Developer appeals refusal of commercial, visitor accommodation in downtown Canmore
“Simply put, the shoe doesn’t fit the ARP,” said Town senior development planner. “It’s too big. It’s the wrong style, and it doesn’t go with the town’s outfit.”
UPDATE: An SDAB decision rejecting the appeal was released Sept. 23.
CANMORE – The developer behind a proposed four-storey mixed-use building on 10th Street is asking Canmore’s Subdivision and Development Appeal Board to overturn the Town of Canmore’s refusal of the project, arguing it should be given more time to work through design issues under the municipality’s new downtown planning rules.
The proposal for 822 10th Street includes two commercial spaces on the ground floor and 10 visitor accommodation units above. Town planning staff refused the development after finding it did not comply with several parts of the Town Centre area redevelopment plan (ARP), particularly around building height, massing, architectural design and its interface with the street.
“What we’re asking is to just reopen that and let us try to finish the process and not hit us with a six-month delay and a refusal to put this project forward again,” said Josh Kehler, who represented the appellant at the Sept. 10 hearing.
“We believe the Town and the administration is here to help support people who wish to develop their properties,” he added, noting they were seeking another opportunity to work through the design and better understand the new rules.
The application proposes a four-storey building with a roof height of 13.2 metres and floor area ratio (FAR) of 2.4. The ARP identifies a maximum of three storeys and 11 metres in height, while the land use bylaw and ARP set a maximum FAR of 2.0. Town staff said the project also does not sufficiently reduce the massing of its upper storeys.
The proposal requires six land use bylaw variances, including for FAR, building and eaveline height, upper-storey stepbacks, commercial entrances and a blank firewall next to 826 10th Street.
Visitor accommodation is a discretionary use in the Town Centre district. Under the ARP, it can only be considered where ground-floor commercial uses activate the street, an “exceptional standard of design” is achieved and the development aligns with the plan’s vision.
Nathan Grivell, senior development planner with the Town of Canmore, told the board the many departures from the ARP were too significant for administration to support.
“Simply put, the shoe doesn’t fit the ARP,” he said. “It’s too big. It’s the wrong style, and it doesn’t go with the town’s outfit.”
Planning staff also took issue with the proposed architectural style, arguing it did not meet the ARP’s vision for “contemporary alpine architecture.” The plan describes the style it wants to achieve as combining traditional mountain architecture with modern aesthetics, clean lines, reduced ornamentation and quality natural materials.
The Town further raised concerns about how the building would interact with 10th Street. The two commercial spaces would share one entrance, an exterior parkade stairway would take up part of the frontage and weather protection would not span the full building. Administration said the design left limited room for patios, landscaping or seating along the street.
Kehler disagreed with the Town’s assessment, saying the design was based on examples shown in the ARP.
He also said the narrow, 50-foot-wide property limits what can be done at the front of the building, while multiple building entrances and an emergency exit have to be accommodated.
“The whole front of the building is just doors and I don’t know how to make that look good,” he told the board.
A major part of the appeal focused on the roughly year-long planning process and the timing of the new Town Centre ARP.
The developer submitted the application in June 2025 after a pre-application meeting in which, according to both sides, the Town advised that a complete application submitted before adoption of the new ARP would be considered under the planning rules then in force.
The new ARP was adopted July 8, 2025. Administration told the board the development application was not deemed complete until July 25, after two rounds of review, meaning the new statutory plan applied.
The appellant subsequently chose to continue with the application and redesign the project to try to meet the new ARP instead of withdrawing it.
Kehler acknowledged the developer knew the risks of proceeding.
“We went for the ride knowingly. We knew what we were getting into,” he said, but argued the team spent significant time and money adapting the development before ultimately receiving a refusal.
Grivell said the Town allowed three full resubmissions, met with the development team to discuss its review comments and warned after the second resubmission that the application could be refused if concerns were not addressed. Administration determined the third resubmission was “materially no different” from the second.
Planning staff recommended the SDAB uphold the refusal. A written decision will be made within 15 days of the meeting and posted to the Town’s website.
