Moody Centre TOD update, post public hearing

Moody Centre TOD update, post public hearing
Original post for Nov. 28, 2017 public hearing: Moody Centre TOD and beyond … coming to a neighbourhood near you?

Update #2: No minutes for the public hearing or council meeting on Nov. 28th are yet available on the city website, unusual since normal procedure is to have previous meeting minutes drafted for adoption in the following council agenda package (in this case December 12, 2017). The Dec. 12th agenda table of contents lists an “adoption of minutes” item but no minutes appear in the package. Out of the ordinary, for reasons unknown.

The Moody Centre TOD area is roughly four (4) blocks around the Skytrain station.

The proposed OCP amendment to allow an estimated 3,400 additional residents to this area, and an increase in tower heights to more than double the current maximum of 12 storeys was approved by council after a lengthy public hearing and subsequent council discussion.

Passed (4:3), with Councillors Madsen, Royer, Vagramov opposed.

The public hearing(s) began at 7:00 pm and were followed by the regular council meeting which ended at close to 12:30 am. A very long evening.

Length of two public hearings combined: 3 hrs, 12 minutes (Woodbridge rental building discussion was more than an hour, and MC TOD was more than two hours). Public hearing video can be accessed under “specialty” tab, see link below.

Length of regular council meeting where vote was taken: about two hours. More than half of this time involved the MC TOD discussion.

Video link:  Council Meeting Video Archive
Written materials, available from: 2017 Minutes & Agendas

There were speakers (and written submissions) both for and against at the public hearing.

As is customary and expected, several of those in favour had connections to development interests. Names mentioned included PCI Developments, Anthem Properties, Woodbridge, Rastaf family (sp?), Kwikwetlem First Nation, Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MOTI). Supporters felt the TOD concept made sense, including the amended proposal to increase density, and that this area could become a vibrant, special district.

On-table materials included correspondence from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MOTI), and included a map of MOTI owned property, shown below.

MOTI indicated preference for option “Built Form Scenario C – High Density” showing an estimated population growth of ~4,665 and tower massing of 9X26 storeys plus 4X40 storeys.

Some candidates in the recent council by-election spoke: Karen Rockwell in favour of the amendment, and Gerry Kent and Richard Biedka against.

Many of those opposed felt no changes were necessary to the existing OCP wording that allows much more density than currently exists at the site, and expressed concerns about the effects of potential over-densification on parks, roads, and other community infrastructure. Some urged council to consider this area in conjunction with nearby proposed major developments and the cumulative effect on Moody Centre and Port Moody.

At the regular council meeting that followed the public hearing, Mayor Clay stated that there was a lot of misinformation and confusion and there were no numbers in the plan in front of council at the meeting:

“2800-3300 people isn’t in the plan. These things are all just being made up.” … Every person that spoke opposed to this had a fact wrong.”

The above statements occur in the video towards the end of the council MC TOD discussion, and are confusing since the number of towers and population estimates are all shown in the city’s background and agenda materials.

Council adopts new vision for Moody Centre
Tri-City News, Nov. 30, 2017

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Moody Centre TOD update, post public hearing

  1. Big Rye says:

    Too many people are confusing height with density. Council did not “more than double” the allowable density at Moody Centre TOD.

    These 4 blocks will be built out to an FAR somewhere between 2 and 3. Experienced knowledgeable persons have told us that is not feasible with 12 storey concrete construction because our local market could not accept the costs per square footage (and if the margins are thin, developers would push for even more density in order to get a financial return more comparable to what they could achieve elsewhere.)

    Technically, the expected density of a TOD could be achieved with 6 storey wood frame construction, but that requires overall lot coverage near 50%, so it wouldn’t be pretty.

    • mccapm says:

      “more than double” above referred to storey heights from max 12 to 26. Harder to quantify the potential density. But ~3,400 city pop estimate is much higher than earlier OCP number of 2,800, which is much higher than current estimated “~8-12 residents and 145 businesses (43 on Spring St. + 102 on St. Johns St.).” Current #s from city open house presentation.

      • Big Rye says:

        But those 2800 and 3400 population numbers were not in the “original” or in the amended OCP.

        Council definitely made an error early in the summer when they specifically endorsed ‘Scenario A’ (or whichever it was) that had numbers of buildings, and heights, and populations. Fortunately they did not continue with that mistake in the final changes that were approved.

  2. mccapm says:

    A perfect illustration of how confusing and hard to follow this matter has become.

    The public hearing agenda says “An OCP amendment has been drafted to ensure that all of the draft policies and the built form (Scenario A) endorsed by Council are incorporated into the OCP amendment bylaw.” In voluminous earlier material including agendas and reports, Scenario A included a very specific pop number of 3,339 (plucked out of thin air?). The PH Nov. 28th city presentation identifies the current OCP base pop – for up to 12 storeys – as ~2,804.

  3. Pat says:

    If the actual amendment voted on had no numbers, as the mayor said, then the population and buildings could be lower than Scenario A. Good news.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s