PUBLIC HEARING CORRESPONDENCE March 6, 2018 (Received to March 1, 2018, 4:00 pm)

Transcription

1 PUBLIC HEARING CORRESPONDENCE March 6, 2018 (Received to March 1, 2018, 4:00 pm) Rezoning Application No. REZ Schubert Road (Zoning Amendment Bylaw No ) Correspondence was received opposing this application from: Maureen and Patrick Landals, 3240 Schubert Road Rezoning Application No. REZ St. Paul Street W. (Zoning Amendment Bylaw No ) Correspondence was received supporting this application from: Erin Adams and Philippe Schlesser, 31 St. Paul Street W. Rezoning Application No. REZ McGill Road (Zoning Amendment Bylaw No ) Correspondence was received opposing this application from: Jonni-Lynn Hildebrand-Yeomans, Jonni s Styling Salon, McGill Road Mahendra (Raj) Somaya and Rama Somaya, McGill Rd Susanne Cross Robert and Joanne Fennell, 1033 McMurdo Drive Nanette Lewis, 1888 Sedgewick Drive Debbie Krebs DJ Krebs, 650 Harrington Road Inga Thomson Hilton, 842 Dominion Street Denise Cleveland, 1963 Monteith Drive Julie MacInnes Kevin Prouse, Pine Street Kimberly Everard Avril Rublee, 2744 Thompson Drive Danielle McClurg and James McClurg, 1408 Todd Road Linda Soles, Braeview Place Keenan Moon, Tranquille Road Kathleen Gienow, 1219 Belair Drive Bonnie Brown Christine Gregory, th Street Dan and Denise Douglas, 868 Nicola Street Megan Rawson Marylyne M. House, 777 Arbutus Street Marlene Verhage, 1739 Gallon Avenue, Lumby BC Gisela Gardiner, 147 Castle Towers Drive Trudy Johnston, 2516 Sandalwood Drive Wendy Nielsen, 2549 Crestline Place Patricia Gremaud, 85 Hudson`s Bay Trail Patti Basden, Pine Street Raven Ritcey, 2112 Garymede Drive

2 (Continued) Kathleen and Mike Pagdin, 3969 Lemky Road, Pritchard Neville Petherick, 1198 Linthorpe Road Ona McDonald, 777 Springridge Place Christine Currie, 237 Sunhill Court Doris Galbraith, 1024 Fernie Road Cindy Darwin, 746 Franklin Road Carmen Babic, 1993 Skeena Drive Anne Magdelenich Allan Shoemaker, 2048 Skeena Drive Sandy Wallin, Lethbridge Avenue Tina Hollinger, 341 Hollyburn Drive Angela Rigby, 248 Chestnut Avenue Correspondence was received with concerns regarding this application from: Commercial Owner, 755 McGill Road

3

4

5

6 KID Received February 27, 2018 We, Darrell and Jonni Yeomans, are the owners of commercial retail unit 101, 765 McGill Rd (Landmark Place). As the only commercial owners in Landmark Place at present, and given the fact that we purchased the property based on the CD-2 zoning, our concern and opposition to the rezoning application is multi-fold. CD-2 zoning was applied to the development by the City of Kamloops Bylaw No to meet McGill Corridor Development Guidelines and planning requirements for this development. The rezoning application appears to be inconsistent with the city s justification statement in the Official Community Plan for the McGill Corridor Development Permit Area and the McGill Corridor/Southgate Concept Plan, which designated the south side of McGill Road between Summit Drive and Hillside Drive Main Street with the intent to encourage mixed use development consisting of ground floor commercial uses with residential or office uses above. The Official Community Plan statement regarding the McGill Corridor Development Permit Area advises: Buildings shall provide ground floor retail or office uses accessible at grade along the Main Street portion of McGill Road between Summit Drive and Hillside Drive/University Drive. Landmark Place s developer had originally applied to have the first floor a combination of Commercial and Residential units. The City called for the Developer to change that to have the entire first floor as commercial space to meet the Bylaw s CD-2 zoning requirements according to the McGill Development Plan concept and Kamplan. We purchased Unit 101 (commercial) based on these zoning requirements, and the Developer s Disclosure Statement showing commercial use for these first-floor units which, as business owners, would mean attracting further traffic to our business area and therefore, potentially, more customers. Without other commercial development in the property, we are alone and without the proper critical public access, this will negatively impact walk-in traffic to our business. Despite of City of Kamloops Stop-Work Orders and fines for continuing work on them, the developer is still working on completing the conversion of 2 of the 5 residentialbased units in the commercially intended CRU units #102 and 103. The developer has used the premise of the need for additional resident s security for unit #102 next to us, and to the residential units above, to deny us the open street access into our place of business by walk-in traffic, by implementing an Enterphone lockout at the front door of the building that would block public access to our commercial retail unit. We have tried to discuss with the developer other options for securing access to the residential

