[1:57] Good morning. Everyone's here ready to proceed. Morning. At this time, I'll

[2:02] call to order the September 10th, 2026 subdivision and development appeal board

[2:06] hearing to hear an appeal against a refusal by the Canmore Development

[2:11] Authority for PL 20250268

[2:17] retail sales, personal service, business, and visitor accommodation of

[2:21] 10 units. I'm Andre Gian Andrea. I'll be the hair sorry chair for the hearing

[2:27] other way around. All questions and comments should be directed through the

[2:30] chair to the board and administration. Any

[2:34] additions, deletions, or changes? >> No, there's not.

[2:40] » I move that the board approve the agenda as presented. All those in favor?

[2:44] Carried. This time, I will ask my fellow board

[2:48] members to introduce themselves. Starting to my right.

[2:52] » Councelor Tanya Fuber. >> Good morning. Larry Bone, public member.

[3:10] » Ben Styiver, SDAB clerk.

[3:15] Brier Jones, SDAB clerk, and Clint, manager of legislative

[3:21] services.

[3:27] Harry Schneider, manager, planning and development.

[3:40] » Oh, sorry. I had my mic off. If the appellent could please approach the

[3:43] podium and introduce themselves. >> Is it on?

[3:48] » It is. Yes. >> I'm Josh Keeler, um, president of SPL

[3:51] Contractors. You want me to introduce the rest of the

[3:54] table? >> Okay. We've got Matt Ellerman. He's a

[4:00] designer at SPL. Philip Lens, owner of the subject

[4:05] property. And Charlie Lens, owner of the subject property.

[4:12] Thank you.

[4:17] To the appellent. Do you have any objection to any of the board members

[4:20] present hearing this appeal? Thank you.

[4:25] » And to the clerk, do we have any procedural jurisdictional matters before

[4:28] we proceed? >> Uh, no we do not.

[4:32] » Thank you. >> And for the appellent, are there any

[4:37] procedural judicial matters from your end that you'd like the board to

[4:40] consider before beginning? Great.

[4:46] I'll outline the hearing process and then we'll get started. The process is

[4:50] as follows. First, the development officer will make a presentation

[4:54] followed by an opportunity for the questions of clarification.

[4:57] The appellant will then speak for their appeal, followed by an opportunity for

[5:01] the board to ask questions of clarification.

[5:04] At that time, the members of the audience would be invited speaking in

[5:08] favor of the appeal to approach the podium,

[5:12] followed by those speaking in opposition, and finally those speaking

[5:14] neither in favor nor opposition. After all verbal submissions have been

[5:19] received, I will ask the clerk to read the names of those who provided written

[5:23] submissions, identifying those in favor, those opposed, and neither those in

[5:27] favor nor opposition. After all presentations have been heard,

[5:31] we may call a short recess. After reconvening, there will be an

[5:36] opportunity for the board members to ask questions for clarification.

[5:40] Any person who has presented will be given the opportunity to ask questions

[5:44] for clarification through the chair of all other persons who have presented. An

[5:49] opportunity for closing comments will follow first from the development

[5:53] authority. Finally, from the appellants, I will then ask all those who presented

[5:58] if they feel they had a fair hearing. And lastly, I will conclude the hearing.

[6:02] The board will meet in a close session to review the evidence presented and

[6:06] provide a re written decision within 15 days of the hearing.

[6:10] Does the appellant have any concerns with the process?

[6:14] Does anyone in the audience have any concerns with the process?

[6:19] Would anyone like me to read that again?

[6:23] At this time, I'll ask the development officer to please proceed with their

[6:26] presentation.

[6:47] Great. Good morning, Mr. Chair, members of the board. My name is Nathan Revel,

[6:51] and I'm presenting administration's position regarding the appeal for appeal

[6:55] 2025268.

[6:59] This is for a proposed development consisting of a mixeduse building with a

[7:03] parade. There are two ground floor commercial units, one of which is to be

[7:06] retail sales. The other is for personal service business with 10 above grade

[7:11] visitor accommodation units.

[7:16] The site is currently being used for residential purposes. It is adjacent to

[7:20] a small commercial development to the east, a mixed commercial and residential

[7:24] building across 10th Street, a commercial and visitor accommodation

[7:27] building under construction to the west, and a culde-sac of lowdensity

[7:32] residential housing across the alley. With regards to land use, the site is

[7:37] located within the town center land use district. It is governed by the town

[7:41] center area redevelopment plan. Personal service, business, and retail sales are

[7:46] both permitted uses within the town center district, while visitor

[7:49] accommodation is a discretionary use.

[7:58] Looking at the application, the application was refused by

[8:00] administration due to several areas of non-compliance with the town center area

[8:04] redevelopment plan. These areas include the appearance of the building, the

[8:08] scale of the building, the interface and character of the building. I'll go

[8:12] through these in more detail in a moment, but

[8:17] do want to uh also note the application requires six variances to the land use

[8:22] bylaw. Uh all of which generally fall into the same non-conformance that's

[8:25] identified with the ARP that being the appearance of the building, the scale of

[8:29] the building, and the interface and character of the building. Uh my

[8:32] presentation therefore focuses on the um ARP non-compliance given the overlap and

[8:38] obviously the ARP takes precedence over the regulations and the land use bylaw.

[8:43] Uh the specific LUB variances are of course outlined in the schedule A that

[8:46] was attached to the report.

[8:52] The first and most significant area of non-conformance with the ARP relates to

[8:55] the scale of the building specifically building height, massing and development

[9:00] intensity. The ARP establishes clear parameters for the appropriate scale of

[9:05] development in the downtown. It restricts buildings to no more than

[9:09] three stories, 11 m in roof height, and a floor area ratio of no more than two.

[9:16] This application proposes four stories, 13.2 m in roof height, and a floor area

[9:21] ratio of 2.4. Furthermore, the ARP states that the massing of the third

[9:26] story should be reduced. The specifics of this reduction are outlined through a

[9:32] step back plane in the town center district in the town's land use bylaw.

[9:37] These are from administration's perspective meaningful deviations from

[9:41] the ARP. Combined, they exceed the overall scale of development envisioned

[9:46] by the ARP for the downtown which is why administration refused the application.

[9:53] Here we see a couple of visuals of the

[9:58] non-conformance. Working left to right on the screen, we see the ARP's maximum

[10:03] height with the red line, the actual roof height in the front, the

[10:08] fourth story in the back, which is also over height, and the massing of the

[10:12] third story not having been appropriately reduced.

[10:23] On this slide, we can see the rear portion of the building. We see the

[10:26] fourth story more clearly. We also see there's no eve line on the rear facade

[10:31] or related to that, a reduction to the massing of the third story. So to put

[10:36] this simply, administration views u the shoe as being too big to fit for what

[10:42] the ARP envisioned for the downtown.

[10:52] Moving on, the ARP intentionally includes new oversight for visitor

[10:55] accommodation development in this area, switching it from a permitted use to

[11:00] making it discretionary and providing some criteria for when it may be

[11:04] considered. The key requirement here is the higher threshold for design and in

[11:09] alignment with the vision and policies of the plan. So also meeting all the

[11:13] other requirements in the ARP as well. When we look further into the design

[11:18] piece, it's important to understand that the ARP specifically identifies

[11:22] contemporary alpine architecture as the architectural expression for the

[11:26] downtown. It describes it as incorporating elements of traditional

[11:29] mountain architecture with modern aesthetics, clean lines, reduced

[11:33] ornamentation, and a focus on quality materials and natural elements.

[11:38] We'll have a little bit uh of a look in terms of examples of what this style

[11:41] entails. Uh but just for context here is the development uh again.

[11:57] And here's a look at what the ARP's vision for architecture in the downtown

[12:00] is. The two below images are from some real examples.

[12:05] Uh technically the top one is a real example as well, but the two bottom ones

[12:08] are um very recent. Again, you can see modern aesthetics, clean lines, reduced

[12:14] ornamentation, and a focus on quality materials and natural elements.

