City of Kelowna

Meeting #:
Date:
Time:
-
Location:
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

Mayor Basran called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.

The Oath of Office was read by Councillor DeHart

  • Moved ByCouncillor Donn
    Seconded ByCouncillor Wooldridge

    THAT the Minutes of the Public Hearing and Regular Meeting of October 6, 2020 be confirmed as circulated.​



    Carried

Mayor Basran invited the applicant or anyone in the public gallery who deemed to come forward, followed by comments from Council.

 

___________________

Staff:

- Displayed a PowerPoint Presentation summarizing the application.

The Applicant was present and available for questions.

Mayor Basran invited anyone in the public gallery who deemed themselves affected to come forward, followed by comments from Council.

 

No one from the Gallery came forward.

 

There were no further comments.

  • Moved ByCouncillor Wooldridge
    Seconded ByCouncillor Donn

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

    In accordance with Section 71 of the Liquor Control and Licensing Regulation and Council Policy 359, BE IT RESOLVED THAT:

    1. Council recommends support of an application from Energyplex Family Recreation Centre Kelowna Inc. for a liquor primary license for Lot 1 District Lot 143 Osoyoos Division Yale District Plan KAP65021, located at #130-948 McCurdy Road, Kelowna, BC with a capacity of 60 persons and hours of sales from 10:00 AM to Midnight, Sunday to Saturday for the following reasons:

      • The maximum occupancy of the space is 60 persons, and it is perceived to have minimal impact on the community and surrounding properties

        2. Council’s comments on LCLB’s prescribed considerations are as follows:

        1. The location of the establishment:

          The proposal will see a portion of an existing business converted to a bar/lounge area.

        2. The proximity of the establishment to other social or recreational facilities and public

          buildings:

          The location of the proposed liquor primary establishment is compatible with the existing commercial and retail businesses located on the subject property and within the McCurdy Corner shopping area.

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

          The bar/lounge has a capacity of 60 persons. The hours of operation would be between 10 am – 12 am (Sunday – Saturday).

        4. The number and market focus or clientele of liquor-primary license establishments within a reasonable distance of the proposed location:

          Freddy’s Brew Pub and McCurdy Corner Bowling Centre are liquor primary establishments on the same subject property.

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

          The potential for noise is minimal and would be compatible with the surrounding community as the immediate neighbourhood is mainly retail/commercial businesses within a primarily industrial district.

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

          The potential for negative impacts is considered minimal as the business is located within an existing commercial and retail area.

    AND THAT 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.”



    Carried

Mayor Basran invited the applicant or anyone in the public gallery who deemed to come forward, followed by comments from Council.

 
___________________
 

Mayor Basran declared a conflict of interest as he owns a home near the proposed application and departed the meeting at 7:09 p.m.

Deputy Mayor Wooldridge took the chair at 7:09 p.m.

Staff:

- Displayed a PowerPoint Presentation summarizing the application and responded to questions from Council.

Leonard Kerkhoff, Kerkhoff Development Ltd. Applicant

- Displayed a PowerPoint Presentation.

Spoke to other developments on One Water Street, construction moving well.

Spoke to Packing District, should be getting a permit in next several weeks. Strong demand for rental apartments.

- Working on Proxima Project with 59 units residential apartments well under construction now. Feb occupancy date on that.  

-  Then onto Knox Village Development

- Spoke to the The Vision

  •  To provide professionally managed amenity rich rental units to the Knox Mountain Communty
  •  To connect these buildings into the Knox Mountain landscape.
  •  To improve the connection of new and existing pathways with Knox Mountain park.

- Spoke to the development Highlights

238 Apartment Units in four buildings
➢ Private gym
➢ Private clubhouse
➢ Pre-wired for some electric vehicle plug ins
➢ Energy efficient buildings
➢ High end condo finishes, including in-suite laundry & stainless steel.

- Responded to questions from Council.

Mayor Basran invited anyone in the public gallery who deemed themselves affected to come forward, followed by comments from Council.

Gallery:

Corey Wilson Boyton on Glenvalley

- Concerned with grand scale of buildings being put in the back

- we are 3 storeys going to 5 storeys and it will block the view and will be in constant shade.

- raised concern with parking.  

- concern with vehicle density and will only increase and parking will be a major issue. why go from 3 to 5 storeys.  

- Clifton is single lane one way.  

- Our complex does have a green space whiich is bylaw regulations but it is too small as is.  now adding more families to the area.

- Responded to questions from Council.

Singh - Parking numbers is for this development only?

Sam Fisher, Resident at Glenvalley Townhomes 

- Opposed to this particular development for variances requested. - why from rm4 to rm5 with variances.

- this is a large step up from single family to 5 storeys does not add anythign to character of neibhfouhood

- restricts access for many residents in the area.

- not enough being done by the developer.  

- Parking - developer meeting parking issues.  this is a car dependent area with walk score of 5 out of100. transit score 22 out of 100 with no buses close by.  Biking is challenging with grade and slope.

- Amenities or infrastructure therefore this density - all errands require a car.