7 units above, including a secured system of access through the elevator, only to be told that it would never happen. We are adamantly opposed of the rezoning of unit 102 as this unit shares the front entry with us and as such, greatly affects our businesses public access and our efforts with the developer, to gain unhindered street access to our place of business. Parking availability is a large concern for us as well. There are only 65 stalls of underground parking earmarked for owners at price of $20,000 each (one of which we have bought for our use) and 9 outdoor stalls. This number falls way short of the requirements the CD-2 zoning specifies. Currently with 83 residential units and 6 commercial units, there should be 114 units of parking, not the 74 we have access to. We are not including the 49 units of private parking in these numbers because the owner of these stalls has told us that it will be closed, leased parking with no public parking or public access, even though we were led to believe when deciding to purchase, that the main floor of parking would be lease and public parking primarily for Landmark Place residents. The exterior of the building even has signs attached to it, indicating it as public parking. We have had to apply to lease 2 of these spots just for staffing. Mr. Culos, as the property owner, and his Project Administrator Fred Marin, currently may rent these out to whomever they choose according to the Strata Bylaws which state: Strata Lot 6 will be owned by an independent owner, thus parking availability, tenure and fees will be at the sole discretion of the owner and not under the control of the Strata Corporation. Some of these are being leased to Landmark Pace tenants currently, and some are also being offered to people outside of Landmark Place. We understand that due to The City of Kamloops staff failing to ensure the proper easement and covenants being registered by the Developer against Landmark Centre and Landmark Place regarding the shortfall of parking for Landmark 1 and 2, the City is trying to leverage this rezoning application in order to get those covenants and easements in place for Landmark Place, but the re-zoning, if it moves forward, will come as a cost to us. How much of a cost remains to be seen, but a cost none the less, and for sure, not one we should have to bear. As a commercial business, we have been required to build our unit to meet access standards for People with Disability. Handicapped or Disability access to our unit and unit 102 is now limited and not up to BC Fire Code according to Kamloops City Fire Department inspectors, with the locking of accesses through the parkade area by the developer. Without parkade access/egress (due to locked doors) and proper ramping outside, we have only 1 entrance/exit to our place of business, which depends on elevator service for wheelchair-bound/ handicapped/disabled customers. If an emergency arises, elevator access comes into question. This should also be a huge concern for the City of Kamloops in relation to liability regarding building codes. The

8 developer has already locked doors and removed some emergency exit signs from the parkade area to accommodate his plans to secure the parking area at ground level. A new concern has been brought to our attention, in that, as Landmark Place has been built on lands that were previously used as landfill, there may be issues of allowing residential units on ground floor mixed-use developments. Unfortunately, at this date, we have not been able to verify this, but the City Councilors may wish to check into this before making a decision, as that could potentially create some major liability issues down the road. In summary, we do not support the rezoning application for these reasons listed. We are concerned about potential loss of business growth. We are concerned about access. We understand the City of Kamloops considering it for the leveraging to obtain easements and covenants against Landmark Place to gain parking access for the other Phases of Development, but that aside, why would you change the original zoning for that property and rezone it back to what you initially said did not fit the requirements your bylaws dictated? Why would you have us suffer and pay for City staff's admitted incompetence and other people s errors with this particular development, when your staff was largely responsible for creating this the problem now being faced?

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39 KID To the City of Kamloops, Received February 27, 2018 This is my letter of opposition to the re-zoning application REZ00635 of 765 McGill Rd. attempting to rezone the commercial status of the ground floor units to change to residential units. With the main street concept studied, and adopted by the City back in 2001, and now as further residential units are being planned and soon to be constructed between the Landmark development and Dalhousie Drive, as well as proposed development on the TRU McGill/Summit corner property, the importance of the integrity of the designated uses defined by KAMPLAN, the Official Community Plan and it s purposes set out in Bylaw Schedule B, is crucial. If this area is rezoned, we will never get that retail space and opportunity back for that area, even if it may be only 5 units in question here. The ability for businesses to have the opportunity to plug into the influx of the coming people that will be moving into these residential units in this rapidly growing area, and in turn, those people having access to local business in the area seems important to me, as it did to the lengthy list of people that developed that plan and implemented it into our City Bylaws. So, in short, I, whole-hearteningly, oppose this re-zoning application and urge the City of Kamloops to reject this proposal for the good of the McGill- Southgate Corridor. Sincerely, Nanette Lewis 1888 Sedgewick Drive Kamloops BC V2E 1Z8

40 To the City of Kamloops, KID Received February 27, 2018 This is my letter of opposition to the re-zoning application REZ00635 of 765 McGill Rd. attempting to rezone the commercial status of the ground floor units to change to residential units. With the main street concept studied, and adopted by the City back in 2001, and now as further residential units are being planned and soon to be constructed between the Landmark development and Dalhousie Drive, as well as proposed development on the TRU McGill/Summit corner property, the importance of the integrity of the designated uses defined by KAMPLAN, the Official Community Plan and it s purposes set out in Bylaw Schedule B, is crucial. If this area is rezoned, we will never get that retail space and opportunity back for that area, even if it may be only 5 units in question here. The ability for businesses to have the opportunity to plug into the influx of the coming people that will be moving into these residential units in this rapidly growing area, and in turn, those people having access to local business in the area seems important to me, as it did to the lengthy list of people that developed that plan and implemented it into our City Bylaws. So, in short, I, whole-hearteningly, oppose this re-zoning application and urge the City of Kamloops to reject this proposal for the good of the McGill- Southgate Corridor. Sincerely, Debbie Krebs

41 Received February 27, 2018!"# $$"$"$# %&'$"""""( ()*+",$ "$(""($"(,-")"." /$/.,"".0!12$ ""$""( $ 4 "7$$8,+*+2"$8$#9",,. "$ (). ( $:$# ( ($.$ $$;, (."$","$. ($"" "."""$ 8,# 29, "$ <"!2$"# 2 /=( >"8

