The decision to deny a fourplex in Tepee Town by Canmore’s Planning Commission was upheld by the appeal board, which found it did not meet the intent or requirements of parts of the Land Use Bylaw.
In July, property owner Steve Landi appealed a decision by the planning commission earlier this year to deny a development permit along Second Avenue in the area of Canmore known as Tepee Town.
Landi was looking for variances to street presence and yard setbacks, but the appeal board agreed with the decision of the planning commission and found it did not meet the intent of or the requirements of the Land Use Bylaw and the appellant could not provide a reason to support the change.
Specifically, there were no front doors to the fourplex; instead, Landi proposed glass patio doors on the street facing Bow Valley Trail in Tepee Town.
“There were no compelling reasons provided by the appellant to maintain the proposed design of the grade level units in relation to the front exterior,” wrote the board in its reasons for the decision.
During his appeal hearing, Landi argued the change was appropriate for the area and that as the property owner and intended occupant of one of the units, he should be allowed to move forward with his design to have patio doors in front.
“My whole design has a different look,” he said.
Landi also argued the streetscape along Second Avenue is not clearly one way or the other when it comes to front entrances.
Development planner Audrey Rogers presented the original planning application to the board, including relevant legislation used to assess the permit, such as the Tepee Town area redevelopment plan.
“(The planning commission) felt the applicant had not satisfied the requirement for front doors given the existing streetscape,” she said. “The lack of a distinct entrance feature could be confusing for visitors.”
Planner Nathan Grivell also explained to the board the intent of requiring a front entrance is to make a residential area feel safer. He said homes should pass the “trick-or-treat” test – in other words, can a child find the front entrance. He added it also helps when emergency services are called to easily locate an address and provide access.
Grivell also spoke about setbacks required on the lot, which borders an older home in the subdivision. He said the regulation was written to address shadows or blocking of views from adjacent properties as the subdivision area redevelops overtime. Basically, one set of regulations says to have the development footprint closer to the front of the property and the other regulations says to set it back.
The challenge in the regulations is one administration, said Grivell, intends to address with amendments to the area redevelopment plan.
Mary Ann Allen spoke against the appeal, and in favour of the refused development permit application.
Allen was critical of Landi’s design, and compared it to an existing fourplex on the same section of the street that was designed by him and one designed by herself.
She questioned the need for an extra stairwell as part of the design, noting it could turn the building into a fiveplex in the future.
“There is potential for the third floor to become a fifth unit, whether it is separate title or not,” Allen said.
The property is permitted to be 2.5 storeys tall, and hence the loft area, said Landi, is part of the unit he intends to occupy.
