Jenga Tower

[dle]

I think the City has opened itself a real can of worms with this huge Westcorp variance approval outside the scope of the zoning bylaw. They will look at each proposal on it's merits, but when something like Jenga comes along, which at 15 stories isn't a behemoth and is quite stylish & unique and IMHO, a good fit for a us, (but still double the height restriction), how can they now say no to them - or any other prospective developers wanting to "double down" on their height and ask for variance?

I don't think council had ANY beeswax going against the City Planners, nor do I think they should be allowed to just "over-ride" the zoning bylaws without changing the zoning. They are colouring way too far outside the lines - but they aren't the only council doing it around here it seems. Official Community Plans are being tossed to the wind with regularity these days. I think they need to get over themselves.

I guess it's just jungle rules and to heck with zoning bylaws, yeeha! So why doesn't everyone who has an RV for example, just plunk it out on the street in front or homes and then set their stop watch to see how fast a bylaw officer arrives to hand them their ticket?!

[Even Steven]

Oh here we go again with completely misunderstanding the issue - it's not the height - it's the request to more than double the current zoning allowance from 7 to 15 stories.

Yes, more than double.

So what?

If the location is fitting, then what's the big deal.

[dle]

Oh here we go again with completely misunderstanding the issue - it's not the height - it's the request to more than double the current zoning allowance from 7 to 15 stories.

Yes, more than double.

So what?

If the location is fitting, then what's the big deal.

Geez Louise - you have a real problem with getting the gist of this....TRY and follow....the BIG DEAL is they are doing it WITHOUT FIRST - REPEAT, FIRST - CHANGING the zoning bylaws THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS!!!! That is the big deal. Bylaws are laws - they are in place for a reason. Even City council has to follow the damn things but they don't think they do for some reason known only to that band we have in there now!! Developers like Westcorp or whoever should not be able to come to town and smoochy-smoochy a few full-of-themselves municipal butts to get their way on this issue. IT'S NOT ALLOWED IN THE BYLAW - we have to follow them, so should they.

[Jonrox]

And there are established and allowable channels in place to have exceptions made to bylaws. The application procedure is actually written in the bylaw. So by following this procedure, the individual or developer is following the bylaw. It's not hard to comprehend.

[Even Steven]

CHANGING the zoning bylaws THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS!!!!

They don't need to change by-laws. Developers' interests only sit within the property, they only care about that specific square. And big surprise for some people - asking for a variance IS THE PROPER CHANNEL.

Calm down, lol.

[dle]

CHANGING the zoning bylaws THROUGH THE PROPER CHANNELS!!!!

They don't need to change by-laws. Developers' interests only sit within the property, they only care about that specific square. And big surprise for some people - asking for a variance IS THE PROPER CHANNEL.

Calm down, lol.

Sure enough - there can be exceptions to the rule. Don't you think if someone is asking for an exception to a rule that is as important to EVERYONE's interests, no matter which side you fall on, that it should fall to a vote? A referendum? At least a second opinion from experienced people like, oh I don't know, how about the City Planning department? What gives council the idea that they are so above it all that they feel justified in going against the bylaw, going against the Planning department?

Everyone who is in favour of highrises along the lakeside won't give a rat's patoot if the City agrees to vary every proposal submitted, whenever they are and to any extent - they will cheer it on - like you. But for the rest of us who don't want to see that, what protects our interests? Those bylaws were tossed aside as if they were not worth the paper they were written on, even after City Planners said "don't do it".

What goes around comes around and sooner or later an issue will come up that you are firmly against the City doing but they will - even if you think YOUR interests will be protected by certain rules or bylaws and you will be singing different tune - let's chat again then - after you calm down.

[Jonrox]

I don't think you actually want the bylaw changed. That would basically mean a free-for-all. Keeping the bylaw as-is gives council (both this council and future councils) oversight on what can and can't be built, with the ability to legally approve or deny applications.

Just because council made a decision that you don't like, it doesn't mean the majority feel the way you do. Nor does it mean that a referendum is needed. Referendums are a terrible way to make decisions. The general public votes based on emotion and rarely makes rational, informed decisions.

We elect people to make these decisions for us, so if you don't feel like your interests are being protected, it's up to you or the candidates of your choosing to get elected next time. You're free to criticize them all you want, but you have to realize that the system is what it is and they're the ones we've collectively chosen to represent us.