42 842 Dominion Street Kamloops, BC V2C 2Y1

43 Denise Cleveland 1963 Monteith Drive Kamloops BC V2E 2M8

44 To the City of Kamloops, KID Received February 27, 2018 This is my letter of opposition to the re-zoning application REZ00635 of 765 McGill Rd. attempting to rezone the commercial status of the ground floor units to change to residential units. With the main street concept studied, and adopted by the City back in 2001, and now as further residential units are being planned and soon to be constructed between the Landmark development and Dalhousie Drive, as well as proposed development on the TRU McGill/Summit corner property, the importance of the integrity of the designated uses defined by KAMPLAN, the Official Community Plan and it s purposes set out in Bylaw Schedule B, is crucial. If this area is rezoned, we will never get that retail space and opportunity back for that area, even if it may be only 5 units in question here. The ability for businesses to have the opportunity to plug into the influx of the coming people that will be moving into these residential units in this rapidly growing area, and in turn, those people having access to local business in the area seems important to me, as it did to the lengthy list of people that developed that plan and implemented it into our City Bylaws. So, in short, I, whole-hearteningly, oppose this re-zoning application and urge the City of Kamloops to reject this proposal for the good of the McGill- Southgate Corridor. Sincerely, Julie MacInnes

45 February 26, 2018 KID Received February 27, 2018 To the City of Kamloops, This is my letter of opposition to the re-zoning application REZ00635 of 765 McGill Rd. attempting to rezone the commercial status of the ground floor units to change to residential units. With the main street concept studied, and adopted by the City back in 2001, and now as further residential units are being planned and soon to be constructed between the Landmark development and Dalhousie Drive, as well as proposed development on the TRU McGill/Summit corner property, the importance of the integrity of the designated uses defined by KAMPLAN, the Official Community Plan and it s purposes set out in Bylaw Schedule B, is crucial. If this area is rezoned, we will never get that retail space and opportunity back for that area, even if it may be only 5 units in question here. The ability for businesses to have the opportunity to plug into the influx of the coming people that will be moving into these residential units in this rapidly growing area, and in turn, those people having access to local business in the area seems important to me, as it did to the lengthy list of people that developed that plan and implemented it into our City Bylaws. So, in short, I, whole-hearteningly, oppose this re-zoning application and urge the City of Kamloops to reject this proposal for the good of the McGill- Southgate Corridor. Sincerely, Kevin Prouse Pine St. Kamloops BC V2C3A9

46 To the City of Kamloops, KID Received February 27, 2018 This is my letter of opposition to the re-zoning application REZ00635 of 765 McGill Rd. attempting to rezone the commercial status of the ground floor units to change to residential units. With the main street concept studied, and adopted by the City back in 2001, and now as further residential units are being planned and soon to be constructed between the Landmark development and Dalhousie Drive, as well as proposed development on the TRU McGill/Summit corner property, the importance of the integrity of the designated uses defined by KAMPLAN, the Official Community Plan and it s purposes set out in Bylaw Schedule B, is crucial. If this area is rezoned, we will never get that retail space and opportunity back for that area, even if it may be only 5 units in question here. The ability for businesses to have the opportunity to plug into the influx of the coming people that will be moving into these residential units in this rapidly growing area, and in turn, those people having access to local business in the area seems important to me, as it did to the lengthy list of people that developed that plan and implemented it into our City Bylaws. So, in short, I, whole-hearteningly, oppose this re-zoning application and urge the City of Kamloops to reject this proposal for the good of the McGill- Southgate Corridor. Sincerely, Kimberly Everard

47 2744 Thompson Drive Kamloops BC V2C 4L6

48

49 Received February 27, 2018

50 Received February 27, 2018

51 Tranquille Rd Kamloops BC V2B 7Y2

52 To the City of Kamloops, KID Received February 27, 2018 This is my letter of opposition to the re-zoning application REZ00635 of 765 McGill Rd. attempting to rezone the commercial status of the ground floor units to change to residential units. With the main street concept studied, and adopted by the City back in 2001, and now as further residential units are being planned and soon to be constructed between the Landmark development and Dalhousie Drive, as well as proposed development on the TRU McGill/Summit corner property, the importance of the integrity of the designated uses defined by KAMPLAN, the Official Community Plan and it s purposes set out in Bylaw Schedule B, is crucial. If this area is rezoned, we will never get that retail space and opportunity back for that area, even if it may be only 5 units in question here. The ability for businesses to have the opportunity to plug into the influx of the coming people that will be moving into these residential units in this rapidly growing area, and in turn, those people having access to local business in the area seems important to me, as it did to the lengthy list of people that developed that plan and implemented it into our City Bylaws. So, in short, I, whole-hearteningly, oppose this re-zoning application and urge the City of Kamloops to reject this proposal for the good of the McGill- Southgate Corridor. Sincerely, Kathleen Gienow 1219 Belair Drive Kamloops BC V2C 5G3

