant, Heather Oland of L&M Engineering says the project is meant as the completion of the Charella Gardens neighbourhood and the concerns expressed by the residents can be addressed.

Oland says a large portion of the property will be retained as greenbelt to cover the concerns about wildlife, and to maintain greenery on slopes to reduce run off issues.

Phase one will see Barnes Drive extended and Davis Drive used as the construction access. David McWalter of L&M Engineering says the amount of traffic to be added to the area is not significant. As for geotechnical concerns, McWalter says despite repeated studies in the area, there is a nagging thought that this area is susceptible to slides. "We want to be absolutely certain there is no potential for slippage, the tolerance level is zero. If there is any indication of a possibility of slippage, this subdivision will not occur." To that end, another study is about to start focusing on geo- technical stability.

Although Council has given the application three readings, fourth and final reading will be held back until the applicant has provided a detailed traffic analysis and the geo technical report has been completed showing there is no danger of slippage.

Councilor Debora Munoz stood alone in opposing the development.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Monday, March 02, 2009 09:02 PM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: bohemian on March 2 2009 10:20 PM

Let's keep expanding and developing the edges of the city. Donut theory, one more time.

Did council ask for a covenant to ensure development over the said time frame? Do they ever?

What is the supply of currently zoned but undeveloped lots? Why is that number never brought into the discussion?

We don't need to zone more lots. This is one more reason the property tax on land should be higher than the tax on the building - to disincent undeveloped land (it would also provide incentive for upgrading / maintaining buildings as property tax wouldn't rise in proportion to the improvement).

Posted by: gus on March 2 2009 10:25 PM

I think we need to develop the slope to the west of University Avenue going up Cranbrook Hill to the University.

Developing stepped appartment units on that slope will be an infill, will allow the building foundation system to stabilize the slope, and will provide the City with many more dollars from the sale of property that they never realized they had access to.

Units can be developed on the eastern side of the roadway as well with primary access from the toe of the hill.

http://housingprototypes.org/project?File_No=SWI002

Posted by: NMG on March 2 2009 10:25 PM

Yipee. Another "clear cut" subdivision to sit empty for the next decade, adding to the other "clear cut" eye sores spread around the city in every direction.

Do you think our City Council would ever reject a neighbourhood plan that came before them?

Posted by: gus on March 2 2009 10:34 PM

BTW, for all the smart growth people, that "smart" growht concept came form the smart growth people of the 1960s who even came before my generation.

As it says on the site: "These 30 houses are perhaps the best example of the kind of hillside housing for which the Swiss have developed a reputation for design excellence in the past half century following a national strategy of building housing on steep hillsides not suitable for agriculture."

National strategy??? wow!! Could we maybe try to have a City wide strategy? Time to review the OCP seriously and start think a bit about what we are doing to our City. In my view, we are botching up big time. An OCP review is long overdue. Why is administration not acting on this? Why is Council not asking them to act? This is the time to do it.

Posted by: NMG on March 2 2009 10:48 PM

"An OCP review is long overdue. Why is administration not acting on this? Why is Council not asking them to act?"

That's because everyone at the City is too busy trying to figure out why our air is so bad :)

Posted by: tombstone81 on March 2 2009 11:20 PM

No, it's because way too much damn money goes into financing IPG and all its hair-brained schemes. If we put a few million bucks a year into legitimate and realistic local expenditures instead of letting Tim McEwan lead an awe-struck council on so many flights of fancy about how internationally cosmopolitan we can be (indeed, Prince George is going to be the next Chicago, Paris or Brussels, don't you know!?)...then maybe we could develop a real home-grown strategy for a livable city that didn't require a dozen trips to China.

Posted by: acrider54 on March 3 2009 5:49 AM

Nice big lots

Posted by: Eagleone on March 3 2009 8:45 AM

I would oppose this for a number of reasons... slippage and loss of green belt area among them... but the biggest down side I see is this punny lot sizes... PG's selling point is big yards not Vancouver cheepo yards.... the medium to long term consequence is more homes built three four stories full of stairs and still no ranchers for the coming wave of retirement folks who will need local housing that is accessible for the elderly and the wheel chair bound... surely if new house are built in this town looking out ten years the ranchers are the kind of housing we should be supporting and these small lot subdivisions cement the fact this will not happen and thus old people will need to move and take their money with them when they retire, because city planners couldn't say no to any of these cheepo 'smart city' developers.

Its a run on sentence, but its true....

Gus I like you're idea of the high rises along Tyner Blvd over looking the city. That I could support.

Posted by: gold_rush on March 3 2009 9:49 AM

I still dont understand why that one new subdivision across from canadian tire, on the way up to the university isnt full. Why are we talking about the moores meadow subdivision and this one, if that one cant even be filled?

Posted by: Harbinger on March 3 2009 12:12 PM

The subdivision on Tyner mirrors the economy. Simple as that.

Posted by: Common Sense on March 3 2009 3:14 PM

what does it matter to you people if the lots are small or if there are lots currently developed and sitting vacant? bring in more developers and lets subdivide the whole friggin town, the construction dollars support our local contractors and puts people back to work.

Posted by: Harbinger on March 3 2009 4:15 PM

And the people moving here will work where? Not sweeping the new runway at the airport. That's for sure.

Posted by: NMG on March 3 2009 5:04 PM

"I still dont understand why that one new subdivision across from canadian tire, on the way up to the university isnt full"

Just my opinion, but I think it's because it looks like an ugly, barren moonscape, devoid of any life or anything remotely attractive, much like many of the other developments in PG. It also doesn't help that the lots are priced like they are riverfront property.

Supporting a new development (especially when current demand is insanely low) would be ALLOT easier if it looked like it was going to result in some smart growth and attractiveness for the City.

Posted by: gamblor on March 3 2009 5:20 PM

This is a very prudent move by the developer - buy low, sell high. That's why you're all suckers.

Posted by: NMG on March 3 2009 6:02 PM

"This is a very prudent move by the developer - buy low, sell high. That's why you're all suckers"

But in order to sell high, they also need buyers and limited supply, neither of which will come to reality for them within the 3-5 years. I also question whether the appetite for 350-400K starter homes will continue once our current economic mess is over, which I assume will be the going price for those properties.