Owners of heritage properties in Banff are voicing opposition to a section of proposed new legislation that would prevent them from transferring or selling commercial space to another property.
Bylaw 346 proposes to allow existing built commercial space to be transferred to another site if, for example, it’s demolished or used for non-commercial purposes such as residential housing, education service or a courthouse.
However, in the name of heritage preservation, federally and municipally designated buildings would not be allowed to transfer gross floor area, and privately owned, unprotected A-ranked commercial properties in the commercial districts would also be exempt.
Banff’s Grizzly House is one of the A-ranked heritage commercial properties on the exemption list, and the owners of the restaurant building have a problem with that.
“The thing I have a problem with is we’re not going to have the same rights as everyone else,” said Ken Waterhouse, who represented The Grizzly House, at a public hearing on the bylaw Monday (April 13).
“If you have the same zoning and you’re in the same district, you should be able to do exactly the same things as your neighbor. Also, I feel it decreases the value of the building because there are restrictions over it.”
Council passed first reading of the bylaw last month.
On Monday, they put off consideration of second and third reading of bylaw 346 to review and consider submissions made at the public hearing on several issues, including the concerns around exemption of certain heritage properties.
“I would like to understand further the discussion on heritage buildings and how that came to be,” said Mayor Karen Sorensen.
Under the proposed bylaw, gross floor area cannot be transferred from federally recognized heritage structures, such as Banff Springs Hotel and Banff train station. The same is for municipally designated properties like Harmony Lane and the Dave White Block.
In addition, there are several commercial properties that are currently unprotected, but are considered A-ranked heritage properties, that would also not be allowed to participate in transferability.
They include the Buffalo Block building at 101 Banff Avenue, the George Building at 121 Banff Avenue, Caribou Corner at 202 Banff Avenue, Grizzly House at 207 Banff Avenue and Melissa’s Restaurant on Lynx Street.
Darren Enns, senior planner for the Town of Banff, said Banff has no unilateral heritage protection for any commercial or residential buildings, but there is a voluntary process where owners can choose to seek municipal designation.
“There isn’t any protection in place right now or heritage provision to stop the demolition of an unprotected building. You can knock one of those buildings down and rebuild it – that’s not going to change with this bylaw,” he said.
“What will change is that these properties won’t be able to participate in transferability in any form, whether through conversion or demolition. The primary thrust of that was that by excluding them we won’t create an incentive for demolition.”
Banff Caribou Properties supports the transferability bylaw overall, but is opposed to the restriction on heritage buildings.
The company is redeveloping the train station and railway station lands and also owns Caribou Corner, which is on the exemption list.
“We understand that the intention of these provisions is to reinforce heritage preservation of certain buildings, but feel these provisions could just as easily have the reverse effect,” said Gordon Lozeman, president of Banff Caribou Properties, in a letter to council.
“Heritage properties may be best served, and therefore preserved, by allowing them to be ‘donating’ or ‘receiving properties’ in a conversion or restoration scenario. Removal of a portion of existing commercial space from a heritage building will often just make sense.”
Lozeman said there is no realistic scenario where listed heritage buildings would be demolished to transfer all of their commercial square footage elsewhere.
“Why single out these buildings to deal with such an improbable risk?” he said. “Why create unintended consequences of building devaluation and stagnation?”
Lawyer Eric Harvie, who made a personal submission and was not representing anyone, said currently heritage buildings can apply for a change of use, or rezoning, under the land use bylaw and owners should be allowed to transfer existing gross floor area as well.
“A real world example would be changing the railway to government service. A case can be made that residential use or government use may actually serve and protect the value of a heritage building better than a commercial use such as a bar or restaurant,” he said.
“So, logically it does not follow that a transfer of existing commercial square footage from a heritage building will cause harm to, or diminish the heritage value, of the heritage building.”