53 To the City of Kamloops, KID Received February 27, 2018 This is my letter of opposition to the re-zoning application REZ00635 of 765 McGill Rd. attempting to rezone the commercial status of the ground floor units to change to residential units. With the main street concept studied, and adopted by the City back in 2001, and now as further residential units are being planned and soon to be constructed between the Landmark development and Dalhousie Drive, as well as proposed development on the TRU McGill/Summit corner property, the importance of the integrity of the designated uses defined by KAMPLAN, the Official Community Plan and it s purposes set out in Bylaw Schedule B, is crucial. If this area is rezoned, we will never get that retail space and opportunity back for that area, even if it may be only 5 units in question here. The ability for businesses to have the opportunity to plug into the influx of the coming people that will be moving into these residential units in this rapidly growing area, and in turn, those people having access to local business in the area seems important to me, as it did to the lengthy list of people that developed that plan and implemented it into our City Bylaws. So, in short, I, whole-hearteningly, oppose this re-zoning application and urge the City of Kamloops to reject this proposal for the good of the McGill- Southgate Corridor. Sincerely, Bonnie Brown

54

55 868 Nicola Street Kamloops, BC V2C 2R7

56 To the City of Kamloops, KID Received February 27, 2018 This is my letter of opposition to the re-zoning application REZ00635 of 765 McGill Rd. attempting to rezone the commercial status of the ground floor units to change to residential units. With the main street concept studied, and adopted by the City back in 2001, and now as further residential units are being planned and soon to be constructed between the Landmark development and Dalhousie Drive, as well as proposed development on the TRU McGill/Summit corner property, the importance of the integrity of the designated uses defined by KAMPLAN, the Official Community Plan and it s purposes set out in Bylaw Schedule B, is crucial. If this area is rezoned, we will never get that retail space and opportunity back for that area, even if it may be only 5 units in question here. The ability for businesses to have the opportunity to plug into the influx of the coming people that will be moving into these residential units in this rapidly growing area, and in turn, those people having access to local business in the area seems important to me, as it did to the lengthy list of people that developed that plan and implemented it into our City Bylaws. So, in short, I whole-hearteningly oppose this re-zoning application and urge the City of Kamloops to reject this proposal for the good of the McGill- Southgate Corridor. Sincerely, Megan Rawson

57

58 To the City of Kamloops, KID Received February 27, 2018 This is my letter of opposition to the re-zoning application REZ00635 of 765 McGill Rd. attempting to rezone the commercial status of the ground floor units to change to residential units. With the main street concept studied, and adopted by the City back in 2001, and now as further residential units are being planned and soon to be constructed between the Landmark development and Dalhousie Drive, as well as proposed development on the TRU McGill/Summit corner property, the importance of the integrity of the designated uses defined by KAMPLAN, the Official Community Plan and it s purposes set out in Bylaw Schedule B, is crucial. If this area is rezoned, we will never get that retail space and opportunity back for that area, even if it may be only 5 units in question here. The ability for businesses to have the opportunity to plug into the influx of the coming people that will be moving into these residential units in this rapidly growing area, and in turn, those people having access to local business in the area seems important to me, as it did to the lengthy list of people that developed that plan and implemented it into our City Bylaws. So, in short, I, whole-hearteningly, oppose this re-zoning application and urge the City of Kamloops to reject this proposal for the good of the McGill- Southgate Corridor. Sincerely, Marlene Verhage 1739 Gallon Avenue Lumby BC V0E 2G0

59

60 2516 Sandalwood Drive Kamloops BC V2B 6V4 Received February 27, 2018

61

62 KID Hudson s Bay Trail February 27, 2018 Kamloops, BC V2C 6Z3 City Council Kamloops, BC Ladies and Gentlemen: This is my letter of opposition to the re-zoning application REZ00635 of 765 McGill Road that attempts to re-zone the commercial status of the ground floor units to residential units. With the main street concept studied and adopted by the City in 2001, and as further residential units are being planned and soon to be constructed between the Landmark development and Dalhousie Drive, as well as the proposed development on the TRU McGill/Summit corner property, the importance of the integrity of the designated uses defined by KAMPLAN - the Official Community Plan and its purposes set out in Bylaw Schedule B - is crucial. If this area is rezoned, we will never get that retail space and opportunity back, even if there are only 5 units in question. In this rapidly growing area, the ability for businesses to have the opportunity to plug into the influx of people that will be moving into these residential units is important to me, not to mention the lengthy list of people that developed that plan and implemented it into our City Bylaws. So, in short, I oppose this re-zoning application and urge the City of Kamloops to reject this proposal for the benefit of the McGill-Southgate Corridor. Sincerely, Patricia Gremaud 85 Hudson's Bay Trail

63

64

65

66 From: Nev To: Date: 28/02/ :24 AM Subject: To the City of Kamloops KID To the City of Kamloops, This is my letter of opposition to the re-zoning application REZ00635 of 765 McGill Rd. attempting to re-zone the commercial status of the ground floor units to change to residential units. With the main street concept studied, and adopted by the City back in 2001, and now as further residential units are being planned and soon to be constructed between the Landmark development and Dalhousie Drive, as well as proposed development on the TRU McGill/Summit corner property, the importance of the integrity of the designated uses defined by KAMPLAN, the Official Community Plan and it s purposes set out in Bylaw Schedule B, is crucial. If this area is rezoned, we will never get that retail space and opportunity back for that area, even if it may be only 5 units in question here. The ability for businesses to have the opportunity to plug into the influx of the coming people that will be moving into these residential units in this rapidly growing area, and in turn, those people having access to local business in the area seems important to me, as it did to the lengthy list of people that developed that plan and implemented it into our City Bylaws. So, in short, I, whole-hearteningly, oppose this re-zoning application and urge the City of Kamloops to reject this proposal for the good of the McGill- Southgate Corridor. Sincerely, Neville Petherick 1198 Linthorpe Road Kamloops BC V2B7S6