[12:23] Here's a comparison uh between the two. I will note that the um the image

[12:28] compared it is a bigger site. So, just keep that in mind. But uh you get the

[12:33] the idea of the architecture here, the difference. uh an administration's

[12:38] assessment, the design doesn't demonstrate an exceptional standard of

[12:41] design. Uh and it's not really a matter of adjusting this or that on the

[12:46] building. We feel it lacks complimentary massing and articulation

[12:52] at great activation that contributes to the street, the full use of contemporary

[12:57] architectural uh alpine architecture instead of just trying to incorporate

[13:01] elements and the integration of complimentary detailing. it finishes. Uh

[13:06] to put it simply, the shoe is the wrong style in administration's opinion.

[13:15] Moving on to building interfacing character, the ARP establishes a

[13:19] character for 10th Street to help differentiate it from Main Street, give

[13:22] it its own look. The LUB and ARP provide for reduced rear yard setback in

[13:28] exchange for pushing a portion of the front facade 3 to four meters further

[13:32] back to help establish this character. Uh you can see on the slide a couple of

[13:36] uh renderings from the massing exercise that was completed for the ARP on this

[13:40] block. The proposal takes advantage of the

[13:44] reduced rear setback with roughly 50% of the rear facade if you include the deck

[13:50] pushed back. But it doesn't provide the equal benefit of articulating the same

[13:55] amount of facade in the front. Only the ground floor facade and not the second

[13:59] and third floors are pushed back.

[14:07] Looking at the interface of the building, an active and pedestrian

[14:10] oriented interface between the commercial uses and the sidewalk is

[14:14] required. However, from the plans or the example images, uh we can see the

[14:19] commercial units and visitor accommodation units share one common

[14:22] entrance which really isn't great activation. The park parade stairs uh

[14:28] stair access occupate uh occupies a portion of the frontage while albeit

[14:33] small again it takes away from activation of the space. The canopy does

[14:39] not extend all the way to the property line and the ARP really highlights um

[14:44] continuous pedestrian protection and the space doesn't really offer anything in

[14:48] the way of treatments such as a pedestrian bench, downtown style surface

[14:52] treatments and so forth. Simply said, the developer shoe doesn't complement

[14:56] the town's outfit.

[15:00] So in conclusion, administration recommends that the SDAB refuse

[15:04] development permit PL20250268 due to the cumulative effects of the

[15:09] proposal's excessive scale, not satisfying the requirements for

[15:13] exceptional design requirements for visitor accommodation, not meeting the

[15:17] character requirements for 10th Street, and not providing a quality street

[15:20] interface. Administration's position is that the proposed development does not

[15:24] adequately satisfy the ARP and therefore should be refused. Simply put, the shoe

[15:30] doesn't fit the ARP. It's too big. It's the wrong style, and it doesn't go with

[15:34] the town's outfit. This concludes my presentation. I'm available to answer

[15:38] any questions the board has.

[15:43] » Thank you. Any questions from the board? >> Thank you.

[15:48] » Okay, great. Thank you.

[15:55] The appellant may make their presentation this time.

[16:44] Um

[16:47] so yeah, we're going to um I'd like to take you guys through

[16:51] uh just a real quick rundown of uh our journey going through this development

[16:56] plan um or the development application.

[17:01] So, the subject site we're looking at um is I guess the first parcel that's going

[17:09] to go through the new ARP that was implemented by the town. Um the

[17:15] properties to the

[17:19] east of us um are currently developed and built out based on um I guess the

[17:24] previous ARP and land use by law. And uh so we're

[17:30] now trying to um essentially figure out how to how to fit a project into

[17:35] uh a different style of ARP and a different style of um land use bylaw. So

[17:41] I'm just going to walk you guys through a bit of the journey that um we've gone

[17:44] through. Um the goal of this project when we started

[17:49] it was to redevelop um the property that Philip and Charlie own. Um,

[17:57] I got involved, um, as someone who's done some development in town

[18:02] and their goal with redeveloping their single family home was to replace it

[18:06] with, uh, sort of a legacy project, a project that for them would be owned by

[18:12] them, um, owned by their family, something

[18:15] they could pass to their kids, and, uh, essentially taking their single family

[18:20] homeing and turning it into a property that would fit the downtown

[18:25] Um, currently living in a house um surrounded by

[18:31] uh projects that have already been developed out does make kind of an

[18:34] awkward lot for them. Um, they're obviously looking at some giant blank

[18:39] walls on either side of them now and uh, you know, it doesn't feel like a family

[18:45] home anymore. So with the town changing the ARP and allowing the development

[18:51] around them, they obviously feel that they have to participate in a similar

[18:56] uh make it match the aesthetics of the surroundings, so to speak.

[19:01] So we started this journey almost two years ago.

[19:06] Um, uh, Philip was having conversations with

[19:10] me about what his property could be, what the vision would be, what they

[19:15] would like to see, and, uh, we talked about, you know, trying to fit what was

[19:22] being built in the neighborhood. So after a lot of conversation and a lot

[19:27] of preliminary design development um we booked a pre-application town or

[19:31] pre-application uh meeting with the town and uh we had

[19:36] that meeting on March 31st of uh 2025. At that point, we had sort of developed

[19:42] a concept of what we wanted to build. And uh one of the important things we

[19:46] wanted to ask at that meeting was, you know, um there was a lot of discussions

[19:51] and rumors at that time about the changing ARP downtown. Uh there was a

[19:55] discussion about possibly going to fourtory. There was a discussion about

[19:59] reducing the stories. Um there was new design considerations

[20:04] being discussed. So our question to the town at that time

[20:08] was, you know, if we submit an application, what are we going to be

[20:13] evaluated on? And uh the town of Canmore gave us a

[20:18] written response that said, um, whatever your submission is at the time of

[20:22] submission, whatever the rules are at the time of submission is what you'll be

[20:25] subject to. And that would have been the ARP

[20:29] at the time. Um so under that guidance we we quickly rushed through getting a

[20:35] bunch of design done and we submitted an application.

[20:39] Uh that application went in on June 20th. So from March to June obviously we

[20:46] had some engineering to do. Um had to get everything organized onto paper so

[20:51] it would be a suitable submission and we did get that in on June 20th. Um during

[20:57] that period, granted, there was discussions happening at the town about

[21:01] changing the ARP and uh and we were aware of that. So, we

[21:06] got our application in on June 20th. Uh I believe from this timeline you can see

[21:12] on the screen. Um the town was holding some readings of a new ARP. They had

[21:18] postponed that a couple times. Um and when we submitted the ARP was

[21:23] still in a postponement. Um July 8th is when the ARP went through

[21:31] um and I guess with its amendments had had passed. So um a couple weeks after

[21:38] we had made our submission

[21:41] then there was uh obviously our applications in with the town on July

[21:47] 15th. they gave us a time extension or sent us a time extension requesting more

[21:53] time for the town to evaluate. Um and then on August 27th

[22:01] um we requested a meeting with the town to figure out you know okay what's

[22:05] ultimately happening with our submission and it's been in now for far past 45

[22:10] days and it was revealed to us at that time

[22:14] that you know because there's a new ARP being implemented and and and being

[22:19] worked on our submission was going to be sitting on the back burner and waiting.

[22:26] So, um, obviously there's not much for us to

[22:29] do at that point. We have to wait for a response.

[22:32] November 7th, um,

[22:36] you know, we're trying to work through what the ARP looks like. It's still

[22:40] under implementation. and it isn't actually implemented yet, but uh we went

[22:45] through the process of trying to look at our project and how it would be

[22:50] changed to try to match this new ARP that had

[22:54] come out without losing the essence of what the project was meant to be.

[22:59] Um a long time has passed, so we go all the

[23:03] way into 2026 now. Um the town of Canmore is still giving us time

[23:08] extensions and each time the time extension runs out they send us another

[23:11] one and um the town of Canmore holds its

[23:15] first reading of the proposed ARP implementation in January of 2026.

[23:22] Um obviously we we've submitted way back in June.

