Several residents’ appeals at a June 17 public hearing have led Kelowna city council to delay adopting new development guidelines for the Heritage Conservation Area.
Roughly two dozen speakers urged council to take a closer look at the proposed rules, raising concerns about increased density and potential impacts to the character of neighbourhoods on and around Abbott and Marshall streets.
The draft guidelines were designed to better protect heritage homes and streetscapes. However, after the provincial government introduced new housing legislation in 2023 and 2024—allowing more small-scale multi-unit housing such as fourplexes—Kelowna updated its approach to align with the new laws. The focus shifted to balancing neighbourhood preservation with the need for more housing.
The guidelines also address the urban tree canopy, and include direction on integrating newer housing types and low-rise buildings in ways intended to respect heritage characteristics. They introduce terms such as “contributory houses” to identify heritage buildings, and more clearly define the boundaries of the Heritage Conservation Area (HCA) and the adjacent Hospital Transit-Oriented Area (TOA).
Despite these efforts, some residents said the updated approach could go too far.
Kevin Fierback, who lives on Knox Crescent, said the proposed incentive structure lacks clear safeguards to maintain the HCA’s traditional, low-density feel. He noted that city staff could approve density increases or reduced setbacks without defined limits or required public input.
“There are no defined limits for the number of units or building height for a project that utilizes incentives to help preserve a contributory property, which could lead to buildings that overwhelm the neighbourhood's historic scale,” he said.
Abbott Street resident Erica Bell-Lowther questioned why council has not taken stronger steps to protect the city's only designated heritage area. She said land assembly and applications for larger buildings are already appearing.
“Unfortunately, we are already seeing signs of land assembly and development applications, are and will be submitted, to build up to six-storey buildings, which will destroy the heritage conservation forever.”
She encouraged the city to consider excluding the HCA from the Hospital TOA to reduce development pressure.
“The city can and should work with the province to adjust the boundary of the hospital TOA…to exclude the 83 lots within the HCA, and make up the density elsewhere.”
Another Abbott Street resident, Jillian Stamp, raised doubts about claims that increased density in the HCA will result in affordable housing.
“This is not affordability, it is gentrification dressed in the language of housing policy,” she said. “If we want affordability, we should be encouraging gentle infill rental incentives and public investment in housing—not upzoning the most expensive and cherished heritage neighbourhood in the city.”
Jeanette Mergens, also from Abbott Street, said the rules for the HCA should be clear and non-negotiable.
“Rebuilds should not be able to ask for variances in height or the coverage of the lot. Because that is what takes away from everything that is our heritage area.”
Lake Avenue resident Ian McKay said the area belongs to the entire city and should be treated like a shared asset.
“If we damage or destroy that area it would be akin to damaging or destroying the lake. We wouldn’t fill in the lake and put condos on it.”
Cadder Avenue resident Peter Chataway called for the return of the city’s former heritage advisory committee.
“A local body made up of community members, heritage experts and planners who live here understand the significance of this area and care about its future.”
Susan Ames, another Abbott Street resident, argued that while provincial rules allow up to four units per lot, the city’s draft guidelines offer too much discretionary power to staff and require revisions.
“These guidelines are seriously flawed. These should be revised to take out those variances, to take out the discretion, to take out the requirement for a heritage consultant.”
Brett Robinson, who is building a home in the area, said navigating the process under the new legislation and working with the city’s planning department has been long, costly, and frustrating.
“So far I haven’t been allowed to do a thing with it,” he said, warning that any late changes to the guidelines could derail his plans. “Any changes at this point would probably financially bury me, and I would have to let go of the dream of living in that neighbourhood.”
Following public comments, Councillor Loyal Wooldridge introduced a motion to defer council’s decision.
“So that council can properly digest this and debate it at an appropriate time when we can actually ask staff to come back with some amendments to the policy,” he said.
Council supported the motion, while Coun. Gord Lovegrove recused himself from the discussion and vote due to owning property within the Heritage Conservation Area. A revised version of the guidelines is expected to come back to council at a future Monday meeting for further debate.
