HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-01-18 Committee of the Whole Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdfDistrict of Maple Ridge
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
AGENDA
January 18, 2010
1:00 P.M.
Council Chamber
Committee of the Whole is the initial venue for review of issues. No voting
takes place on bylaws or resolutions. A decision is made to send an item to
Council for debate and vote or to send an item back to staff for more
information or clarification before proceeding to Council.
Note: If required, there will be a 15-minute break at 3:00 p.m.
Chair. Acting Mayor
1. DELEGATIONS/STAFF PRESENTATIONS - (10 minutes each)
1:00 p.m.
1.1 Maple Ridge Public Library Update
- Caro O'Kennedy
2. PUBLIC WORKS AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Note: Owners and/or Agents of Development Applications maybe permitted
to speak to their applications with a time limit of 10 minutes.
Note: The following items have been numbered to correspond with the Council
Agenda:
1101 RZ/103/08, 28594 104 Avenue, The Miller Residence
Staff report dated January 11, 2010 recommending that Maple Ridge
Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Bylaw
No. 6709-2009 and Maple Ridge Heritage Site Maintenance Standards Bylaw
No. 6710-2009 to conserve the heritage site known as the Miller residence
be given first reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing.
Committee of the Whole Agenda
January 18, 2010
Page 2 of 4.
1102 RZ/085/08, 13260 236 Street, RS-3 and RS-2 to RM-1
Staff report dated January 7, 2010 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone
Amending Bylaw No. 6703-2009 to permit a 51 unit townhouse development
be given first reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing.
1103 RZ/022/09, 23300 and 23400 136 Avenue, RS-3 to RS-1b
Staff report dated January 7, 2010 recommending that Maple Ridge Official
Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6699-2009 and Maple Ridge Zone
Amending Bylaw No. 6700-2009 to permit the subdivision of 21 single family
lots be given first reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing.
1104 RZ/050/06, Development Procedures Amending Bylaw
Staff report dated January 13, 2009 recommending that Maple Ridge
Development Procedures Amending Bylaw No. 6706-2009 to implement
changes to the development process be given first, second and third readings.
1105 DVP/DP/015/08, 11252 Cottonwood Drive
Staff report dated January 4, 2010 recommending that the Corporate Officer
be authorized to sign and seal DVP/015/08 to vary front and interior side
yard setbacks, maximum building height and to allow for retention of an
aboveground utility plant and further that the Corporate Officer be authorized
to sign and seal DP/015/08 to permit 81 townhouse units.
1106 SD/081/09, 12191-228 Street
Staff report dated January 7, 2010 recommending that the Mayor and
Corporate Officer execute the Strata Plan for an 11 unit townhouse
development.
Committee of the Whole Agenda
January 18, 2010
Page 3 of 4
3. FINANCIAL AND CORPORATE SERVICES (including Fire and Police)
1131
4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND RECREATION SERVICES
FIP401
5. CORRESPONDENCE
1171
6. OTHER ISSUES
1181
7. ADJOURNMENT
Committee of the Whole Agenda
January 18, 2010
Page 4 of 4
8. COMMUNITY FORUM
COMMUNITY FORUM
The Community Forum provides the public with an opportunity to ask questions of
Council on items that are of concern to them, with the exception of Public Hearing
by-laws that have not yet reached conclusion.
Council will not tolerate any derogatory remarks directed at Council or staff
members.
Each person will be permitted 2 minutes to speak or ask questions (a second
opportunity is permitted if no one else is sitting in the chairs in front of the
podium). Questions must be directed to the Chair of the meeting and not to the
individual members of Council. The total time for this Forum is limited to 15
m i n utes.
If a question cannot be answered, the speaker will be advised when and how a
response will be given.
Other opportunities are available to address Council including public hearings and
delegations. The public may also make their views known to Council by writing or
via email and by attending open houses, workshops and information meetings.
Serving on an Advisory Committee is an excellent way to have a voice in the future
of this community.
For more information on these opportunities contact:
Clerk's Department at 604-463-5221 or clerks@mapleridge.ca
Mayor and Council at mayorandcouncil@mapleridge.ca
Checked by.
