Whitehorse Daily Star

Image title

Photo by Whitehorse Star

City Planner Mike Ellis

Riverfront development height limits set out

The River’s Edge Partnership could get the 20-metre height limit officials are seeking for its proposed hotel along the downtown waterfront – at least for some portions of the development.

By Stephanie Waddell on September 18, 2018

The River’s Edge Partnership could get the 20-metre height limit officials are seeking for its proposed hotel along the downtown waterfront – at least for some portions of the development.

The partnership is an effort of the Kwanlin Dün First Nation’s Chu Níikwän Corp. and the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation’s Vuntut Gwitchin Limited Partnership.

City planners are recommending council approve changes to the height limit. However, they’re stopping short of suggesting it be a full 20 m in height throughout.

Rather, on Monday evening, city planner Mike Ellis presented council with a proposal for 1181 and 1191 Front St. that would require:

• any buildings that are taller than 12.5 m to be set back at least 7.6 m from the property line next to the Yukon River reserve; and

• any buildings greater than 15 m high to have at least half the gross floor space as part of the hotel.

Additionally, while buildings on 1181 Front St. would have the 20 m maximum height limit, a 15 m height limit would be in place for 1191 Front St.

The recommendation comes following a public hearing last week on the proposed height changes.

Proponents pointed to the project’s benefits, including the boost it could give to the territory’s tourism sector and the local economy.

As it’s proposed, the hotel would feature 100 rooms along with a restaurant and underground parking. The proponents noted they plan work on due diligence in the coming months and will determine whether they will pursue the plans further.

Structures would be built perpendicular to the river to ensure there’s little impact to the trail, which residents could continue to access.

There are also plans to incorporate a strong Indigenous design and to integrate the development with the trail along the waterfront.

The city heard direct support during the public hearing. There were also a number of written submissions, with nine expressing support for the plans and another seven expressing opposition or bringing forward concerns.

Among the issues that came up were:

• the impacts to riverfront views;

• incompatibility with the overall plan for the downtown waterfront;

• the impact it could have on waterfront amenities like the trail; and

• concerns over the application and zoning amendments.

In his report, Ellis highlighted the plans to use the perpendicular design for the building to allow a narrower frontage along Front Street. Parking would largely be accommodated underground, thus limiting the number of surface parking spots.

As Ellis stated: “In general, underground parking is the preferred option in this area since it would minimize surface parking lots, which would be a visual benefit to the overall waterfront experience.

“The applicant is helping to achieve this objective but requires additional height for economic return to offset additional development costs associated with underground parking.”

He went on to highlight various documents – the Official Community Plan, Downtown Plan, Riverfront Plan and Riverfront Design Guidelines – outlining the vision for the waterfront.

Ellis noted there have been exceptions to the trend of lower building heights along the waterfront. The two properties are among the last private parcels of land directly adjacent to the river, he pointed out.

“With the nearby cultural centre, park spaces, commercial enterprises, museums and pedestrian routes to build on, development of this vacant parcel could propel the waterfront into a highly-used public and community space,” Ellis stated.

“The proposed development also supports the original waterfront plans which envisioned taller and larger buildings in certain areas to help increase the number of people and activities along the waterfront, necessary to creating that critical threshold for the successful and vital public space.”

Ellis also addressed concerns around trail access. The zoning bylaw requires walkways to connect with “active transportation routes,” including the waterfront trail, he noted.

If the project proceeds to the development permit stage, the city would include in that a stipulation for pedestrian access through the two properties.

Some nearby property owners also brought forward concerns with the application and proposed amendment.

They noted they had purchased their properties with the understanding of the current height limits for the area.

Ellis pointed out that the ability to apply for zoning changes is outlined in the territorial Municipal Act. The city reviews them on a case-by-case basis – as it’s doing here.

“Zoning amendments are reviewed by council based on the merits of the proposal and overall community benefit and public interest,” Ellis said.

“After zoning is originally established, it may need to be adjusted to reflect new trends and demands experienced in the city.

“Further, practicalities that cannot be foreseen until specific site development is planned may make rezoning desirable.”

Later, when asked by Coun. Samson Hartland, Ellis confirmed that any property owner could apply for a zoning amendment to change the height limits on his or her property.

Ellis also confirmed that, prior to Monday’s meeting, the city had discussed the proposed recommendation with officials at River’s Edge, who gave a “favourable response.”

Coun. Jocelyn Curteanu was not on hand for the discussion around the plans. She has declared a conflict and has left council chambers whenever the matter has come in previous weeks.

Council will vote next week on the final two readings of the zoning change.

Comments (9)

Up 10 Down 1

CJ on Sep 21, 2018 at 10:25 am

"What is the big deal?" You can't spot zone for one property and then expect other developers will ignore the precedent. I think it's pretty hopeless to oppose this, since planners are turning themselves into pretzels trying to make it palatable and "building up" has become part of the catechism. Not too long ago, there was lots of assurances that we wouldn't alienate riverfront views like other, so much less "enlightened" municipalities did. How many years has it taken Toronto to reclaim the waterfront? Generations. How do you get to the waterfront in Vancouver? I don't know. Go to the lobby of a hotel, I guess, and look out the window. Just don't pretend that there's any philosophy operating here that's significantly different.

