257. MINUTES of a PUBLIC HEARING held in Council Chambers, 7 Victoria Street West, Kamloops, BC, on Tuesday, November 7, 2017, at 7:00 pm.

Transcription

1 257. MINUTES of a PUBLIC HEARING held in Council Chambers, 7 Victoria Street West, Kamloops, BC, on Tuesday, November 7, 2017, at 7:00 pm. PRESENT: Mayor K. L. Christian, Councillors D. M. Cavers, R. S. Dhaliwal, T. Lange, K. E. Sinclair, A. H. Singh, P. A. Wallace, and D. J. Walsh. Corporate Officer M. Mazzotta, Deputy Corporate Officer S. Nichols, Planning and Development Supervisor E. Beach, Planner S. Bentley, and Legislative Assistant L. J. Campbell. Mayor Christian read the rules of procedure for this evening s Public Hearing. The Notice of Public Hearing was distributed and advertised as follows: WHEN: WHERE: November 7, 2017, at 7:00 pm City Hall Council Chambers (7 Victoria Street West, Kamloops, BC) Kamloops City Council will hold a Public Hearing to consider the following proposed amendments to City of Kamloops Zoning Bylaw No : Property Location: 2050 Grasslands Boulevard and unzoned road Purpose: To rezone the subject property from RS-1 (Single Family Residential-1) and unzoned closed road to RC-1 (Comprehensive Residential) on a site-specific basis to allow a 56-unit multiple-family development. Property Location: 765 McGill Road Purpose: To amend the CD-2 (McGill Road/Summit Drive Comprehensive Development Zone Two) zone on a site-specific basis to allow a liquor primary licensed personal services business to a maximum of 65 m 2. Property Location: 1777 Greenfield Avenue Purpose: To rezone the subject property from RS-1S (Single Family Residential - Suite) to RT-1 (Two Family Residential-1) to allow a duplex.

2 258. Page 2 1. Rezoning Application No. REZ Grasslands Boulevard (Bylaw No ) The Corporate Officer introduced the application and advised that correspondence was received opposing this application from: Bruce Swanson, 946 Raven Drive Theresa and E. Joe Filek, 966 Raven Drive John and Susan Hanemaayer, 2031 Grasslands Boulevard Gordon Asselin, 2043 Grasslands Boulevard Michel and Marilyn Grandbois, 2076 Grasslands Boulevard Correspondence was received expressing concerns regarding this application from: Barb Wheatley and Larry Maio, 1016 Raven Drive Peter Falsetta, 996 Raven Drive The Planner advised that the purpose of this application is to rezone the subject property from RS-1 (Single Family Residential-1) and the unzoned closed road to RC-1 (Comprehensive Residential) on a site-specific basis to allow a 56-unit multiple-family development. The subject property is located on Grasslands Boulevard between Raven Drive and Stagecoach Drive in Batchelor Heights. The property comprises a 2.24 ha parcel of land that is zoned RS-1 and a ha area that is dedicated as road and therefore unzoned. The property is currently vacant. The applicant wishes to rezone the RS-1-zoned parcel to RC-1 to allow a 56-unit multiple-family development. If the property were to be subdivided under the current RS-1 zoning, the resulting single-family lots would be accessed by a municipal road running through the existing road dedication and ending in cul-de-sacs within the subject property. However, under the proposed RC-1 zoning, the resulting strata lots will be accessed internally via a private strata road. As it is not in the public s best interest for the City to own and maintain a public road that accesses only a single multi-family development, the ha area of road dedication should be closed and rezoned RC-1 to become a private access for the proposed strata development.

3 259. Page 3 The RS-1 portion of the property is designated Urban in KAMPLAN: City of Kamloops Official Community Plan. Multiple-family development is considered an appropriate land use in Urban designated areas. The Sustainable Kamloops Plan supports a minimum overall density of residential development in new neighbourhoods of 25 units/ha. While approximately 15 residential units/ha (up to 33 units) could be built under the current RS-1 zoning, the RC-1 zone allows 25 units/ha (56 units). To ensure that development of the site does not impact adjacent properties to the south, staff recommend that adoption of the rezoning be conditional on a restrictive covenant requiring a 6 m setback from the southern property line (6 m is the rear yard setback of the RS-1 zone, so maintaining a 6 m setback ensures that future multiple-family units are not built any closer to adjacent properties than is currently permitted). To ensure that future development of the site maintains a high quality of design and is well integrated into the neighbourhood, the property will be subject to the Multiple Family Development Permit Area Guidelines. A subsequent Development Permit application will be submitted to Council for approval prior to issuance of any Building Permits. Staff support this application as outlined in the report. Mark Hall, Urban Systems, on behalf of the applicant: The applicant, Moffett Ventures Inc., is a local developer that has been in business for the last 20 years and is known to have quality developments in the area. Advised that rezoning the property to RC-1 would satisfy both the Kamloops Sustainability Plan and KAMPLAN, as it will increase density and reduce road maintenance required by the City. Advised that the applicant has agreed to the 6 m setback for buildings on the southern property line. Advised that the property slopes to north, and the buildings on the southern property line will be lower than existing properties to the south, which will help limit the impact on views. On question, he advised that any land excavation outside of the property boundaries will need to be reviewed by the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations, which will also address any environmental concerns for the area. Bruce Swanson, 946 Raven Drive: Advised that he purchased his property that borders the proposed development in 2010; however, he was not aware that the zoning could change from RS-1. Believes the density increase to 56 multi-family units would significantly impact the neighbourhood. Appreciates the 6 m setback restriction on the southern property line; however, he would like a building height restriction of less than 15 m for the new buildings on the southern property line, as his biggest concern is that these new properties will block existing views. Concerned that this development will have a negative effect on his property value.

