Letters To the Board, Post

Re: 2345 Queenswood Dr.

 Dear Cadboro Bay Residents Association 

I am opposed to this Subdivision Application in its current form. It is not in keeping with the treed, semi-rural, and natural aspects of Queenswood which our neighbourhood values.

I support the recommendation which has been proposed by a group of residents who are close neighbours of 2345 Queenswood Drive:  

  1. RS12 Zoned lot/House ‘B’ on Annabern Crescent: House B should be designed and built as a bungalow in keeping with the two existing bungalows 
  2. 2) RS14 portion of lot on Queenswood: maintain the current RS14 zoning, NOT rezoning to two RS12 lots.
    I was very dismayed to read in the Saanich News that the approved development application for 2376 Arbutus Road will allow for the removal of 102 trees including 29 protected trees! 

This project should not have been given the green light to proceed.                     Best regards,

Yolande du Gardein-Matson

(Queenswood resident – address supplied)

Letters To the Board, Post

Re: Queenswood development

I am writing to voice EXTREME opposition to the proposed ‘development’ at 2345 Queenswood Dr.

I live down the block, and have since 1988.  i have watched as old homes are torn down for new mansions, many removing old trees and as the years go on  the nature of the neighbourhood is changed. it is constant; never ending.

i am a dog walker, and frequently walk the little path that apparently marks the boundary of this proposed development.  i can’t imagine how this would work given the setback of the original house and to shove two more houses in there is a totally inappropriate inconsideration.

Sell and leave.  Develop and leave.  Really?  No one in the neighbourhood wants this

Thank you
Carolyn Showler

[address supplied; Queenswood resident]

P.S. How about a nice garbage can at the corner of Queenswood and Arbutus?  i have asked many times, no one replies……..how about fixing the potholes that all the construction trucks make and what about some calming initiatives.  The amount of raging cyclists on Queenswood is a disaster waiting to happen.  There should be a way to slow people down a bit!!  it is 50 times worse with the pandemic.

Letters To the Board, Post

Re: Proposed Development at 2345 Queenswood Drive

Dear Mr. Dahli, I am one of the many residents strongly opposed to this proposal, and we have recently been informed that it’s important to bring CBRA into the matter. Several of us have already written to Saanich Planning, but we need to know that the rest of Cadboro Bay and Queenswood are also informed.I am including my letter to Liz Gudavicius of Saanich Planning, for your information. Many thanks for the work you do for Cadboro Bay.

Sincerely,

Faye Ford

Dear Ms. Gudavicius

Further to my phone call and previous email requesting a postponement until the Covid situation is resolved, I would like to register my opposition to this development on the basis of habitat destruction.

The part of the subject lot backing onto Annabern Crescent is at present a wildlife habitat containing native trees such as Douglas Fir, Western Red Cedar, and shrubs such as Salal, Ocean Spray, lots of Snowberry and many others. Looking at the property today I counted 3 large Douglas Fir trees, as well as smaller young ones and one large native Cedar as well as its offspring just over 8’ tall.
The CRD website https://www.crd.bc.ca/education/our-environment/ecosystems/terrestrial/coastal-douglas-fir  is well worth looking at for information on the Coastal Douglas Fir ecosystem, the smallest ecosystem of the 14 in British Columbia, and among the most imperilled. 

It would appear that the whole of our Queenswood neighbourhood is part of this very special ecosystem, with brings with it a vast array of sub shrubs in addition to those mentioned, as well as the precious micorrhizal fungi.The property is alive with birds and insect species, and there are even some fallen logs, potential ‘nurse logs’ for further support of wildlife in its smallest forms.  The mature front yard of 2345 Queenswood includes one giant pine tree that surely couldn’t survive the heavy excavation machinery , even if it were not taken down.

A few years ago, (4? 5?) your Saanich arborists were removing a hazard tree from the public walkway between Queenswood Drive and Annabern Crescent, which separates the properties of two of my neighbours, and one of my neighbours rushed out and yelled at them, “That tree is my privacy! I insist that you replace it with a tree in my yard!”  They dutifully complied, but sadly this is one of the many trees that will be removed if he gets his wish to subdivide his property.