[23:27] Um and we still don't have a decision on our application.

[23:32] So after January 6, on January 30th, we get another time extension.

[23:39] Um we get into February, there's some more public hearings on this ARP.

[23:44] And uh February 10th, we got a review of our project that said, "Hey, according

[23:50] to what we've implemented now with our ARP,

[23:53] uh we have concerns about what you guys have put forward."

[23:57] And this isn't our original submission. Obviously, this is an amended submission

[24:01] at this point. And

[24:05] then I believe on in March there is more amendments that are made

[24:09] to the ARP. And after that we submit our third

[24:15] submission. Um you know based on the review from February, hey we've made

[24:19] some changes. We've tried to match what's happening with this ARP. We're

[24:23] trying to work with the town trying to be flexible without losing the essence

[24:27] of the project. And um

[24:31] anyway, the due date for them to respond again, 45 days. Um we didn't get a

[24:37] response. What we did get was an email saying we'll probably going to we're

[24:41] going to refuse this because it doesn't match the new ARP.

[24:44] Uh but we didn't have any reasons why yet.

[24:50] Um June 25th, we still don't have any decisions or or

[24:55] notices to say why we're been refused. Um on June 30th of this year, the town

[25:03] makes further amendments to the ARP and then by July, we finally get our notice.

[25:08] Um the notice didn't say anything other than due to the opinion

[25:13] of the officer, the design doesn't meet as an opinion, the design doesn't meet

[25:19] the look of what we're trying to achieve and uh you've been refused. At that

[25:25] stage, we had two options. Um, when you receive a refusal, the town

[25:31] policy is to wait six months

[25:36] and then you can resubmit, but you can't resubmit what you've submitted. You have

[25:39] to submit something new. Uh, or the other option given to us

[25:45] obviously is to be in front of this board. um not our first choice, but

[25:52] we're trying to um ultimately figure out, you know, can

[25:59] can the project that Philip and Charlie want to build, can we actually get this

[26:03] thing built? Can we work with the town in a way to make it sort of match what

[26:07] this new ARP is trying to achieve? So, that's sort of been the timeline

[26:13] journey. It's been a long time getting here. appreciate that you guys have are

[26:17] hearing us today. Um, but I'm going to walk you now through a little bit of the

[26:22] design. So, this project um was shown by

[26:29] administration as well, but the picture up on the screen now kind of shows the

[26:34] neighbor as well. Um, and I think it's important to to know what the neighbor

[26:39] has as well as us so you can understand what's sort of driving our decisions on

[26:43] on how to build out this project. Um

[26:49] the projects that have been done to the to the east of us are very recent

[26:53] builds. Uh just finished in the last couple months. The one on the corner is

[26:58] obviously still under construction, but you can you can see what it's ultimately

[27:01] going to be. So what we had um just quickly in the design,

[27:07] we we've added a parade to this building in order to justify putting a parkade on

[27:12] such a small lot. Again, we're talking about a 50 foot wide lot. It's it's very

[27:15] very small. But in order to justify putting a parkade in, uh we had

[27:20] originally looked at trying to get um three stories of accommodation in it.

[27:28] With the new ARP, no residential will be allowed on the main floor. So now we're

[27:34] looking at trying to add in a retail section on the main floor to match this

[27:39] new ARP. I would point out that the neighbors to the to the east of us have

[27:43] a visitor accommodate to the main floor. Um, obviously they got in under the old

[27:49] ARP and there is no retail in their in their building.

[27:54] Um, so we've get up to three three floors.

[27:59] Um, one of the things that we understood from the ARP was that there was supposed

[28:02] to be some sort of rooftop amenity space as as a feature, like something that's

[28:08] been encouraged. So, in order to achieve that, you have

[28:11] to have some sort of roof access. So, we looked at trying to do a small area in

[28:16] the back of the building which would allow you to come to the roof and uh and

[28:21] exit onto a roof amenity space. Um, so there is a small section of the

[28:27] building that comes above the third. This just kind of walks you through the

[28:33] elevations. We looked at, you know, the max allowable height. We we realize

[28:37] there's a variance here. Um, max height is 11 ft. The building is 11 feet or

[28:42] sorry 11 meters. 11 feet would be awfully short. So 11 meter building. Um

[28:48] a variance is allowed of of 20%. So the section of the building that allows you

[28:52] to get onto the rooftop is over that allowable 11 m and we're at the 20%

[28:58] variance. So it is a variance that could be

[29:01] granted by the town. Um but obviously the way the town looks at the rules on

[29:06] variances is you have to give them some sort of benefit to a variance in in some

[29:12] other form. So

[29:16] um this is the the render of the project and we have tried to place the neighbors

[29:22] development beside it so you can kind of see how the walls connect. If you look

[29:27] at this as a standalone, it doesn't really make sense. But when you look at

[29:30] it tied to the neighbor's property, you can see that ultimately we're covering

[29:35] up their firewall that is now currently facing the property.

[29:42] Uh the key elements of this, you know, we do have a parade. Uh currently we

[29:47] have a main floor commercial. We have 10 visitor accommodation units, a rooftop

[29:51] patio, uh what we considered contemporary ar

[29:55] alpine architecture, and when we talk about the high quality materials,

[30:00] um Phillips, the reason Philip got me

[30:05] involved and the reason we started talking is looking at what we had done

[30:08] in the past with High Place and a couple other projects in town where

[30:14] we haven't built out of wood. Everything has been steel and concrete.

[30:18] um we've only we've built projects to last time. So what he's ultimately

[30:26] trying to achieve is a project that you know will still be here in 100 years. I

[30:31] don't know 100 years down the road any of us are concerned about. But for

[30:36] Philip it's it's a bit of a legacy. He'd like to see his his property and his

[30:41] project be around at least past his lifetime and

[30:45] probably the lifetime of his children.

[30:50] So, this was our original submission when we

[30:54] were under the old ARP. Uh, this design was sort of based off of

[30:58] what you saw at Elevation Place, a little bit based off of the building

[31:01] we're standing in. Um, has the same sort of finishes, same

[31:06] sort of textures. Um, looked very much like what you would see there.

[31:12] The old ARP didn't allow us to extend at the back of the property. So there is

[31:18] quite a bit of space on the back side of the property

[31:21] that does face a alley. So we, you know, have garbage

[31:27] pickup and and transformer and all the amenities of the building kind of parked

[31:31] on the back. So that extra space in the back is is helpful for that. There's a

[31:36] lot of things that need to be considered um when you're trying to get a parkade

[31:39] into a building. You can't put so many things underground. you got to kind of

[31:42] have a bit of yard space. So, this was the original design that was submitted

[31:47] under the old ARP. And this is what we thought we would be evaluated on.

[31:52] Um, it's only a three-story building. It's

[31:55] below the 11 m. The rooftop access is just a small vestibule to get you onto

[32:01] the rooftop. Um there's not really any height variance on here with the

[32:06] exception of the small uh stairwell shaft coming up

[32:11] and uh you know a three-story visitor a comm building. Uh very similar to the

[32:16] project to the east of us in the sense of of you know what it would be approved

[32:20] for. This was our pre-application review

[32:25] comments from the town. Of note, the we directly asked, will we be able to

[32:33] be evaluated under the ARP we submit under? And it was confirmed that any

[32:38] complete application submitted prior to the adoption of the new ERP would have

[32:42] to be considered under the old LUB and and statutory plans in effect at the

[32:46] time of submission. So when we submitted and paid our fees, we we thought for

[32:52] sure we would be under the old ARP.

[32:56] Um,

[33:00] as you saw, sorry, as you saw from the timeline,

[33:07] we never we never really got a response on this design.

[33:11] Uh, we never got the opportunity to work with the town under that ARP and and

[33:16] sort this out. you know, maybe there's a couple things in the design that in

[33:19] their opinion wouldn't have been matching the old ARP or the old LUB, but

[33:24] we never got any communication on this. The only communication we got after

[33:30] uh a fairly extensive delay was we will not consider this under the old ARP and

[33:35] LUB. You need to adapt to the new one. So,

[33:42] here comes the next iteration. We tried to preserve what the project was.

