Dull development moving forward

[drex1999]

That's how one Kelowna City Councillor described a proposed development at the northeast corner of the intersection of Highway 97 and 33.

Where the Vineyard Inn was. Somebody get Castanet a compass

[Captain Awesome]

Dull indeed.

[grammafreddy]

http://www.castanet.net/news/Kelowna/84 ... ed-forward

'Dull' development moved forward
by Wayne Moore - Story: 84383
Dec 11, 2012 / 5:00 am

'Dull - run of the mill - disappointing.'

That's how one Kelowna City Councillor described a proposed development at the northeast corner of the intersection of Highway 97 and 33.


Photo: Contributed - City of Kelowna
Conceptual Drawing

New Town Architectural Services brought forth an application to have the property, formerly the Vineyard Inn Motel, rezoned from C9 Tourist Commercial to C4 Urban Centre Zone to allow for office retail and service uses.

"I have to say this is a pretty dull, run of the mill project. I would hope we have a much better quality project in this very important location," says Councillor Robert Hobson.

"It is a very important location and it requires a signature development. The issue is the visual quality of it and to just see a couple of building and parking at Highway 33 and 97 is disappointing."

The developer took the unusual step of asking for the rezoning prior to submitting a Development Permit application, however, Urban Land Use Manager, Danielle Noble assured council that would be a requirement before a zoning amendment bylaw gets final approval.

The envisioned development includes a four storey commercial building at the rear, a lower profile multi-tenant building parallel to Powick Road, two free-standing single tenant commercial buildings and parking.

The proposal also includes the possibility of a drive-thru business at the corner of Highway 33 and 97 that further irked council.

While the drawings outlining the project are completely conceptual, Councillor Gail Given led the opposition to the drive-thru concept.

"For me that was a little bit of a red flag. It would be similar to the Rexall Drug Store drive-thru (Hollywood Road and Rutland Road)," says Given.

"I just want it to be of note that a drive-thru at the front corner of a main intersection is not something I would find supportable and would encourage any future development that comes forward to address that in a different manner to make sure it looks more like a gateway project and not a drive-thru."

As for the rezoning itself, council agreed the C4 Zone is a proper application for the property, however, they did agree that, as a city gateway, any development should be a showpiece.

The application did get initial approval and will go forward to a future public hearing.

[theyeti]

i understand the no drive thru thing . but what does the city want a flippin taj mahal ? maybe we can get donald trump to build a signature building for us lol . come on council someone actually wants to build something there let them

[crookedmember]

It does blend in nicely with the rest of the Harvey Ave strip.

[cv23]

Wasn't there originally going to be another hotel/motel at that location?

[theyeti]

we have every hotel brand i can think of already tho ??

[Rwede]

That's how one Kelowna City Councillor described a proposed development at the northeast corner of the intersection of Highway 97 and 33.

Where the Vineyard Inn was. Somebody get Castanet a compass

Can't get much further from northeast than southwest.

I have to say, the reporting has gone to the birds lately. Doesn't anyone proofread this stuff?

In the meantime, I guess council wants everyone to be cavemen in efficiency, and drive-thrus will be outlawed. Typical, though, that inefficient governments/bureaucrats favour inefficient modes of business.

[theyeti]

the drive thru would snarl traffic in an already busy intersection . i can understand that .
but everything else about this project seems alright to me and if its just a drive thru atm or something that does not create a bunch of traffic it should also be considered

[JoePlanner]

That drive-thru would obviously (to my mind) accommodate a larger Tim Hortons (would move from next door to this new location), which means the City engineering folks are terrified of what it would do to intersection movement at Hwys 33/97. Tim Hortons is like armageddon for traffic modelers. They have to approx. triple the normal forecasts and/or throw them out the window entirely. It's all fun and games until things start backing up into the intersection...

Re: the architecture... it IS dull and boring, no argument there. One could charitably call it utilitarian, but its important to note that this is just a proof-of-concept schematic, with detailed Development Permit to follow (they justed wanted to first test the waters to see if Council would support a rezoning there, prior to investing in detailed design). Could be improved with a bit better site planning, though (i.e. move around some of the elements on the site). The sad old "drive-thru at highway intersection" habit is getting really tiresome. Site signage could signal the presence of the business/drive-thru around back without need for further cluttering up Hwy 97 with yet another drive-thru. Maybe the office building could move more front and centre and give that bit of Hwy a bit of presence. *shrug*

edit: moving the drive-thru to the "back" would actually be more convenient for users, too, as there is no way this site gets direct driveway access from either Hwy (i.e. the drive-thru would end up closer to the road they would access the site from).

[cv23]

In the meantime, I guess council wants everyone to be cavemen in efficiency, and drive-thrus will be outlawed. Typical, though, that inefficient governments/bureaucrats favour inefficient modes of business.

I think with the dislike of a drive-thru the city is trying to head off another dispute like occurred between Don Folk and MOH. Because of the HOV lane MOH doesn't want any entrances/exits off the hwy in close proximity to intersections. Without an easy entrance/exit off the hwy a drive-thru would most likely meet the same fate as the downtown MickeyD's did once Water St was closed off.

[JoePlanner]

I think with the dislike of a drive-thru the city is trying to head off another dispute like occurred between Don Folk and MOH. Because of the HOV lane MOH doesn't want any entrances/exits off the hwy in close proximity to intersections. Without an easy entrance/exit off the hwy a drive-thru would most likely meet the same fate as the downtown MickeyD's did once Water St was closed off.

To clarify: MOTI would eliminate every single direct Hwy access if they could, HOV or not. The policy isn't that direct accesses shouldn't be near intersections, but that direct accesses shouldn't exist at all. Any redevelopment would be required to take its access from a municipal road, or in the case of no municipal road, a small frontage road.

[TimmyE]

Well, if it's so dull, then maybe council should just kill it now instead of wasting theirs and the developers money on it. You can't fight city hall!!

[Graphite]

Sky scrapers needed.

[grammafreddy]

Sky scrapers needed.

Ditto that.