Date: Id
DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
Deep Roots
Greater Heights
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: January 11, 2010
and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/103/08
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W
SUBJECT: First Reading
Maple Ridge Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption
Agreement Bylaw No. 6709-2009 -The Miller Residence at 28594 104 Ave
And Heritage Site Maintenance Standards Bylaw No. 6710-2009
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received to enter into a Heritage Revitalization Agreement to conserve the
historic site known as the Miller residence. The Agreement will vary or supplement the provisions to
the Official Community Plan and Zoning Bylaw in exchange for conservation of this historic site. The
site is located in the Ruskin historic community, which has a Rural Residential designation in the
Official Community Plan. The applicant is requesting the Heritage Revitalization Agreement to
enable the subdivision of the subject site into four lots. The Heritage Revitalization Agreement is a
bylaw prepared by the municipal solicitor in consultation with the B.C. Heritage Branch. It will prevail
over the Official Community Plan designation and Zoning Bylaw and permit one of the lots to be less
than the required minimum lot size of 2.0 hectares.
Included in the Heritage Revitalization Agreement Bylaw are a Municipal Heritage Designation and
Property Tax Exemption, both of which are proposed for one of the four lots that will retain the
majority of the site's heritage value.
A proposed Heritage Site Maintenance Standards Bylaw is a second bylaw attached to this Council
report. Currently, the District does not have such a bylaw and it is intended to provide protected
heritage sites with a standard for maintenance and instructions on when District approval is needed
for alterations.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. That Maple Ridge Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Bylaw
No. 6709-2009 and Maple Ridge Heritage Site Maintenance Standards Bylaw No. 6710-2009
each be given first reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing;
2. That the following terms and conditions be met prior to final reading.
i. Registration of a Rezoning Servicing Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant and receipt
of the deposit of security as outlined in the Agreement;
1101
ii. Registration of a geotechnical report as a Restrictive Covenant which addresses the
suitability of the site for the proposed development;
iii. A Statutory right of way plan and agreement must be registered at the Land Title Office
for a horse trail that extends east off of 104th Ave. along the north property line of the
site;
iv. Construction of the equestrian trail described in item iii above.
V. Road dedication as required;
vi. A Landscaping Restrictive Covenant must be registered at the Land Title Office;
vii. A disclosure statement must be submitted by a Professional Engineer advising
whether there is any evidence of underground fuel storage tanks. If there is evidence,
a site profile pursuant to the Waste Management Act must be provided in accordance
with the regulations.
viii. Pursuant to the Contaminated Site Regulations of the Environmental Management
Act, the subdivider will provide a Site Profile for the subject lands.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Applicant: Coldwell Banker Tri-Tel Realty Stan Pavlov
Owner: Michael R Whieldon
Legal Description: Section: 4, Township: 15, Plan: 13294
OCP:
Existing: Rural Residential
Proposed: Rural Residential
Zoning:
Existing: A-2 (Upland Agricultural)
Proposed: A2 with a Heritage Revitalization Agreement
Surrounding Uses
North: Use:
Single -Family Residential
Zone:
Agriculture (Al and A2 Lots)
Designation
Rural Residential
South: Use:
Residential and Agriculture
Zone:
A-2 (Upland Agricultural)
Designation:
Agriculture and Rural Residential
WA
East: Use:
Zone:
Designation
West: Use:
Zone:
Designation
Existing Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Site Area:
Access:
Servicing:
Companion Applications:
b) Project Description:
Langley Indian Reserve No. 2
None
None
Agriculture
A-2 (Upland Agricultural)
Agriculture and Rural Residential
Single -Family Residential
Heritage Revitalization Agreement and Four Lot
Subdivision into Single -Family Lots
7.823 HA
104th Avenue
Rural
DP/103/08 and SD/103/08
The subject site is the location of two historic places, the Miller residence and the Ball residence
(see Appendix B). Both of these buildings are listed in the Maple Ridge Heritage Inventory and the
Miller residence is also listed on the Maple Ridge Community Heritage Register. The condition of the
two residences differs in that the Miller residence has been fairly well -maintained over the years
(although it is due for some maintenance work) and the condition of the Ball residence has
deteriorated to the point where only the north facing fapade remains. A small house is located
adjacent to the Ball residence fapade, which appears to have been constructed in the 1980's, but it
has no heritage value.
It is believed that the Ball residence was constructed in 1893 or earlier and had it remained intact, it
would be one of the earliest surviving farm houses in Maple Ridge. The Miller residence was
constructed in 1932 by Albert Miller who was a master craftsman living in Ruskin.
Prior to the construction of the Miller residence, the Ball residence property was 160 acres and used
for farming. When Albert Miller purchased the property, it had been subdivided into 130 acres (still
much larger than at present) and although farming continued on the land, it is believed that it was
for domestic and not commercial purposes. After Albert Miller died, the property was transferred to
his heirs and it was subdivided to its current size. At that time the existing landscape, that includes
an orchard, was planted and a chicken coop, sheep barn, and storage shed were constructed.
