|
Post by John Zeger on Jun 30, 2005 12:05:15 GMT -5
A proposal to develop this property appeared before the Advisory Planning Commission about 6 months ago in order to create 400 new dwelling units. This would have been done by rezoning the property to allow a low density development of single and multi-family units with a maximum height of two and a half storeys. The developer has returned with a new plan to increase the density by adding approximately 1200 units as medium-density multi-family housing including condomiums up to three storeys and the possiblity of buildings up to six storeys next to the hillside.
As part of the original proposal the city will acquire 42 acres surrounding Kathleen Lake for $3million to add to Knox Mountain. With the new proposal the city is considering through a density transfer to add another 75 acres to the park at a cost of $1 million.
Residents in the neighbourhood affected are concerned about the potential increase in traffic that the tripling of density will bring.
The proposal is scheduled to go to public hearing before city council on July 12.
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Jul 13, 2005 12:11:03 GMT -5
Despite an overwhelming number of neighbourhood residents at the public hearing complaining that the proposed development would increase traffic congestion there to undesirable levels, city council chose to ignore their pleas and voted at the July 12 meeting to capitulate to developer pressure and the bylaws to amend the OCP and zoning bylaw passed second and third reading. Mayor Gray and Councillors Horning, Blanleil, Hobson, Clark, and Given voted in favour and Councillors Cannan and Shepherd voted against. What a sad day for Kelowna neighbourhoods.
|
|
|
Post by prodevlp on Jul 13, 2005 21:09:53 GMT -5
Half of the people there supported the development. It showed it on CHBC.
|
|
|
Post by cathy on Jul 13, 2005 22:22:33 GMT -5
As a resident of the neighbourhood in question, I support this development, especially since the increase in park space will be very beneficial to all new and existing residents. However, I'm concerned about the lack of commercial development in the proposed plan, and I believe corner stores - (not strip malls) - would possibly decrease the number of car journeys needed to be made, and so decrease traffic. At this location, the most local store is the IGA in North Glenmore, and to get to this, people would need to pass through what is currently a quiet neighbourhood, posing concerns of safety, etc. It looks as though the current development plan will not include any opportunity for commercial development, which I think makes the plan less appealing for local residents. Even existing residents would be able to walk to a local store to buy basic groceries, which they are currently unable to do.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 13, 2005 23:00:04 GMT -5
... I believe corner stores - (not strip malls) - would possibly decrease the number of car journeys needed to be made, and so decrease traffic... As I said in another thread, stating that bringing in more people will somehow reduce traffice is nonsense, and we've already shown why and how.
|
|
|
Post by John Zeger on Jul 13, 2005 23:55:40 GMT -5
Half of the people there supported the development. It showed it on CHBC. Excuse me. And I don't know what you saw on CHBC, but I was at the public hearing and you weren't. So don't tell me that half the people there supported the development because that simply isn't true. Furthermore, CKOV at www.ckov63.com reports "the majority of speakers were against the proposal." It seems you pro-development types only see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear, and that goes for you too Cathy, pulling out the one research study that supports your point of view when there are 100 on the shelf that demonstrate the opposite. But you conveniently ignore those.
|
|
|
Post by cathy on Jul 13, 2005 23:58:48 GMT -5
But... that's not what I said. I didn't mean it would decrease the current traffic, rather that it would decrease the expected traffic resulting from the development. The development will increase traffic, but it will increase it much more if there are no stores for people to use locally, won't it? Also, if people like myself already living nearby were able to use local stores, they should be added to the area with or without housing developments. Interestingly, the village in which I grew up was designed several hundreds of years ago, and has, as far as I know, always included local services. At the time of its design there were no vehicles of any kind, and so naturally it was very pedestrian-centered design. Although it has since changed to accommodate motor vehicle traffic, the basic design remains, and vehicle use is virtually only for leaving the village, which some people do relitively infrequently, since local services are provided within walking distance. It seems strange that modern design would leave out a simple thing like a corner store, assuming that people can get in the car every time they need to buy milk.
