Cherrylane should not be added at this time. Wait and see approach as it can always be added later. Parking issues

Cherry Lane should be the main hub. Tallest buildings should be there, NOT near the waterfronts. There is only one other city in the world that is bordered by two lakes. Why must we squander the spacious feel of Lakeshore Drive for the sake of luxury condo owners? Our building heights should be lowest along waterfronts and gradually increase towards the middle of Penticton. If six storeys are allowed along Lakeshore, developers on Churchill and Alexander will ask for 8. T

Is the height restricted to 4 storeys?

There has been alot of public feedback about the lack of trees in the urban areas of Penticton. The Urban Forest Plan meetings that were held with various collaborators in the community have made it very clear that developers need to plant more trees when trees are removed. Why not take this opportunity, to revise one tree per dwelling in 5.3.1 to 2 trees and make the size of the trees substantial depending on what is removed? Our city gets a failing grade compared to most cities in BC on tree replacement. Thanks for considering this.

Should there be a proper definition given for "principal resident" since you are removing "owner" under Short Term Rentals, 7.6.1? There may be some confusion for people as to what a principal resident is. Food for thought.

The previous (RD1/2/3/4) and unchanged zonings (C1, C2) have a 10.5m height restriction. What is the intention of changing R4-L/S to 11m? Is the max height calculated the same way as before? For comparison, would construction in the new zoning now be higher than what is being built at the old Bogners site (C1 zoning, 10.5m height limit)?

I don't agree that no designated parking space be required for each suite in a dwelling

I don't agree that any residential units should not have parking spaces designated

No development should be allowed without designated parking spaces of one per unit minimum. There is such a small % of the population in the City that do not own at least one vehicle. Then there are also visitors. This becomes problematic for the existing residents with parking!

266, 280, 294 Norton St are newly zoned under this R4-L zoning.
But in the new OCP they are 'High Density Residential' alongside 224 Norton St.

How is this zoning in line with being 'high density residential'? And why is 224 zoned RM-4 and not R4-L?

This entire bank should be true high density residential with the same zoning.

Thx for all the hard work on this though!