Shore wants to change it's mind....

[Gilchy]

yes there is Gilchy - totally agree - over the next FEW YEARS. However, Shore is almost complete - would go a ways to housing more people permanently NOW if it were all long-term.

If a developer submits plan for long-term, then that's what SHOULD either get approved, or turned down. Not submit whatever the heck they know council wants to hear at the time, and then just see which way the wind blows and submit the REAL plan they are looking for as a variance down the road.

As far as Shore is concerned I haven't seen the original proposal that was approved - if they did not have short-term in that proposal then the variance to put some in should now be denied.

My point was more directed to the inability of our council, for some reason unknown to me for sure, to be able to say NO to a developer who submits one plan, gets approval, and of course goes for the variance to get what they really want. I'm really annoyed with our council ignoring the majority of the City who voted them in in most matters, most of the time. Kind of makes one feel they think we just blew into town with the egg money - and I guess they are correct in a way - we certainly didn't show up in force to vote them out - well those of us who wanted them out and new blood in anyway.

With respect to Shore and others who are only trying to get "hotel rooms" by coming in the back door - I agree with everyone else who has said "submit a plan to build a hotel or other short-term" right from the get-go. The duplicitous way of going about it and council just rubber-stamping every variance request is just one of the reasons I don't think the City Council and Mayor are the ones we need here. Again, just MHO, but its all just such a game that it gets tiresome.

There is no variance being applied for, as I understand it. The area is zoned for short term rental, the original development was to have no rentals in exchange for reduced taxes. They are now asking to default to the existing zoning. This is not a variance.

From the Castanet article:

At the time, Rise Commercial Developments indicated its 103 rental units would be available to students from September to April. However, the company changed mid-stream, wishing instead to offer short-term vacation rentals of less than 30 days during the summer months.

These were always going to be "temporary" rentals, that will now be filled in the summer rather than sit empty.

With regards to developers and business requesting amendments to permits and proposals, it's almost as if the business environment can change over time, and these businesses have to adapt to make money.

If course building and development should be done in a prudent manner, and there will always be disagreement as to the definition of what is prudent, but the dialogue on these forums frequently devolves into: "development = bad, unless it is affordable house. Not too affordable, mind you, as that may bring in the undesirables..."

There is currently some concern over coming short to medium term oversupply in the multi-family market in Kelowna, all will be ok in the world.

[Brerrabbit18]

So I guess after its built, Gyro beach will taken away from the locals and basically be a "vacation" spot for all of those wanting Air B&B. I guess those that don't use it won't care, but myself and my kids will.

Also, if anybody thinks actual "locals" are buying these properties, you're delusional.
I have may friends that have lived here since birth, (including quite a few that sell real estate), and even with the so-called speculation tax, 98% of these units go to Vancouverites or Albertans.

I don't care about progress/development, it's normal and needed, but this town is being turned into an over crowed mini-Ft. Lauderdale, with 2% of the available shoreline.

Greed is all apparently.

[WalterWhite]

Now "those damn tourists" are taking our beaches away? Apparently the sky has officially fallen.

[Gilchy]

THE PLACE IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE RENTALS!!!

Also, how does new accommodation across the street "take the beach away from locals"?

[WalterWhite]

THE PLACE IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE RENTALS!!!

Also, how does new accommodation across the street "take the beach away from locals"?

Not sure who you're yelling at - but my comment was mocking the previous one. I've stated previously that signage has been up since day one on that project indicating student and vacation rentals.

[Gilchy]

Sorry, was yelling at all the posters who keep trying to infer that this change is removing housing stock. I'm on the same page as you!

[TJSmith]

Sorry, was yelling at all the posters who keep trying to infer that this change is removing housing stock. I'm on the same page as you!

There’s no need for yelling. No one else was yelling. For someone to get so angry, one has to wonder if they have “skin in this game” in terms of this development.

As for the development, it will increase density at the beach but that happens every summer regardless of where tourists are staying.

[Vacancyrate]

So I guess after its built, Gyro beach will taken away from the locals and basically be a "vacation" spot for all of those wanting Air B&B. I guess those that don't use it won't care, but myself and my kids will.

Isn't is nice that our tax dollars go to provide front-door lakefront park access to a hotel and their guests?

I wonder why Marriott International didn't build on that site - it certainly would have employed way more people.

[SoyChai]

The discussion has always been students and vacation rentals from the beginning. I suppose it's easier to put a different intent on paper and then change it later...

From their perspective, I totally get it. Seems like the smart financial choice. Looks like it's going to be a beautiful building.

[dle]

THE PLACE IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE RENTALS!!!

Also, how does new accommodation across the street "take the beach away from locals"?