[33:48] Uh losing the entire floor to a retail section was not desirable, but

[33:53] knowing that we kept it to a twotory of residential.

[33:57] Um one story being retail, still within the threetory allowable. Uh the rooftop

[34:03] component we kept in the project just to get onto the rooftop amenity space.

[34:08] And you can see in this one uh with the articulation requested on the back, we

[34:12] bumped out a a little section of the back of the building to try to meet this

[34:17] um articulation and uh you know features I guess design

[34:23] features that the town was requesting in an ARP.

[34:27] Um in our opinion, we thought we had met

[34:30] what was asked. Uh, this one even had a, you know, a canopy off the front to try

[34:35] to do that street protection and interface with the main street.

[34:41] When we got the redesign review back, it was primarily focused on not matching

[34:47] the new ARP because we didn't have alpine architecture in it. I I will

[34:52] grant you this doesn't look like alpine architecture.

[34:56] So, you know, based on these comments that we received from the town said,

[35:00] okay, we have to rethink how we achieve alpine architecture. And we took the

[35:05] examples that we saw strict straight from the ARP

[35:09] to try to change this building to make it suit uh the new ARP.

[35:16] Now, this is what we came up with. Again,

[35:21] we've we've left the neighbors building in there as a render so you can kind of

[35:24] see how it interfaces with the neighbor and we tried to do this uh alpine

[35:28] architecture with the you know the front valleys and the V's.

[35:34] So this was our sub I guess our our current

[35:39] and our final submission our alignment with the Tarp. Uh we did

[35:45] have the small encroachment in the maximum building height.

[35:49] Um we to access the amenity space on the rooftop patio for commercial uses. I

[35:56] mean once you have a main floor uh retail space uh there's not much left

[36:01] for patios or or streets. So you know getting some rooftop green

[36:07] space, rooftop amenity space was kept in here. Um we had the overhang on the

[36:13] front for the weather protection. And I'd like to point out here that uh

[36:18] because we're the first buildings under this new ARP. Thank you. Um

[36:24] you know that and that vision of of widening the front or getting more depth

[36:30] for pedestrian interface. Uh ultimately for us as you head east, you're going to

[36:35] run straight into a brick wall. Uh because the neighbor is not their

[36:40] building is not pushed back. Um, so this interface is going to be a little bit

[36:45] challenging just in the sense that we're, you know, first out of the gate.

[36:49] Uh, this drawing does show you the shadow of the neighbor.

[36:53] Does show you how we align with their block wall. The building itself is at

[36:57] the 11 m, but obviously we have a a rooftop component to this, which could

[37:02] be shrunk down. It could be made smaller. It could change. But to get to

[37:07] the rooftop, obviously we need some kind of vestibule or something. And we're

[37:10] within that 20% variance. um which of course is a is a variance.

[37:17] Um and then we thought we had you know

[37:21] tried to achieve this interface with the public and the the pedestrian. Um the

[37:27] far right corner you can see there is a stairwell that comes out of the parade.

[37:33] That's a code item. You know we have to have an exit from a parade that goes

[37:37] directly outside. Uh we're 50 ft wide and we are at some point in time going

[37:43] to have block walls on both sides of us and so we can't exit to the left or the

[37:49] right. You have to either you have to come out the front. So we thought that

[37:53] dead corner uh adjacent to the block wall of the neighbor would be a good

[37:57] place to have an exit a direct exit to the outside

[38:01] uh as per building code. Uh on the back side,

[38:08] you know, again, we have moved things around to try to activate

[38:12] the alley. Uh we do understand what the ARP is requesting in a in an alley

[38:19] interface. You know, that if people come from the back side of the alley to get

[38:23] into your building, um right now it's a dirt lane.

[38:28] Uh the property to the east of us has, you know, car parking directly onto that

[38:33] back lane. And

[38:36] so we tried to to their side push some of the, you know, the

[38:42] garbage disposal, the um transformer, a few of the elements that would be uh of

[38:48] a concern to a public interface to that edge. Uh because their property at the

[38:53] back is is ultimately dead space. You'll never have a pedestrian interface to

[38:57] that building because it was just built. Um it'll be

[39:02] 50 years before anything gets redeveloped there, possibly longer.

[39:08] Um so that's sort of what you're looking at

[39:10] in the logic behind the the variance that we did. We do have um the building

[39:17] height and the floor, you know, the floor area ratio as outlined by um

[39:22] administration that that is a variance request.

[39:28] Obviously, we were given this notice of refusal.

[39:33] Um,

[39:37] what seems to be the primary reason for refusal is in the opinion we didn't meet

[39:40] the design standards of the ARP. Um, so we're talking about, you know, I

[39:47] guess an opinion on does this building look like the ARP or does it look like

[39:52] the examples in the ARP. So,

[39:57] the building is technically a four-story or technically a threetory, not a

[40:01] four-story. Um,

[40:04] the element that's on the top is uh an access element to the rooftop patio.

[40:11] Um, our

[40:16] sorry, non-compliance. Um, the FAR is overbuilt, but we're

[40:21] talking about a 50-ft lot. So the the disadvantage that uh that Philip and and

[40:27] Charlie have on their property is it's only 50 ft wide

[40:31] and you know if they were a large scale developer and they could buy three lots,

[40:37] you know, they'd have the flexibility to create more street space. Um but given

[40:44] that the lot's 50 ft wide and they have to under this new ARP get three

[40:48] entrances into the building, an emergency exit off the stairwell. Um,

[40:53] you know, the whole front of the building is just doors

[40:57] and I don't know how to make that look good.

[41:01] Um, we just don't have the space. So, it would be a lot easier if they had

[41:08] multiple lots and they were a big developer and they could they could

[41:12] be more creative with that space. But obviously on the left and the right, we

[41:17] have we have no access to put any doors, put any windows. Uh we expect block

[41:21] walls on two sides of us.

[41:26] Um we had failure to meet the discretionary

[41:30] use for the visitor comm. Uh I believe that's based solely on an opinion of

[41:35] design exceptional standard of design. So again that comes down to the opinion

[41:40] of the development officer that we did not

[41:44] create such a beautiful design that it would grant us the ability to have a

[41:48] visitor at home. Um

[41:53] we did ask what would be acceptable and uh we were just referred back to the

[41:59] ARP. So walking through the ARP um this is Alpine architecture.

[42:07] It does look a little bit like elevation place or even this building. Uh very

[42:11] flat fronts um you know monos slope roofs.

[42:18] Uh these were some other examples, the stone,

[42:23] the uh the wood and I would point out that our building on the front is stone

[42:28] and it is wood uh very much like the the example given on the left. Uh has the

[42:34] same roof line. Uh the one on the right is all monos slope pitches and glass

[42:39] windows. Um

[42:43] again, you know, alpine architecture, um these these peaks, monos slopes, let's

[42:50] call them, uh creating odd angled pitches of roof.

[42:55] So, this was directly out of the ARP, these examples. Um these are the ones

[43:00] that are actually in the ARP, uh the ones on the left. So

[43:07] that concept of the main floor pushing back to create an overhang

[43:12] on the second floor uh creating like a covered

[43:18] sidewalk or a covered entrance. Uh the flat front and uh and then these

[43:24] pictures and peaks. You can see the one on the very far bottom left uh was kind

[43:28] of the exact example we used that came out of the ARP for the town

[43:33] » as an example of what to build and that's almost exactly what we tried to

[43:37] mirror. So

[43:41] looking at our building, we do have the the

[43:45] matching peaks. We do have the recessed main floor and we've tried to pull some

[43:50] other elements of the building back to create that articulation.

[43:54] Uh I think articulation was used a number of times in the review.

[44:00] Again just more examples of you know these were all the examples shown in the

[44:04] ARP and the ones we tried to follow. Uh high quality materials. The building

[44:11] is stone. The building um front we actually uh had

[44:17] gone out. We're going to try to source um like 100-y old wood that's getting

[44:21] milled down in a shop down in uh uh south of here and apply that to the

[44:27] front to give it that alpine, you know, wood and rock look.

