12 replies to this topic

[Mike K.]

New plan allows taller buildings in Esquimalt

BY KIMWESTAD Times Colonist staff

Buildings in some areas of Esquimalt can now be built twice as high, after the municipality adopted a new Official Community Plan that allows for increased density.

The revamped OCP keeps in mind Esquimalt’s need to prepare for growth and redevelopment, since the town’s population is expected to grow by 25 per cent in the next 20 years.

The new community plan allows for up to 10 storey-buildings in certain areas, like the 800-block of Esquimalt Road, and at the corner of Admirals and Esquimalt Roads. That’s double the maximum allowed previously.

Mayor Chris Clement said the increase in those areas can occur with minimal impact on surrounding neighborhoods.

The new 10-storey height could even increase, Clement said, if amenities were offered to the community.

An official community plan provides a framework to guide growth and development. Council decisions should be consistent with the plan which is supposed to reflect community vision, and is periodically reviewed and revamped. The plan was last updated in 1996.

With its land essentially all used, Esquimalt must now be creative to increase density while not losing its smalltown ambience.

Some lots along Esquimalt Road are “huge pieces of asphalt” with singlestorey rundown buildings and are not an effective use of valuable land, Clement said.

The plan also promotes green space, including parks and the so-called “urban forest” - the pieces of remaining forest in parks and neighbourhoods.

With the plan adopted, council can now move forward with other projects, including a review of infill housing and duplex guidelines.

Esquimalt is also reviewing proposals to revamp municipally owned land with the aim of creating a village centre.

[G-Man]

I really hope that some developers take them up on this. We may be witnessing the beginning of a turnaround in Esquimalt.

[Mike K.]

Yes, this will give Esquimalt more exposure on the development front but its a shame that the rest of this region considers Esq a local dumping ground and is pushing for a full-scale treatment plant on its prime waterfront real-estate. That plant will detract from a lot of the potential Esq has to revitilize its waterfront which will serve as a catalyst for future development elsewhere.

[G-Man]

It would not be a problem if they a) went completely underground at Macaulay Point or B) Paired the Feds to put it on the Navy Lands next door.

[aastra]

Why does the plant itself have to be located on prime waterfront anyway?

[G-Man]

It doesn't, however, Macaulay point has the infrastructure now so it is apparently cheaper for the constuction if the plants are in the same place. Otherwise there is a need to reverse flows on certain pipes build diverters. Also Macaulay Point isn't developable land, it is a park.

[aastra]

This is where you lose me. I'm seeing all sorts of empty land beyond the boundaries of the park. And the feds have expressed their interest before re: developing these sorts of properties in Victoria. Where's the coordination?

This is reminding me of the city's position re: the new arena. The best proposal was for a different site, but the city had its own reasons for wanting to build right on top of the old one.

[G-Man]

Are you saying it should go on the federal land? It could easliy be underground at the park site and no one would be the wiser.

[aastra]

I'm saying:

1) McCauley Point is relevant to the sewage treatment issue
2) The federal government is relevant to the sewage treatment issue
3) The federal government is relevant to McCauley Point
4) The federal government has dropped hints about its intention to develop its waterfront properties in Victoria (for example, McCauley Point)
5) McCauley Point is priceless waterfront real estate

There's tremendous potential staring us in the face with this one. It'd be nice if we accomplished something more than just an upgrade to the existing facilities.

[G-Man]

But it is a park it cannot be developed. Or is it not a park? I always assumed it was public land perhaps I am wrong. I would be against development there though.

[Icebergalley]

Go take a look at the CRD atlas map..

http://maps.crd.bc.c...mf.jsp?site=naa

You can see the plant to the west of Anson Cresc... and east of McCauley Park at 1:5000

It's got a "tab" on the southern property boundary which corresponds to the location of the 1.5 km outfall which I've seen on the current Vic. Harbour Chart..

Once you have found it, click on the orthophoto and see the plant itself in colour..

[G-Man]

Is it under the baseball diamonds or the parade square?

[Icebergalley]

Duh?

Your point.. current situation or future plan?

Have a peek at all the structures within the property boundaries about 1/3 of the way west of Anson and 2/3 of the way east of the the Park which is clearly outlined in green.. bounded on the south by the salt water between Harrison Island and Mcauley Point Park..

Guess I have to remind myself again that a land based site visit is necessary as I've only viewed the site fron the water... the Harbour chart.. and the CRD atlas... Perhaps there is a sign on the landside by the access to their ample and underused parking lot..

If I recall correctly, sewage has been dumped out of the Mcauley Point area for many many years...

Consult page 3 of 5 of this url...

http://www.crd.bc.ca...ments/chap4.pdf

Which indicates that the Mcauley Point outfall (not the park) goes back to 1917

http://www.crd.bc.ca...ents/fig4_1.pdf

Hummmm?