You are correct - sort of - Gilchy:

At the time, Rise Commercial Developments indicated its 103 rental units would be available to students from September to April. However, the company changed mid-stream, wishing instead to offer short-term vacation rentals of less than 30 days during the summer months.


My problem is the BIG change from renting Sept-Apr - which is I suppose "short-term" technically - but now they want to change it to rentals of less than 30 days. That is short-term in the HOTEL sense of short term. At least renting to students for example for the off-season could have meant the students who wanted to live in Kelowna could now stay in their student housing year-round - making them more of a full-time renter than short-term.

With less that 30 days there is no other way to describe it than "hotel/motel" type of situation where it could be party central non-stop if each group staying for a few days is here to play. At least the students would live a more 'residential' lifestyle. Sure as kids there are bound to be parties but over time it probably wouldn't be every night.

In my view, the developer went in the back door - got a "similar" approval to what they really wanted knowing full well our particular City council is a push-over and they would get their "hotel" type approval (less than 30 day stays) no problem. I am guessing it's what they wanted from the get-go but knew if they went in with that it would get shot down out of the gate. Much easier to play the council we have.

[LANDM]

^^^
The only thing that "went in the back door" was the government giving it to every landlord in the back door.

There is likely also the consideration of recent changes by the government to the residential tenancy act that makes it difficult to impossible to have fixed tenancies with the person being obligated to leave at the end. Short term rentals do not apply.
This would hamper the ability of an owner to use the property as a non-principal residence.

Also, this stupid notion of the beaches being taken over by tourists is about fifty years too late. They have always been "taken over" by tourists as they are public spaces for the use of all. There is no local vs tourist beaches that I am aware of, other than the native beach in west Kelowna that states that it is only for the use of natives/Indians/first nations etc.

[Gilchy]

You are correct - sort of - Gilchy:

At the time, Rise Commercial Developments indicated its 103 rental units would be available to students from September to April. However, the company changed mid-stream, wishing instead to offer short-term vacation rentals of less than 30 days during the summer months.


My problem is the BIG change from renting Sept-Apr - which is I suppose "short-term" technically - but now they want to change it to rentals of less than 30 days. That is short-term in the HOTEL sense of short term. At least renting to students for example for the off-season could have meant the students who wanted to live in Kelowna could now stay in their student housing year-round - making them more of a full-time renter than short-term.

With less that 30 days there is no other way to describe it than "hotel/motel" type of situation where it could be party central non-stop if each group staying for a few days is here to play. At least the students would live a more 'residential' lifestyle. Sure as kids there are bound to be parties but over time it probably wouldn't be every night.

In my view, the developer went in the back door - got a "similar" approval to what they really wanted knowing full well our particular City council is a push-over and they would get their "hotel" type approval (less than 30 day stays) no problem. I am guessing it's what they wanted from the get-go but knew if they went in with that it would get shot down out of the gate. Much easier to play the council we have.

Again, it was zoned for this from the beginning, they are reverting to the pre-existing zoning. There is no "back door" sneaking around.

[Gilchy]

Also, what is with the moralizing residential vs party central mindset. And you do know students party right?

[dle]

Also, what is with the moralizing residential vs party central mindset. And you do know students party right?

Part of the negativity over the Shore development is there is concern from the neighbours that with rentals under 30 days it will be more like AirBnB....or hotel/motel type situation ......which by some accounts from those who live near an AirBnB means loud, late parties, parking spots taken from permanent residents etc. I believe these are valid complaints in a residential neighbourhood.

I am not "moralizing" about anything. These are concerns over disturbing the peace of full-time residents.

For lots of people a few days away is a time to let 'er rip and blow off some steam. Great! Who doesn't want to do that? The point here isn't who likes to do what for fun - it's where and when that fun happens if it is disturbing in a residential neighbourhood......

[LANDM]

Also, what is with the moralizing residential vs party central mindset. And you do know students party right?

Part of the negativity over the Shore development is there is concern from the neighbours that with rentals under 30 days it will be more like AirBnB....or hotel/motel type situation ......which by some accounts from those who live near an AirBnB means loud, late parties, parking spots taken from permanent residents etc. I believe these are valid complaints in a residential neighbourhood.

I am not "moralizing" about anything. These are concerns over disturbing the peace of full-time residents.

For lots of people a few days away is a time to let 'er rip and blow off some steam. Great! Who doesn't want to do that? The point here isn't who likes to do what for fun - it's where and when that fun happens if it is disturbing in a residential neighbourhood......

But, it’s not happening in a residential neighbourhood any more than any other building.

The property is, and has been, zoned for this. All neighbours would have known this ahead of time. There are no surprises except with people who are ignorant of land use restrictions and allowances in their neighbourhood.