[44:36] So, some examples of of what the exterior elements were meant to be.

[44:42] Again, examples of what the elements are meant to be.

[44:47] Um, we did reduce the upper level massing

[44:52] through setbacks. Um, this render does show the block

[44:57] walls on either side just going full. Um, the property to the east of us, uh,

[45:04] we will be pulling that block wall back if we if we get the opportunity to build

[45:08] because it doesn't need to be there. So, we will get more articulation in that.

[45:12] on the right side, sorry, the left side where there is

[45:18] nothing developed at this time. Um, we don't know what's going to be built

[45:23] there. So, obviously the firewalls will have to remain.

[45:28] So, there is a big thing about the blank firewalls.

[45:32] Um, you know, we said no blank firewalls are permitted.

[45:37] um you have to do some sort of design element, texture material, box out,

[45:42] window openings, signage. So there is a big

[45:48] uh point made in the ARP that you you provide a mural on the blank wall if

[45:52] it's if it's going to be there. So I'm going to jump ahead because this

[46:00] image here shows our neighbor.

[46:04] If Philip and Charlie don't get the opportunity to develop their lot, you

[46:08] know, if they are refused in a development and um you know, they just

[46:12] financially can't make this work, this is what their house is going to

[46:17] look at every day. That is the blank wall of the property next door.

[46:23] And it is part concrete, part block.

[46:29] Um the joints aren't even pointed. um you know that's their forever wall

[46:38] and um I'm not sure you know why these rules are here and

[46:44] then obviously we're seeing that you know they're not being

[46:48] across the board so to speak.

[46:56] Sorry I'm going to back up again to where I was. Apologize.

[47:00] Um, so we put in a really good effort, we

[47:06] thought, to try to meet this changing ARP.

[47:10] Um, we would have preferred to have been under the old ARP. The rules were very

[47:15] clear. Um, you know, we understood exactly what

[47:19] we could and couldn't build. And with the new ARP and then the

[47:23] amendments that came within that ARP throughout time, uh, Philip and and

[47:28] Charlie did spend a lot of money and a lot of effort, and we're not talking

[47:34] minor money, we're talking in the hundreds of thousands on on redesigning

[47:37] their building, uh, redoing their studies, redoing their their, uh,

[47:43] application to try to meet this ARP that went through a number of reiterations

[47:50] and um and obviously just played a waiting game to see what ultimately

[47:53] would would come out of it. So,

[47:59] you know, we have looked at, you know, trying to to meet a number of

[48:05] the conditions. The unfortunate part for us is we didn't get a lot of dialogue

[48:10] with the town. Um we had one review that was given to us and then a refusal.

[48:15] So, you know, we did try to create this multiple door entrance piece without

[48:20] ruining the front of the building by having, you know, the entire front of

[48:24] the building being doors. Um, to create separate entrances into different areas,

[48:31] um, while still trying to maintain the aesthetics.

[48:34] Um, we did try to to mirror exactly what was in the ARP on

[48:39] the front of the building with the pitches and the peaks and and pulling

[48:42] sections of the building back for articulation.

[48:47] Um, sticking the commercial component into this building that was never meant

[48:52] to have uh retail uh proved quite a challenge

[48:56] for the architectural team. Uh, they did pull it off. They did manage to make it

[49:00] work, but it it's a 50 foot wide lot and with the limited width of the lot, you

[49:08] know, it's really hard to incorporate the elevators, the necessary stairwells,

[49:14] the exiting and everything into that 50 ft of space. Um, if again, if we were

[49:20] three or four lots wide, I think it would be very easy to achieve. Uh, but

[49:25] these people are dealing with one lot that they own. They're not dealing with

[49:29] they're not a large scale developer. They're just single family home.

[49:36] Um the exit stairs, I think I touched on that briefly with you guys, is just the

[49:41] we have this blank wall of the neighbor. It's created a dead space in front of

[49:46] our building. You know, we did put an exit stairwell

[49:49] there. We can move it inside the building, but again, now you have

[49:53] multiple doors coming out of the front of the building.

[49:56] Um, and it's not really a direct exit outside. It can be achieved. We have no

[50:01] issue with that, but we have a dead space because anyone coming down that

[50:06] newly designed sidewalk is just going to dead end into a block wall.

[50:12] Um, the weather protection, again, I touched on that. It was just we

[50:19] took these examples out of the ARP and tried to match exactly what they were

[50:22] achieving, stepping the front of the building back, creating this this

[50:26] covered sidewalk. Um here you can see what's being planned

[50:31] on the corner. Uh that's the building that is currently under construction.

[50:37] So again, they're under the old ARP, so they're right to street front. Um but it

[50:42] looks like they did, you know, work towards um matching this this ARP, the

[50:48] old ARP, let's say. Um, but with them being built right to the street corners,

[50:54] the base camp project next door, which is built right to the street,

[50:59] it does create a little bit of a challenge for us to be the first ones to

[51:02] to step back for all of 50 ft and then obviously it steps back out again to uh

[51:08] tight to the street.

[51:12] Um, on the back side, we did our best to sort of push and pull the building

[51:18] around without losing too much out of it, uh, to match the overhangs and the

[51:22] articulations as given in the examples of the ARP.

[51:27] Uh, this is the neighbor's property to the east of us looking at it from the

[51:31] backside. So, what they've been granted is a

[51:36] parking stalls directly onto the alley. So knowing what's existing and you know

[51:42] this has obviously just been built um you know for us to create a a interface

[51:49] with the public on the back side. Um you know we're we're hesitant to even

[51:55] allow that to happen. Obviously, we're going to meet the conditions if it's a

[51:59] requirement, but dumping pedestrians onto this back alley that is a dirt lane

[52:04] where cars directly pull off of of parking stalls

[52:08] um you know, just didn't seem we didn't want to dump public there.

[52:14] So, we've tried to make it on our property where they get directed to go

[52:18] west instead of east if anyone does actually uh decide to to

[52:23] come at the building from the backside. Um, I'm not sure how

[52:29] or what the plan ultimately is for the back alley if it will ever have a a

[52:33] treatment uh or incorporate any sort of pedestrian

[52:37] lanes in the back. But as it currently stands, it's a dirt lane uh with cars

[52:41] that pull directly onto it from a whole row of parking stalls.

[52:52] Sorry. So, this is what's been been planned. This is just showing the back

[52:55] alley uh you know parking pulling directly onto the street or onto the

[53:00] alley I should say sorry. Um this is sort of an overlay of us

[53:05] compared to the neighbors footprint wise.

[53:09] So both projects that have currently been developed are tight to the street.

[53:16] Um the town did add in a appendix six to the agenda which didn't

[53:23] get covered but it was a uh first time we've seen that it got in

[53:27] there on Friday but it it suggested that there was conditions to approval and

[53:31] that was uh shared in the agenda of today's meeting and in that suggested

[53:37] that under the new ARP you know we would be subject to

[53:43] uh designing and building to a new street condition which created bike

[53:48] lanes and and a landscape median. I wanted to just show that today so you

[53:53] can look at what 50 ft of that would do to the street. Um a we're going to be

[53:59] set back from what the neighbors are. Um, the neighbors are obviously never

[54:02] going to uh be able to do this interface that's planned in the new ARP because

[54:08] their buildings are are built or 3/4ers built.

[54:14] And um, you know, to do a 50-ft stretch of this new

[54:21] sidewalk condition is ultimately just going to block the rest of the alley or

[54:26] the rest of the main road. So, I'm not sure how that would be planned out. Um,

[54:31] I think that needs to be a town project that incorporates the entire street at

[54:34] once. Um, not something that I think we could

[54:39] deliver. Not without it being off the couple

[54:43] jersey barriers on either end to block anybody from using it perhaps, but it

[54:47] does seem like that would be a challenge.

[54:52] So, again, this is what we started with. you know, a simple three-story building,

[54:57] met all the conditions of the the previous ARP.

