An office tower developer was given a “density bonus” in exchange for creating large offices in the Aberdeen area – something city staff say is needed in City Centre.
But now the developer, Bene (No. 3) Road Development, is asking to keep the additional density but create small office units and at least two councillors argued to support this proposal at last week’s planning meeting.
Couns. Andy Hobbs and Chak Au both spoke in favour of allowing the compromise to be approved, despite the fact it didn’t comply with a City Centre policy and city staff recommended not approving it.
Hobbs called the revised proposal a “reasonable compromise,” although he noted he’s argued in the past to stick to policy.
“But I think it’s also the role of council to make reasonable exceptions and discretionary decisions with regard to policy and that’s our role, and I think staff and council working together can achieve that,” Hobbs said about the development at No. 3 and Leslie roads, across the street from Superstore.
The original plan was to have one large office on each of the six top floors of the building.
A few weeks ago, the developer proposed scrapping any unit-size restrictions, but still wanted to keep the extra floor that was granted as a “bonus.”
“Effectively, the applicant was requesting the ability to keep the additional density granted without having to fulfill the primary condition (i.e., creation of large floorplate leasable office space) that was secured in exchange for the increase in density,” reads the city staff report.
The planning committee didn’t approve that and last week the developer came back with a revised proposal of two floors of large units, and the other four floors broken up into smaller units.
One of the remaining four floors would be divided into two units but the other three floors would have offices as small as 650 square feet. (The bottom four floors are proposed for retail, not office.) The developer also proposed giving $80,000 to the affordable housing fund.
Au said he supports the “spirit” of the large-office policy, but called the revised plan a “good compromise,” adding no one could have predicted the changes that have happened over the past few years, ostensibly referring to the COVID-19 pandemic when many offices shut down as people worked from home.
“This kind of mix would be a good compromise in response to market changes,” Au said.
Au questioned, however, whether a proposed $80,000 contribution to the affordable housing fund was “a fair cash contribution.”
The general manager of planning, Joe Erceg, told the planning committee Richmond shouldn’t doubt the city’s ability to attract large businesses. Most large businesses, however, are currently located in business parks outside City Centre because that’s where there are large units.
He noted the policy – to give extra density in exchange for creating large office units – was created to attract large businesses to City Centre. The report notes large offices would attract companies that are in information technology, clean tech and digital creative sectors.
“If you chop it all up before it’s built, you will not have any success attracting such businesses because you won’t have suitable premises for them,” Erceg said.
Furthermore, the most viable area for offices is City Centre, and this can be seen in its low vacancy rate of under five per cent, Erceg added.
Large offices support a “diversified economy,” city staff note in their report to city council.
Last week, the committee asked staff to bring back more information on the value of the bonus before a final decision is made.
The item is back on the planning committee agenda for May 3.
