CANMORE – Canmore is going to get a little bit more employee housing after the planning commission approved 12 units in Bow Meadows Crescent.
The mixed-use development will feature the employee housing on the second floor, above light industrial units. Each unit has a balcony, and there is a common indoor lounge with no plans for children to reside there.
Despite giving approval, the decision did not come easy for the commission. One concern raised was whether the employee housing would be used for other purposes.
“The issue being raised is that the employee housing could be used for other uses such as offices or commercial space,” said board member Florian Jungen. “Even though they are proposing employee housing, they may use it for office space.”
Nathan Grivell, development planner with the town said that the purpose was to limit the employee housing to non-functional units for the purpose of industrial commercial.
“It is really to allow for this type of housing in limited circumstances,” Grivell said. “We don’t want to lose industrial floor area to housing, that is the intention.”
Board chair Jeff Roberts said that with housing critical in the town, but demands could change.
“I would think that market forces would prevail and if there was a demand for office space, warehouse space, on the second floor, the proponents would have taken that into consideration,” Roberts said. “Could we foresee a point in the future where the proponent may come back and look to repurpose that floor space to light industrial?”
Roberts was told by administration that if that was the case, they would have to do complete change of use application.
Several variances were put forward for the approval of the application. These were to allow for employee housing in the space, to allow for employee housing that may constrain future industrial uses, to allow employee housing that may unduly interfere with existing industrial development, and to not include a children’s playground or recreational area.
The issue over the recreational area was one specifically highlighted by the commission.
Board member Shawn Kennedy asked if this type of variance had been allowed for a development of that size. He was told that administration had not encountered it.
“There was one development that provided more adult outdoor amenities like a barbeque area instead of a playground,” Grivell said.
Board member Cheryl Walker asked if the Town could say that children could not reside in the unit. Grivell responded that the Town did not have the authority to regulate users at the site.
“I think with the constraints of the area and the types of use in the area, a playground would not be the outdoor recreational amenity I would be looking for,” board member Tanya Foubert said.
In the end, the commission supported the variance related to not having a playground.
“I support this variance because there is an indoor recreation area and the makeup of the occupants, a children’s playground is not appropriate for that,” Roberts said.
Jungen did not support the variances or the proposal, citing concerns for future conflicts.
“I think employee housing in this development is appropriate. I don’t think the intensity that his proposal is presenting is appropriate,” Jungen said. “I think there is a potential to create a conflict. This is an industrial district and this project, there is too much emphasis on the residential and not enough mitigating measures to address the potential conflicts.”
The commission voted in favour, with one against, to approve the application subject to the conditions noted by the Town.