[55:01] Um, could have been a conversation and a debate on whether you like this design

[55:06] or don't like this design, but you know, we did model it after the examples

[55:10] around town, this building and Elevation Place and

[55:14] and whatever else is around. Um, happy to have made some changes to this

[55:19] and done an evaluation under the old ARP. uh but we were never given that

[55:24] opportunity.

[55:27] So in our pre-application, you know, obviously we spent a lot of time,

[55:32] energy, and money uh on putting together a submission that

[55:36] would go in before the ARP change. Um we were told that that was acceptable

[55:42] and that we'd be evaluated on that ARP.

[55:47] And then we spent a lot of time and energy and money after that trying to

[55:50] adapt to a new ARP uh given the constraints of you know

[55:56] what has already been developed around us.

[55:59] So there was a lot of lack of clarity during that time and a lack of

[56:03] understanding uh from our end of what was coming out in this ARP and what we

[56:07] had to achieve. We did our best guess, multiple iterations of our best guess.

[56:13] Um but we didn't really get a dialogue with the town. we just got a refusal.

[56:19] So, some of the ARP issues that have come out in this new one,

[56:24] um, you know, the lane activation has been requested out of us, which would be

[56:29] the back lane, the back alley. I've sort of touched on, you know, how that is

[56:34] very challenging considering what's already been approved there from the new

[56:38] builds. Um,

[56:42] you know, we can put some seating and stuff back there, but in in reality, we

[56:45] don't want to encourage anybody to be using that that dirt lane in the back.

[56:49] Not from the public side anyway. No issue with the the private side, but um

[56:55] we don't think it's wise to be directing public back there. Uh the street

[56:59] activation, again, that uh open space we've talked about, the

[57:04] you know, the stairwell coming out of the parade. Um, you know, we could add

[57:08] some benches and some planters out there. That's that's a non-issue,

[57:12] but our neighbor to the immediate adjacent side has a block wall that sort

[57:19] of deletes the there is there is no continuation of

[57:23] that interface. Um, and the modern alpine architecture

[57:28] I've touched on. I mean to the best that we could understand we we definitely

[57:31] tried to meet that modern alpine architecture uh by drawing literally

[57:36] what was in the examples from the ARP. So

[57:42] um ultimately why we're here today uh it

[57:47] isn't to ask

[57:51] for a very specific thing to get approved. Um, how we ended up here is we

[57:56] want our application reopened and we want the opportunity to work with the

[58:00] town to solve what seems to be um an opinion related on whether the design

[58:07] is a nice design or nice enough um and to work through a couple of the

[58:14] what we see as fairly minor variances that would um as best we can incorporate

[58:20] what's around us. The option for this obviously is that

[58:23] Philip and Charlie are have invested a ton of energy and time

[58:29] into this project, a ton of their own money. You know, they are just a single

[58:33] family home uh on a 10th Street where 10th Street has a new vision and

[58:42] ultimately that isn't single family homes. Uh the new vision of the town

[58:46] seems to be to push it to retail, push it to commercial, push it to businesses,

[58:52] uh push it to accommodation, and maybe not have houses on there. So,

[58:58] you know, the the what they're left with currently is is a house facing a giant

[59:04] blank wall of the neighbor to the east. Uh a redevelopment that's happened on

[59:09] the corner. um looking west, you know, they have

[59:15] another giant blank wall of a residential building that's a

[59:18] three-story apartment and um you know, they're kind of being

[59:23] squeezed out of that space. So, you know, the the desire from them

[59:30] obviously is to be able to actually develop

[59:34] and build a project that suits what the town wants for an ARP or wants for a

[59:39] business. um and be able to to relocate

[59:43] themselves. Um their long-term vision for the building, and Philip, I'm going

[59:48] to speak on your behalf here, but you know, they didn't plan on this being

[59:54] they plan on living in this building. They were planning to build something

[59:58] that was nice enough for them to live in.

[1:00:01] um they would like to move up, get off the street,

[1:00:06] um occupy the third floor, have a rooftop garden and a rooftop patio.

[1:00:11] Um right now, you know, they're kind of boxed in and they're hidden and you

[1:00:17] know, their house and their street doesn't work for them anymore.

[1:00:20] Financially, the only way you can do that obviously is to create some sort of

[1:00:23] business out of it. Uh the main floor has to be retail and has to be

[1:00:27] commercial. That's okay. they can adapt to that. Um, but

[1:00:33] obviously it has to work and you know, Philip has a car. He would like to have

[1:00:41] somewhere to park it. So, we came up with a parkade. It's a 50 foot wide lot.

[1:00:47] That's an extremely challenging thing to do and it's a very expensive thing to

[1:00:50] do, but it can be achieved and it gets parking for him. It gets parking for

[1:00:55] anyone that would be uh using the building.

[1:01:00] and it gets it off the street and it gets it off the back alley.

[1:01:04] Um there's obviously a financial proformer that goes with that. The

[1:01:10] project has to make sense financially or they just can't afford to do it.

[1:01:15] And at this stage they've invested a lot of money, a lot of time uh to get to the

[1:01:20] stage we're at. So ultimately we're just looking to have

[1:01:26] the opportunity to open this development.

[1:01:30] Um ideally we would like to build our

[1:01:33] original iteration under the ARP that we applied under. We are flexible and

[1:01:38] amendable. We understand that that rules change.

[1:01:43] Uh we understand they're probably going to change again. Um there will be new

[1:01:47] adaptations, new ARPs coming. Um but ultimately we're looking for that window

[1:01:53] in time when we can say these are the rules we're following. These are the

[1:01:57] rules we'd like to be applied under and this is what we'd like to be evaluated

[1:02:01] for and not be delayed and extended and uh ultimately have to deal with multiple

[1:02:07] iterations of a changing ARP and a changing opinion.

[1:02:13] Thanks for your time. >> Any questions from the board for Yeah.

[1:02:27] Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Taylor. Is that right? Is it John

[1:02:31] » here? Yeah. >> Okay. Um um

[1:02:36] sort of entering into this process uh to rede to create a design for a

[1:02:40] redevelopment on that specific lot. um knowing that there was an area

[1:02:46] redevelopment process being drafted for council approval

[1:02:51] um in in the near future. Did you like what was the risk

[1:02:56] assessment there? Because that um I hear that there was a lot of

[1:03:01] uncertainty through that process and that that was a that is one of the

[1:03:05] reasons why you're here, but that process contains a lot of uncertainty.

[1:03:08] So why why make the choice to to go try and redesign this property

[1:03:18] under the old rules knowing that there were new rules coming and that that

[1:03:23] would be a risk because not only that did you need to have it submitted and

[1:03:27] deemed complete under the old rules to be considered and that's to me that's

[1:03:33] that seems really risky. >> Yeah, thank you for the question. Um,

[1:03:39] so when we we knew that there was changes being

[1:03:44] discussed, there was discussions over four stories, there was discussions over

[1:03:48] something else. Um, I know the Canour Hotel got a four-story

[1:03:52] approved. Um, there was a few. So, it seemed like there was a lot of changes

[1:03:55] happening and that's why we booked a pre-application with the town and

[1:03:59] directly asked that question. If we applied under this current ARP, what

[1:04:03] will we be evaluated under? Will we be subject to the new rules or will we be

[1:04:07] able to be evaluated under the current existing rules that we understand?

[1:04:12] And the answer from the town was if you make your submission, you'll be

[1:04:16] evaluated under the rules in place at that time.

[1:04:20] And we did apply under the old ARP. uh we got our application submitted, our

[1:04:26] fees paid, and it was during that review process of

[1:04:31] the town, you know, reviewing that application,

[1:04:35] which it now I suspect maybe they just set it to the side until they got

[1:04:39] through their ARP um amendments,

[1:04:43] but we were in in the town instructed us that we would be able to be evaluated

[1:04:48] under the existing rules at the time of submission.

