Pinnacle Development Permit conflicts with Kelowna Official Community Plan (OCP)

 

​

In the October 1, 2018 revision of Chapter 5 of the 2010-2030 OCP involving the Development Permit process, there is an evaluation checklist prepared by the City of Kelowna Planning Department, that tests the compliance of the permit process against the OCP guidelines. This list of questions evaluates whether or not the proposed development permit application honours the intentions of the OCP. The following are the questions followed by answers relating to the proposal being applied for by the developer.

​

​

 

1. Does the proposed development respect the OCP Permanent Growth Boundary (OCP maps 4.1 and 5.2)?

2.  

3. NO!

4. ​

Map 4.1 identifies the permanent growth areas for Kelowna and Gallagher’s is NOT an identified area. 

​

  

1. Is the proposed development located in an Urban Centre?

2. ​

3. NO!

​

The proposed development is NOT located in an Urban Centre.  The site is located a considerable distance from the downtown area.

​

1. Does the proposed development feature a mix of residential, employment, institutional, and/or recreational uses?

2.  

3. NO!

 

There are no employments or institutional uses in the community whatsoever.

​

 

Does the proposed development increase the supply of affordable housing?

1.  

2. NO!

 

The proposed development would not qualify as affordable housing. Chapter 4 of the OCP defines affordable housing in the $220,000 range.  These proposed units would be in excess of  $1 .5 million range.

 

 

​

Is the property serviced with City sanitary sewer at the time of application?

​

1.  

   1.                        NO!

 

The site of the proposed development is serviced by a private satellite Waste Water System that is owned by the developer and operated by the community. 

 

1.  

2. Is there transit service within 400 metres of major multiple unit residential projects (30+ units) or other non-residential projects or major employment generators (50+ employees)?

3.  

4. NO!

 

The mini bus stop is considerably more than 400 metres from the proposed development site. 

 

1.  

2. Does the proposed project involve redevelopment of currently under-utilized, urbanized lands?

3.  

4. NO!

 

The community is built out with no lands being under -utilized. The proposed development would require the re-zoning of currently well used golf course lands from park (P3) to RM3.

​

 

1. Does the proposed development contribute to preserving lands with slopes greater than 30%?

2.  

3. NO!

 

There are no slope preservation steps incorporated into this proposed development.

The proposed development site is on fairly level property and is slightly higher than the elevation of the existing road.

 

1.  

2. Will the project likely facilitate future development on adjacent parcels that meets the policies of the OCP?

3.  

4. NO!

 

The proposed development will not facilitate future development on adjacent sites. 

 

 

1. Does the project avoid negative impacts on adjacent parcels that meet the policies of the OCP?

2.  

3. NO!

 

The community was developed from a concept plan developed in 1995 for single family/conventional duplex development.  A common theme throughout the OCP document was the requirement for the need for infill development to be sensitive and compatible with adjacent and community land uses, functions, form, character, aesthetic and scale of developments. The proposed development is not compatible with the existing character of adjacent neighbourhoods or the community at large. The proposed siting of the development couldn’t be worse as it will interfere with views of existing neighbourhoods, will have adverse shadowing effects on adjacent housing, and will create a housing type that shouldn’t exist in the community.  

 

1. ​

 

1. Would the additional density or new land use designation enhance the surrounding neighbourhood or introduce compatible uses?

2.  

3. NO!

The proposed development does NOT complete the community. In fact, the inappropriateness of the proposal is a complete contradiction from the master plan developed by the same developer who is applying for this proposal. This community was developed and marketed as a golf course resort community based on low density single family and conventional duplex housing. The proposed development is completely insensitive to surrounding neighbourhoods and the community as a whole.

 

1.  

2. Could the project be supported without over-burdening existing parks and other neighbourhood resources?

3.  

4. NO!

 

The proposal involves the re-zoning of 2.2 acres of a highly used golf course that does not benefit from the building 21 luxury homes and a condominium complex.  Other assets that would be impacted adversely would be the Village Facilities and the Waste Water Treatment plant. The most important adverse impact on the community would be the impact on the Wastewater Treatment facility. In 2016, the Community Planning Department of the City of Kelowna specifically recommended that Gallagher’s be DENIED from pursuing secondary suites due to concerns over the capacity of the privately owned Wastewater Treatment facility. The City position in 2016 was as follows: “The Gallagher’s Canyon privately operated treatment facility is near capacity and even a negligible increase in capacity should not be permitted until sewer is extended to this area or capacity improvements to the system are installed. The City has no plans for sewer extension or upgrades”. The developer has made no investments in recent history and all operations are shouldered by the residents.

 

1.  

2. Could this project be built at a minimal cost to the City? 

3.  

4. NO!

 

Although the costs to the City would be minimal, the impact on the community would very significant. The residents would be left with the obligation to pay for the long term operating costs of the Wastewater Treatment plant with no help from the City in the foreseeable future. The City could also be put in the uncomfortable position of approving a development proposal that would result in increased flows into the Wastewater plant they don’t own or control when they have already denied Gallagher’s residents access to secondary suites due to City concerns over plant capacity. The City would likely be drawn into resolving future operating and/or capacity issues should they arise.

 

Summary – as you can see from the above, the Development Permit process associated with this proposal conflicts with almost all of the tests of compliance with OCP.