Inside Langford

At tonight’s Langford Council Meeting, citing strong community opposition to the original 14 storey proposal, the developer’s time and money, and city hall staff’s time and effort, Lillian Szpak (representing the Planning, Zoning, and Affordable Housing Committee) recommended that the developer come back with a new proposal of 6-8 storeys.

The proposed development would have resulted in a 14 storey building across the street from Ruth King Elementary. At present, 2771 Jacklin is an apartment building named “O Rancho Velho.” Peter Dosanjh and his wife Michelle had proposed to convert the two storey structure into a multi-faceted 14 storey building. Perhaps the most interesting element of the proposed development was that it was designed to look like a collection of several buildings from a distance: one 14 storeys, one 9 storeys, and one shorter still. All of them would have been connected through a common five storey base, which would have had a rooftop garden between the two tallest sections of the building.

The proposal would have had to make sure that the height of the building didn’t interfere with the CREST emergency services communication system, to the point they may have had to install a repeater. It would have had dedicated scooter and bicycle parking, and frontage works at 2787 Jacklin would have been completed by the developer as part of the agreement. They would have also paid to widen Jackin.

I have had a few articles on 2771 Jacklin on the go, but have not been able to complete them yet. I intend to do so despite tonight’s development, because the project was interesting in its own right, and it will be interesting to look at their ambitious plans for the property and try to see if they can be accomplished in about half the height.

At the recent Planning, Zoning, and Affordable Housing meeting, the repeated common theme was that the height was considered too much by the neighbours. In response to that, Langford planner Matthew Baldwin noted that “Until recent changes to the BC Building Code, it was not possible to go beyond four storeys in woodframe construction,” and that what he’d “always been told is that once you go beyond four storeys and into concrete, you have to be into a building of this size.”

Can a concrete building be done economically in 6-8 storeys? Or will the developer take advantage of those recent changes, which allow a wood frame building of 6 storeys, and switch his construction material entirely? Or will a more drastic change, like changing to another type of development altogether, perhaps now be in the cards? We can only wait and see.