67

68

69

70

71 KID Received Feb 29, 2018 March 1, 2018 To the City of Kamloops, This is my letter of opposition to the re-zoning application REZ00635 of 765 McGill Rd. attempting to rezone the commercial status of the ground floor units to change to residential units. With the main street concept studied, and adopted by the City back in 2001, and now as further residential units are being planned and soon to be constructed between the Landmark development and Dalhousie Drive, as well as proposed development on the TRU McGill/Summit corner property, the importance of the integrity of the designated uses defined by KAMPLAN, the Official Community Plan and it s purposes set out in Bylaw Schedule B, is crucial. If this area is rezoned, we will never get that retail space and opportunity back for that area, even if it may be only 5 units in question here. The ability for businesses to have the opportunity to plug into the influx of the coming people that will be moving into these residential units in this rapidly growing area, and in turn, those people having access to local business in the area seems important to me, as it did to the lengthy list of people that developed that plan and implemented it into our City Bylaws. So, in short, I, whole-hearteningly, oppose this re-zoning application and urge the City of Kamloops to reject this proposal for the good of the McGill- Southgate Corridor. Sincerely, Carmen Babic 1993 Skeena Drive Kamloops BC V2E 2P3

72

73 KID From: To: Date: Subject: Allan Shoemaker 01/03/2018 2:08 AM Rezoning To the City of Kamloops This is my letter of opposition to the re-zoning application REZ00635 of 765 McGill Road attempting to re-zone the commercial status of the ground floor units to change to residential units. With the "main street" concept studied, and adopted by the City back in 2001, and now as further residential units are being planned and soon to be constructed between the Landmark development and Dalhousie Drive, as well as proposed development on the Tru McGill/Summit corner property, the importance of the integrity of the designated uses defined by KAMPLAN, the Official Community Plan and its purposes set out in Bylaw Schedule B, is crucial. If this area is rezoned, we will never get that retail space and opportunity back for that area, even if it may be only 5 units in question here. The ability for businesses to have the opportunity to plug into the influx of the coming people that will be moving into these residential units in this rapidly growing area, and in turn, those people having access to local business in the area seems important to me, as it did to the lengthy list of people that developed that plan and implemented it into our City Bylaws. So, in short, I whole-heartedly oppose this re-zoning application and urge the City of Kamloops to reject this re-zoning application and urge the City of Kamloops to reject this proposal for the good of the McGill- Southgate Corridor. Sincerely, Allan Shoemaker 2048 Skeena Drive

74 To the City of Kamloops, KID Received March 1, 2018 This is my letter of opposition to the re-zoning application REZ00635 of 765 McGill Rd. attempting to rezone the commercial status of the ground floor units to change to residential units. With the main street concept studied, and adopted by the City back in 2001, and now as further residential units are being planned and soon to be constructed between the Landmark development and Dalhousie Drive, as well as proposed development on the TRU McGill/Summit corner property, the importance of the integrity of the designated uses defined by KAMPLAN, the Official Community Plan and it s purposes set out in Bylaw Schedule B, is crucial. If this area is rezoned, we will never get that retail space and opportunity back for that area, even if it may be only 5 units in question here. The ability for businesses to have the opportunity to plug into the influx of the coming people that will be moving into these residential units in this rapidly growing area, and in turn, those people having access to local business in the area seems important to me, as it did to the lengthy list of people that developed that plan and implemented it into our City Bylaws. So, in short, I, whole-hearteningly, oppose this re-zoning application and urge the City of Kamloops to reject this proposal for the good of the McGill- Southgate Corridor. Sincerely, Sandy Wallin Lethbridge Ave Kamloops, BC V2B 8G5

75 I totally agree with this document. Tina Hollinger KID Received March 1, 2018 To the City of Kamloops, This is my letter of opposition to the re-zoning application REZ00635 of 765 McGill Rd. attempting to rezone the commercial status of the ground floor units to change to residential units. With the main street concept studied, and adopted by the City back in 2001, and now as further residential units are being planned and soon to be constructed between the Landmark development and Dalhousie Drive, as well as proposed development on the TRU McGill/Summit corner property, the importance of the integrity of the designated uses defined by KAMPLAN, the Official Community Plan and it s purposes set out in Bylaw Schedule B, is crucial. If this area is rezoned, we will never get that retail space and opportunity back for that area, even if it may be only 5 units in question here. The ability for businesses to have the opportunity to plug into the influx of the coming people that will be moving into these residential units in this rapidly growing area, and in turn, those people having access to local business in the area seems important to me, as it did to the lengthy list of people that developed that plan and implemented it into our City Bylaws. So, in short, I, whole-hearteningly, oppose this re-zoning application and urge the City of Kamloops to reject this proposal for the good of the McGill- Southgate Corridor. Sincerely,

76 Angela Rigby 248 Chestnut Avenue Kamloops, BC V2B 1L5 KID Received March 2, 2018 March 1, 2018 To the City of Kamloops, This is my letter of opposition to the re-zoning application REZ00635 of 765 McGill Rd. attempting to rezone the commercial status of the ground floor units to change to residential units. With the main street concept studied, and adopted by the City back in 2001, and now as further residential units are being planned and soon to be constructed between the Landmark development and Dalhousie Drive, as well as proposed development on the TRU McGill/Summit corner property, the importance of the integrity of the designated uses defined by KAMPLAN, the Official Community Plan and it s purposes set out in Bylaw Schedule B, is crucial. If this area is rezoned, we will never get that retail space and opportunity back for that area, even if it may be only 5 units in question here. The ability for businesses to have the opportunity to plug into the influx of the coming people that will be moving into these residential units in this rapidly growing area, and in turn, those people having access to local business in the area seems important to me, as it did to the lengthy list of people that developed that plan and implemented it into our City Bylaws. So, in short, I, whole-hearteningly, oppose this re-zoning application and urge the City of Kamloops to reject this proposal for the good of the McGill- Southgate Corridor. Sincerely, Angela F. Rigby