Most of the internal and external heritage features of the Miller house and accessory buildings are
original and in good condition. In the interior of the house, these features include wood inset and
detailing on the walls, floors, and ceiling and double -hung wood sash windows. For the exterior
fapade, the original features include the late craftsman design, shingle siding, and the large garage
door opening that may have been designed for farm machinery.
-3-
The Proposal
The subject site is designated Rural Residential in the Official Community Plan and zoned A-2
(Upland Agricultural). Under the Rural Residential designation, the applicant has the option to
rezone this 7.8 hectare site to RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential). The site does not have access
to community water and therefore, according to provisions in the Rural Residential section of the
Official Community Plan (Policy 3-7) and the Zoning Bylaw (Schedule D, Item 3), the minimum lot
size requirement is 2.0 hectares. This means that if the applicant chose to rezone to RS-3, it would
then be possible to subdivide the site into a maximum of three single-family lots.
The applicant is proposing to protect the heritage value of the Miller Residence site, in exchange for
the potential to subdivide the site into four single family lots, instead of three. A Heritage
Revitalization Agreement has the authority to provide this flexibility. Because the site is too small to
enable a four lot subdivision under the RS-3 zone, a Heritage Revitalization Agreement is proposed
to create a situation where the applicant benefits from the potential for an extra lot and the
community benefits through the preservation of a valuable heritage site.
The applicant has filed septic system location and details for all four proposed lots with Fraser
Health and provided confirmation of this to the District. A report on water well flow quality and
quantity has also been completed by the consulting engineer and all four proposed wells passed
these tests.
Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Bylaw
The subject proposal aims to vary the existing policy requirements related to lot size and expand
potential uses for the Miller residence (proposed Lot #2), in exchange for the long-term protection of
the Miller residence buildings through a Heritage Revitalization Agreement and Municipal Heritage
Designation. The legal authority for a Heritage Revitalization Agreement is in Section 966 of the
Local Government Act and is a tool used to supersede the provisions of a municipality's existing
land -use bylaws to allow for flexibility in the adaptive use of a heritage site.
The Heritage Revitalization Agreement tool has never been utilized in Maple Ridge before, so the
subject application will be the first. With input from District staff, the District's solicitors prepared
the Heritage Revitalization, Designation, and Tax Exemption Agreement Bylaw. District staff also
worked in close consultation with the applicant and representatives from the B.C. Heritage Branch
on this application.
The Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Bylaw is structured so
that if a four lot subdivision is not approved for this site, the Agreement becomes null and void and
the site will be subject to the existing A-2 (Upland Agricultural) zone. However, if after approval of
the Heritage Revitalization Agreement Bylaw the site is then subdivided into four lots the said bylaw
will be in effect and it will cover all four lots.
Due to the extra density of one single-family lot that is proposed through the Heritage Revitalization
Agreement bylaw, the said bylaw is applied to all four proposed lots. However, the Heritage
Designation and Tax Exemption portions only affect proposed Lot #2 (the Miller residence). Also,
-4-
because a Heritage Revitalization Agreement bylaw may supersede a Zoning bylaw, all four proposed
lots will remain zoned A-2 (Upland Agricultural), but will be subject to the RS-3 (One Family Rural
Residential) regulations with some variances to suit the development proposal and heritage
conservation. So, in essence it is a very similar outcome to an actual rezoning application, except
that it has the power to vary the use and density of a site.
Conservation and Feasibility Plan
A thorough analysis of the site's heritage value, current need of maintenance, and future adaptive
use was undertaken by professionals with expertise in heritage conservation, architecture, and
landscape architecture. The resulting Conservation and Feasibility'Study provides a detailed history
of the site and identifies the existing features that should be restored and preserved to ensure the
most effective protection of the site's heritage value. The Conservation and Feasibility Study is
attached as a schedule to the Heritage Revitalization Agreement to serve as a guide for the
restoration, protection, and adaptive use of the site, with specifics mostly focused on the heritage
value of the Miller Residence.
The proposed subdivision lines are based on the recommendations in the Conservation and
Feasibility Study. The heritage consultants provided comments on how best to protect the cultivated
agricultural landscape that surrounds the Miller residence. This has resulted in Lot #1 being
proposed at 1.8 hectares and Lots #2 (the Miller residence), #3, and #4 being proposed at 2.0
hectares each.
