Early feedback on Tuesday from city council members on a proposed three-storey rental building in a Richmond residential neighbourhood was mixed.
Meanwhile, some residents have raised concerns about the proposal calling it "procedurally flawed."
A developer has applied to build a 27-unit rental building to replace one single-family home on No. 3 Road between Williams Road and Steveston Highway.
While Coun. Bill McNulty said the proposal is not a “slam dunk,” Couns. Alexa Loo and Laura Gillanders spoke about the need for such development to add density to Richmond.
McNulty, who’s chair of the planning committee, said city staff should give feedback to the developer from “around the (planning committee) table” about the proposed height of the building, setback issues, the big box form, internal amenities – by way of a courtyard in the middle – issues with balconies and tree removal.
“Don’t bring the next (proposal) forward till all these things are addressed,” he told city staff.
He noted there have been about a dozen nearby residents who have reached out with concerns.
Gillanders, however, responded that city staff should also take back the positive comments coming from the committee.
“Keep in mind, when we’re talking about the height, we’re looking at four to five storeys on all the arterials going forward – that’s going to be in the (Official Community Plan), most likely,” Gillanders said.
The City of Richmond is currently undertaking an Official Community Plan review.
The proposal was in front of the planning committee this week for early feedback. The next step is for city staff to give the developer the feedback they received so a final proposal can come to city council for a vote.
Loo said at the meeting that the proposal was “generally what we’re looking for,” adding it was “kind of cool.”
As for public feedback, she said city council hears “the same thing” from neighbourhoods that have densification projects proposed nearby.
“We can’t really light our hair on fire,” she said. “But it does create housing for people, it does meet a lot of our goals.”
Coun. Andy Hobbs, on the other hand, said he didn’t like the “big box” design of the building and would prefer to see a “tiered” design.
“In my mind, it’s back to the drawing board,” he added.
Meanwhile, Coun. Carol Day praised the process of having an early “smell test” for new projects, but she said this proposal seemed like it was a “separation of neighbourhoods, not an integration of neighbourhoods.”
“You don’t destroy one neighbourhood to build another neighbourhood,” she added.
A group of residents, calling themselves the Concerned Residents of the Maple Grove Neighbourhood and saying they're a “coalition” of homeowners and long-term residents from Goldstream Place, Goldstream Drive and Malahat Avenue, sent a written document outlining their concerns to the Richmond News.
They state the proposal is “fundamentally incompatible” with the neighbourhood due to the density, form and scale, which are “grossly out of character” with the neighbourhood residential area.
The group further states it is “detrimental to public welfare,” and will create negative impacts on traffic, public safety, infrastructure and the local environment, and poses an “unacceptable risk” to Maple Lane elementary students.
They also say it’s “procedurally flawed” as it prematurely relies on a draft OCP update "to justify a major amendment to the current and legally binding OCP.”
“It constitutes a clear case of speculative ‘spot zoning’ that threatens to destabilize our community, undermine the integrity of the OCP, and set a dangerous precedent for all residential neighbourhoods in the City of Richmond,” reads the statement.
The lot is located at 10471 No. 3 Rd. at the end of a cul de sac on Goldstream Place. The house currently on the property was built in 1932, and the lot size is almost 20,000 square feet (0.44 acres).
📣 Got an opinion on this story or any others in Richmond? Send us a letter or email your thoughts or story tips to [email protected].
📲 To stay updated on Richmond news, sign up for our daily headline newsletter.
💬 Words missing in article? Your adblocker might be preventing hyperlinked text from appearing.