I believe that we must act for the greater good, and preserving natural habitat and beauty are part of who we are in Saanich. I have been very proud of Saanich Planning Department and  Council in the past, such as when they prevented Uvic from razing the 15 acre Queenswood forest across the road. An urban forest is a treasure to keep for future generations, and this one is a gem in the crown of Saanich. All of the properties along Queenswood are treed and have natural areas of habitat left untouched, not destroyed by excessive development. It would be very sad to see 2345 Queenswood start a precedent of urbanization and habitat destruction as the applicant leaves the rest of us in his wake.
Respectfully submitted,

Faye Ford

[address and tel. no. supplied]

Post

Saanich approves Penrhyn townhouse development, 7-2

image

At its meeting on Monday, July 15, the proposed “Osprey” townhouse development at 2590,2594, 2598 Penhryn St. was approved by Saanich Council on July 15, 2019 by a vote of 7 to 2.  

Susan Bryce moved that it be accepted and Karen Harper seconded, saying that it would add to the vibrancy of the village and that it ticks the right boxes for infill. 

Nathalie Chambers and Judy Brownoff voted against, both saying that they might consider an alternative proposal.  Chambers reiterated the sea rise, tsunami and liquefaction risks of the site.  Brownoff said that the design is not sympathetic to the street and that it squeezes in too many units, eg for vehicle turnaround or exiting in an emergency.

Rebecca Merserault and Ned Taylor acknowledged that their decision to support the project had not come easily given the concerns of residents.  Merserault said that she had leaned heavily on the recommendations of staff and work done by experts on flood level risk.  Taylor said that density in village centres makes sense and that decisions have to be based on the existing LAP and OCP, recognizing that the new LAP hasn’t yet been concluded.  Both expressed regret that the development would not be affordable, but Taylor noted that few homes in Cadboro Bay are affordable.

Mayor Haynes said that housing affordability should be defined as affordable to those who want to buy. Those who buy the townhouses will free up their homes to sell, creating a cascade effect.  He said he appreciated the incredible amount of input and regretted that the community had not come to an agreement with the Applicant.

Colin Plant, who had chaired the lengthy June 18public hearing, said that the density is very appropriate and that 3 storeys is small by comparison with some standards.  Every community thinks that it is special but Cadboro Bay is no more special than most others.

Councillor Zac de Vries said his position was much same as that of Councillor Merserault.

A video recording of Council’s full discussion will be available on the Saanich website – July 9, 2019 Public Hearing, starting approximately half an hour in:

https://www.saanich.ca/EN/main/local-government/mayor-council/schedule-agendas-minutes.html

Post

Saanich Council public meeting on Penrhyn Osprey, July 15, 7pm

Since last month’s Public Hearing on the townhouse proposal for 2590–2598 Penrhyn St. had only a bare quorum of councillors, council will be meeting on Monday, July 15, 7pm, at council chambers, for—

Consideration of Second and Third Reading of “Zoning Bylaw, 2003, Amendment Bylaw, 2019, No. 9566” to rezone from the RS-10 (Single Family Dwelling) Zone to the RT-FC (Attached Housing Four Corners) Zone to construct a three-storey, 14 unit townhouse development.  A DEVELOPMENT PERMIT will be considered for form and character along with variances for building separation, front yard setback and parking maneuvering aisle width. A COVENANT will also be considered to further regulate the use of the lands and buildings.

Minutes of last month’s hearing can be found here

The full package of information on the project can be found here

Do come: a good turnout would let councillors know that voters are taking note of their actions.

Post

Re: Penrhyn Street Brochure

Development permit application DPR00660, 2590-2598 Penrhyn St. Cadboro Bay Victoria.

I am pleased that the CBRA is taking an active interest in Cadboro Bay development but I am appalled at the omitted, false or implied information in the recent CBRA brochure. In no way does this represent an honest representation of the proposed development.  Some cases in point:

  • The primary photograph shows Penrhyn St. looking west with the proposed development to the left. The sketch immediately below shows the east side of the development which is not visible from the street.  While this is labeled as such in fine print it is clearly intended to “show” the reader what the property will look like from Penrhyn.  Other sketches were available showing the Penrhyn view but were not selected. 
  • Text below sketch states “eliminating all trees on site”. Probably true due to construction but the CBRA fails to mention the developer is planting 32 new trees, seven of these along Penrhyn 
  • arious opinion statements stated as fact, including height of buildilngs (units are actually lower than adjacent and nearby buildings). 

