Revelstoke city council defeated zoning amendment bylaw No. 2346, proposed by Revelstoke Mountain Resort (RMR), that would have allowed them to shift the density of their approved 16,600-bed units within development zones on resort lands. Council members were divided, with two councillors and the mayor in favour of reading the amendment a second time and three councillors not in favour, denying the proposed amending bylaw.
Revelstoke city council’s regularly scheduled council meeting on February 14, 2023, was prefaced by a special committee of the whole meeting, where RMR representatives Jason Kelder and Peter Nielsen gave a presentation to the council. In the presentation, the representatives detailed the resort’s immediate goals for future expansion, including their focus on building new lifts.
Nielsen stated in the presentation that to meet the increase in demand that the new lift developments will bring, they need the flexibility to build accommodations and shift density to maintain a positive guest experience.
The regular council meeting directly followed.
You can watch the committee of the whole meeting here:
The bylaw first appeared before Revelstoke’s previous council on October 11, 2022. Previous Mountaineer reporting on the bylaw can be found here:
The bylaw amendment would allow RMR to increase density in lands zoned CD 08 located to the south, east, and northeast of the Arrow Heights Neighbourhood.
The amendment would allow RMR flexible density within their ten development areas, something city Lead Planning and Development Services staff Paul Simon says would enable the proponent to better utilization of existing space.
Each development area is allocated a certain amount of density, including residential units and commercial space. RMR cannot currently shift density between development areas. However, according to Simon’s staff report, the amendment would allow up to 30% of the density from Area 1 to be reallocated, so long as no more than 15% is reallocated to any one development area.
The bylaw amendment would not allow for changes in the uses designated to the zones but entail shifting density from their ‘core’ zone to other zones.
The city staff report says the request for a zoning bylaw amendment was submitted to allow more flexibility regarding where density may be located on CD 8 lands to respond to changing development concepts.
During the council meeting, Simon presented the amendment and a summary of the staff’s recommendations.
Councillor Palmer voiced concerns about not having enough information to make his decision. “I cannot in good conscience proceed to a second reading,” he says. “I do not have enough information to make a good decision to go to the next step. I do not have that confidence.”
Council members voted on reading Zoning Amendment Bylaw No. 2346 a second time, and if that were to have been voted in favour of, they would have also scheduled a public hearing for the bylaw to be heard on March 14, 2023. However, after council defeated a proposed motion to table the decision, the motion to read the amendment a second time was also defeated.
Councillor Orlando opted to recuse himself from the decision, citing a conflict of interest. Mayor Sulz, Councillors Devlin and Cherry voted to go to a second reading of the amendment. In contrast, Councillors Palmer, Stapenhurst and Luciow voted against the motion, resulting in the motion being defeated.
The full council meeting recording can be found here: