Sign up for the paNOW newsletter

POLL: City’s parking woes dominate council meeting

Aug 13, 2013 | 6:43 AM

Parking – or the growing demand for it – in Prince Albert was the hot button topic at Monday evening’s council meeting.

The topic came up no less than three times during the meeting, highlighting the importance of the growing scarcity of space for parking in some residential areas for residents. The demand for parking, and fears that parking could spill onto streets and eat up the available space with new developments in established areas, reared its head during an intense debate about a proposed bylaw amendment that would reduce the number of spaces required for multi-unit dwellings – residences that are larger than duplexes.

Prince Albert requires more parking spaces on average for townhouses and apartments than Saskatoon and Regina require, according to a report filed to council by planning technician Erik Trenouth.

“Determining the amount of parking required for the 'Multiple Unit Dwellings with more than two Units' by focusing on the number of bedrooms of each unit keeps Prince Albert in line with other similar cities in the province,” he wrote. His report recommended lowering the requirements by passing the bylaw amendment.

The amendment was tied to another item which council approved, a new townhouse development on 5A Avenue East, which would fall outside of the existing bylaw because of the number of spaces the developer planned to include. However, the development would satisfy the requirements of the amended bylaw. Council had approved allowing a second and third reading of the amended bylaw.

But when it was time to pass the bylaw, a few on council took a step back. The theme of the discussion among the councillors boiled down to encouraging development and concern about a lack of space for parking.

Coun. Lee Atkinson said he thinks relaxing the parking requirements for new multi-unit dwellings is the wrong way to go. “My observation is most multi-unit dwellings that we have in this city, vehicles spill out onto the street – parking. And that is the problem we keep seeing whether it’s street sweeping or snowplowing, in the apartment blocks, there never seems to be adequate parking. And the idea of us relaxing it to smaller increments, I don’t think is advantageous prior to some of the future and current problems we’ve had in terms of parking, street sweeping and snow removal and cars not being moved in a long period of time.”

He pointed to a past relaxation to parking requirements to encourage building in the downtown core, which he said hasn’t been successful. “I think we have to use a bit of caution when we relax this requirement saying, ‘you know what, the idea that you need less parking in multi-unit dwellings, I think is contrary to what we see in reality.”

Coun. Don Cody advised taking one more good hard look at the proposed bylaw change before going ahead with it. “I believe that with the advent of the things that’s coming before us in the next couple of weeks or month regarding a seniors’ home, all of those kinds of things, I think to now change this, I think is going to be problematic to us.”

And while Coun. Rick Orr said he supports “keeping where we are,” he touched on the city’s ability to attract new developments. He spoke to a couple of developers, who had indicated that they are fine with the current requirements. But they said they didn’t think the “footprints” would allow much more when they look at the properties they’ve developed in the past.

He said he gets concerned about developers. “Are they going to really look at us as an opportunity? Or are we going to become a place where there’s too many rules and too many regulations to make them economically viable.”

When it was time for a vote on the bylaw, the first four votes were four, leaving the council apparently evenly divided, as one member was away.

Before the townhouse permit was revived and passed, Mayor Greg Dionne said he wants development and knows that it is costly for developers to include parking stalls.

“At the same time, I live with the complaints of not enough parking. I live with that daily,” he said before taking Cody’s motion to defer the bylaw back to the planning department for review.

Parking at the heart of opposition to retirement home

The concern about the shrinking availability of parking has been one of the driving forces behind opposition among residents to a proposed seniors’ housing complex. A decision to allow the permit for the home on River Street was deferred to a later date.

Speaking to a larger than normal audience in the council chambers, Dionne said that at the executive committee meeting, the members had said they felt the residents did not get adequate notice about a public hearing. He apologized to those who attended to participate in the public hearing about the complex for not being able to warn them in advance that the hearing would not be taking place.

He said the city would be “re-advertising” the meeting and “re-inviting” residents to attend at that time. “I’d like to thank you for coming and encourage you to come, contact my office or your councillor if you have any more questions or inquiries…”

Many in the audience left the chambers after the mayor made that announcement. The planned seniors’ housing complex, River Breeze, has faced resistance from a number of area residents. Chief among the reasons behind the resistance – the height of the building and the increased traffic flow being two others – is the issue of parking.

One of the significant fears among residents – including two that submitted letters to council – is that the new development will consume what little available parking there is left in the neighbourhood.

“Our family has many vehicles so can’t fit in driveway so we use our street for parking, which I’m sure visitors or residents will start taking…” wrote Debbie St. Germain in a letter to council received Aug. 8.

“There appears to be insufficient parking for staff and visitors,” wrote Judy Tubman to council. “Irene Phaneuf [the owner of the project’s developer, I B P Properties Ltd.] also owns the property west of me and I constantly have problems with her renters parking on both sides of my driveway. So much so there have been times I have had to put the garbage can in my driveway which leads me to no being able to drive out.”

Tubman went on to write that she’s opposed to the development, but if it’s approved, she would request a “permit parking only” for her friends and family in front of her home.

In a letter addressed directly to paNOW, I B P’s project co-ordinator Elaine Spencer wrote that the developers don’t “anticipate” that parking will be a problem. “The main floor will be a personal care home and typically many seniors of this level of care don’t drive. The second and third floor will provide assisted living accommodations and many of these seniors may not drive as well. In addition, the number of parking stalls meets the City requirements for this type of project.”

Council will be re-visiting both the parking requirement bylaw amendment and the seniors’ housing complex permit in a future council cycle, once administration provides more information about both items.

tjames@panow.com

On Twitter: @thiajames