A proposal to build a six-unit complex in a Yellowknife cul-de-sac will go to an appeal board after City Hall rejected it.
The applicant proposed a three-storey building on Findlay Point, at the top of the Niven subdivision.
Approval required city planners to sign off on a rear yard setback variance and a plan to provide a vehicle for a car-sharing service rather than offer one parking space per unit.
“The limited on-site parking provision may result in increased reliance on on-street parking by residents and visitors. This has the potential to increase congestion, limiting vehicle circulation within the cul-de-sac, and diminishing the balance between vehicle use and pedestrian activity that the neighbourhood was intended to achieve,” city planners concluded.
“While car-share programs may reduce vehicle ownership among some residents, they do not eliminate the need for visitor parking, service vehicles, deliveries, or temporary parking demands.”
Advertisement.
Advertisement.
Neighbouring residents raised concerns regarding privacy, building scale and compatibility.
“The impacts associated with the proposed scale of development, when combined with the requested variance and the constrained nature of the cul-de-sac, raise concerns regarding the long-term function and character of the surrounding residential area,” city planner Bassel Sleem wrote.
“It has not been demonstrated that the proposal can be accommodated without adversely affecting neighbouring properties or the established residential character of the neighbourhood within Findlay Point.”
In his own submission, applicant Edwin Shu said he was a Niven resident who took near neighbours’ concerns seriously and had “a direct, personal interest in maintaining the character, safety, and liveability of Findlay Point.”
Advertisement.
Advertisement.
“This is not an absentee development,” Shu wrote.
He said two e-bikes would be provided alongside the car-share vehicle and noted city bylaws permit the provision of car-sharing instead of parking spaces. (The city acknowledged it “technically complies.”)
Shu also said the design had been revised in an attempt to address privacy concerns.
The city refused Shu’s development permit application on June 15.
On Wednesday, the development appeal board said the decision was under appeal and a hearing will take place in City Hall’s council chamber from 7pm on Thursday, July 16.
