ROB: I think we could talk a lot about Three Sisters Mountain Village and that marathon seven hour ASP council meeting they had on Tuesday. Did you watch the whole thing?

TANYA: I did. The amazing thing about having council meetings on YouTube is you can pause and rewind if you miss something.

ROB: I watched right up until about their lunch break, then I watched the last 10 minutes later on. I missed some of the questions they asked in the middle, but it was a very robust conversation, a huge presentation, lots of questions. The fact that it took seven hours to get through this entire thing really speaks to how large this is and how many different factors they have to consider.

TANYA: This is probably the biggest and most complicated development application that I’ve seen in Canmore in the last 15 years. We’re talking about 80% of the developable lands left in our community and a framework for how those lands should be developed.

ROB: It did pass first reading, and I got the sentiment from the comments that Council made at the end of the meeting that the biggest reason that they pass it first reading was so that they could take it to the public hearing and get a real sense of what the public has to say about this one. I know there are some people that were hoping they’d just reject it outright at first reading, but that didn’t happen. I think this is probably the best direction to go.

TANYA: To reject it at first reading would be to say that what was in front of them did not meet the test of being good enough to go forward. It doesn’t happen often. It did happen in 2017 when Three Sisters brought forward an amendment to their already approved ASP for the Village area, they wanted to just change the plans to take the golf course out and add things. Council said, this isn’t good enough. If you want to do that you have to bring forward a whole new plan. Council, also in 2017, told Three Sisters they wanted to see the wildlife corridor approved, the undermining regulations in the Municipal Government Act updated, and they wanted to see both Smith Creek and the Village ASPs in front of them at the same time. I think they got all those things.

ROB: If they even were to theoretically reject it at first reading, it’s not like Three Sisters would just go away. They’d just amend the proposal and send it back. Or, if they didn’t think that the reason that it was rejected was good enough, it could potentially go to the courts. Either way, Three Sisters doesn’t just go away if council says no to this, so taking it to public hearing and going through the entire process is definitely the right thing to do.

TANYA: I don’t think their job is to just outright reject this. I think their job is to consider it fully. In one month we have a public hearing. With all that information from the public hearing, administration puts together a report and brings it forward to council for second reading. If anything’s major changes at second reading we could be looking at another public hearing. The steps that are needed to get a final decision on this will take some time.

 

ROB: One area that a number of councilors expressed concern about as they had their comments before voting in favor of first reading was the fact that the proposal includes the idea of expanding the urban growth boundary of Canmore. What exactly does that mean?

TANYA: The urban growth boundary is a line that means pretty much beyond this point, there is no consideration of additional development whatsoever. The urban growth boundary is something that can be changed by a motion of Council through a bylaw, public hearing, and three readings, but it is incredibly unpopular in Canmore. Our community feels very strongly that there needs to be limits on development, so any application to change that boundary is not taken lightly.

ROB: Where is the proposal to expand that boundary?

TANYA: The Thunderstone Quarry area.

ROB: If you’re going off the highway at the Dead Man’s Flats exit, you take a right, and you’re basically right there.

TANYA: The ownership group of the quarry includes one of the owners of Three Sisters. The proposal here is to include it into the plan and redevelop that quarry area.

ROB: Council will be looking for the overall community benefit. When you are talking about expanding the urban growth boundary, one of the stipulations for that is only if the community benefits and if there are no unacceptable environmental impacts. I think this very small part of a very large ASP really sets the bar a lot higher for any kind of approval without significant amendments.

 

 

ROB: Another area of concern has to do with the door count, or the number of residential units. Based on decisions back in the nineties, the new proposal is a lot different than the cap that was placed on the amount of residential units that could be built in Three Sisters back then.

TANYA: In the nineties, it was an incredibly contentious time. There was a lot of disagreement in the community about what was appropriate for development on these lands. What ended up happening is a settlement agreement was reached, which then led to a bylaw called DC-198. When Three Sisters went into receivership, that receivership made that settlement agreement basically void. There were mechanisms in the nineties to restrict the amount of units that Three Sisters would be able to build. Fast forward to today and we have a Land Use Bylaw and Municipal Development Plan that does the opposite. It actually provides incentives for increased densities in order for the community to get stuff that it wants in return.

ROB: Something that Council seemed concerned about is Smith Creek has proposed for a lot lower density than Three Sisters Village. There seems to be an appeal factor to density, but that’s a double-edged sword because then we’re potentially approving something that goes above and beyond the door count of what was originally envisioned for that area, which a lot of the community doesn’t seem to be on board with.

TANYA: With higher density housing, there are a number of factors that come into play. It takes longer to build. The price point is different than say single detached dwellings. If builders choose to build luxury high density development, then no, it’s not, but it could be. Also, the highest density proposed is in the Village, and that is also the area with the most intensity of undermining. There are concerns in the community about building on top of undermined lands, and then this proposal comes forward and it’s like “let’s build more!”

ROB: Yeah, exactly.

 

ROB: There seems to be a public sentiment that, because the public hearing is coming up on March 9th, people seem to think that any correspondence that Council has received up to this point, and I understand there’s been quite a volume, doesn’t count somehow, or has been ignored.

TANYA: Any of the feedback received either verbally or in written format for the public hearing will form part of the permanent public record around this application and decision. This is a legal process that we’re in now. Writing a letter to counsel before first reading – Council receives that information, it’s valid, but it doesn’t form part of that public record. If you want it to be part of that public record it’s good to resubmit it, but otherwise Council is listening. That’s their job.

ROB: As we’ve said before, part of the reason they wanted to pass first reading is because they wanted to get to the public hearing. They really do seem to want to hear the feedback. I mean, how do you prepare for the public hearing? I think there’s a lot of reading that one we should be doing to provide an effective submission on the public record that actually might make an impact. The first thing to read, I would say, would be the actual Area Structure Plans proposed for Three Sisters Village and Smith Creek. I know it’s a big document, but it’s good to know exactly what they’re proposing.

TANYA: There are a lot of supplementary reports, so you can really get into the weeds on this one. Within those reports there are areas already identified in first reading by administration as areas of concern.

ROB: Another thing – the Municipal Development Plan, I think that’s a good read as well. Another big read, but this is going to be an informing a lot of the decisions when it comes to Three Sisters Mountain Village. How does it align with the MDP? How does it misalign? Pointing out those kinds of specifics, talking about things like urban growth boundary expansion, door counts, those are things that Council actually has a lot of purview over, as opposed to other important issues but things that they don’t have as much control over, like the wildlife corridor. Focusing on these guiding documents, doing your homework, pointing out specifics that are under the control of the Town of Canmore – that’s going to go a long way when it comes to the public hearing.

TANYA: If everyone shows up and it’s just like, “I don’t like it. Don’t do it.” That doesn’t give Council a lot of substance. But if you engage in the material, into the issues – one has already come up. ls Three Sisters Village an actual resort center development as set out in the Municipal Developed Plan and the NRCB decision? I think that’s a significant question worthy of consideration. The other thing that I think is really important is understanding it’s okay to disagree. There are going to be a lot of different opinions and some really, really strong ones. We’re all allowed to hold that space for each other.

 

Filed under: Canmore, Mountain Insider, Three Sisters Mountain Village