JANUARY  25^th  2010   WORKSHOP

SUMMARY

Overwhelming opposition to a rezoning application by ParkLane Homes for the remaining section of Bedford Landing was recorded at a workshop held on Jan. 25 by the Fort Langley Community Association.

Approximately 100 residents of the Fort Langley area, including many from Bedford Landing, voted strongly against the application which would radically change the face of the development - and would allow ParkLane to change the rules and conditions it originally agreed to.

The workshop invited discussion of 11 questions, with the options of  yes. no and undecided.   The questions and the tabulated responses to them can be seen below.

The re-zoning application is expected to go before council for first and second reading in March. An overwhelming majority at the workshop said that council should reject the application at that stage.

Should council vote to bring it to third reading, a public hearing would be required, which the mayor has said would be held in Fort Langley.

DISCUSSION

Following are major concerns arising from the rezoning application:

There is widespread anger at the claim by Parklane that the community has been consulted about the proposals. The plans were submitted to the Township before anything was made public, and they have not changed since then. None of the comments have made the slightest difference to the plans. 

+ ParkLane is attempting to cram more residential units  another large four-storey apartment block - into the area and thus increase their profit to the detriment of the community.  An earlier Survey by the FLCA showed overwhelming public opposition to another large residential block.  The existing apartment block  which was raised on the site originally intended for seniors residences - already acts as a visual barrier between Fort Langley and Bedford Landing; one more would only increase the divide. 

+ The remaining area is zoned for type 8 and type 9 uses. Type 8 is for a hotel and type 9 is for commercial use which includes a maximum of 22 residential units above first floor level, similar to existing buildings on Glover Road. A hotel is a requirement of  current zoning, which would be a considerable asset to Fort Langley, with both domestic and international visitors on the increase. This is an amenity which was included in the original permit for development of the Interfor site and if it is omitted then an equivalent benefit should be offered.

For both Type 8 and Type 9 development, the height limit is 3 storeys or 12m whichever is less, which is in keeping with existing buildings in Fort Langley.

+ The proposed new apartment block would place homes, rather than shops, at street level and would restrict public use of the area.  The type of casual strolling, gathering and parking which occurs in a commercial setting is not acceptable in front of  peoples living or bed rooms.

+ That question ties in to the matter of the nearby public plaza, which ParkLanes application would  relocate from the waterfront to the corner of Glover Road and the railroad tracks.  The original ParkLane site plan shows a River Front Plaza next to the rowing dock. This would have provided a place to sit and enjoy the view and also a place to gather when events are held on Bedford Channel. It should be noted that this is now one of the best places in the Vancouver area for regattas and similar events.  With that in mind, consider that B.C.s Summer Games this year are being held in Langley Township and the rowing events will be held in this very location. Proposals show the narrow landscaped strip between the existing apartments and the river bank being extended past the rowing dock, eliminating the use of this space for public gathering. In contrast, the proposed plaza is in a busy spot at the main entrance to Bedford Landing, with views of the water blocked by buildings.

+ One other requirement, in the agreement that they made when they took over the Interfor site, is for ParkLane to provide a municipal parking lot with approximately 68 spaces at the east end of the site adjacent to the railway.  ParkLane claim to meet the requirement, but only by counting existing spaces, some in back lanes and others in groups of 3 or 4 spaces scattered around the area.

The area in the rezoning application should not be seen in isolation, but as the last piece in a scheme which includes the whole of the Bedford Landing development. By reneging on some of the promises and conditions in the original agreement, Parklane would spoil what is otherwise a successful project.

In accordance with the result of the final question, the Community Association will request that council reject this rezoning application.

WORKSHOP RESULTS

1.   Has there been sufficient public consultation in the preparation of the current development

      proposal for Bedford Landing?

            4 Yes               68 No              18 Undecided

2.    Does the Parklane proposal fit your vision of the way this site should be developed?

 1 Yes              81 No              11 Undecided   

3.   Do you agree with the relocation of the public plaza  from the waterfront to the corner of

      Glover Road and the railroad tracks?

              5  Yes            85 No              4 Undecided

4.  Do you approve of the rezoning application to increase the allowable height from 3 to 4 stories?

            12 Yes             81 No              5 Undecided

5.  Do you want commercial development  at street level ? 

      Note:  Residential at street level changes the original vision of a tourist destination. 

      (hotel, plaza, stores, public parking and active street life).                                                                  

            67 Yes             14 no               13 Undecided

6.  Do you agree that the current required zoning for a hotel should be changed to allow another

     apartment block?

            13 Yes             75 No              5 Undecided

7.   Do you think there is, currently, adequate parking in Bedford Landing?

            11 Yes             77 No              6 Undecided

8.  Does the proposal provide for sufficient additional parking?

            1 Yes               87 No              4 Undecided

9.  Do you feel that a view corridor from Glover and Mavis across the public plaza to the waterfront

     is important?

            89  Yes            1 No                3 Undecided

10.  Do you think the view from the Bedford Channel along the waterfront (south) is important?

            86 Yes             0 No                8 Undecided

11.  Should Parklanes proposal be rejected with a request that the Township and Parklane consult

       with the community about the site and the overall waterfront?

            89 Yes             0 no                 4 Undecided