Photo by Vince Fedoroff
PROPOSED SITE – The proposed 16-unit apartment complex for Cook Street would be built in this snow-covered space. Council has rejected the proponent’s bid for relaxed parking requirements for the project.
Photo by Vince Fedoroff
PROPOSED SITE – The proposed 16-unit apartment complex for Cook Street would be built in this snow-covered space. Council has rejected the proponent’s bid for relaxed parking requirements for the project.
A local housing developer says he’s disappointed and a bit frustrated by city council’s rejection of his request to reduce parking requirements for an affordable housing project at 410 Cook St.
A local housing developer says he’s disappointed and a bit frustrated by city council’s rejection of his request to reduce parking requirements for an affordable housing project at 410 Cook St.
Kirk Potter, the president of Energy North Construction, said in an interview Tuesday afternoon the decision comes even after city administration had indicated to members of council that reducing the parking requirements by three stalls, from 11 to eight, was not an issue.
The city’s development review committee reviewed the request for the amendment to the zoning bylaw and did not have an issue, he noted.
Potter said administration had indicated it would be even less of an issue after that section of Cook Street is reconstructed later this year and angle parking on the street is created.
The proposal for the development of a four-storey apartment complex with 16 micro-units and two commercial spaces for lease was not about making money, he said, but rather about providing more affordable housing.
The payback period, Potter said, is 20 years. When you start putting elevators in buildings, it gets expensive, he noted.
“This is not a money-maker,” he said. “I have lived here a long time, and I see some of the substandard housing people are living in and I would like to see that improved.”
He said he would like to ask the three city councillors who voted against the parking reductions why they did not support the affordable housing proposal. (See story above.)
The vote at Monday’s meeting resulted in a three-three tie, as Mayor Dan Curtis is taking a leave of absence while he runs for the Liberal party in the April 12 territorial election. Tie votes result in the proposal being defeated.
In hindsight, said Potter, perhaps council should have delayed the vote until after the election, when Curtis may have been back in the chair.
The mayor was enthusiastic about the proposal, Potter said.
The company president said they’ll have to sit down now with the architect to look at options to redesign the project to make it work.
Providing affordable housing is still the priority, he said.
Through a grant from the Yukon Housing Corp., 10 of the 16 micro-units would have been available as affordable housing for the next 20 years.
Increasing the availability of affordable housing has been identified as a priority by city council.
The councillors who voted against the parking reduction voiced concerns over the impact of increasing on-street parking.
Potter said they were hoping to begin construction in May, but that will be delayed now.
Working with the architect, they’ll have to reconfigure the design, but Potter said he is committed to the 10 affordable housing units, and any shrinkage in the building’s footprint will mean a reduction in the six units that would have been available for regular rent rates.
Potter said he is still hopeful they can proceed. He said he has well over $500,000 sunk into the project so far, not including the purchase of the property.
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 (11)
Up 19 Down 0
SH on Mar 26, 2021 at 9:12 am
I am 100% in agreement with the council's decision. The lack of parking in downtown Whitehorse is incredibly frustrating. Let's not make the problem worse.
If you can't figure out how to build housing with sufficient parking, then don't build, or build somewhere else. Most importantly, don't sink $500,000 into a project if this kind of issue is going sink the project.
Up 19 Down 0
John on Mar 25, 2021 at 9:22 pm
@kirk ... so you have $500,000 into it without land cost? Soft costs and fencing? No wonder you can't make the project work, you either exaggerate or can't budget.
Up 27 Down 1
Shannon Luft on Mar 25, 2021 at 2:09 pm
Parking is already an issue in the downtown core. And of course the city admin is all for street parking. Although it's not the policy currently, it could easily happen that parking meters go 24/7 and those residents will need to plug meters or get ticketed.
Council voting this down is a win.
Up 33 Down 3
Lennie on Mar 25, 2021 at 11:42 am
Absolutely the best decision those counselors could ever have made. Our group will be supporting them for their next election.
DUMP THE OTHER 3!!
Up 21 Down 5
iota on Mar 25, 2021 at 7:58 am
In my experience the city planners have far too much power and little oversight. One planner told us she could demand any unnecessary professional report, at our expense, to hold up our project in the planning and rezoning phase. Because she didn't agree with our project.
Up 15 Down 5
CJ2 on Mar 24, 2021 at 10:58 pm
It's not about the money, he says, he just wants to raise people's standard of living. I've heard that before. Like, if you're building "affordable housing" and say you aren't interested in money, you should just be able to write your own zoning in. I guess that's the subtext.
Apart from not caring for a spot zoning approach, which ultimately seems to depend on who can talk the best game, in the big picture, I would be very wary of any suggestion (as administration apparently implied) that the city would have no problem with on-street parking. Forever, would that be? At some point, there might be a whole new regime...no overnight parking, for example. A series of seemingly reasonable restrictions on using public space for private vehicles that ultimately leaves drivers with no place to park. Or from another point of view, the city is limiting its own options by ceding public land for private vehicles.
How do electric vehicles fit into the picture? This government is talking about significant increase in electric vehicles. Where can they get charged, if the trend to eliminate parking spaces continues, while encouraging multi-housing and apartments?
I have little to no knowledge of electric vehicles, though. I do know if it's 30 below and you're parked on the street -- plugging your regular car in is an issue.
Up 28 Down 1
Nathan Living on Mar 24, 2021 at 6:52 pm
City admin is constantly recommending ridiculous things, nice to see council make the right decision.
Up 2 Down 10
martin on Mar 24, 2021 at 5:06 pm
@Politico; you said it better than anyone!
Up 55 Down 8
Bet they proceed anyway on Mar 24, 2021 at 4:07 pm
What are the chances that they just do it anyway and ask for forgiveness?
Happy to see that the City finally didn't give in. Why wasn't it designed properly in the first place knowing the restrictions?
And as if they aren't in this for the money. Why build then? Were they playing that card to get sympathy to try to sway council?
Up 20 Down 17
Jason on Mar 24, 2021 at 3:11 pm
Death by a thousand cuts is how you get a poorly planned and designed city. This one is just 3 spots, then the next one is two. Not a big deal in the grand scheme of things and I empathize with the proponent, but let's do better. Let's build a city we can be proud of.
Up 21 Down 60
Politico on Mar 24, 2021 at 2:59 pm
Gotta love a bunch of rich, overpaid city councilors telling poor people where and how they can live. Disgraceful.