” in order to get a development permit, the proponent had to request a variance.” Spin!!

DUH! or paint lines 2.8 meters apart to comply with current bylaw.

who cares — just build it! This is a BIG entity for downtown PG and the sportsmen and sportswomen in PG. I’ve been waiting a lifetime — well — only 47 years.

Positive development for downtown anything going in the old furniture store atg corner on dominion and 2nd yet?.

Surplus Herbies is already there DJP

a new surplus store moved in to the old furniture store. Think its called surplus Herbies or something like that. i drove by it last week.

Is a hillbilly gun store really this ‘news worthy’?

weaksauce, your name is fitting. Your comments are offensive, and show your ignorance.

“The plan would reduce the number of parking stalls from the current 161 to 85”

I think to clarify the 161 is the number generated by the new store size under the current requirement for cars based on area of the building.

The reply, when Councillor Hall asked how many stalls will be lost when the addition is built, was around 30. Since we found out that the existing parking stalls were smaller than currently required by bylaw, and since the current layout is similar to what is proposed, the current parking available on that part of the site would be around 85 + 30 = 115.

We also hear from people that the current parking is inadequate at times.

So, we were told that the City often reduces the bylaw based calculation for car stalls through variances. We were never told whether that is 5%, 10%, 25%, 50% …… the 50% is close to the current approved variance.

I think the wool was pulled over everyone’s eyes, or the City really needs to go back to revise their standards if they are that far out of whack with the actual demand.

So, in the end, we have roughly 30 fewer car stalls than there are currently and we have a larger building and what is likely a more popular retail outlet. We also will have close to 50% fewer parking spots than Langley and Nanaimo store locations have. And, it seems, we have kissed the 10 stalls that were supposed to be for the tenants of the Victoria Medical building aside.

I guess all we can do is to see what happens when the store has its opening week specials, possibly in the fall, maybe even during the Christmas shopping season. We will get to see whether the right decision has been made.

Yes, Councillor Frizell, we can see what happens when there is expertise to obfuscate on the side of the proponent that is superior to the expertise on the side of the other parties and the gate keepers.

It would be nice if the next time Councillors would keep their eyes on the ball being played!

Just a bit of an interesting aside.

This variance has given property owners with retail outlets thoughout the city who have provided the number of cars required by bylaw for their buildings a new way of increasing the value of their properties.

They can now build additions to the existing buildings, or even build new buildings which will cause a reduction in parking. That reduction can be around 50% of the required generated by the area of the existing and new building.

And, of course, they can reduce the width of the parking spaces since the same sized cars, trucks, etc. will be parking there as will park at all those other parking lots which have undersized stalls based on new standards.

I wonder if anyone ever cared enough to look backinto history to see why the standard was changed. Perhaps it was even because some in the planning department at that time felt that there were enough complaints from people that spaces in this city were kind of narrow.

Who in PG uses those parking lines anyways??

Just a few more examples:
Yield
Merge
4 way stops
School zone speeds

Interesting. 1.58m is 101.5″. According to Fords website, my F150 is 97″ to the outside of the mirrors. So if we park a few pickups perfectly we will have 2 1/4″ each side between the mirrors. Thats lots of room – lol

Where did you get 1.58 metres from?

The article above says: ” reduce the required size of the parking stalls from 2.8 meters in width to 2.58 meters in width.”

I think you have metre to spare. :-)

Simple minded city councilors. why even have rules and regulations. I am positive that the people that frequent these places drive smart cars. Basically, city council you just granted this business a death wish. where the customers won’t tolerate driving their one ton trucks into this parking lot.

Basically what city council just did is made parking lines obsolete. Park any way you want in the parking lot guys. who is gonna argue with you, some one driving a smart car. Heck you just bought new shells at Wholesale Sports, whose gonna argue.

typo Gus – 1.58 meters is only 62″ ;)

Calling all developers, City council has set precedence on the width of parking stalls, the new minimum is now 2.58m.