77 Feb I purchased one of the commercial lots at Landmark Centre (755 McGill Rd.) in 2015, and have had direct dealings with Culos Developments (hereafter referred to as Culos ) since then. I share the concerns that you (and other City Council members) expressed in the Feb KTW article regarding the lack of parking in the Landmark developments, including (but not limited to) Landmark 1/2 ( LM1/2 ). I will spell out my concerns specifically below pertaining to considerations regarding Culos s application to rezone Landmark Place ( LMP, 765 McGill Road), as informed by my personal experiences as an owner of a lot in Landmark Centre ( LMC ). The parking situation in the entire Landmark development are complex, and in the information I provide below I will attempt to address the following questions: What is the intent of the Zone CD2 parking bylaw requirements, and might the configuration and type of the parking in the Landmark Heights Development impact the interpretation of the CD2 parking bylaw? Should the commercial parkade in LMP count towards the parking available to LMP residents and business owners under CD2 zoning requirements? Do the number of parking stalls listed in the Jan document prepared by the City of Kamloops Development and Services rezoning discussion document (hereafter referred to as the Jan 29 KDS rezoning document ) accurately reflect the actual number and distribution of parking stalls in the Landmark Heights Development? Without rezoning, if covenants are put in place to restrict the use of the commercial parkade at LMP to residents and business owners of LMP, as well as business owners of LM1/2), will there be sufficient parking available in LMP for the residents and business owners of LMP? If rezoning is permitted, how can this be done in a way that will allow compliance with CD2 zoning requirements? Will handicapped parking requirements be compromised by the parking arrangements at LMP? Is interpretation of the CD2 parking bylaw complicated by the layout of Landmark Heights? According to discussions with Development and Services, the Zone CD2 parking bylaw seems designed to ensure sufficient parking is provided to meet the needs of the particular combined commercial/residential development projects subject to this bylaw. These needs include: residential parking, residential visitor parking, handicapped parking, commercial customer parking, and commercial employee parking. The following formulae are provided in the CD2 bylaw for calculating the overall parking requirements: Multiple family residential: 1.2 spaces per dwelling unit up to 2 bedrooms per unit. Commercial: 3.0 spaces per 100 sq. meters of gross leasable area. All residential units in the Landmark Heights development are 2 bedrooms or less. The administration of the CD2 parking bylaw seems straightforward in cases where all the parking is accessible for all uses. However, all Landmark Heights Developments have divided the parking into at least two levels of access. LM1/2, LMC, and LMP contain both openly accessible above-ground 1

78 parking, and restricted-access underground parking, with the access to the latter being limited to residents and business employees with garage door openers (access being restricted due to building security concerns). LMP adds an additional type of parking access: a 49 stall privately-owned and operated commercial indoor parkade located on the ground level of LMP (one level up from the underground parking, paid parking). This segregation of types of access to parking raises the question as to what a sufficient amount of openly-accessible parking might be for commercial units. For example, LM1/2 has a combined sq m of commercial area, which the Zone CD2 bylaw states requires 53 parking stalls. Are the 20 openly accessible external parking stalls located in LM1/2 sufficient for the use of commercial customers of the 11 businesses in LM1/2, even though it represents only 37% of the CD2 commercial parking requirement (assuming commercial employees have sufficient parking underground)? From the perspective of our experience at LMC, our business owners based their decision to purchase commercial lots on a disclosure statement provided by Culos indicating that we would be provided with 48 surface parking stalls for the exclusive use of customers of LMC only (no mention was made of sharing this parking with other portions of the development, and no covenant was registered by Culos on our parking before our Strata assumed full ownership and control of the land and buildings of LMC). We wound up with 46 openly-accessible stalls on the surface reserved for commercial customer parking for the 17 commercial units having a total of 1678 sq. m floor space at LMC. The CD2 bylaw states that we require a total of 50 stalls for the commercial parking, and LMC has a portion of the restricted parking underground for the use of commercial employees. We find that the 46 customer-use stalls are at times all occupied during business hours at LMC, suggesting that a larger, not a smaller, portion of the CD2-specified parking should be available to customer parking, making the portion of openly-accessible customer parking available to LM1/2 seem inadequate. This suggests that any measures taken to correct the shortfall in the parking allocated to LM1/2 should be devoted exclusively to customer parking of the LM1/2 businesses. Should the commercial parkade in LMP count towards the parking available to LMP residents and business owners under CD2 zoning requirements? Referring back to the CD2 parking requirements, these calculations are founded on the basic assumption that the parking will be available for the use of residents and businesses of the complex. According to the calculations contained in the Jan 29 KDS rezoning document, it s apparent that the developer has submitted the commercial parkade as part of the total parking to be counted toward the CD2 parking requirement. However, being operated as a business, there seem to be no restrictions on who could lease parking in that parkade (indeed, the Feb 9 KTW article implies that Culos does not want to be restricted in any way as to who can lease parking in his commercial parkade). This commercial parkade seems to be presently being operated by Culos, but it is possible that another operator may purchase that lot and operate it in the future). Conceivably, stalls in this parkade could be leased out to TRU students, and some businesses in LMC have expressed interests in leasing parking in LMP (and may presently be doing so), to the detriment of compliance with CD2 zoning requirements for the residents and businesses of LMP. 2

