Goldstream Meadows public hearing
Posted by Steven Hurdle on June 4, 2009
There were two public hearings Monday night. One was on 894 Walfred Road and was hotly discussed (watch for a report on that tomorrow), but the other was on Goldstream Meadows and somewhat more mellow. Nonetheless, several concerns were raised by local residents.
Bylaw #1215 proposes to do some interesting things for Goldstream Meadows. While it is not going to be a manufactured home park, the plan is to structure the community similarly to one and the development is seeking rafts of variances to accomplish this goal. Goldstream Meadows is intended to be made up largely of smaller, in some cases much smaller, and inexpensive housing. They’ll look a lot like a small single family dwelling, but they’ll be constructed by a prefabricated modular housing system that is a lot like a “manufactured home”.
To accomplish this goal the development is asking for the most expansive list of variances I’ve ever heard of, including:
- deleting minimum setbacks,
- increasing the percentage of a lot that the building can cover,
- increasing the maximum permitted residential density,
- deleting minimum lot sizes,
- reducing the minimum required off-street parking
In exchange for these variances the Turner Lane Development Corp porject proposes to offer the community a significant amount of small-format affordable housing, a community park estimated to cost $100,000, and a 36% dedication of land to the City.
With the introduction of the development behind them, the public hearing turned to questions and commentary from the public. A resident of Humpback Road wanted asked developer Les Bjola “what do you plan for the commercial areas?” She further editorialised his feelings on the subject by adding “When will you stop building these commercial boxes? When I come home it feels like an industrial park.”
Mayor Young began his response by saying “You used to drive through…” but was interrupted by the resident who corrected the mayor to indicate that he in fact rode a bicycle through the area on his way home. The mayor appeared either not to correctly hear the resident, or was unsuccessful in adjusting to the new information, as he continued by repeatedly referring to the person driving through the area for the rest of the discussion. Mayor Young went on to explain that they had closed off Sooke Lake Road because they had deemed it unsafe, and that Cisco, one of those commercial/industrial boxes the resident was complaining about, had paid for the new, safer road.
The resident disagreed with the premise that the old road alignment was unsafe. “I’ve never heard about an accident for the 16 years I’ve lived on Humpback Road.”
The mayor stuck to his claim. “It was very unsafe and there’s more traffic than there used to be when you first moved in.” While not citing any statistics to back up his assertion, he did claim “Believe me, I get a lot of comments from people about how much safer it is now.”
He added that “It was a four or five million dollar project to get that up.” Stew Young did seem to recognise that the older road alignment was more pleasing on the eyes. “Yes, you have to drive through a Cisco building in an area you never had to drive through before.” He ended with “Yeah, you may not like driving by those buildings,” but the mayor re-asserted it was necessary to get built what is an expensive and, he argues, safer road built without the taxpayers having to foot the whole bill.
Another area resident then questioned developer Les Bjola on the nature of the proposed commercial elements of Goldstream Meadows. “It actually is not retail commercial, it’s service commercial,” he explained. “It’s like a local coffee shop area, it’s not meant to be big retail.”
Denise Blackwell, perhaps responding in part to both of the residents’ questions, stressed that we wouldn’t see any more of the big box commercial/industrial development in the area. “I think the point is that Cisco and the Drane building were all previously approved, and we’re not planning on approving anything more like that.”
A third resident had a different inquiry, about the “berm”, the mound of earth between the commercial/industrial boxes and Langford Lake. “I want to know what’s going by that berm. Is there anything going along there?”
Les Bjola promised that residents would be happy with the future of the berm. “We’re planting it extensively so there’s no visual impact for the existing… residents.”
Spencer Road User said
What council & some developers are saying, regarding this wonderful new low cost housing, is a load of bull. A couple months back I happened upon a meeting where a builder was looking for sub trade bids – instead of referring to the project as Goldstream Meadows it was called the Langford Ghetto. There was a laugh each time it was mentioned. They begin this project with so much disrespect for the folks who they plan to sell these houses to. Makes me wonder how these people sleep at night!
Herman Surkis said
Makes me wonder how these people sleep at night!
On a mattress stuffed with $1000 bills.
The best way to scam people is to tell them part of the truth, and make it sound like it’s all true, and they are doing you a favour. And the worst part is that most of us buy it. Hell, I even thought that Microsoft made good software.
Rick B said
Don’t think this area will be a ghetto. Although the houses are lower priced, they still will cost over $300,000. Nobody who can afford that will turn their neighborhood into a ghetto. I think people are just unsure as to how the development will turn out and will expect the worse because it is different.
Maureen said
Les Bjola promised the tree planting on the berm at least 3 years ago. I have questioned the Parks Dept about it several times over the last 2 years, nothing has happened yet ,and now the berm is covered in large sized broom, which according to the CRD parks is very expensive to remove. Les should keep his promises in a timely fashion.
Rick B said
I don’t think that Les Bjola is the most upstanding person in the world either, however, it is hard to please everyone and no developer is liked by all.
I was out at Langford Lake today and took another look at all the development and although the berm is yet unchanged, there is plenty of new landscaping and Sysco is now surronded with new plants and trees. Hopefully the berm won’t be far behind?
MK said
Langford Development/Construction Standards.
I should like to aquaint your readers with the very different standards that Langford from time to time applies to itself and/or to large corporations with regard to the construction of, or improvement to, roads in the city when developments occur, and in stark contrast to the requirements applied to a home owner or small business developing a relatively small property.
The official community plan of Langford has designated the northern two-thirds of Humpback Rd. between Sooke Rd. and Irwin Rd. to become a pedestrian/ cycling trail in the future when alternate arterial roads are in place. The only access from within Langford (other than the dangerous Sooke Hwy 14) for pedestrians and cyclists to this trail will be via Amy Rd. (if they want to avoid some busy new arterial road). Langford constructed the east-west section of Amy Rd. connecting with Sooke Lake Rd. without sidewalks on both sides and without any allowances for cyclists.Only a single asphalt-paved sidewalk has been constructed and switches sides at the half-way mark and so neccesitates pedestrians to cross through traffic in a bend of Amy Rd. to the other side. Langford did not construct a concrete curb nor a sidewalk on the south side of Amy Rd. abutting the longest property line of the almost completed Cysco warehouse development. Neither has Langford required Cysco to construct a concrete curb and a side walk even though plantings were put in.
Again this is an access route to the future Humpback walking and pedestrian trail. On occassions we have observed wheelchairs and scooters and child carriers trying to squeeze by one another when they meet on this single sidewalk on Amy Rd. The new Amy Rd. is not up to the standards that Langford requires smaller property owners to constuct to when changing land use.