If they deny you, sue them for providing peferential precedence to wholesale sports.

I am not against Wholesale sports, I am against tiny parking stalls

“it was pointed out to City Council that the existing size of parking stalls at that site, is already 2.58 meters in width. The bylaw calling for the wider size came into effect long after Redwood Square was initially developed”

So what am I missing? If the spots are already the small size how are we going from 165 spots to 85?

The bylaw states that 5 parking spaces req’d per 100 square meters of retail space. They are also eliminating some spaces by building an addition.Ergo more floor space-fewer parking spots- variance req’d.

oh right, the building addition was mentioned in the other story – Im sleepy. Carry on… lol

Narrowing parking spaces creates more business for body shops to remove dents and to repair damaged paint. There is always a positive for somebody.

Does this set a precedence that we only require half the stalls for a business we used to. I know they wanted to build a stand alone restaurant at Spruceland at one time but the development was not allowed due to too few spots at the time. Can they now reapply with this willow council?

So 80-ish parking stalls, less stalls where employees park, estimate 10 employees at any time? Leaves 70-ish parking stalls not large enough to comfortably accommodate full size trucks. Each full size truck takes up 1.5 spots to easily get in and out of the vehicle, so really only about 45 spots if we assume that everyone who shows up is driving a truck. But then you have those that take up 2 spots, reducing the actual parking even more. And good luck trying to maneuver that full size truck in a parking lot like that.
Oh, and come hunting/fishing season where there are out of town tourists with boats, campers, trailers, motorhomes, etc trying to get to that location – might make for some good entertainment, sit back, grab some popcorn and watch the show.

To say that we should park at Parkwood and walk over? If I was the owner of Parkwood, I would be royally peed off that it was even suggested. That parking lot is meant for Parkwood patrons.
Also, parking at Parkwood can be sketchy. Just last week I parked, didn’t even get a chance to take my seatbelt off and there were 2 men outside my truck door waiting to ask me for change. I’m sorry, but as a single female, that creeped me right out and I put my truck back into drive and left. Good luck getting me to park at Parkwood, walk to Wholesale Sports, purchase anything and have to pack it back to Parkwood.

I think every city planner and every member of council should test drive an extended cab, long box truck and try to get around this city and see how difficult some of these parking lots really can be.

Heres a different thought – why does the city have any say at all when it comes to parking anyway? We do not have a “right” to easy, convenient parking. Should it be up to the business owner to decide how he wants his parking set up? It is obviously in his best interest to have happy customers whether that means he can fit two cars or two hundred out front, that would be his call. Assuming no interference with street traffic obviously.

Interceptor:”We do not have a “right” to easy, convenient parking.”

I know what you mean. But don’t forget that the city collects taxes from businesses and individuals! Those taxes must be (or in our case we believe that they ought to be!) used to maintain a safe, clean and modern city in the manner that many other civilized cities do.

Talking about taxes. Does anybody know what the core review has accomplished (if anything) before it virtually disappeared from public attention and scrutiny?

How much actual money has been saved?

“why does the city have any say at all when it comes to parking anyway”

We could actually extend that to anything.

Why should a city have a say in how much noise I create on my property. If I want to get my lawnmower out at 4 am on a nice summer day before it gets too hot, why should I not be allowed to use it. Why should the neighbours have to call bylaws. Why does the neighbour just not come over with a nice cup of coffee … or a shotgun?

With respect to the parking, it is likely due the city providing parking on the street.

Why does the city even have to approve the size of building. Let the building code handle that.

Does it fit on the property … yes ….

Is it structurally sound to hold up all 20 floors? ….. yup.

So go ahead and build it.

Just think of the tax money we save.

See Gus, now you get it! Once a few people are shot no one will mow their lawn at 4am. Problem solved without bylaws! Lol

I find it interesting that Magestic Management can be persuaded when its not really them, but their tenants that will feel the impact.