The Conservation and Feasibility Study also identifies the existing forested area on the entire site as
having heritage value and serving as an important backdrop to the Miller residence. A restrictive
covenant will be registered on the property title prior to final reading of this bylaw to protect the
existing forest area and create a forest buffer around the Miller residence. The restrictive covenant
will also require that the cultivated trees and shrubs located on proposed Lot #2 are protected and
maintained over the long-term.
The Ball residence is identified as a significant site feature in the Conservation and Feasibility Study
and it is recommended that it be retained and integrated into new development on proposed Lot #1.
However, this has not been made a requirement in the attached Heritage Revitalization and Tax
Exemption Agreement Bylaw, as there will be some cost and work related to stabilizing and
maintaining the fapade, which will likely not be of any use to the future property owners of proposed
Lot # 1.
Heritage Designation of Miller Residence Site (Proposed Lot #2)
As discussed above, a Municipal Heritage Designation is proposed in the Heritage Revitalization,
Designation and Tax Exemption Agreement Bylaw for the Miller residence site (proposed Lot #2).
Although both the Heritage Revitalization Agreement and the Municipal Heritage Designation provide
full legal protection of the site and a Heritage Alteration Permit is required to make alterations in
both instances, Section 970 1(a) of the Local Government Act only enables municipally designated
sites to follow a Heritage Site Maintenance Standards Bylaw. Such a bylaw sets minimum
I NZ
maintenance standards and identifies what kind of work property owners may undertake without
obtaining a Heritage Alteration Permit from the District.
Currently, Maple Ridge does not have a Heritage Site Maintenance Standards Bylaw in place and a
proposed bylaw is attached to this report for Council consideration. The Heritage Site Maintenance
Standards Bylaw is intended to communicate to heritage property owners the minimum expectation
of ongoing maintenance of a protected historic site. The Bylaw is also intended to provide notice
that a heritage alteration permit is required for building alterations, depending on the extent of work
to be done.
Upon approval of the Heritage Site Maintenance Standards Bylaw, a copy will be mailed to all
property owners of protected historic sites in Maple Ridge.
Tax Exemption Bylaw
Under Section 225(2)(b) of the Community Charter, a municipality may exempt protected heritage
properties from the municipal portion of taxation. It is proposed that upon approval and completion
of a four lot subdivision of the subject site, a five year tax exemption would be granted to the Miller
Residence site (proposed Lot #2), but is not applicable to the other three lots. The tax exemption of
heritage property is not new to the District, with a tax exemption being granted to the former Ruskin
School in exchange for protection of the property.
The former Ruskin School was granted a one (1) year tax exemption, whereas a much longer
exemption is proposed for the Miller residence. The difference between these two historic sites is
that the Miller residence currently retains and will continue to retain most of its heritage character -
defining elements, whereas, the Ruskin has few of these elements left. The specifics of these
differences are as follows:
• A heritage consultant was hired by the applicant to obtain a guide that is sensitive to
the protection of the Miller residence site's character -defining elements and
recommends protecting original elements, such as window casings, the original
fagade siding, and the interior wood elements. This guide will be used for all
Heritage Alteration Permits required for this site and it has been agreed to in the
Heritage Revitalization Agreement that a registered professional monitor alterations
to the site to ensure the work complies with federal and provincial heritage
conservation standards.
• Professional heritage consultants were not utilized for the alterations made to the
Ruskin School and significant changes have been made to the exterior fagade and
the interior. To date, very little research has been undertaken on the history and
character -defining elements of the Ruskin School.
The municipal portion of the Ruskin School property taxes that was forfeited by the District in 2002
amounted to $1300. The municipal portion of the 2009 taxes for the Miller residence is currently
$750 per year.
c) Planning Analysis:
Official Community Plan:
The Official Community Plan contains Rural Residential Policy 3-7 which indicates that where
community water is not available and on -site water is provided, the minimum lot size is 2.0 hectares.
Of the four proposed lots for the subject site, Lot 1 is proposed to be 1.80 hectares. Because a
Heritage Revitalization Agreement has the authority to supersede policies in the Official Community
Plan, it is possible to create the proposed smaller lot size without an amendment to the Official
Community Plan.
The remaining three lots proposed in this Heritage Revitalization Agreement and subsequent
subdivision are consistent with the Official Community Plan at 2.0 hectares each.
Heritage Management:
There are two policies that are supportive of protecting heritage resources through heritage
management tools legislated within the Local Government Act. These policies are as follows:
4-43 The development application review process will include an opportunity to evaluate the
overall impact of proposed development on the heritage characteristics and context of each
historic community or neighbourhood. Conservation guidelines and standards should be
prepared to aid in this evaluation and provide a basis from which recommendations can be
made to Council.
