By Jennifer Smith - Kelowna Capital News
McKinley Landing residents face the possibility of 1,000 new neighbours thanks to an unenforceable set of circumstances created by city council three years ago. In August 2005, as one of their last acts as the local government, Mayor Walter Gray’s council agreed to allow developer Grant Gaucher to build a luxury resort in McKinley Landing under the Vintage Landing plan. The resort, now dubbed Kinnikinnik, would include a wellness centre, organic golf course and technology centre, with the development backed, in part, by revenues from 1,000 luxury condominiums, in which guests could stay up to a maximum of 240 days. Last Monday afternoon, however, the current council was forced to wipe the 240-day limit from the books after the city manager told the now outgoing city council there’s no way his staff can enforce it. “Today, people rent out homes by the week and it’s pretty clear that the home isn’t intended for weekly rentals and even that is very difficult to police,” said city manager Ron Mattiussi. Admitting that there’s no perfect way to ensure the resort will be used as a resort, Mattiussi told council that it boils down to a buyer beware situation.“If all you’re neighbours are…Calgarians and you get tired of that, than maybe it’s not the right situation for you,” he said. The only thing that stands between the condo owners and permanent residence now is the commercial tax rate the units will all be charged as part of the resort community—a rate roughly three times that of a regular live-in condo or home within the city.If the units can be rented for enough money to cover the tax rate, or the owners are willing fit the higher bill for the privilege of a year-round lakefront home, then there’s little the city can do about the situation, leaving council in a predicament. “I have a real difficulty with this because of the definition. Why did we have the definition if we can’t enforce it?”
Sharon Shepherd said Monday, noting she was annoyed with the situation. Kelowna city staff originally recommended against the Vintage Landing project, which falls outside the planning work in the city’s Official Community Plan. Without the OCP, the city had no idea when the proposal came into their planning department how much it would cost to provide city services to the area—things like new roads, water and perhaps even more importantly, sewers.At the time, Couns. Robert Hobson, Sharon Shepherd, Ron Cannan and Barrie Clark opposed the development when it came time to make the decision.But they were outvoted by the rest of council, and city staff then reportedly negotiated and signed a servicing agreement for the area to ensure the developer paid for the costs associated with sustaining the new resort.That servicing agreement is now up for renewal and current Couns. Norm Letnick, Brian Given and Hobson specifically stated they would only approve removing the 240-day limitation if the developer still ensures he will pay for the cost of the development.
But Richard Drinnan, an environmental consultant who has watched this development unfold, says he’s worried about more than just the costs involved. With several changes coming down the pipe on the project, he believes there’s more to the requests on hand than meets the eye and he’s very concerned about its environmental impact. Drinnan was one of the people who helped develop the provincial environmental review process in 1990. After watching how Gaucher handled his Southwind at Sarsons project, a development approved in Drinnan’s neighourhood, he’s wary the developer may be hedging his bets by throwing a variety of variables at the city so he can make the adjustments he needs and skirt environmental regulations that might weigh down the process while appearing to make concessions.
One of those variables up for discussion last Monday before council was a proposal to eliminate the word unit from the bylaw in questions, to accommodate concerns from his financiers. Along with concerns over the 240-day stay limitations, Gaucher said the original plans were to include lock-off units, or locked off portions of units within the 1,000 units, that could be rented separately.Three years later, that concept is no longer palatable to the industry, Gaucher said and he wanted the city to consider forgoing the word unit, allowing him to develop the same square footage of space as originally agreed to while making the lock-off units separate and rentable, something his financiers could better understand.According to city staff, however, there was never any agreement that the lock-off units could be part of the concept.As of Monday’s meeting, the 1,000-unit cap remains, there is no such thing as a lock-off unit on the city’s books and the development is expected to have the same density as it did when it was approved.Drinnan said the number of units is critical to the environmental review, noting that more units included in the project can trigger an environmental review process.
No comments:
Post a Comment