Several concerns were brought up regarding the Range Point Joint Master Plan at Monday’s city council meeting.

Council first discussed the master plan at its June 26 meeting, and a public input session happened on July 10.

In preparation for the public input session, a notice sign was placed on the subject site and property owners within 100 metres were notified by mail.

The Yukon government, Kwanlin Dun First Nation (KDFN), the Ta’an Kwäch’än Council, and the Porter Creek Neighborhood Association were notified by email.

According to the Range Road Point Joint Master Plan final report, if the project is built to minimum density, the site could accommodate as few as 250 units and 575 people.

If it’s built to maximum density, the site could accommodate as many as 627 units and 1,442 people.

The treed site is along Range Road near the Northland Trailer Park, and includes a cleared area where Whitehorse Transit buses turn around.

The council meeting agenda included a list of topics that were raised in the submissions:

• Greenspace and the buffer zone size;

• Active transportation;

• Road network;

• Housing; and

• Process and clean-up.

Following the public input session, Mathieu Marois, of the city’s senior planning and sustainability services branch, said submissions were received from four members of the public, including one post-session submission.

During the meeting, one verbal submission was received.

Marois said concerns were noted about the loss of green space within the plan area, which is considered a wildlife corridor.

“KDFN’s community lands plan identifies the general area as a significant wildlife and the watershed being of considerable ecological value,” Marois said.

“The Mclntyre Creek wildlife corridor assessment recommends a 175-metre riparian buffer on either side of the creek as best practice to mitigate impacts to larger wildlife.

“The study also suggests that the topography naturally guides wildlife movement through the river corridor.”

Marois said according to the plan, a small portion of the northwestern corner of the proposed development area falls within the 175-metre setback.

“The development is, however, on a bench with significant grade difference from the McIntyre Creek corridor. That is considered the escarpment between the proposed element area and the creek would discourage wildlife from using the bench area,” he said.

“Therefore the proposed element is anticipated to have minimal impact on the adjacent wildlife corridor,” Marois told the council.

In terms of active transportation, Marois said concerns raised discussed the impact on existing unmaintained trail networks, and mitigation options were proposed.

“The plan retains a well-used escarpment trail that borders the development to the west and north, along with the trail that straddles the boundary between Northland Park and the YG lot,” he said.

“A network of new natural surface trails will also allow for circulation between the neighbourhood and these trails.

“The plan envisions 1.5-metre wide natural surface trails within these corridors to replicate the look, feel and function of the escarpment trail and to facilitate use by pedestrians and cyclists to mitigate the loss of portions of the existing unmaintained trail network,” he continued.

Marois said the Range Road North Neighborhood plan also addresses offsite trail connection and recommended improvements to the broader network.

“The plan aligns with these recommendations and does not restrict the city from advancing the recommended off-site improvements.

“Contributions for these off-site trail improvements will be confirmed at the subdivision and development agreement stages,” he said to the council.

He told council that the public suggested that the road infrastructure would probably need upgrading to support the heavier traffic loads from the proposed plan.

“A traffic impact analysis was conducted for the plan and model traffic impacts of the 2032 and 2042 Horizon years,” Marois said.

“Recommendations include new intersection configurations for the Mountainview Drive Range Road intersection and the Whistle Bend Way-Range Road intersection, and also minor adjustments to traffic signal timing.

“The city is also advancing a transportation corridor study to examine how to improve traffic flow on Quartz Road and Mountainview Drive,” he continued

The contribution for these road network improvements will be confirmed at the subdivision and development agreement stages.

“A member of the public also asked about phasing and raised concerns about the absence of a construction cleanup plan,” Marois said.

He told council the site clearing proposed for 2024 is projected to be in one phase, with subsequent element construction being staged to maintain key arteries.

The full build-out is projected for 2040.

“A construction cleanup plan to address the management of construction waste is not required as part of this master planning process, as the proposed development is subject to the city’s building and plumbing bylaw that regulates construction activities,” he continued.

