CANMORE – In the midst of an ongoing debate on employee housing in Canmore’s industrial areas, a previously approved project had additional employee units added to its development.
The Canmore Planning Commission (CPC) gave the green light to changes to 121 Bow Meadows Crescent, which saw the employee units increase to 15 from 12.
Though the discussion turned to the appropriateness of employee housing in industrial areas, the commission was ultimately handcuffed by approving or denying the development permit application and not looking at the high-level concerns that have been an ongoing debate between Town staff, council and the business, development and construction industry.
Florian Jungen, a five-year member of CPC, noted he didn’t believe employee housing in industrial areas conforms with the land use bylaw and agrees with Town staff’s concerns, but the commission is only meant to approve or deny the application in front of them.
“CPC has already approved this application, so now we have to consider if it’s an improvement over the one that’s been approved. In my opinion, this application is 100 per cent an improvement over the previous one,” he said, adding it offered better living spaces and architecture.
The project originally received approval for 12 employee housing one-bedroom units in May 2022. The new approval will reduce the one-bedroom units to 10, but add one two-bedroom unit and a three-bedroom unit.
The common amenity room was also scrapped, with the size of each balcony being doubled. The common laundry room was also removed and each unit would have in-suite laundry.
There were also several site and architectural changes, including six more parking spots, a landscaping bed and a picnic table being added. There would be 28 vehicle parking spots, 29 long-term bike stalls and 14 short-term bike stalls.
The planning commission approved 12 one-bedroom units for employee housing last year as part of the mixed-use development. The project had light industrial units on the main floor and employee housing on the second floor, with each unit having a balcony and a common amenity area.
The mixed-use building would have six units for warehouses, four for contractor service and repair and two for light manufacturing.
Wayne Cote, the applicant, said Rocky Mountain Soap owner Cam Baty was looking at five or six of the storage units while Cote would also retain one or two. Cote added a condominium bylaw would be established and they would put in a legal requirement to require anyone living in the employee housing units to work a minimum of 20 hours a week.
“I don’t want them to become ski condos,” he said. “That’s not our intent at all. … We want to put things in place that are strong for the bylaw and through the different mechanisms on title.
“We’ll always have a vested interest in the project and the continued uses in the project. We believe working with (Remax real estate agent) Barry Nestransky and his team of creating some strong bylaws that will ensure the enjoyment for all involved, including the residential units. We think this will help – it won’t solve all the problems – help with our situation with more affordable housing.”
Nestransky told the commission 24 separate titles would be created for all the units.
Town staff recommended rejecting the employee housing aspect due to the loss of second floor industrial space.
Nathan Grivell, a development planner with the Town, said its been the Town’s practice to have a restrictive covenant registered on title but that it only enforces the user and not the use with common amenity housing more regulated by design.
He said previous builds such as Whiskey Jack Chalets and Montane Village on Kananaskis Way have restrictive covenants placed on them.
Grivell highlighted employee housing shouldn’t be confused with affordable housing that’s offered by Canmore Community Housing.
“Employee housing is not affordable housing. It’s not below-market housing, that’s vital housing. That’s what the Town builds to offer as below-market rental and below-market ownership,” he said. “Employee housing is just secured housing for workers, so a business can buy the unit and offer it to employees. It’s for profit at market rent. The benefit is it’s there if you come to town and you’re going to be working, there’s a place for you to go. You still have to pay for it and the idea is you transition into PAH rental or PAH ownership or market.”
The July 6 agenda for Canmore Community Housing noted its staff had reached out to the Town of Canmore to express interest in the ongoing conversation “to discuss ways CCH could be involved in purchasing units, registering caveats on title, and/or administering eligibility requirements on behalf of developers.”
The day before CPC, Canmore council voted to postpone for a second time adding clarity to potentially setting up regulations for employee housing in industrial areas.
Council postponed it the first time in June and again July 4 to wait until a full council was on hand to determine the future clarity. Council will discuss it in early September.
However, the issue of employee housing in industrial areas of Canmore has become highly contentious between Town staff and the business, development and construction sectors.
Town staff have been emphatic in refusing employee housing in the area due to issues such as the potential for a precarious living situation, socio-economic concerns and potential loss of industrial floor space.
The business, development and construction sectors have been equally been in highlighting the extreme staff shortage being felt and the need to establish employee housing where possible.
CPC and Subdivision and Development Appeal Board hearings have been held on multiple occasions, with more applications expected to return to both non-elected boards.
Tanya Foubert, one of two council representatives on CPC, pointed to the Municipal Development Plan (MDP) that says private initiatives for creating housing should be supported by the Town.
While she said specific direction from council is needed – which will be discussed in September when all seven members are on hand – she believes the MDP and council of the day that passed it intended for there to be employee housing in light industrial areas.
“I don’t think we’ve done the work since then to set up the appropriate legal conditions with the tools we do have – there’s more work to do – and that’s the question in front of council in September that hasn’t been answered,” Foubert said. “That new direction isn’t in front of us, so what I have to work with is from the MDP and the land use bylaw.”