79 The autonomy (and lack of accountability to the Strata Corp of LMP) of the owner/operator of the commercial parkade is also described in the LMP disclosure statement: Proposed Strata Lot 6 will be owned by an independent owner, thus parking availability, tenure and fees will be at the sole discretion of the owner and not under the control of the Strata Corporation. (Sep LMP disclosure statement) Already, the lack of control and accountability over the use of this commercial public parkade has apparently resulted in the owner of CRU101 in LMP being told she will not have any access for her clients or employees to the commercial parkade in LMP (personal communication with the owner of CRU101, Feb ). If the commercial parkade was excluded from the parking used for CD2 compliance, the total parking in the LMP underground parkade (65 stalls) would obviously not be sufficient for compliance with the needs of 83 residential units (100 stalls for CD2), let alone the commercial units of LMP. Rezoning to create more residential units in this case would only make the problem with CD2 compliance worse. An additional concern related to the developer designating this parkade as a separate, privatelyoperated commercial lot is the question over whether this 1403 sq. m lot should then also be subject to the CD2 commercial parking calculation (requiring extra stalls to be allocated)? All of these complications could have been avoided if the ground-floor parkade had not been converted to a separate strata lot/commercial parkade, and had remained the common property of the LMP strata. Given this uncertainty and apparent lack of commitment for dedicating the parking space in the commercial parkade of LMP for the use of LMP businesses and residents (and perhaps businesses in LM1/2), it seems reasonable to conclude that none of this parkade parking space should be applied to qualify for the CD2 zoning requirements for LMP, unless covenants are registered that restrict the use of this parking to only LMP and perhaps LM1/2 (which is short on commercial parking). Another potential solution could be for the developer to waive ownership of this ground-floor (presently commercial) parkade and add it to the strata plan as common property. This would allow the Strata Corp of LMP to manage this property in the best interests of the Strata, as well as complying with any covenants registered on this parking area for the benefit of businesses in LM1/2. Does the Jan 29 KDS rezoning document list the actual number of parking stalls available in the Landmark Heights development? The numbers shown in the Jan 29 KDS rezoning document for the parking at LMP are 3 more than seems to be accountable with reference to the plans available at as the document shows 125 stalls in total, whereas the plans shows a total of 123 stalls, being made up of: 65 stalls underground, 49 stalls in the commercial parkade, and 9 external stalls for visitor parking (or leased parking, at the discretion of the Strata Corp, according to the Sep and July disclosure statements, which verifies these numbers). 3

80 These numbers give a surplus of parking of 123 the CD2 requirement of 141 stalls = 9 surplus stalls at LMP (if not rezoned). The basic recommendation of the Jan 29 KDS rezoning document, namely that additional parking should be provided to LM1/2 via a covenant on the parking at LMP, seems sound. However, the listed parking stall distribution for LM1 and LM2 could be corrected to align with the building plans available on Culos s website ( assuming these plans are accurate, which show: LM1 having 60 underground stalls and 6 external stalls for customer parking, LM2 having 41 underground stalls, and 14 external stalls for customer parking. Giving a total of 101 underground stalls and 20 external stalls, or a grand total of 121 stalls for LM1/2. The CD2 parking requirement (142 stalls) for LM1/2 is accurate, according to the total commercial space listed on the Culos website. This gives a deficit of = 21 stalls at LM1/2 as per CD2 zoning requirements. As noted above, with only 20 external stalls accessible to commercial customers, it would seem reasonable that a covenant be registered in the Public Parkade of LMP to make up this deficit. Without rezoning, are there sufficient parking stalls at LMP to meet CD2 requirements, if use of parking is restricted to LMP (and perhaps, some to LM1/2) if the commercial parkade is restricted to LMP/LM1/2 use? Yes, as described above, there will be 9 surplus stalls available at LMP that could be used for LM1/2. However, with a deficit of 21 stalls for LM1/2 below CD2 requirements, being assigned this parking will not bring LM1/2 into compliance with this bylaw. If rezoning is permitted, how can this be done in a way that will allow compliance with CD2 zoning requirements? The same parking numbers and unit areas taken of the developer s website and disclosure agreement indicate that if the rezoning application is allowed to convert 5 of the commercial units to residential units, a surplus of 21 parking stalls will result (CD2 requirements would decrease to 108 stalls, due to the decrease in commercial space from 475 sq. m to 75 sq. m). Allowing this rezoning application could allow 21 stalls in the commercial parkade to be applied to the commecial parking deficit at LM1/2. The untoward consequence of only leaving 75/100*3 = 2.3 (perhaps 3 stalls) for the one remaining commercial unit at LMP could be addressed by sharing this surplus parking with LM1/2. These outcomes would seem to depend on reliable, permanent control over these 21 stalls being available to CRU101 of LMP and the businesses of LM1/2, perhaps via a covenant. 4