I am not supporting or opposing the proposed plan. There is always room for improvement and this is to be desired.  I applaud CBRA activities in this regard.  However, I do not approve of misinformation purposely provided to mislead the residents of Cadboro Bay on this or any other development.  For a more factual and comprehensive review, both positively and negatively, I would encourage you to read the Report to Mayor and Council prepared by Sharon Hvozdanski, Director of Planning, District of Saanich.

http://saanich.ca.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=1&event_id=553&meta_id=15751

and

https://www.saanich.ca/assets/Local~Government/Documents/ActiveApps/2590penrhynjune1819srph.pdf

).

Sincerely yours;

Jack L. Littlepage

10 Mile Point

Post

Council hearing on proposed new Penrhyn townhouses

A Saanich Council hearing will be held on Monday April 29th, 7pm, Saanich Municipal Hall, 770 Vernon Avenue on the proposal to rezone 3 single-family lots at 2590, 2594 & 2598 Penrhyn St. for 14 townhouses

Based on community feedback, Cadboro Bay Residents Association is requesting Mayor & Council to require the Applicant to:

  1. significantly downscale and redesign the development to fit with the neighbourhood and preserve more green space;
  2. resolve the concerns of directly affected neighbours;
  3. mitigate the effect of the development’s additional vehicle traffic by providing a sidewalk, a mid-block turning circle, and a pedestrian-priority walkway to Gyro park gate

To express your views, plan to attend on Monday April 29th and/or write to   council@saanich.ca before noon Friday 26th.

Post

Ongoing concerns about Osprey development

Good morning,

I am seeking support from the community in regards to the rear setback of the Osprey Development. I believe the size of the landscape drawn on the rear property line has been squeezed out by parking and the current building setback. The minimum soil requirement for trees planted on municipal land by developers is 15 cubic meters mentioned in your first point. This  should also apply to the maple trees stuffed along the back property line. Jonathan’s calculation’s are correct, there is not enough space for soil in the rear garden for a landscape to thrive. At the Saanich design council meeting regarding the Osprey development the board unanimously agreed the rear landscape was too narrow and requested a change in the drawings. The developer did not move the buildings back but eliminated the sidewalk accessing the parking lot space for persons with disabilities to slightly increase the width of the rear landscape. Having a daughter in a wheelchair I find this unacceptable. It is very hard to manage a wheelchair and person without this sidewalk or space beside the parked vehicle. The developer also added more maple trees to the rear garden eliminating any gains in soil per tree. This is unprofessional.

With one of the six recommendations that came out of the Cadboro Bay Sheret being “green it” or  provide enough space for landscape in development, as well as the findings of the Saanich Design council in regards to the rear landscape, and the support of the community I hope to increase the setback for the rear of the building envelope. This gives ample space for parking and landscape, and provides backyard privacy for Lyn Wray (north of the development), the Rushforth’s (south of the development), and myself (rear of the development). I request the support of the Cadboro Bay association and give my support to my neighbours and community so an alliance is formed before Saanich council.

I was also told by Chuck Bell that the variance request for the front setback is to align the front of the Osprey building with the Element building “commonly done in architecture”. What is also commonly done in architecture when aligning buildings on a boulevard is   the scaling back of the subsequent storeys of the building from the street (like the Element has done). Otherwise the buildings create a  canyon effect limiting access to daylight down the street. The Osprey buildings are currently drawn aligned with the Element building straight up three storeys. Should this be questioned and revised?

Please share my thoughts

Todd and Jessi Jared 

Post

Free “Walkable Victoria” tour, Sat. Oct 13, 1–3pm

IslandTransformations.org advises that Todd Litman, Planning Consultant at the Victoria Transport Policy Institute (www.vtpi.org), is leading a free walking tour about walkability and affordable housing this Saturday, October 13, at 1–3pm, starting from the Beacon Hill Park playground at Cook and Leonard Street, across from Hampton Court.

Todd explains: 

This walk will explore why and how to make our community more affordable by increasing compact development in walkable urban neighborhoods. It will discuss factors that affect housing development costs, and the types of housing that are most affordable to build and occupy. We will look at various housing types including secondary suites, multiplexes, townhouses, mid-rise and high-rise apartments, ranging from heritage buildings to new developments.

It will discuss why and how to increase affordable housing options in walkable urban neighborhoods, using various examples of affordable housing types, including older heritage buildings and new projects under development.