4-44 Maple Ridge will endeavour to use tools available under Provincial legislation more
effectively to strengthen heritage conservation in the District. Other planning tools will also
be utilized where appropriate to establish a comprehensive approach to heritage
management in the District.
Figure 5 of Appendix E in the Official Community Plan shows a public trail proposed to extend
beyond 104th Avenue into the Langley Indian Reserve No. 2 lands, which is located between the
Maple Ridge and Mission municipal boundaries. A letter was sent to the Kwantlen First Nation (who
oversees the Langley Reserve lands) in early September, no response has been received to date.
District staff will continue to pursue this matter with the Kwantlen First Nation. If approval is
received prior to final reading of the subject bylaw, the applicant will be required to construct a horse
trail along the public Right -of -Way to the Langley Indian Reserve lands. If approval is not received
before final reading, the District will retain the Right -of -Way with the intent of continuing to pursue
the matter with the Kwantlen First Nation, but no trail construction will be required at that time.
Zoning Bylaw:
It is stated in the Heritage Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Bylaw that all four proposed
lots will be subject to the requirements under the RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) zone, with the
following exceptions:
-7-
• the minimum lot size requirement of 2.0 hectares, where no community water is
available, be varied to permit a lot size of 1.8 hectares for proposed Lot #1.
• the uses permitted for the Miller residence site, proposed Lot #2, be expanded to
include an artist studio/gallery, a professional office, and/or a bed and breakfast.
The specifics of a Heritage Revitalization Agreement have the power to supersede the Zoning Bylaw,
so there is no need for a Development Variance Permit for the subject site.
Development Permits:
A Natural Features Development Permit is required, due to the significant slopes at the east end of
the site that are greater than 25%.
Development Information Meeting:
A Development Information Meeting was not required, due to the low number of units being
proposed and because there are not any Official Community Plan or Zoning Bylaw amendments
proposed.
d) Citizen/Customer Implications:
Community Heritage Commission
The application for the Heritage Revitalization Agreement was received in June 2009 and the
Community Heritage Commission has been updated on the progress of the proposal since that time.
Members of the Commission are supportive of this application.
e) Interdepartmental Implications:
Engineering Department:
The Engineering Department has commented as follows:
• There is no community water system servicing this property. One of the proposed
lots is less than 2 hectares, but is serviced by an existing well.
• A demolition permit is required prior to removing any existing buildings from the site.
• There are no projects in this area included in Development Cost Charge Bylaw No.
6462-2007.
• An impact analysis on nearby wells may be required.
• This application will require Ministry of Health approval in regard to the provision of
septic tank and fields for each site and also for the provision of wells for each site.
• A horse trail is shown in the Official Community Plan along 1041h Avenue to the
Kwantlen First Nation land to the east of the site.
M
Parks & Leisure Services Department:
The Official Community Plan identifies a continuation of the horse trail route along the north edge
of the site into the Langley Indian Reserve No. 2. A right-of-way for this trail will be secured as a
condition of final reading for the Heritage Revitalization and Tax Exemption Bylaw. The applicant
will be required to construct the horse trail as part of the site development work.
The Parks & Leisure Services Department have identified that after the proposed subdivision is
completed they will be responsible for maintaining the street trees. In the case of this project it is
estimated that there will be an additional four trees which is based on one tree per lot; final
subdivision design will provide exact numbers. The Manager of Parks & Open Space has advised
that the maintenance requirement of $25.00 per new tree will increase their budget requirements
by $100.00.
Licences. Permits & Bylaws De artment:
The Building Department comments are as follows:
• Building will require certification from the Engineer stating the potability of the wells
and the ability to meet minimum flow requirements as outlined in the Building
Bylaw.
• Percolation tests for the septic fields will need to be conducted prior to the issuance
of a Preliminary Letter of Approval for subdivision.
• Comments are required from the Geotechnical Engineer on the location of the septic
fields in relation to the geotechnical setback line for proposed lots 3 and 4.
• Confirmation of subsurface conditions from a Geotechnical Engineer to a minimum
depth of 4.0 metres is required.
• Comments are required from the Geotechnical Engineer on whether or not
additional setbacks are required from a geotechnical setback line (GSL) for the
proposed dwelling units. If additional setbacks are required, this should be
highlighted on the legal plan registered with the restrictive covenant.
• Due to the high water table, slab on grade construction only will be permitted by the
Building Department.
