Six-storey St. Johns St. development faces raft of critiques from Port Moody council at early input

A proposed six-storey mixed-use development in Moody Centre is facing early resistance from Port Moody city council, which criticized the design for being overly dense, poorly integrated with the streetscape, and failing to address the city’s housing and environmental goals.

The application for 2805–2811 St. Johns St. seeks to rezone two single-family lots to allow for 52 residential units and approximately 15,000 square feet of commercial space.

The developer is targeting a floor area ratio (FAR) of 3.84 – just shy of the 4.0 maximum allowed under provincial transit oriented area (TOA) legislation – but is proposing to deliver that density in six storeys rather than the 12-storeys permitted by the province.

Staff warned that cramming such density into a mid-rise form on a narrow 17,400-square-foot lot poses serious challenges for livability, tree retention, and conformity with city planning goals. Council agreed.

“This is a lot of building on a very small lot,” said Coun. Kyla Knowles. “It doesn’t really activate the pedestrian experience at all.”

The building would stretch nearly lot-line to lot-line with minimal setbacks – 0.6 metres from the eastern edge – raising concerns about shadowing, privacy, and poor transitions to adjacent properties. The site is currently flanked by a townhouse complex and single-detached homes, many of which have recently been built or are designated for lower-scale infill under the city’s official community plan (OCP).

The project’s sheer size was also flagged by Coun. Samantha Agtarap, who said the amount of density on a 40 metre wide lot was “not appropriate.”

Agtarap, who chaired the city land use committee for the application, summed up their committees comments as: “too much density and massing for too little space.”

“It just really doesn’t seem to fit,” she said.

A previous version of the application, submitted in 2023, proposed an all-commercial six-storey building. That proposal attempted to retain a massive red oak tree at the rear of the lot but was ultimately withdrawn. The new proposal reintroduces residential units but eliminates the tree, prompting sharp criticism from multiple councillors.

Staff estimated the oak – now slated for removal to accommodate the underground parkade – may be more than a century old and one of the oldest specimen trees in Port Moody. It became a flashpoint in council’s broader discussion around green space and climate resilience.

“For me, a hard line is that tree,” said Coun. Amy Lubik, noting she liked the previous application better. “When we talk about heritage, we often talk about heritage homes, but that is definitely a heritage tree.”

Lubik and others said the current form runs counter to the city’s goals of enhancing the pedestrian experience along St. Johns Street.

Coun. Haven Lurbiecki noted the units themselves were slightly larger than average, and that she would usually support this type of housing, she said there needs to be better alignment with city guidelines, particularly when it comes to building massing and form.

She took issue with the lack of stepping back the top floors, despite its emphasis in the OCP.

“If this application had like 50 percent three-bedroom units or 50 percent below market, I think my thoughts would be different in terms of trade offs. But I’m not seeing any trade offs here at all,” she said. “Follow our guidelines and our policies and our bylaws and our housing needs and come back – it’s really that simple.”

The developer’s application included six below-market rental units, falling short of the 15 percent minimum typically required under Port Moody’s inclusionary zoning policy. The applicant is requesting an exemption, submitting a financial pro forma arguing the project is not economically viable with more subsidized units. Staff said this claim would require third-party verification, at the developer’s expense.

Knowles noted few of council’s concerns from the previous application were implemented, which she said was “disappointing.”

“I understand the economic constraints being faced by literally everyone right now, but to not even make the smallest effort to include any inclusive or any affordable housing or below market housing in a mixed use residential building is just not going to fly in this day and age.”

However, she added that she appreciated the applicant’s transparency in sharing financial details, and cautioned against treating developers as “Disney movie villains.”

“Community partners that support a lot of the activities and events that we enjoy every day, and they have people to pay, and are a business like any other.”

Coun. Callan Morrison was more open to the design, citing that provincial TOA rules make council’s ability to negotiate more challenging.

He argued that if councillors were unwilling to lose the tree, they needed to be open to more height instead to allow retention of green space.

“(The province) wants housing, and they have made it very, very restrictive on our council and on our community as to what can go in certain areas and what we can push back on,” Morrison said. “They don’t care about the townhouse next door or the old historic building right behind it that has its view being blocked.

“In TOA areas, the neighbourhood context does not matter.”

Knowles noted, however, that she’s heard that six-storey forms are actually more financially feasible under the industry’s current conditions.

City staff had previously advised the developer to assemble a third lot to meet minimum size and frontage requirements under the current zoning. But the developer proceeded with just two lots, resulting in what staff called an “orphaned” parcel next door and a building that fails to meet minimum frontage, density and tree coverage goals.

As the project was brought forward for early input only, no formal votes on the rezoning were taken. The developer will be expected to revise the application before proceeding to first reading.