[1:04:53] and that's why we made that decision to apply based on that design. Now, fast

[1:04:59] forward months and the town said, "No, we can't actually do that. We are now

[1:05:05] going to change that and well change that decision. You're now going to have

[1:05:10] to apply under the new ARP." And they did share that ARP with us. We

[1:05:15] didn't know there were amendments coming.

[1:05:18] Uh, and we worked under that ARP to try to get the design

[1:05:23] altered enough to meet the standards of that ARP without losing the essence of

[1:05:27] the project and um and the time extensions kept

[1:05:32] coming after our second application and I believe it was because in the

[1:05:36] background there was amendments and discussions and then changes to be made

[1:05:41] in that ARP. Um so it's unfortunate timing for us. you know, we got caught

[1:05:46] in the middle of of a bunch of changing regulations and rules.

[1:05:52] Um, but when we started the process, we understood there could be a risk. We

[1:05:59] asked the question, we were told you do not have this risk.

[1:06:07] um because and there is a difference between um submission and being deemed

[1:06:12] complete and under the MGA there are the abilities for the development authority

[1:06:19] to ask for extensions before deeming whether a so um I'm just

[1:06:28] wondering if you were aware um

[1:06:33] in terms of that the effort and the time and the money at um to get to try and

[1:06:39] make an application under the before the new rules came into place

[1:06:44] that there

[1:06:48] » yeah I don't think >> there's a risk to every application like

[1:06:52] no matter what you submit you're running a risk that

[1:06:55] » you know it's maybe not going to get approved

[1:06:58] » um but we did book a pre-applica or pre pre-application meeting with the town to

[1:07:03] specifically ask just that question And the answer we got made us

[1:07:08] comfortable in the sense that we would get this application put together and we

[1:07:13] would get it submitted and paid for and we did meet it within the you know ahead

[1:07:17] of the ERP. Um if the town deemed it an incomplete

[1:07:22] submission because there was you know maybe some

[1:07:26] changes that were needed or some evaluations

[1:07:29] um you know we that's part of the process.

[1:07:34] Um, I don't think anyone did anything legally wrong. I think our timing just

[1:07:38] unfortunately for us caught us in this this discussion and this change.

[1:07:44] And you know, the the feeling on this side of the table is is that the

[1:07:50] administration had a lot of time and energy putting in going into this ARP

[1:07:55] and we're really not evaluating submissions during that process. Uh, not

[1:08:01] for anything that would have been affected anyway.

[1:08:04] and um you know if that's the decision of the town to to spend their energy on

[1:08:09] the ARP and delay uh reviewing any applications that are

[1:08:13] subject to a potential change. Um that's understandable and that is why we spent

[1:08:18] more time and money trying to adapt to this new ARP to see if we could meet

[1:08:23] those conditions and then ultimately get this project in under the new rules.

[1:08:29] » Okay. Um, we expected to have a few more

[1:08:32] iterations because obviously it's a brand new set

[1:08:35] of rules. Uh, we didn't expect to have an immediate refusal.

[1:08:40] » Okay. And then

[1:08:45] this is an area that didn't have a previous area development plan or area

[1:08:49] redevelopment plan. So with the new area redevelopment plan in the works and then

[1:08:54] approved and the implementation of that on being that there would be land use

[1:08:58] bylaw changes. What you're saying is that you didn't realize that that would

[1:09:03] happen is what I'm understanding that the ARP

[1:09:08] would then lead to land use bylaw changes that would affect this property.

[1:09:12] Is that correct? >> Yeah. I I don't like if we were trying

[1:09:19] to anticipate what would get approved at the town and then designed to that I

[1:09:23] think that would be extremely risky and unwise.

[1:09:27] So we only reacted to what became approved.

[1:09:32] I know until the new ARP was released. We didn't change our design. We did it

[1:09:37] once the ARP was released and then we resubmitted.

[1:09:41] Um then there was amendments to that ARP that came

[1:09:45] you know further down the line. But at no point were we trying to anticipate

[1:09:51] what the discussion was or participate in that discussion and try to get ahead

[1:09:56] of it to design for something years down the road. Um

[1:10:01] you know all we could do is react to what became law what became the rules.

[1:10:06] Um when we submitted the first time we had a clear set of understanding and

[1:10:10] rules of that ARP and we submitted what we submitted based on what made sense

[1:10:14] for the project for uh Philip and Charlie.

[1:10:18] We didn't ant we we expected that we would be evaluated under those rules.

[1:10:23] Um we we weren't our submission sat at the town and we had time extensions

[1:10:30] which legally is allowed. There's no question. Um and then those delays

[1:10:37] pushed us off until the implementation and then once that was implemented you

[1:10:42] know we could we could resubmit which we did. Uh but then again that was delayed

[1:10:47] until the amendments were put through. Um so the reaction time on our end is

[1:10:54] what's today's rules that's what we design to that's what we submit. what's

[1:10:59] coming in the future is is not something we've ever anticip or would ever work to

[1:11:04] guess at and try to match.

[1:11:14] » Okay. Okay. Thank you. >> Thank you.

[1:11:21] » Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak in support of the

[1:11:24] appeal? If so, please approach the podium and give your name.

[1:11:31] Anyone in the audience who wishes to speak against the appeal, please

[1:11:35] approach the podium and provide your name.

[1:11:38] Anyone in the audience who wish to speak in a neutral position, please approach

[1:11:42] the podium and provide your name. Uh to the clerk, have we received any

[1:11:48] written submissions in addition to what's been contained?

[1:11:56] » Sorry. Uh we have not received any any written submissions on this matter.

[1:12:02] » Uh this time we'll stand in recess for a period of 15 minutes for the board to

[1:12:08] prepare necess any necessary questions for clarification.

[1:28:09] call the meeting back to order for the board. Any members of the board

[1:28:14] have questions for clarification for administration?

[1:28:19] » Thank you. uh through the chair uh for administration. I was hoping uh Mr.

[1:28:25] Grall could go through uh a timeline of when the this

[1:28:32] application was submitted, when it was considered complete

[1:28:38] and when it was deemed refused and how that aligns with the requirement

[1:28:44] of the MGA. Thank you. >> Absolutely. Uh, just give me a minute

[1:28:50] here.

[1:28:55] So, I'll go back even further. I'll start with the pre-application meeting

[1:28:59] which was held um April 10th, 2025. Uh, and at that pre-application meeting,

[1:29:06] the developer was made aware of the ARP going into effect uh quite shortly. Um,

[1:29:12] in fact, the review comments were framed using language and figures uh from the

[1:29:16] final draft of the ARP. So this was uh from administration's perspective um we

[1:29:23] were quite transparent about this document coming into effect and you know

[1:29:27] it' be a good idea for you to become familiar with it and probably pivot uh

[1:29:31] your development to um to adhere to it. So,

[1:29:36] uh, the developer obviously had the opportunity to assess their timeline

[1:29:41] given that information and decide if they wanted to take an exit

[1:29:45] lane and, um, uh, you know, go through the ARP and align with it for their

[1:29:51] project, for their submission, um, whatever. I mean again they had the the

[1:29:57] opportunity uh to not proceed uh to make changes from administration's

[1:30:03] uh perspective. Uh it was brought up um that administration in the pre-lication

[1:30:11] comments stated that if they submitted their application

[1:30:15] um prior to the adoption of the AP that they would be held under the old rules.

[1:30:21] to clarify uh in the pre-application comments it says specifically a complete

[1:30:27] application and I'll just go over the timeline of that as well just to be

[1:30:32] clear. Uh so in terms of submission

[1:30:38] the developer submitted their application on

[1:30:57] Looks like it was paid June 23rd, 2025.

[1:31:08] The MGA allows the uh the municipality 20 days to deem the application

[1:31:13] complete.

[1:31:19] The first incomplete application notice

[1:31:25] was

[1:31:41] provided on July 2nd, 2025. five.

[1:31:52] There was another round of um complete application

[1:31:58] uh review and another deeming of it incomplete. The application wasn't

[1:32:04] deemed complete until

[1:32:11] July 25th, 2025. The ARP was adopted on July 8th, 2025.

