City of Kelowna

Meeting #:
Council Chamber
City Hall, 1435 Water Street
Members Present
  • Mayor Colin Basran
  • Councillor Maxine DeHart
  • Councillor Ryan Donn
  • Councillor Gail Given
  • Councillor Charlie Hodge
  • Councillor Brad Sieben
  • Councillor Mohini Singh
  • Councillor Luke Stack
  • Councillor Loyal Wooldridge
Staff Present
  • City Clerk, Stephen Fleming
  • Council Recording Secretary, Arlene McClelland
  • Doug Gilchrist
  • Laura Bentley, Deputy City Clerk

Mayor Basran called the meeting to order at 745

The Oath of Office was read by Councillor Sieben.

  • Moved ByCouncillor Hodge
    Seconded ByCouncillor DeHart

    THAT the Minutes of the Public Hearing and Regular Meeting of August 10, 2021 be confirmed as circulated.​



- Displayed a PowerPoint Presentation summarizing the application..

Lenny Cabrera Holguin, Applicant

- Available for questions.

Mayor Basran invited anyone participating online or in the gallery who deemed themselves affected to indicate they wish to speak followed by comments from Council.

No one participating online or in the gallery indicated they wished to speak.

There were no further comments.

  • Moved ByCouncillor Wooldridge
    Seconded ByCouncillor Singh

    THAT Council directs Staff to forward the following Recommendation to the Provincial Liquor and Cannabis Regulation Branch (LCRB):

    In accordance with Section 10 of the Liquor Control and Licensing Regulation and Council Policy 359, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

    1. Council recommends support of an application from The Sweet Spot Beauty Bar Ltd. for a liquor license application for Lot A District Lot 134 ODYD Plan EPP65105, located at 3477-3499 Lakeshore Road, Kelowna, BC for the following reasons:
      1. Liquor Licensing Laws allow for barbershops, salons, and other establishments to apply for a liquor primary license;
      2. Council Policy No. 359 recommends supporting alternative entertainment options and/or establishments which are less focused on alcohol consumption;
      3. The maximum capacity is 50 persons which will have minimal impact on the community.
    2. Council’s comments on LCRB’s prescribed considerations are as follows:
      1. The location of the establishment:

        The proposal of the establishment is suitable for a small establishment liquor primary license.

      2. The person capacity and hours of liquor service of the establishment:

        The hours of liquor service is suitable given the low occupancy of 50 persons;

      3. The impact of noise on the community in the immediate vicinity of the establishment:

        There is a minimal risk of an impact of noise to the community;

      4. The impact on the community if the application is approved:

        The overall impact on the community will be minimal;

    3. Council’s comments on the views of residents are as contained within the minutes of the meeting at which the application was considered by Council. The methods used to gather views of residents were as per Council Policy #359 “Liquor Licensing Policy and Procedures”.

  • Moved ByCouncillor DeHart
    Seconded ByCouncillor Stack

    THAT Bylaw No. 12184 be read a second and third time and be adopted.


    THAT Bylaw No. 12184 be amended at third reading and adopted.



- Displayed a PowerPoint Presentation summarizing the application..

Jesse Alexander, New Town Architecture & Engineering,, Applicant

- Available for questions.

Mayor Basran invited anyone participating online or in the gallery who deemed themselves affected to indicate they wish to speak followed by comments from Council.

There were no further comments.

Close meeting at 7:56

  • Moved ByCouncillor Wooldridge
    Seconded ByCouncillor Given

    THAT Rezoning Bylaw No. 12184 be amended at third reading to revise the legal description of the subject

    properties from Lot 12 Section 29 Township 26 ODYD Plan 4101 & Lot 13 Section 29 Township 26 ODYD Plan 4101 to Lot A Section 29 Township 26 ODYD Plan EPP110821;

    AND THAT final adoption of Rezoning Bylaw No. 12184 be considered by Council;

    AND THAT Council authorizes the issuance of Development Permit No. DP20‐0164 and Development Variance Permit DVP21-0052 for Lot A Section 29 Township 26 ODYD Plan EPP110821, located at 888 Glenmore Drive, Kelowna, BC subject to the following:

    1. The dimensions and siting of the building to be constructed on the land be in accordance with Schedule “A,”

    2. The exterior design and finish of the building to be constructed on the land, be in accordance with Schedule “B”;

    3. Landscaping to be provided on the land be in accordance with Schedule “C”;

    4. The applicant be required to post with the City a Landscape Performance Security deposit in the form of a “Letter of Credit” in the amount of 125% of the estimated value of the landscaping, as determined by a Registered Landscape Architect;

    AND THAT Variances to the following sections of Zoning Bylaw No. 8000 be granted:

    Section 13.9.6(f): RM3Low Density Multiple Housing Development Regulations

    To vary the minimum rear yard setback from 7.5 m required to 3.04 m proposed.

    Section 8.2.3: Section 8 – Parking and Loading, Off-Street Parking Regulations, Parking Setbacks

    To vary the minimum side yard parking setback from 1.5 m required to 0.5 m proposed.

    AND FURTHER THAT this Development Permit and Development Variance Permit is valid for two (2) years from the date of Council approval, with no opportunity to extend.


