[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.