[sublime]

You're free to criticize them all you want, but you have to realize that the system is what it is and they're the ones we've collectively chosen to represent us.

Are they representing the public's best interests, their personal interests or the developers interests? That's the question.

[dle]

I don't think you actually want the bylaw changed. That would basically mean a free-for-all. Keeping the bylaw as-is gives council (both this council and future councils) oversight on what can and can't be built, with the ability to legally approve or deny applications.

Just because council made a decision that you don't like, it doesn't mean the majority feel the way you do. Nor does it mean that a referendum is needed. Referendums are a terrible way to make decisions. The general public votes based on emotion and rarely makes rational, informed decisions.

We elect people to make these decisions for us, so if you don't feel like your interests are being protected, it's up to you or the candidates of your choosing to get elected next time. You're free to criticize them all you want, but you have to realize that the system is what it is and they're the ones we've collectively chosen to represent us.

So why even have a City Planning department? They are rather redundant aren't they if council can just do whatever they want. Let's save ourselves some money and close that department. City Council and the Mayor feel they are qualified - no, correction, MORE qualified to make these decisions so let them fly at it. But if they go that route then they need to close City Planning and stop wasting our money.

I totally agree with you on one thing though -

We elect people to make these decisions for us, so if you don't feel like your interests are being protected, it's up to you or the candidates of your choosing to get elected next time.

and that is VERY good advice to remember......

[cv23]

We elect people to make these decisions for us

The general public votes based on emotion and rarely makes rational, informed decisions.

So the public makes bad decisions at the ballot boxes but some how should expect the results of those bad decisions to make good decisions for them?

[Bsuds]

So the public makes bad decisions at the ballot boxes but some how should expect the results of those bad decisions to make good decisions for them?

Pretty much the way it works but they really like complaining about both.

[Grandan]

Here we go again. Time to grease the pockets of the mayor and council once again and watch them not listen to the recommendations from the planning department. Same old song and dance.

Just to be clear...you are suggesting that the Mayor and City Council will be bribed in order to make this happen?

Or does "grease the pockets" have another meaning?

It is a mixed metaphore which is a combination of "line ones pockets" and "grease the palm" which are quite different things.
The first is theft the second is bribery.

[Grandan]

I think the City has opened itself a real can of worms with this huge Westcorp variance approval outside the scope of the zoning bylaw. They will look at each proposal on it's merits, but when something like Jenga comes along, which at 15 stories isn't a behemoth and is quite stylish & unique and IMHO, a good fit for a us, (but still double the height restriction), how can they now say no to them - or any other prospective developers wanting to "double down" on their height and ask for variance?

I don't think council had ANY beeswax going against the City Planners, nor do I think they should be allowed to just "over-ride" the zoning bylaws without changing the zoning. They are colouring way too far outside the lines - but they aren't the only council doing it around here it seems. Official Community Plans are being tossed to the wind with regularity these days. I think they need to get over themselves.

I guess it's just jungle rules and to heck with zoning bylaws, yeeha! So why doesn't everyone who has an RV for example, just plunk it out on the street in front or homes and then set their stop watch to see how fast a bylaw officer arrives to hand them their ticket?!

You surmise that there was no discussion between members of city council and planning staff? That city council members did not take any initiative to educate themselves about the project ahead of time? That the first time they saw the project was in council chambers? How about city staff and council agreed to disagree on the total build out?
City council may not make the same exceptions in the future so it does not mean that every project is going to get the same treatment.
Do you think it is possible that after going back to the drawing board that Westcorp discovered that the costs to do the building made it impossible to get financing? The soggy ground in that area is more than likely a factor in the cost of piledriving, dewatering and so on.
Costs to build do not appear until the drawings are complete and contractors bid the job. In the real world you take what you can get on both sides. The negotiation has gone on long enough. His hotel is not for locals anyway, the lakeshore is on the sunny side of the street so forget shadows.

[Even Steven]

that it should fall to a vote? A referendum?

Yeah, let's have a referendum for EVERY SINGLE BUILDING under construction. LOL.

going against the Planning department?

Planning staff doesn't have the final decision power, they only consult. Council does. That's the law.

let's chat again then - after you calm down.

Lol you're the one who's blowing the gasket over a simple building. I'm perfectly fine with them. Bring them on.

[motokelowna1]

The only reason they want to go higher is so the top level will have lakeshore lapping at its balcony when the next flood happens.