|
|
|
Post by prodevlp on Jul 14, 2005 16:37:52 GMT -5
"It seems you pro-development types only see what you want to see and hear what you want to hear,"
Sorry but, I was just saying what I saw. Not what I wanted to see.
|
|
|
Post by cathy on Jul 15, 2005 19:00:52 GMT -5
I have been asked a few times to make sure I am supporting my ideas with research. Now you don't like that? There are also several instances, especially in my answer to Mr. Shea's questions in 'The Limits to Air', in which I have used facts of both sides of the argument. Specifically this involves studies related to poor air quality, its causes, and the effect growth has on it, etc. I was not shying away from these facts, but rather using them to support other studies which show that high density development is the best way of managing growth with the lowest level of air pollution. This wasn't always what I wanted to see, or the best thing to support my argument, but it was the truth.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 15, 2005 19:51:00 GMT -5
high density development is the best way of managing growth with the lowest level of air pollution. Human history is quite clear: we virtually never manage growth, we only react to it. Indeed, I argue that, similar to "smart growth," we have another oxymoron in the phrase "growth management." The best way to manage growth is to not manage it at all. Just stop it, and work on all the other issues that actually will improve our quality of life, including reducing air pollution, traffic congestion, and so on.
|
|
|
Post by cathy on Jul 15, 2005 23:13:32 GMT -5
Isn't that a very passive way of dealing with something? Burying our heads in the sand and finding the easiest way to get rid of the problem is not proactive, but completely reactive. Your plan seems to be, "If the problem is too big to deal with, let's just stop growth and forget about it." I have a lot of hope for the future in this city, and have no intention of leaving it to sit idly in the past. It is young enough to leave a broad future open to a variety of change, and the way this change is to be handled could either be disastrous, or very positive. Kelowna has a great deal of potential, providing development is done carefully and in ways which will preserve the beauty and uniqueness of the city. I believe this can be done, and would rather take action to make it reach this potential, than shut it off from the possibilities of the future at such an early stage. I don't want to hear that this is naive or irrational, and, as Harold Wilson said, βHe who rejects change is the architect of decay. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery.β
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 15, 2005 23:17:31 GMT -5
The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery.β There's that word again, "progress." Please define it succinctly for us, thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 15, 2005 23:19:32 GMT -5
Isn't that a very passive way of dealing with something? Apparently, it's the most proactive of all. That should be clear from the reactionary comments we continue to hear from those who passively want the current status quo of wide open unchecked growth to continue. Sorry, I forgot to add that the CRCP wishes to embrace the largest changes of all -- changing our way of thinking, changing our way of dealing with growth, and even changing our current council. Those are changes I welcome with open arms, and they are certainly dramatic changes from the current status quo.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Shea on Jul 15, 2005 23:21:54 GMT -5
Now, back to the topic of this thread, I believe that the city should be expanding parks regardless of the development proposals. Shame on them for trading off the wellbeing of the residents of the area like this. Given the current situation in Kelowna, it seems reasonable to predict that this development will happen far more rapidly than we have been led to believe, as is already happening in so many other places in Kelowna.
|
|
|
Post by cathy on Jul 15, 2005 23:30:19 GMT -5
Chambers English Dictionary, pp. 1168
Progress, n. a forward movement: an advance: a continuation: an advance to something better or higher in development: a gain in proficience: a course: a passage from place to place: a procession: a journey of state: a circuit.
v.i. progress: to go forward: to make progress: to go on, continue: to go in progress, travel in state: to go. - v.t. (obs.) to travers: to cause (esp. building or manufacturing work) to proceed steadily.
They are working towards better development to accomodate growth in the best ways possible. There are many people at work who have made this their goal, and many ideas being circulated of how it may be done. Leaving the city the way it is with no chance of a future could be done easily enough by capping the population. As it is, I have more faith in the city than that. This is not "status quo" at all, but rather careful progress which must be worked for. It is the harder route, but the one which shows the most potential for the city.
|
|