[1:32:22] So from administration's perspective, we've been transparent. We gave them an

[1:32:27] exit lane. Uh they decided to proceed. That was their choice. Um, and once the

[1:32:33] ARP was adopted, it in effect. So, uh, we

[1:32:39] informed the developer of that and that their application that they would need

[1:32:44] to, uh, change it in order to comply with the ARP. Again, they had the

[1:32:49] opportunity to withdraw their application if they wished to get a

[1:32:52] refund. They chose not to. They chose to proceed.

[1:32:57] » Sorry to interrupt. For clarity, is it deemed complete on July 28th?

[1:33:02] » 25th >> and ARP was

[1:33:06] » adopted July 8th, 2025. >> Thank you.

[1:33:17] » Okay. So, >> am I interrupting you?

[1:33:21] » What? >> Am I interrupting?

[1:33:22] » No. No. >> Okay.

[1:33:26] So deem the deem it was deemed complete July 25th.

[1:33:30] » Correct. >> Okay. And then you're going to keep

[1:33:32] going. I'm going to let you keep going. >> All right. I'll just keep going here and

[1:33:37] the board can ask questions uh as they like. So there were just a couple of

[1:33:42] pieces I wanted to clarify as well in response to the presentation that was

[1:33:46] given. um the applicant feels that administration has not worked with the

[1:33:52] developer that we abruptly refused the application that it was interpreted as a

[1:33:58] a surprise and so forth. So just wanted to provide a little bit of

[1:34:01] administration side to that story. Uh the town did allow for three full

[1:34:07] resubmissions.

[1:34:10] administration met with the developer and their team, including the architect,

[1:34:16] when the first round of review comments was given to go over those comments in

[1:34:21] detail to make sure everything was clear.

[1:34:27] When we received the second submission, administration felt that the comments

[1:34:33] hadn't been adequately addressed and we responded with an advisory that we would

[1:34:40] allow for another submission. But we were clear that if we felt again there

[1:34:46] was no movement that we would refuse the application. So we did give the

[1:34:51] applicant the heads up that if they weren't willing to work with us here, we

[1:34:55] would just refuse it. and they had the right to come here today and state their

[1:35:00] case. Uh and that's that's exactly what

[1:35:03] happened. We received the third submission. We felt it was really uh

[1:35:08] materially no different from their second submission. So we refused it.

[1:35:19] And from administration's perspective, we feel we've been transparent about the

[1:35:24] ARP the process. We've allowed opportunities for changes. Uh and the

[1:35:29] developer has had the discretion throughout the process from

[1:35:33] pre-application to a decision to make changes or to you know not apply or if

[1:35:40] they applied to withdraw. They've been in control of their their

[1:35:44] destiny so to speak.

[1:35:49] And that's that's clarifications I wanted to provide.

[1:36:00] Okay. Um, so I just want to make sure I kind of understand part of this process.

[1:36:05] So the um application was made by the devel uh by the applicant um under the

[1:36:14] trying to use the old

[1:36:19] without trying to make the application without the new rules in place under the

[1:36:23] new ARP. When the it was deemed complete however

[1:36:27] was after the ARP was approved. At that point in time, administration informed

[1:36:32] the applicant that they had that they had choices. They could withdraw their

[1:36:39] application or they could proceed with an application that while complete was

[1:36:46] made under an old by an old set of directions for um the downtown.

[1:36:53] And by moving ahead and engaging in th this process over the last year which

[1:36:58] included three resubmissions, it was to try and bring that that application to

[1:37:05] compliance under the new rules instead of submitting just a new application.

[1:37:09] » Correct. With the exception of we didn't explicitly say you may withdraw your

[1:37:15] application. Okay. >> The applicant but

[1:37:18] » they could have if they if they wanted to. So

[1:37:22] » thank you so much. Um, that answers my questions.

[1:37:25] » Thank you.

[1:37:29] » Any further clarifying questions for administration?

[1:37:33] » Okay, thank you. Great. Thank you.

[1:37:39] Does Does the board have any questions for clarification from the applicant?

[1:37:48] Any board have any questions or clarification for the appellent?

[1:37:55] Does it >> it's the same?

[1:37:57] » Yeah. Does the board have any questions for anyone else?

[1:38:03] » Does any other person who has presented have questions for clarification of any

[1:38:07] other presenter?

[1:38:21] Yeah. I just wanted to be clear with what our ask was out of uh today. Um you

[1:38:28] know, we know there's a six-month standown and you can't reapply

[1:38:33] for the same project uh to the town. You can't make the you can't get refused for

[1:38:37] an application and make the same application.

[1:38:40] Um so when we first submitted, you know, we

[1:38:44] did think the timeline would work for us to get to an application in under the

[1:38:48] old ARP. Um,

[1:38:52] you know, timing didn't work out quite for us. Uh, when we submitted on the

[1:38:55] 20th, I think we paid our fees on the 23rd, which then the town considers it

[1:39:00] submitted. Um,

[1:39:04] and then the review process of 20 days obviously pushed us past when the ARP

[1:39:09] was going to be adopted. Um, we didn't know when the ARP was

[1:39:13] going to get adopted. It had been postponed three times prior to that. So,

[1:39:16] it could have been adopted any time prior. It also could have been

[1:39:21] delayed further uh through multiple extensions.

[1:39:27] So we knew what the rules were. We applied

[1:39:32] um and when we were given the op the option of withdrawing the application or

[1:39:36] trying to adopt to the new ARP, we did choose to adapt to the new ARP and and

[1:39:40] we worked towards that. And we did spend a bunch of time uh and energy and money

[1:39:45] on engineering and and trying to solve that.

[1:39:48] So we went for the ride knowingly. We knew what we were getting into.

[1:39:54] Um but after there we got one round of

[1:39:58] comments on our redesign design that matches a new ARP

[1:40:03] and then a bunch of time extensions and then a refusal. So, what we're asking is

[1:40:09] to to just reopen that and let us try to finish the process and not hit us with a

[1:40:15] six-month delay and a refusal to put this project forward again. Um, you

[1:40:21] know, there's been a lot of effort and energy and time from from the land

[1:40:26] owners to try to get this project in. And you know, we believe the town and

[1:40:33] the administration is is here to help support people uh who wish to develop

[1:40:38] their properties. And so we're just seeking the

[1:40:42] opportunity to again uh go through this design.

[1:40:47] Um maybe be less more focused on what the new rules are.

[1:40:52] so we understand them a little better and get the opportunity to try to get

[1:40:56] this application through an approval uh based on this new ARP that is now in

[1:41:01] effect without having to lose 6 months

[1:41:06] and ultimately uh you know start from scratch so to speak. Um we do believe

[1:41:12] we're our design is is close. There's a couple things that are there's nothing

[1:41:16] outside the rules. there's just a few variances asked for and the main reason

[1:41:20] for refusal that we've noticed is an opinion on the design you know uh in the

[1:41:27] opinion of the town the design doesn't match you know what they are deeming to

[1:41:31] be alpine architecture um happy to continue that discussion

[1:41:35] with the town if we're given the opportunity to try to sort out what

[1:41:40] exactly alpine architecture is supposed to look like under the vision of the

[1:41:44] town Um,

[1:41:48] so all all we're asking for is is to not lose six months and be able to get this

[1:41:53] application open so we can we can finish the process.

[1:41:58] Thank you. Thank you.

[1:42:04] Does the development officer have any closing comments?

[1:42:09] Does the appellant have any closing comments?

[1:42:15] Additional closing.

[1:42:23] Do the persons who have made representations today feel that you have

[1:42:26] had a fair hearing?

[1:42:32] This hearing is now concluded. As a reminder, the board will meet in a close

[1:42:36] session to review the evidence presented and provide a written decision within 15

[1:42:40] days of this hearing. No decision is binding on the board until it issues a

[1:42:44] written decision. The clerk will provide a decision to the appellets and post a

[1:42:49] notice to the town's website.

Subdivision & Development Appeal Board Hearing | September 10, 2026

Transcript