- Spoke to greenspace, value every bit of greenspace, many of it isloped, needs to be accessible greenspace in the neighbourhood.

- Will park or recreation area in the plan does it service the entire development?  117 townhomes along side 238 rental units, is that enough? Does it fit in line with the character of the neighbourhood.

- Neighbours have various concerns.

Staff:

- Responded to questions from Council.

- Is Clifton Road, is it 2 lane from bottom to top?  Staff - is 4 lanes as travel up then tapers to 2 lanes at High Road intersection then 2 lanes.

- 2 LANES TO THIS DEVELOPMENT.

Mr. Kerkhoff, Applicant

This is not a request for lanes it is about form and character, it is technically 4 storeys at the back and steps to five storeys in the front.  

Barton - nature of RM4 is an unusual zone and provided some background.  

There were no further comments.

Hodge - Opposed

Mayor Basran resumed the Chair at 8:38 p.m.

  • Moved ByCouncillor Sieben
    Seconded ByCouncillor Given

    THAT Council authorizes the issuance of Development Permit No. DP20-0061 for Lot 4, Section 31, Township 26, ODYD, Plan EPP100150; Lot 5, Section 31, Township 26, ODYD, Plan EPP100150; and,

    Lot 6, Section 31, Township 26, ODYD, Plan EPP100150, located at 1450,1430,1420 Cara Glen Court 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 Council authorizes the issuance of Development Variance Permit No. DVP20-0062 for Lot 4, Section 31, Township 26, ODYD, Plan EPP100150; Lot 5, Section 31, Township 26, ODYD, Plan EPP100150; and, Lot 6, Section 31, Township 26, ODYD, Plan EPP100150, located at 1450,1430,1420 Cara Glen Court Kelowna, BC;

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

    Section 13.10.6: RM4 – Transitional Low Density – Development Regulations

    (c) To vary the maximum height from the lesser of 13.0m or 3 storeys permitted to the lesser of 19m or

    5 storeys proposed;

    (d) To vary the minimum front yard setback from 6.0m permitted to 3.0m proposed;

    (e) To vary the minimum side yard setback from 2.3m permitted to 0.0m proposed.

    Section 13.10.7(b): RM4 – Transitional Low Density – Other Regulations

    To vary the continuous building frontage from 40.0m required to 62.0m proposed.

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



    Carried

Hodge - Opposed

  • Moved ByCouncillor Stack
    Seconded ByCouncillor DeHart

    THAT Bylaw No. 12087 be adopted.



    Carried

Staff:

- Displayed a PowerPoint Presentation summarizing the application and responded to questions from Council.

Birte Declouc urban options planning and permits, Applicant along with Owners

- Displayed a PowerPoint Presentation.

- See the area where garage is, all 3 structures only cover 30.9 percent of tje property.  variance between main house and garage. 

- Displayed images this picture shows existing house, from park avenue frontage do not see much.  

- Shows relationship between west neighbour and proposed home. due to angle of lot, home is angled away from the lot line to the neighbour to the west. vegetation is located on north and west neighbours lot.  much planning went into the design. (slide)

- no singular cohesive form on those two frontages

- Notes from heritage professional report. streetscape has varied aesthetic value - New home is lightly taller than existing

- Responded to questions from Council.

- neighbour's letter stated the only access is thru the neighbours driveway.

- Could they build a fence, Birte -  there is an opportunity to build a new fence, they wanted a larger fence that does meet the bylaw.  

Mayor Basran invited anyone in the public gallery who deemed themselves affected to come forward, followed by comments from Council.

No one from the Gallery came forward.

There were no further comments.

Hodge - Opposed??

  • Moved ByCouncillor Given
    Seconded ByCouncillor Wooldridge

    THAT final adoption of Rezoning Bylaw No. 12087 be considered by Council;

    AND THAT Council authorizes the issuance of Heritage Alteration Permit No. HAP20-0003 for Lot 4 District Lot 14 ODYD Plan 482, located at 374 Park Ave., 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”;

    AND THAT variances to the following section of Zoning Bylaw No. 8000 be granted:

    Section 6.5.3(g): General Development Regulations, Accessory Development, Accessory Buildings in Residential Zones

    To vary the minimum distance from an accessory building to a principal dwelling from 3m required to 1.2m proposed.

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



    Carried

The meeting recessed at 8:58 p.m.

The meeting reconvened at 9:04 p.m.

Staff:

- Displayed a PowerPoint Presentation summarizing the application..

Brandon Crema, District Properties, Applicant

- Displayed a PowerPoint Presentation.

- staff have gone over alot of the details of the application.

- Reviewed previous projects the applicant has completed.  @ (city) Project very similar unit layouts and types for proposed Kelowna project

- Contextually the site is beside Orchard Park Mall; near  transit but providing adequate parking.

- not building out the entire site, adding many rental units in one spot need to see how the take up is and if site is condusive to more rentals or commercial, etc.

- Displayed architect slides.  Entire site needed to be parked fully - a safer route to walk thru as opposed as sidewalk.  