Personally, I find it hugely irritating when developers say something won't happen if they don't get their way. And I'm not so sold on a hotel being such a signal for fine times to come. I think there's condos in there, too?

I also didn't think a townhouse rezoning in Whistlebend was so out of line, but in that case it seemed to offend the planners no end. Who can keep up with all the different ways they want to thread the needled?

Up 7 Down 4

Josey Wales on Sep 20, 2018 at 11:02 pm

Hey Max...indeed they will. Except with zealots there is no us...just them.
In regards to this theme park we used to call our community, sad...but it is long, long gone.
What has been done to Porter Creek is shameful, CoW could care less.
They are too preoccupied with collective agreements, wealth redistribution schemes, and lining pockets of cronies.
Now we are any old s**thole town, very generic and rife with crime, white and blue collar.
Why yet another homicide to add to our pile as of today!

Even I do not wail much about the look of the new Whitehorse.
I know how stone deaf CoW is, how hypersensitive the snowflakes are to criticism constructive or cynical and the absolute futility of expecting anything to change?
Given the masses of willfully ignorant folks, the seemingly unaccountable and I suggest, reprehensible bloated civic machine....I cannot stand this place.
Certainly do not like going anywhere near our core unless one absolutely must.
Frankly the town drunks and pariahs do not even get me pissed off as much as the other community corrosion has and the clear disdain the administration has for their very own citizens...not in the clique.
Tall buildings along the waters edge aside, we have cancer in our hall.
Elected, appointed and equity assured...much of it cancerous to what we remember as our quaint wee northern town.
Cannot wait for a injection site, and a monorail to show in our “CoW plans”
On the bright side, be more shadows for the multitude of felonious and nefarious misunderstoods to hide in?
Anyone else sick of looking at that sea can beside the old fire hall, speaking of the rivers edge?
Guess that special interest has not lobbied for a new center yet, and their need for convenience trumps our desire not to look at sea cans and trailers?
Yup purdy standard operating procedure for this sty.

Up 13 Down 1

Ilove Parks on Sep 20, 2018 at 6:58 pm

Lumel Studios and the library and Kwanlin Dun Centre are great and I assume they fall under the older guidelines so why not keep new buildings to the old standard.

What will happen is that they will say 20m is not economical so they will need 25 then 30m then 35m then 40m, it's the way it goes.
Pretty soon they will be so high that aircraft will complain they are a hazard.

Up 9 Down 3

What is the big deal? on Sep 20, 2018 at 1:05 pm

@ My Opinion & I love Parks,
I love parks too, by the way and the Yukon as a whole. Maybe my initial letter was all doom and gloom regarding our nature. However, look at what development did for the waterfront. We now have Lumel Studios, which is a fantastic place, as well as the apartment which has offices and a daycare, and a new seniors housing unit & the new library and the Kwanlan Dun building. What was there before in the last 10 years? Dirt lots, bus parking for Holland America and nothing much. As long as the city is responsible, and holds some public opinion meetings on large developments (as it should), I am sure that the waterfront will be better, not worse. Again this is just my 2 cents. Thanks.

Up 15 Down 4

ProScience Greenie on Sep 19, 2018 at 4:23 pm

A rubber stamp mayor and council. Soapy Smith would be proud.

Up 8 Down 7

Ilove Parks on Sep 19, 2018 at 2:10 pm

To, What is the big deal?

This is a big deal and we need to protect what we have. The City seems to give it away far too often and it usually involves profit for a business.

I do not like the drunks on that trail and river bank but there is always some hope that things may improve in the future.

If you allow taller buildings and change the nature of development then others will cry if they do not get the same benefit and there will be similar demands.

Lets just follow the OCP and the wisdom of previous planners and move along with preserving what we have.

Up 11 Down 2

My Opinion on Sep 19, 2018 at 1:27 pm

@What is the big Deal.

You are correct however maybe the proponents should be spending some of that money on their people that are huddled in the willows rather then building these types of buildings. Look after their people first.

Up 28 Down 13

What is the big deal? on Sep 19, 2018 at 9:56 am

Seriously folks, what is the big deal? One building one block of front street.
Do you walk or bike the waterfront on a regular basis? I do. I'm more concerned about the drunken bums crawling out of the bushes at any time of the day, than I am concerned about one building.

Take care, and clean up what we have and take for granted before beaking off about how the views are being taken away. The views have been polluted for years, except it wasn't buildings that were polluting the views, but a core group of drunks who make shipyard park and surrounding areas into a gong show for tourists and all others to see.

I love explaining to my kids why someone is stumbling and pissing on the garbage bin, I'm sure most do too.

Also, this is the Yukon, take a walk or drive 10 minutes out on the highway and you will have all the views of lakes, rivers, mountains and wildlife you can handle.

Up 18 Down 13

Max Mack on Sep 18, 2018 at 9:29 pm

As expected. Our City Council is going to sell us out on the waterfront. This stinks to high heavens.

Add your comments or reply via Twitter @whitehorsestar

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.