Photo by Whitehorse Star
Photo by Whitehorse Star
City council is scheduled to vote at its meeting Monday on a proposed zoning amendment to allow for a multi-unit housing development at 410 Cook St.
City council is scheduled to vote at its meeting Monday on a proposed zoning amendment to allow for a multi-unit housing development at 410 Cook St.
The project proponent is looking to build a four-storey apartment building with 16 micro-units and two commercial spaces for lease.
The project has received funding from the Yukon Housing Corp. that would guarantee at least 10 of the 16 units would be maintained as below-market affordable housing units for the next 20 years.
The Cook Street lot is located two lots behind the Chilkoot Inn, next to the four-storey apartment building located directly behind the inn.
The single-storey home that had occupied the lot was removed in early 2020. To make the project economically viable, the proponent has indicated they need a reduction in the parking requirements, says the administrative report presented to council at its meeting Monday.
The proponent is looking to remove the requirement to provide two visitor parking stalls, to remove the requirement for a loading space and reduce the requirement for eight residential parking stalls to seven.
Of the 14 written submissions received for the Feb. 22 public hearing into the proposal, eight were opposed largely on the issue of reducing the parking requirements.
There were concerns about the impact on on-street parking, and additional traffic congestion, and the effect it would have on clearing snow in the winter with more parking on the street.
But the city’s development review committee has reviewed the application and found it to be acceptable.
The use of on-street parking in that area is relatively low, says the report.
It also notes on-street parking will be better accommodated when the section of Cook Street is reconstructed later this year and angle parking is established.
The report says it is generally accepted those who live in affordable housing are less likely to have a vehicle. While some members of city council voiced concerns Monday about reducing the parking requirements, there was no outright opposition expressed.
The three public hearing responses that supported the project were in favour of creating more affordable housing downtown.
The location is seen as ideal for affordable housing units as it is close to a grocery store, convenience store, an elementary school, Shipyards Park and transit stops, the report notes.
Those living in affordable housing often use active transport such as walking or cycling.
“Council’s strategic priorities support partnerships with the private sector and territorial government with respect to attainable housing,” says the administrative report. “The Safe at Home plan further suggests incentivizing ‘micro home’ developments through zoning, and the Yukon Housing Action Plan recommends municipalities to overcome policy barriers to development of rental units and mixed housing.
“The proposed amendment is in line with these documents.”
In order to encourage thoughtful and responsible discussion, website comments will not be visible until a moderator approves them. Please add comments judiciously and refrain from maligning any individual or institution. Read about our user comment and privacy policies.
Your name and email address are required before your comment is posted. Otherwise, your comment will not be posted.
Comments (10)
Up 12 Down 1
lennie on Mar 23, 2021 at 1:24 pm
What a bunch of numbskulls COW employees and council seem to be, ARE. Quit screwing with the Official Community Plan. If Curtis and White support this, we will have to do all we can to ensure they are not successful in upcoming election; all we can do to ensure councilors are replaced.
There is some private property across the street, PRIVATE PROPERTY WHICH WILL HAVE TO BE FENCED OFF TO PREVENT TRESPASSERS. Without a fence and signs, they will have a more difficult time defending themselves in a civil law suit. What an attack on privately owned property???? Just do a drive by and check out the derelict vehicles left on the street now!!! PLEASE QUIT SCREWING WITH OUR DOWNTOWN PARKING.
Up 12 Down 0
Adam Smith on Mar 22, 2021 at 11:46 pm
Cathy, yes.
Any conclusion that parking in downtown Whitehorse is not essential is flawed. it dooms the proposed project to be a slum.
We can do better.
Up 11 Down 0
micawber on Mar 22, 2021 at 11:12 pm
Why do we bother writing OCPs? They require community consultation but then they are over-ridden by politics of the day.
Up 0 Down 8
Joseph on Mar 22, 2021 at 8:06 pm
Isn’t there a parking lot across the street that sits empty during business hours?
Up 11 Down 0
Joe on Mar 22, 2021 at 5:20 pm
Just say NO. Or else open it up for everyone. I'd also like to put up a building, use the whole lot, have no parking, get govy funding. I follow the established rules.
Up 1 Down 17
Cathy on Mar 22, 2021 at 11:27 am
This housing is desperately needed, can anyone deny that?
Up 20 Down 0
Max Mack on Mar 22, 2021 at 11:04 am
I've commented previously on related stories about the insanity of the parking reductions for this project.
Obviously, this was a deal that CoW made before the "consultations" and CoW is determined to ram it through, regardless of how the public feels. This is why I have zero faith in CoW "engagements".
I am also very curious why the project proponent's identity is being hidden. Very curious, indeed.
Up 19 Down 0
Denis on Mar 22, 2021 at 10:40 am
Please!! Quit screwing around with Parking ANYWHERE...Many of these COW employees & Council will soon be replaced.
Up 42 Down 1
Vern Schlimbesser on Mar 20, 2021 at 12:22 pm
16 new houses, on this one lot.
And two new businesses.
But the City bureaucrats reassure us not to worry, most of those 16 won't have vehicles.
8 of 14 presentations are concerned parking will be an issue.
This is so illogical and the response (if accurate) so dismissive by COW's "new development review committee", that obviously someone or something powerful is behind the project. Either that or the committee's values are naive or biased?
COW is saying; We are going ahead. Poor people don't drive cars. Commercial developments don't need parking. People who don't live in low-cost housing are less active and somehow less...what?
What other messages don't match here.
I am not affected directly by this project. But I am affected by the attitude of COW managers and politicians who act this way. There can be no trust when their actions defy logic. It turns to frustration when it has the appearance of bias?
Up 19 Down 6
TheHammer on Mar 19, 2021 at 9:15 pm
Make sure you include insurance for bed bug infestation.