4 260. Page 4 Mark and Bonnie Bartle, 926 Raven Drive: Opposed to the application as they purchased their property one year ago with the understanding that this development property would remain zoned as RS-1. Concerned about the higher density as more people in the same footprint will increase traffic issues and congestion. There are currently traffic issues at the intersection of Grasslands Boulevard and Westsyde Road, particularly during busy times. Supports the 6 m setback restriction on the southern property line; would like a restrictive covenant on lots bordering the southern property lot line requiring that the building height not exceed the basement height of the properties to the south side of Raven Drive. Encouraged Council to consider viewscape for all residents in the area so they may continue to enjoy the views of the north valley. Susan Chapman, 976 Raven Drive: Opposed to the proposed multi-family development and stated she will be highly impacted. She moved to her home over three years ago as she was attracted to the views and nature in this friendly neighbourhood. The neighbourhood is currently built in tiers to allow for views, and she feels that this development should be constructed in the same manner. Concerned about traffic safety as traffic currently overflows down Grasslands Boulevard to Westsyde Road. She does not believe the traffic congestion will be alleviated once Grasslands Boulevard connects with Westsyde Road. Does not believe the development will create needed tax revenue, and she believes taxpayers deserve a voice as she is concerned about her property being devalued due to this development. Ted Carlson, 936 Raven Drive: Advised that he purchased his property that borders the proposed development 15 years ago and was told by the realtor at the time that the proposed development would remain as green space. Concerned about the loss of view, green space, and wildlife in the area. His biggest concern is the view and he would like to see a covenant to protect views. Bob Dieno, 1036 Raven Drive: Advised he is present today to support his neighbours, and he shares the concerns regarding the impact the development will have on existing views.

5 261. Page 5 Concerned about the effects the development will have on wildlife, such as deer, coyotes, and foxes, as there has been no consideration for access for wildlife to travel between areas. Feels that a 6-8 ft. nature walkway should be built on the south property line of the proposed development. Sean Rutsatz, 956 Raven Drive: Advised that he is new to the neighbourhood, and he purchased his home based on the current RS-1 zoning on the subject property. Urged Council to consider concerns expressed by his neighbours and enforce the height restrictions. Concerned about wildlife in the area and supports a wildlife access corridor in order for animals to access Crown land. Traffic is a concern in the area, and the addition of 56 new families with this development, along with the other current developments in the area, will add a lot more traffic to an existing problem. Connie Swanson 946 Raven Drive: Suggested that the subject property would be a great location for a park. Concerned about increased traffic and resulting accidents. Agrees with her neighbours with regard to height restrictions to protect existing views. Willy Fontaine, 916 Raven Drive: Purchased his property 10 years ago and advised that if he had known there was a possibility for the subject property to be rezoned to RC-1, he would not have purchased there. Agrees with the setback on the southern property line as well as the requests to restrict building height to protect existing viewscapes. Peter Falsetta, 996 Raven Drive: Shares the opinions expressed by his neighbours regarding their requests for a height restriction to protect existing views. Concerned for wildlife as there are marmots, frogs, snakes, deer, and coyotes in the area. Believes the developer needs to consider wildlife when developing and restrict the movement of dirt within and outside of the property boundaries. John Moffett, Moffett Ventures Inc., 4070 Westsyde Road: Advised that his company has been working in the Batchelor Heights area on a daily basis since 2001, and he encourages residents to come and talk to him regarding their concerns. Advised that the buildings on the south property line will most likely be basement-style entry houses that will be built into the bank.

6 262. Page 6 Has agreed to the 6 m setback on the southern property line and reminded Council that the views could still potentially be impacted under the current zoning. Advised that they intend to build a quality development on the property, which will be attractive to buyers. On question, he advised that dirt will only be moved outside of the property lines to connect services and with Ministry approvals. Garry Chapman, 976 Raven Drive: Concerned about traffic and access onto Grasslands Boulevard and requested an access road along the southern property line. Requested that the properties along the southern property line have lower pitches on roofs and be excavated to lower the foundations of the homes in an effort to protect existing views. Peter Falsetta, Second Time: Concerned about Crown land property surrounding the development and wants the natural area conserved as much as possible. There were no further submissions, and no further correspondence was received with regard to this application. This portion of the Public Hearing closed at 8:02 pm. 2. Rezoning Application No. REZ McGill Road (Bylaw No ) The Corporate Officer introduced the application and advised that no correspondence was received with regard to this application. The Planner advised that this application is to amend the CD-2 (McGill Road/Summit Drive Comprehensive Development Zone Two) zone on a site-specific basis to allow a liquor primary licensed personal service business. The subject property is the site of the Landmark Place building currently under construction on McGill Road between Summit Drive and Dalhousie Drive, immediately north of Hillside Cemetery. The property is 4,188.6 m 2 in area and zoned CD-2. The applicant wants to open a liquor primary licensed hair salon within the new building. The CD-2 zone allows neighbourhood pubs and personal service businesses as separate uses (retail liquor sales are also permitted). While neighbourhood pubs are a type of Liquor Primary Licence, other types of Liquor Primary Licences, such as nightclubs and liquor primary licensed personal service businesses, are not permitted in the CD-2 zone. Therefore, the applicant has applied to amend the CD-2 zone on a site-specific basis to allow the proposed use. It is recommended that the permitted use be limited to a maximum floor area of 65 m 2 to accommodate the proposed business only.