“Finally, it was noted that the plan area is accessible and a good location to address the need for housing in Whitehorse.

“Providing housing in this location aligns with the KDFN and community lands plan and the 2040 OCP (Official Community Plan),” said Marois.

“As such, administrative recommendation is the council approve the range point Joint Master Plan, a document providing guidance and a framework for the future development of Yukon government lot 262-6 and Kwanlin Dun First Nation settlement land parcels C-15 B,” he finished.

Coun. Kirk Cameron said his questions related mostly to McIntyre Creek and the impact on future development and planning around a possible McIntyre Creek park.

“In the narrative, there are a number of crossovers that potentially could have decisions made by us now, that could impede the ability of the park planning process to reach conclusions that may be inconsistent with what we decide here,” Cameron said.

He noted one example where a footbridge goes across a creek and presumably means people would have access to the park as opposed to more of a wilderness park.

“So it seems to me that in some respects, as it relates to McIntyre Creek and might be getting ahead of public engagement that’s going to happen around park planning. I’m wondering if you can comment on how these particular processes fit together?” he asked.

Marois said in terms of the McIntyre Creek Park, as part of the OCP process, conceptual boundaries were defined.

“So that sort of public engagement process would happen, I guess, in relation to what those boundaries are defined in the OCP with the idea that, I guess, more refinement of those boundaries would be done through that process,” Marois continued.

Cameron then asked if anything that came out of the public consultation process would then be moved over to the park planning process and not be dealt with in this capacity.

Marois said he supposed yes.

“The engagement for the McIntyre Creek Park like any projects that we have looks at sort of background studies and adjacent work that’s been done.

“So the work that’s being done through here, would likely inform the public engagement for the McIntyre Creek Park or the assessments and work that’s being done through that,” Marois added.

“But yeah, I suppose not the other way around, since this has been approved now,” he said.

Coun. Dan Boyd asked about the possibility of a reference that mentioned the eventual need to twin Mountainview Drive in the transportation plan with a traffic impact study.

Marois told council he did not recall the exact reference for that in the traffic impact study but that the report basically looks at that corridor.

“And so I can’t speak to the recommendations that would come out of that, but that sort of assessment would be done through that,” he said.

Boyd asked whether they could zero in on that possible reference next week.

“We’re suffering really bad right now because of the Range Road development and reconstruction work and sewer line improvements. Traffic is basically really snarled up right now,” Boyd pointed out.

“And there is a fear that adding more development is just going to continue to make it worse, and I for one really want to understand how we’re planning to manage forward on the transportation, and I’m not the first one to say this on council. It’s been sort of a constant concern,” Boyd pointed out.

“And so I’d like to at least understand if there is a reference, what is it or where are we at and, and how feasible is it to be trying to twin Mountainview?

“Because I think we’ve had some discussion over the years about this and we’re just moving the pressure points to another spot further down as you get closer to the downtown core.

“And also we would have to find ways to improve those places,” Boyd continued.

He said it’s an area he would like additional briefing on; it probably wouldn’t ultimately change the decision, but it needs to be understood.

Cameron also asked about the greenspace and buffer.

“You reference that the proposed development is anticipated to have minimal impact on the adjacent wildlife corridor. Who did the assessment on that and how much can we rely on that assessment?” he asked.

Marois said the assessment was taken from an illustration based on the McIntyre Creek wildlife corridor assessment that mentioned 175 metres setback.

“If I can sort of clarify, the assessment also notes that as a minimum, they’d be looking for 125 metres and 175 is the best practice. And it’s that report that sort of mentioned that the topography would also impact where wildlife would move,” he said.

The final report notes that neither set of the development’s anticipated housing units/population numbers scenarios is considered likely given the challenges of meeting setbacks and other zoning requirements (e.g. parking) and the likely desire of future lessees/builders on multi-unit parcels to balance density and liveability.