The Hearing remains open so will not have staff present again.

Went straight to Participants. No applicant presentation.

Andrew Gaucher, Kinnikinnik Development Inc, Applicant

- Displayed a PowerPoint Presentation.,

Mayor Basran invited anyone participating online or in the gallery who deemed themselves affected to indicate they wish to speak followed by comments from Council.

Online Participants

Rosa P - did not show up.

Scott Anderson, 3652 Wildrose Road in development

- as a resident directly mpacted do not support proposed amendments

asked for certain terms and conditions to have amenities in this area.  marine is a stand alone business and not an amenity, no greenspace nor field or parks or playgrounds, no shops.  what there is, is noise, garbage and constant construction.  Multi family homes will have resiential construciotn built one at a time overnext 5 to 15 years.  Onging construction in foreseeable future.  Deforesting the aera.

- Raised concerns with traffic and parking impacts. 

- Head on collision on Glenmore by 2 Mckinley exits.  Upgrades are needed.  Impact of traffic on Glenmore . 

- should ask for larger financial gift from developer.  

- density brings services.  If amendents are approved we will never have any commercial shops

- Raised environmental concerns. Concerned with clear cutting.

- what type of housing stock does council want.  usually 2nd homes for people.  dos city have plans and budget to develop into a park.

- Terms asking for, 1 - more significant to contrribiton to glenmore road

2 - no further subd. until amenities are constructed

3- new construction be phased 

4 - neighbourhood specific construction bylaw, covered garbage bins, limit construction on holdidsay sundays. construction vehicles use hillsdie entrance.

Robert Stupka, 3565 Scott Road

-  shared a PP

- impact of change from multifamily to single famly neighbourhoods.

- Spoke to current state developer acknowledged the existing plan with mulfti family units is feasible, ecological impact of development addititional lands far greater than the benefits of the gifted land. 

- Believed Letter to Homeowners misleading. Density has changed and it was not stated. 

- Displayed photos of a multi family vs. single family. no secondary suites allowed in multi family but are in single family.

- Density - multi = 26 plus units per acre - single 3-7 units

- Spoke to impact of change to single family with energy an GHG emissions buildings.

- asked council to reject this proposal and stick to the plan. multi family is feasible.  Greenhouse gas, env and transprotation impacts to single family homes would be multiple times greater.  

Tracey Davis, 255 Lake Ave

- 650 sq ft apartment, access to transporation and shops. access to walking. No vehicle.

- the proposal in McKindley beach has none of that, no shops.  you have to travel and this is not in line withthe OCP or growth strategy.

- misleading, District of Lake Country, staff spoke to all this development at the border.  Lake Country twice denied development on border.  If approved you are undermining Lake Country to avoid sprawl.  

- Sacrificing a forest for this development.  A forest is in tact to protect us.

- Begging Council to vote against the OCP amendment.

- Representatve of oK Climate Hub, spans the valley.  climate change does not have border around Kelowna. Our request is that council vote against the OCP amendment.

Rosa P,erretta

- Support changes

- Sent in correspondence.


Nick Wall 1431 Edgewood Drive

- Spoke to climate action plan from the COK.

- Spoke to what council saw in 2018

-  born and raised in Kelowna and homeowner.

- Opposed to this proposed application.

- days of urban sprawl is over. 

- Raised concerns with negative environmental impact - ponderosa pines.

- asked council deny this land swap and move forward with multi family.

- Raised concern with GHG emissions.  

- Responded to questions from Council.

- if close to parks do not mind living in multi family.

Rob Bestworth McKliney Beach

- President of Strata where he lives

- business owner in Kelowna.

- living out of town worked for his family.  lot we chose was at the end of a road.  was not looking to have neighbours.  we wanted to see deer near our door.  McKinley does have multi family residences, cjhose to live there as we had greenspace and no neighbours beside us.

-gift ofthe land, cannot downplay its use. for the city to have control of that land is a win win.

Brad ?Do - Arthur Road, McKinley Landing

- Displayed PDF

- Developer would be responsible for road improvements at no taxpayer cost.

- what is still in negotiating is union road to ubc connection to mckinley road, was promised to be twinned.  

- Displayed photos of road, 2.roads

- no explanation why the above has changed and road will not be improved. questions the cost of that..

- developer has over promised and under provided. 

- why and how is the servicing agreement is just being veto'd.

- Why can developer walk away from previous arrangements.

- Reservoir area - will they put in a strip mall?  

- how many square footage of commercial space?

- devleopment created thru use of private roads has create private lake access.  - foreshore will be taken from public use. 

- why can't there be a road transfer to get better access to waterfront in the future.

- there advertising is about community not 

Steven Valentine 218 665 cook road

-  Raised concern with the impact of variance for GHG emission.  city has pushed for sustainabiltiy to optimize densification and unnecesary transportaiton. 

- would like council to find a healthy development and healthy environemnt.

- asked council to reaffirm committment to sustainability.

Michael Russello, McKinley Landing Resident

Professor of Biology at UBCO

- Opposed to this application.

-Spoke to ecosystems at risk.