7 263. Page 7 The application follows changes to the Liquor Control and Licensing Act in January 2017, which allowed any business to apply for a Liquor Primary Licence, except for businesses that operate out of a motor vehicle or that are primarily directed at minors. This change opened up the possibility for businesses such as retail stores, art galleries, spas, and hair salons to serve alcoholic beverages in conjunction with their primary use. In this instance, the proposed licensed hair salon is consistent with the pedestrian-oriented Main Street vision identified in KAMPLAN and the McGill Corridor/Southgate Concept Plan and complements the other businesses in the area. No technical concerns were identified upon review of the application. Upon referral, the local Liquor Inspector, the RCMP, and the Social Planning Council indicated that they had no concerns with the application; however, the Social Planning Council did indicate that it is concerned about the amount of alcohol that could be served. Staff discussed this matter with the Liquor Inspector, and all staff of the establishment who serve alcohol will be required to have a Serving It Right certificate and would be responsible for monitoring patrons alcohol consumption (the same as any other business that serves alcohol). Consumption amounts are also regulated and monitored by the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch. The Social Planning Council further advised that similar applications will not require a referral to the Social Planning Council should the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch be the regulators of such establishments, which is the case. Subsequent to rezoning, the applicant will be required to submit an application for a new Liquor Primary Licence. Through that process, Council must provide a resolution to the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch based on consideration of public input and staff recommendations related to limits on capacity, hours of operation, and the establishment of a Good Neighbour Agreement to minimize potential impacts on the neighbourhood. Jonni Yeomans, 2675 Westsyde Road Advised that she is the owner of Jonni s Styling Studio, which is a four-generation salon that has operated over the past 32 years in Kamloops. She intends to promote local wineries and breweries. She has worked with local authorities such as the City, the RCMP, Interior Health, and insurance brokers in order to provide this extra service to her customers; they will be able to purchase up to two 6 oz. glasses of wine. There were no further submissions, and no correspondence was received with regard to this application. This portion of the Public Hearing closed at 8:08 pm.

8 264. Page 8 3. Rezoning Application No. REZ Greenfield Avenue (Zoning Amendment Bylaw No ) The Corporate Officer introduced the application and advised that one piece of correspondence was received opposing this application from: Darren and Diane Grayston, 871 Newton Court The Planning and Development Supervisor advised that this application is to rezone 1777 Greenfield Avenue from RS-1S (Single Family Residential - Suite) to RT-1 (Two Family Residential-1) to allow for a two-family residential use. The subject property is located at the corner of Greenfield Avenue and Newton Court in the Brocklehurst neighbourhood. The property is currently zoned RS-1S and is designated as Urban in KAMPLAN: City of Kamloops Official Community Plan. In 2014, the subject property was rezoned from RT-1 to RS-1S to permit a garden suite, which was not permitted under the RT-1 zone. At the time, the owner s intention was to rebuild the principal dwelling, remove the detached garage, and build a 69.5 m 2 garden suite separate from the principal dwelling. No work was undertaken, and the property was sold. The current owner would like to rezone the property back to RT-1 with the intention of removing all existing buildings and constructing a duplex. A duplex, or two-family dwelling, is not a permitted use in the RS-1S zone. The majority of the surrounding neighbourhood is zoned RT-1, including all adjacent properties. Service capacity is sufficient to provide for two-family residential under the RT-1 zone. Staff support the application as the subject property meets all RT-1 zone requirements for two-family residential and is able to accommodate a duplex. The proposed zoning meets the goals and policies of KAMPLAN, the North Shore Neighbourhood Plan, and the Sustainable Kamloops Plan. Jacques DesJardins, 879 Newton Court: Stated that he has lived in the area for 15 years and is opposed to this application as he is concerned that the zoning in the city is not consistent and that he would like to see single-family neighbourhoods not mixed with multi-family neighbourhoods. Believes that a duplex would not fit in the area and that a single-family dwelling would fit better with the character of the neighbourhood. There were no further submissions, and no further correspondence was received with regard to this application. This portion of the Public Hearing closed at 8:48 pm.

9 265. Page 9 There being no further business, this Public Hearing adjourned at 8:48 pm.