- Boxy nature of architecture had been commented on; there is alot of dessert type environments here as well as snow, wanted to brighten up the area with a more linear approach, looked at sun shading mechanisms.  

Feels retail is an amenity to the residents, try to include an amenity room .that can be rented out.  also a gym for residents and is appropriate in a building this size.

- spoke to landscaping, big draw is a heavily landscaped area is also an amenity for residents and community 106 trees replanted on a concrete deck, engaged a landscape architect, as well as local architect, came up with a number of landscape concepts, collaboration between 2 architect firms. 

Displayed a rendering of how buildings will be situated on the lot. shows frontage.

- how we go to the form we have today.

- Responded to questions from Council.

- Confirmed dedicated long term rental property.

Mayor Basran invited anyone in the public gallery who deemed themselves affected to come forward, followed by comments from Council.

Gallery:

Laura Dombadom, Underhill Street

- 166 signature on a petitionand 106 letters signed to city clerks office voicnig concerns of variance for 6 sotreyes and parking.

- Asked council to opposed to this application for 6 storeys and keep at originala 4 storey height.

- concerns significant traffic challenges currently.  

- traffic studies are from major flows but not access to flows.

- read from a letter.

- street parking at a premium.

- units will be 1,2 and 3 bedroom units, if approved at 4 storeys it will still double population of our short street.

- approving variances will increase density of 50% which will make our little street a nightmare.

- reduced parking concerns residents. eliminating parking to eliminate vehicles is not working yet and bus service is not there yet.  

- 52 units would have to have no vehicle but some units would have 2 vehciles ,how can you increase density but decrease parking.

- asked Council to truly consider the reduction in parking stalls and variance for increased height.

- must plan properly.

- ask council to deny reduced parking and height

Donna Marken 9951 Okanagan Centre Road west in Lake County

general manager of Orchard Park shopping centre

- read letter from chief operating officer of OP.

- concerns over DP and DVP being sought by the applicant.  Opposite to Orchard Park

- primary concern is variance sought for reduced parking.

- in favour of residential densification but must support its own parking requirements.

- Orchard Park already challenged with parking lot spaces. considering plans for our property we take into consideration 

- could have overflow impacts to our parking lot, 

- We already experience challenges with those who use the lot as a park and ride.  University students we have to keep spaces available for our customers. The potential loss for our retailers is significant and frustration for our shoppers who cannot find parking.

- Spoke to cost of securing and cleaning those Orchard Park parking spots

- Responded to questions from Council.

parking variance will cause over spill of parking to the OP shopping mall.

Applicant responded to questions.

-  traffic - not a traffic expert, rely on those that are, longest analyis with MOT that runs thru Kelowna and is often a hot topic.  the process began in 2018 has been a 18 month approval process; the report was wriitten for more units for a reason, the improvements that are implemented rectified and achieved to 

Height, good land use, to provide density close to employment and transit, with transit ridership provides growth to transit, help grow network and take people out of their cars and helps traffic and transit situation in these areas.  good residential rental location as you can walk or ride to work. storeys is consistent with ocp vision.

Parking - utilization benefit, not planning next phase yet and we need to provide those stalls we have the space for it.  valid points brought up with OP shopping stalls, leases prohibits certain things, our philosophy was our problem to manage.  we would ticket cars and warn and tow as well.  as owner it was our problem to deal with.  we can rectify parking issues in the future phase.

Responded to questions from Council.

how do you manage parking, provide 1 stall per unit, certain percentage don't take it, as we get leased up 25% a way thru, 5 or more units will not take those stalls.  we keep a list of stalls.  

There were no further comments.

Wooldridge - Support

Given - Support

Sieben - Support

Singh - Opposed

Hodge - Opposed

Stack - Support

DeHart - Support

Mayor - Support - In keeping with Imagine Kelowna

  • Moved ByCouncillor Wooldridge
    Seconded ByCouncillor Donn

    That Council authorizes the issuance of Development Permit No. DP18-0132 for Lot A, District Lots 4646 & 127, ODYD, Plan EPP104418, located at 1960 Underhill Street, 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 Council authorize the issuance of Development Variance Permit DVP18-0133 for Lot A, District Lots 4646 & 127, ODYD, Plan EPP104418 located at 1960 Underhill Street, Kelowna, BC;

    AND THAT the variances to the following sections of Zoning Bylaw No. 8000 be granted, as shown on Schedule “A, B, & C”:

    Section 14.4.5(c) – C4 – Urban Centre Commercial - Development Regulations

    To vary the maximum height from 15.0m / 4 storeys permitted to 19.0m / 6 storeys proposed.

    Table 8.3 – Required Off-Street Parking Requirements

    To vary the minimum parking requirements from 315 stalls permitted to 295 stalls proposed;

    AND THAT the applicant be required to complete the above noted conditions of Council’s approval of the Development Permit and Development Variance Permit applications for the permits to be issued;

    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.



    Carried

nil

The meeting was declared terminated at10:47 pm