- Spoke to habitat fragmentation; 

- further sprawl with multi family housing.  

- the city would receive park that is already ALR land that cannot be developed.  

- take principal and practical stand.

- Responded to questions from Council.

Ralph Stapleton Swan Drive

- owns property in McKinley Landing

- I will put a cafe in the neighbourhood.

- Businesses will enter the development.

- Pilot by trade.

- clean up brush and develop will assist in not having forest fires.  

- location to airport and ubco - midway between lake country.

- Marina has no impact on that beach, people are on the beach every day.

- Fully support this project.

- will cut down of traffic in time. but people need to be there before businesses will succeed.

- Responded to questions from Council.

- Have a long term tenant that is now building large home and they plan on retiring here.  

Mathew 258 Ranch Hill Court

- Professor at UBCO and previous firefighter.

- urgent need to mitigate wildfire risk. this fire season emphasized 

- our community wildfire focuses on suppression for mitigation. 

- increasing our resliience when fire arrives at our doorsteps.

- mature and healthy pine in the expansion, are naturally fire resistant, the natural traits of ecosystem can 

mature ponderosa pine can eliminate a crown fine.  proposed development contains several wetlands, it is a natural fire break with a fire occurs.  

- Small park has been raised and impacted by grazzing.  

- fuel reductions

- remove natural eco system

- lead by example and not support the suggested amendment

- Opposed

Leah Parrott Professor and director UBOC Biodversity Paret 1118 KindreCourt

Professor at UBCO 

- Displayed a PP

- Spoke to environmental impacts and Ponderosa forests.

- perserving the ecosystems is important for the future.  need to save connectivity of eco systems.

- we have most speciies at risk.

- Knox Mtn park area embedded in natural forest.  

- will fragment the corridor that cannot be replaced.

- displayed a picture of a wetland, forest is disturbed by noise.

- proposed development comes at great cost for kelowna citizens. 

- contrary for vision expressed in 2030 OCP and Draft 2040 OCP.

- Opposed  to this proposed application.

- Asked council to be progressive and oppose this amendment.

- Responded to questions from Council.

Paresa C - 122 Clifton Road N

- Commented on the 107 letters in opposition of amendments.

- Which voices are more aligned with council oath and community minded and thinking about the future.  

- Urge Council to reject the proposed amendment.

Olson Orsella 2088 Dewdney road

- wipe our land, ponderosa pine forest.

- need to think about the future and younger generation.

- raised Concern with global warming. 

- Raised concern regarding GHG emissions. 

- 15 year old providing his voice on the negative impact on the environment.

- Opposed to this proposed application.

There were no further comments.

Mr. Trevor Ward, Lake Country

- Traffic Engineer

- Author of traffic studies on this project since 2003.

- said something.


Prior to original estimates, traffic has been reduced considerably. compared to original service agreement.


- Responded to questions from Council.

Day after PH Lake Country informed them they were having pre-application with developer and a development application was imminent .  

- Acorn homes a plan of 2200 units on border. expecting to make application this fall, must go thru approval process, developer would like to service in the next 18 months.

Parkland dedication - could a golf course be developed on the land now? The developer has anon farm use approval and could build a golf course on that land.  

Servicing Agreement -will Developer pay their fair share.  The developer has spoken to staff if we say to developer the cost is greater they will pay.

Need more park space in our community? Was Knox part of a land swap?  

CM - A portion east side of Knox Mtn 160 was part of a density transfer agreement.  Land exchange and came to city 20 to 30% of knox mountain park was part of land exchange.  

Sieben- is  the deal fare and is this a win win.

CM- believe this is a greater benefit to the city rather than detriment. Agr Land Commission, value of city owning this. 

Ryan S - we cannot control ownership on these properties in the future, or any control on modification.  best owner of those assets are the public.  

John Vos - will be a rural cross section road. TMP, vision at the time based on draft OCP, 275units of growth between now and 2040. MTP will affect draft DCC program, of 4-laning Glenmore road to John Hindle drive f4 lane rom John Hindle Drive to McKinley Road.. Preliminary cost from Union to John Hindle is $16 M 

The Hearing was called to order at 7:57 pm

Mayor Basran called the Hearing to order at 7:3@ p.m.

Mayor Basran advised that the purpose of the Hearing is to consider certain bylaws which, if adopted, will amend "Kelowna 2030 - Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 10500" and Zoning Bylaw No. 8000", and all submissions received, either in writing or verbally, will be taken into consideration when the proposed bylaws are presented for reading at the Regular Council Meeting which follows this Public Hearing.

The Hearing was declared terminated at 1054

Mayor Basran called the meeting to order at 10:54

Given - Support

Singh - ? Singh

Wooldridge - Opposed

Hodge - Opposed

Sieben - Support

DeHart - Support

Stack -  Opposed goes against the permanent growth boundary

Mayor - Support


Motion to go beyond 11:00 p.m.

M - Dehart

S - Singh

THAT Council approves the Regular Meeting going past 11:00 p.m.


  • Moved ByCouncillor Stack
    Seconded ByCouncillor DeHart

    THAT Bylaw No. 12251 be read a second and third time.


The meeting was declared terminated at 1140