81 Returning to the intent of the Zone CD2 bylaw (see above), according to sales price sheets distributed by Culos for LMP, all single-bedroom residential suites were sold not including any parking stalls, and 2-bedroom units had parking stalls included. Given the late stage of this rezoning application, combined with the developer marketing some parking stalls on a voluntary basis to the one-bedroom residents (and the converted commercial units) care would need to be taken that all residences have had an opportunity to secure parking in the underground parkade and/or via reasonable leases of stalls in the commercial parkade area. Will handicapped parking requirements be compromised by the parking arrangements at LMP? At LMC, Culos actually claimed ownership of the sole handicapped stall underground and sold it for $15,000 to one of the residential lots after the building permit and final inspection was over with, leaving us in violation of City Bylaws for the underground parkade (that handicapped stall is shown in our strata plan on file at Land Titles). With the pressure on the available parking at LMP, it seems reasonable to assume that a similar fate could befall the handicapped parking stalls shown on LMP strata plans. Given the outcomes at LMC, it may be prudent to include some restriction or covenant that ensures that handicapped parking remains available for handicapped residents, employees, and commercial customers. In sum, whether the rezoning meeting goes ahead or not, remedial action seems essential to bring this Landmark development (namely LM1/2 and LMP) into compliance with City Bylaws. 5

82 LANDMARK PLACE (PH.4) McGlLL ROAD, KAMLOOPS CONSTRUCTION PRICING as at AUGUST 15,201 6 Unit Number Strata Lot # Q Unit Description Unit size Strata Fee Parking CONSTRUCTION Type (sq.ft.) (monthly) (included) PRICING CRU shell commercial 806 $ $259,900 CRU shell commercial 1094 $ $31 9,900 CRU shell commercial 1108 $ $299,900 CRU shell commercial 840 $ $279,900 CRU shell commercial 49 stalls parkade SOLD CRU shell commercial 518 $224,900,7";o $249,900 1 bed - P unit bed Q unit gss 2 bed G unit 1043,271.,, 1 bed - F unit 547 $ bed - E unit 653 $ bed-Dunit 1057 $ bed - H unit 1038 $ bed J unit bed - K unit 828 $ bed-L~dl 1062 $ $329,900 1 bed M unit 690 $ $219,900 1 bed M unit 690 $1 79.Ol $21 9,900 1 bed - M unit 690 $ $21 9,900 1 bed - M unit 690 $ $219,900 ' ' 2bed-Nunk 1019 $ $329,900 2bed-OunH 1017 $ $329,900 1 bed - P unit 509 $ $1 84,900 2 bed -V unit $329,906?bed-Wunit 713 )LO 2bed-Gunk I043 $ I $,so0 1 bed - F unit 547 $ $219,900 I bed - E unit 653 $ $224,900 2 bed - D unit 1057 $274.1 t ,900 2M-Hunit 1038 $ S325,sOO 1 bed - J unit 772 SOLD 1 bed - K unit 828 ~ rl $229,900 2bed-Lunit 1062 $ bed - M unit 690 $ $224,900 1 bed - M unit 6Nl $ $224,900 1 bed - M unit 690 $ $224,900 1 bed - M unit 690 $ $224,900 2bed-Nunit 1018 C~RC bed - R unit 745 SOLD 2 bed - S unit b289,wo 1 bed - T unit I :E I 0 1 $214,900 Page 1 of 2

83 LANDMARK PLACE (PH.4) McGlLL ROAD, KAMLOOPS CONSTRUCTION PRICING as at AUGUST 15,2016 Unit Number t Strata Unit Description Unit size Strata Fee Parking CONSTRUCTION -- Lot# Type (sq.ft.1 (monthly) (included) PRICING bed-VunH: 1051 $ I bed - W unit 713 $ $224, bed-Gunit bed - F unit 547 $' 47 1 bed - E unit 653 3~ 48 2bed-Dunit 1057,274.., I $349, bed-Hunit 1038 $ I $339, bed J unit 772 $ $224, bed - K unit 828 $ $234, bed-LunR 1062 $ $339, bed M unit 690 $ $229, I bed M unit 690 $ $229, I bed M unit 690 $1 79.Oq 0 $229, bed M unit 690 $ $229, bed - N unit 1019 $ $339, bed R unit 745 $ $224, bed S unit 901 $ $2W,aOO 60 1 bed - T unit 618 $ $224, bed-Yunit bed - G untt bed-Xunk bed - D unit 1057 I 2bed-HunH $234,900 I I I SOLD ::I I 1 1 bed - J unit 772 $ bed K unit 828 $ $244,900 2 bed - L unit 1082 $ $349,900 1 bed - M unit 690 $ $234,900 1 bed - M unit 690 $ $234,900 1 bed - M unit 690 $ $234,900 1 bed - M unit 690 $ $234,900 2bed-Nunit 1019 $ $339,BOO 2bed-Hunit '359,w 1 bed J unit 772 I SOLD 1 bed - K unit 828 $ ;249,900 2bed-Zunit 1058 $274 I1 $339,900 1 bed - 1 T unit 018 $ $214,900 2hd-Yunit bed-Gunit bed-Xunit bed-D unit bed-Lunit 1082 $ $359,900 1 bed - M unit 690 $ $239,900 1 bed - M unit 690 $ $239,900 1 bed - M unit 690 $ $239,900 1 bed - M unit 690 $179.Od 0 $239,900 2bed-Nunlt 1019 $ $3S9,QW 2bed-Zuntl 1058 $ $349,900 1 bed - T unit 618 $ $21 9,900 1 nr-g Page 2 of 2