CITY OF WEST KELOWNA

MINUTES OF THE ADVISORY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING

-
VIA ELECTRONIC MEANS
MEMBERS PRESENT:
  • Joe Gluska
  • Nicole Richard
  • Andy Smith
  • Melissa Smith, Acting Chair
MEMBER ABSENT:
  • Anthony Bastiaanssen, Chair
Staff Present:
  • Brad Clifton, Senior Planner
  • Yvonne Mitchell, Planner III
  • Natasha Patricelli, Recording Secretary

​​


The meeting was called to order at 9:32 a.m.

It was acknowledged that this meeting was held on the traditional territory of the Syilx/Okanagan Peoples.

This meeting was open to the public.  This meeting was webcast live and archived on the City's website.

  • It was moved and seconded

    THAT Melissa Smith be appointed as Acting Chair for the May 15, 2024 Advisory Planning Commission meeting.

    CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
  • It was moved and seconded

    THAT the agenda be adopted as presented.

    CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY
  • It was moved and seconded

    THAT the minutes of the Advisory Planning Commission meeting held Wednesday, February 14, 2024 in the City of West Kelowna Council Chambers be adopted.

    CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Highlights of the presentation include:

  • Subject property is located in the Goats Peak/Gellatly neighbourhood;
  • Currently zoned Country Residential Zone (RU1) and Land Use Designation is Rural Residential;
  • Surrounding land uses include: Agricultural Zone (A1) and ALR, R1 and P1 (Rotary Beach);
  • Subject property is 1.12 acres with a single detached dwelling and located on steep slopes;
  • Proposal is to rezone from Country Residential Zone (RU1) to Comprehensive Development Zone (CD13);
  • Proposal is to amend the Land Use Designation from Rural Residential to Commercial;
  • Proposal is to build a 4 storey mixed use building with 23 residential units and 614 m2 of commercial space;
  • Comprehensive Development Zone would permit apartment, office, personal service establishment, restaurant and retail as principal uses;
  • The Zoning Bylaw outlines agricultural setbacks and buffers for buildings adjacent and/or taller buildings abutting agricultural land. The proposed CD Zone includes a 15m setback from the agricultural land. No buffer is shown on the preliminary development plans;
  • Application has been referred to various internal departments and external agencies and public notification signage is posted on the property.

Questions on the presentation:

  • Does the applicant know the shadow cast on the beach and walkway? Applicant responded with roof of the building daylights into the ground. 4 storey at the front and no storeys at the back. Living room which daylights into the existing slope at the back of the building; Zero shadow effects; 
  • What is the height of the structure from the road to the top of the building? Applicant responded regarding the elevation, from the edge of the pavement to the top of the roof is roughly 50 ft; It was noted by staff that the drawings are conceptual and the application is to amend the Zoning and Official Community Plan at this time;
  • Will the proposed zoning be applicable to the surrounding properties? Surrounding properties are ALR. Applicant feels concept would work well and compliment adjacent properties;
  • What does Institutional Uses in Land Designation mean for the new zoning proposed and what does it entail? Commercial Land Use designation allows Institutional Use which could include schools and daycares however the rezoning proposal includes apartments and commercial not institutional uses;
  • When do we suggest changes to the Official Community Plan? Applicants are welcome to submit applications to amend the Official Community Plan and bring them forward;
  • How many complaints have you received about the proposal? No complaints, one inquiry received.

Applicant Mark Takanen, was present and provided comments.

  • Proposal blends with the existing environment;
  • Half of the building is exposed, the other half is in the ground;
  • Point of clarification question - will there be a public hearing? Noted by staff a public hearing would be required because this application involves an OCP amendment;
  • Applicant showed images to demonstrate the steep terrain and the conceptual building on the slope;
  • What Geotechnical issues need to be resolved? None at this time.

Highlights of the discussion include:

  • Recommended for drawings/cross sections to have heights included;
  • Concern for on street parking in front of the building for Commercial use;
  • Poor productivity in the soils;
  • Concern with application amending the new Official Community Plan which was recently adopted;
  • Gellatly areas is earmarked for this type of structure, we need development on that strip to bring in tourism;
  • Agriculture is valued and appreciate the applicants thoughts for solutions with agriculture;
  • Why was this area not included in the OCP for commercial area?
  • It was moved and seconded

    THAT the Advisory Planning Commission recommend support for file Z 23-05, Zoning Bylaw Amendment and Official Community Plan Amendment, 3900 Gellatly Road.

    CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY

Highlights of the presentation include:

  • Subject property is located in the Lakeview Heights neighbourhood;
  • Currently zoned Single Detached Residential (R1) and Land Use Designation is Neighbourhood Centre;
  • Surrounding land uses include Single Detached Residential (R1);
  • Subject property is .52 acres and is currently developed with a single detached dwelling;
  • Proposal is to rezone from Single Detached Residential (R1) to Comprehensive Development Zone (CD);
  • Proposal is consistent with the Neighbourhood Centre Land Use Designation in the Official Community Plan;
  • Proposal is to rezone to accommodate the construction of a 6 storey mixed use building with commercial space, office space, maximum 50 residential units and indoor/outdoor amenity spaces;
  • Application was referred to various internal departments and external agencies with notification signage on property. Notice of first reading will be provided once scheduled for Council consideration.

Questions on the presentation include:

  • The subject property is located between two single family residential properties, the applicant is proposing a 6 storey building. Will the property on the East side be developed as well? At the moment, we do not have any applications in stream for that adjacent property.
  • How would a land assembly work for the adjacent single detached residential properties? Each property would go through their own zoning approval process. 
  • Has there been any correspondence received? We have received comments of concern for the proposal and there will be a formal process when the application goes before Council.

Highlights of the discussion include:

  • Difficulty supporting this application for the height, 6 storeys, is extremely high for a residential area;
  • There is a need for density, but this forces the neighbourhood to change;
  • The adjacent property would be looking at a large building sandwiched between a market and a 6 storey building;
  • Surrounding neighbourhood in the Anders area is under extreme pressure;
  • Concern for adjacent properties. Maybe a land assembly would be better instead of just one individual property;
  • Congruent with the new OCP, allows this area as a neighbourhood centre and vision for growth here;
  • Not the right way to start development in this area as it would hurt the adjacent properties;
  • Concern for measurement of the height. 6 floors of the building and then the amenities on the roof should count as an additional floor;
  • Concern with the residential and commercial properties proposed with the additional vehicles/parking is going to have a large impact on the neighbourhood and the surrounding properties;
  • Development between two other parcels is not the right answer.
  • It was moved and seconded

    THAT the Advisory Planning Commission recommend support for file Z 24-01, Zoning Bylaw Amendment, 911 Anders Road.

    DEFEATED; Members N. Richard, A. Smith, M. Smith and J. Gluska opposed

     

The meeting adjourned at 10:34 a.m.