POLL: Reaction mixed after riverfront seniors’ housing complex greenlighted

After the vote, Atkinson said the permit’s approval by council is not totally a bad thing.

“Obviously we need homes in the city, there’s a need, the operation is a good one and I think the basic thing was that the fit of the building into the property, the view was from the neighbours and certainly myself was, it’s too big a building in too small a space.”

He also pointed to the fact that the lot was zoned for R3 residential use, which includes duplexes and single-detached dwellings. “So, instead, we have a three-storey building that’s going to house in excess of 66 people or something. So, I think to me, the density is far beyond the capacity of that neighbourhood to support. So, I just couldn’t support the program.”

The building could have been developed in another location in the city, and have a bigger footprint, he said, which would be more beneficial to the tenants of that building.

“When we look at these things, I think there has to be amenities for the residents, as well as the community in developing these things. And then, guess what? Most of the neighbours and everyone will be supportive. But this basically is a building and a parking lot.”

Where parking was concerned, during the meeting, Mayor Greg Dionne raised the point that other seniors’ homes in the city were facing parking space crunches of their own. Mont St. Joseph made two requests to council to create parking space from park lands, and Good Shepherd Villas leases land for parking from the city, he pointed out.

Seniors do drive, Dionne said.

This counters arguments that few seniors require parking stalls. In a Sept. 3 letter to council, the Koperas, who operate Kopera Care Homes, stated that in their 26 years of operating care homes, only three residents required a parking stall.

But it was Dionne’s point that was echoed by Atkinson after the vote.

“I think on parking, we’ve seen certainly illustrated that a number of homes that we already have in existence have parking pressures. And we as a city have to work within, we have to plough the streets, we have to pick up garbage, we have to sweep the streets, and when we come to high-density properties, and find out … a lot of the cars are parked on the public streets, we can’t really do the job we want to do.”

He said that a lot of people, including his own father who is in his 80s, continue to drive well into retirement. “And again, retired people may have more than one vehicle. They may even have a motor home.”

And while a number of area residents opposed to the complex attended the meeting, one of the residents, Irvine Martin, spoke on their behalf. During the meeting, he outlined the residents’ concerns about parking, but also about the aesthetics of the building.

“We strongly object to the exterior design of the proposed building. Our opinion is that it is [a] bare-bones structure with no architectural appeal and adds nothing to our neighbourhood,” he said.

That was a point that the developer, represented by Elaine Spencer, who also spoke to council during the public hearing, countered. She said she wished I B P had shared the artist’s rendering of the finished product, as it would showcase the landscaping and other aesthetic work.

She also defended their choice of location, which was another point of contention of those opposed to the plan.
“Our seniors want to live in the heart of Prince Albert. And this location is in fact the ideal place for a seniors care home,” Spencer said. She pointed to the centrality of the location and its proximity to accessible public transportation. “Think of the 14-year-old granddaughter being able to use public transportation to visit her grandmother.”

And where concerns about the density of the complex, the future operator of River Breeze, Dave Kopera said that 66 residents would be the maximum number of people that would be in the building.

He also addressed concerns that residents had about the potential change in use of the building. When the original permit for the space was approved in 2008, the permit stipulated that the building must remain seniors housing. The permit lapsed when developers failed to apply for a building permit within 12 months of the development’s approval.

The new plan, Kopera said, takes the stipulation into account. “I’d like to assure you that the newly proposed building exceeds in meeting the city’s previous criteria for development. The building will be 100 per cent for senior citizens.”

The motion that was approved by council also included a clause that would restrict the use of the building that is constructed to a seniors’ care home.

However, even the inclusion of a clause like this wasn’t enough to satisfy area residents opposed to the project.
After the vote, Martin said he happens to know a little bit more about what’s going on in the background that what was presented at the meeting. “And I’d rather not discuss that,” he said.

He emphasized that he isn’t against seniors’ homes, or even a home in that particular location, said he is “really concerned” because his property is right next door to the now-approved project. He’s also concerned about what his property will be worth, as well.

“I don’t think there was any consideration to that whatsoever, by the councillors that voted in favour.”

One of the councillors who voted in favour of the permit, Coun. Mark Tweidt, said council recognized that people live and work in these communities and they definitely don’t want to hurt anyone.

The debate, he said, was needed. And to Tweidt, the approval also sends a positive signal to developers.

During the debate, he said the city has “such an underutilized riverbank.” He went on to say that the city has the opportunity to do more.

“I think it’s positive,” he said after the vote. “And I think it’s good for PA, and I think it’ll open up our riverbank.”

tjames@panow.com

On Twitter: @thiajames

by Thia James

POLL: Reaction mixed after riverfront seniors’ housing complex greenlighted

What's Trending