A proposed three-storey building with a restaurant and two residential units next to the historic CN Railway station downtown, will not go ahead after Kamloops council denied a development permit.

Several residents spoke out against the proposed development, saying it would not fit with the historic aesthetic of the neighbourhood.

“The CNR station…is one of the most iconic places in the city of Kamloops. It is a heritage site,” Vic Bifano, who spoke on behalf of neighbours in Station Plaza, said at the May 9 council meeting.

“A proposed three storey building on a postage stamp 33-foot size depth lot, fails to add beautification to anywhere. Its just a building. To that end, I draw your attention to Station Plaza, it was built on the notion that the paramount feature of the site was going be that station.”

Bifano also spoke to concerns about the lack of privacy.

“How would you like to live in a three storey building within 20 feet of your bedroom window or your deck? Or your living room?” Bifano said. “When you talk about privacy, what privacy is there?”

Councillor Katie Neustaeter sympathized with the concerns raised by Bifano and other residents who gathered at City Hall Tuesday afternoon.

“We’re not talking about across the street blocking the view. They’re basically looking in their windows,” Neustaeter said.

“I think that this is a wonderful opportunity to develop that and make it more appealing, but this does not even approach the definition of sensitive infill. I think something can happen here, but this is not it.”

Last month, city staff told council that the developers planned to “try and match” the design of the CN Train station – which is currently home to the Twisted Steak restaurant – as closely as possible. There were also plans for a seasonal outdoor restaurant patio that would extend into the adjacent pedestrian plaza.

“This would meet the criteria of KamPlan activating that plaza a little but more,” Planning Manager Eric Beach said in April.

“It doesn’t meet the historic nature as you can see of the plaza however they have tried to incorporate elements like the red brick. This development is more of a modern design compared to what you see at Station Plaza.”

Councillor Bill Sarai joined a number of his colleagues in speaking out against the proposal, as presented, on Tuesday.

“I’m the one that said it’s a green space that’s getting developed but I also believe it’s on the developer not to just come in and push through whatever they feel like,” Sarai said.

“I think it should go back to the developer to work on it where it fits the landscape of that piece of property so that the neighbours are happy with it, the roof line is a little bit lower, and it look similar to the heritage building next door.”

Councillor Stephen Karpuk also took issue with the developers lack of consultation.

“When we’ve seen some more contentious developments, we usually see the proponents here. If it was really important, they would be here, either virtually or otherwise,” he said.

“I don’t know, given how its gone forward, that I can support this and I would suggest – like Councillor Sarai – I would like to see this come back again in a different iteration.”

Recalling a recent trip to Utrecht in the Netherlands, Councillor Nancy Bepple was the only one who supported the development as presented. She says the Dutch community doesn’t shy away from developing around historic buildings.

“When their old buildings fall down, they don’t try to make the new buildings look like old buildings,” Bepple said of the practice in Utrecht. “They put in modern buildings. The philosophy is that you can’t replicate the old, you should just try to put something new in that’s beautiful.”

Two other councillors, Mike O’Reilly – who publicly spoke in favour of the development in April – and Dale Bass – who publicly voiced her opposition Tuesday, recused themselves from the discussion and the vote due to issues of potential conflict.

Earlier in the meeting, Kamloops councillors approved a variance permit application as the proposal did not have the required number of parking stalls. Seven stalls were required, but only three were provided – for the residential units – with the City set to collect a cash-in-lieu payment of $24,000 – $6,000 per parking stall – to allow commercial parking at a nearby city-owned lot.

That variance permit was later rescinded – using Section 131 of the Community Charter – as council was told it would have applied to the title of the property. Essentially, it mean that that no matter what future development came up, a parking variance would have already existed had council not rescinded it.

Just before the end of Tuesday’s council meeting, a man named Chris Alan identified himself as the developer. He opposed council’s rejection of the variance application, though at that point it had already been rescinded.