- The One-Way Couplet
- to remove the Pandosy-Richter one-way couplet from the Official Community Plan (Jan. 2003)
CRCP:
Principle: to protect the character of the neighbourhood from the intrusion of a one-way "speedway"
Position: IN FAVOUR
City Council vote:
IN FAVOUR: Blanleil, Cannan, Clark, Given, Gray, Hobson, Horning, Shepherd
AGAINST: Day
- Kelowna OCP 2020
- an amendment to extend the OCP to the year 2020 premised on an assumption of population growth of Kelowna by an additional 50,000 to 150,000 by the year 2020 (Jan.2003)
CRCP:
Principle: This rapid pace of growth will threaten the quality of life of residents
Position: AGAINST
City Council vote:
IN FAVOUR: Blanleil, Cannan, Clark, Day, Given, Gray, Hobson, Horning, Shepherd
AGAINST: (none)
- Brandt's Creek Crossing
- to authorize the construction of a 20 storey residential tower at Sunset Dr. and Clement Ave. (June 2004)
CRCP:
Principle: The proposed high density highrise development would worsen traffic congestion downtown, would obstruct view corridors, is visually incompatible with the natural surroundings, and will lead to a decrease in social interaction.
Position: AGAINST
City Council vote:
IN FAVOUR: Blanleil. Cannan, Clark, Day, Given, Gray, Hobson, Horning, Shepherd
AGAINST: (none)
- McKinley Landing
- to amend the OCP to facilitate the Vintage Landing commercial resort and fitness centre (June 2004)
CRCP:
Principle: Vintage Landing would be an intrusive development that would alter the existing character of the neighbourhood and not follow orderly planning procedures.
Position: AGAINST
City Council vote:
IN FAVOUR: Blanleil, Day, Given, Gray, Horning
AGAINST: Cannan, Clark, Hobson, Shepherd
- Cedar Avenue resort
- to amend the OCP in the Cedar Avenue area to allow for a lakeside resort/hotel (July 2004)
CRCP:
Principle: the proposed amendment would threaten the character of the existing neighbourhood and would lead to a reduction in park space.
Position: AGAINST
City Council vote:
Council voted unanimously to reject the initial proposal from the planning department and to send it back to staff for revision. The revision allowing for a "boutique hotel" with a maximum of 50 rooms and at a maximum height of 2 ½ storeys was approved by council with Cannan dissenting on the grounds that the matter should be brought back to the public for more input. (Hobson and Shepherd absented themselves.)
- Sarson's Commercial Development
- to amend the OCP from residential low density to commercial at 530 Sarsons Road in the Mission (Aug. 2004)
CRCP:
Principle: the development proposal threatened the existing character of the neighbourhood and went against the OCP.
Position: AGAINST
City Council vote:
IN FAVOUR: Horning
AGAINST: Blanleil, Cannan, Clark, Day, Given, Gray (Hobson and Shepherd absented themselves.)
- The Centuria highrise development at Bernard Ave. and Gordon Dr.
to amend the OCP and zoning bylaw from medium density residential to high density residential and to approve a variance permit to allow a building height of 16 storeys.
CRCP:
Principle: the development proposal violates the vision of the OCP for this area and is not in conformity with the surrounding neighbourhood. It will generate excessive traffic congestion and there in no affordable housing provided in the project.
Position: AGAINST
City Council vote:
IN FAVOUR: Unanimous
AGAINST: None
- Arbutus Village - Clifton Road
A proposal to amend the OCP and zoning bylaw at 492 Clifton Road in order to allow for a multiple-unit residential development with up to 1200 units.
CRCP:
Principle:This proposal is contrary to the vision of the OCP and would result in undesirably high densities in a neighbourhood that is predominantly single family residential which would increase trafffic congestion there.
Position: AGAINST
City Council vote:
IN FAVOUR: Gray, Blanleil, Clark, Given, Hobson, Horning
AGAINST: Cannan, Shepherd
- Vintage Landing
To apply the future land use designations identified in the Vintage Area Structure Plan to the Official Community Plan (August 2005).
CRCP:
Principle:Vintage Landing which proposes a luxury wellness resort and golf course is not the best use of scarce land and that this land should be saved for future residential needs.
Position: AGAINST
City Council vote:
IN FAVOUR: Gray, Blanleil, Day, Given, Horning
AGAINST: Cannan, Clark, Hobson, Shepherd