Kelowna council unanimous in saying no to McKinley Beach development study

Photo: Placemark Design

It's too early, too soon, moving ahead would be premature.

Those were some of the reasons Kelowna city councillors gave for saying no to early consideration of a study that could lead to the construction of hundreds of homes within a 671 acre parcel of land at McKinley Beach.

Staff had sought council’s opinion on a proposal to amend the Official Community Plan before the developer spent millions of dollars and time on environmental and transportation studies and design work and the city spent its resources working with the developer.

Planning director Ryan Smith told council what was before them was a request for staff to work with the developer, and not an admission of support for the project if a proposal did eventually come forward.

Council denied a development proposal to push the city's permanent growth boundary—the area outside of which where development is not supported—three years ago.

Smith said the new proposal, described by representatives of the developer as “an opportunity,” was a chance for the city to work with the applicant because “there could be something there.”

He called it an opportunity to negotiate for parkland, affordable housing, connections to the highway and a second egress from the McKinley area.

It would also have been an opportunity to get studies done in advance of the city’s North Glenmore neighbourhood study expected to take place in the next four to six years.

Smith also pointed to the fact there will be large developments happening north of the city’s boundaries in Lake Country that will have an impact on the area.

Coun. Luke Stack noted that the city's official community plan, updated two years ago, is a dramatic shift from previous OCP’s and has a focus on core growth areas.

“I was convinced by staff and others that that is where we should be focusing our growth, and when I look at the OCP pillars in this application just simply don’t align,” said Stack.

“I think nine of the 10 objectives we set just two years ago are not in alignment.

“In my opinion it is too early to make an assessment that our current OCP is not going to work. I think we need to give it more time before we look at something else.”

The current OCP is scheduled to be reviewed every five years with the first review scheduled in 2025.

Stack also suggested saying yes to this review would send a signal to other owners of property outside the growth boundary to come forward as well.

“Moving ahead now would be premature,” added Coun. Ron Cannan who noted the city should be trying to grow from the inside out and not the other way around.

While he did join his colleagues in defeating the motion, Mayor Tom Dyas did suggest it may have been a lost opportunity.

“I thought this study would have been helpful in assisting us in (the North Glenmore neighbourhood study) moving forward because it is being done by somebody out of our control in terms of covering the expense,” said Dyas.

“I think this study is 15 to 20 years out and with the amount of industry that’s happening in the airport area and the advancement of the university I believe there is a need for substantial growth in that particular area.”