• A Restrictive Covenant for infiltration will need to be registered as a condition of PLA.
The type and design will need to be indicated on the Comprehensive Lot Grading
Plan (CLGP) and be sealed by a Professional Engineer.
f) Environmental Implications:
The site has steep slopes greater than 25% grade at the east end of the site. The proposed
subdivision plan shows a line marking the top of the slope and there is a 15 metre forested buffer
that will be protected through a covenant. Prior to final reading, the applicant will provide an update
to the existing geotechnical report that includes comments on whether or not additional setbacks
are required to those proposed on the subdivision plan.
A stream, known as Painters Brook, has its headwaters south of the subject site. Although it is
located outside of the 50 metre development permit area for watercourses, the Engineering and
Environment sections will review servicing plans to ensure that no contamination or siltation of the
creek occurs.
CONCLUSION:
The Miller residence site is a heritage gem for Maple Ridge in that so much of its original form and
character, both inside and outside the residence, remains intact and in good condition. The
proposed adaptive use of the site will enable expanded residential use of the site, a potential for
new uses for the existing Miller residence, and ongoing protection of the site's heritage value for the
benefit of the current and future residents of Maple Ridge.
If approved, the Heritage Revitalization Agreement will be the first one adopted in Maple Ridge. The
intent of the Heritage Revitalization Agreement is to enable a creative and unique solution to enable
adaptive use of a heritage site, while protecting its heritage character and character defining
elements. It is anticipated the District will continue to use this heritage conservation tool to protect
more heritage sites as the needs of the Maple Ridge community evolve over the lifespan of its older
character buildings.
Prepared by: Asa k l
,, Planner II
proved' ckerit4, MC , MC1P
for lann'
K
Approved by:
Frank Quinn, M
GM: PubNc Wor
`. -4
a
pment Services
Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Ad My nistrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A - Subject Map
Appendix B - Proposed Subdivision Plan
Appendix C - Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement
Bylaw No. 6709-2010
Appendix D - Heritage Site Maintenance Standards Bylaw No. 6710-2010
1.0 -
g
j
- 1I ,.y.
SUBJECT PROPERTY
City of Pitt
Meadows28594 104 AVENUE
CORPORATION OF
THE DISTRICT OF
- I10
- _ MAPLE RIDGE
N District of _
Langley f PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SCALE 1:5,000 � - ' {.,,:-'
--f DATE: Jun 1, 2009 FILE: DP/103/08 BY: PC
0
Q
o Z 'ON anaasGY uoipu/ iGIbUn7
v
4�
1�
®
L
�aaa�S L8Z
,0 o
no
0
I�
o:t
y
d-
1
o'oa g
=--
ssrri
—�1
$
00nr
m
9
a
°
t
$
14
15
90
o
N
r
i 00"O£
V
b
8
0901
8
E d -----
=
- 0081
J
o
t
o�
u
o
^ VOz
i�
OOYI
a
^
O
is
1
�i
y
O
O
q) Ia
�o
m
A?Fvaly, C
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 6709 - 2009
A Bylaw to designate a property as a heritage property under Section 967 of the Local Government
Act and to enter into a Heritage Revitalization Agreement under Section 966 of the Local
Government Act and to grant a Tax Exemption under Section 225 of the Community Charter
WHEREAS the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge considers that the
property located at 28594 1041h Avenue, Maple Ridge, B.C. has heritage value and that certain
portions of and buildings on the property should be designated as protected under section 967 of
the Local Government Act;
AND WHEREAS the District of Maple Ridge and Michael Whieldon wish to enter into a Heritage
Revitalization Agreement for the property;
AND WHEREAS the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge wishes to
exercise its discretion under section 225 of the Community Charter to exempt a portion of the
property from municipal property taxation subject to the terms of an exemption agreement;
AND WHEREAS the District of Maple Ridge has provided notice of a proposed tax exemption bylaw in
accordance with section 227 of the Community Charter•,
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge enacts as
follows:
Citation
1.1 This Bylaw may be cited as "Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption
Agreement Bylaw 6709-2009".
Interpretation
2.1 In this Bylaw, the terms "heritage value", "heritage character" and "alter" have the
corresponding meanings given to them in the Local Government Act.
Heritage Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement
3.1 The District of Maple Ridge enters into a Heritage Revitalization and a Tax Exemption
Agreement (the "Agreement") with the registered owner of the property located at 28594
104th Avenue, Maple Ridge and legally described as PID: 009-797-530, Lot 1, Section 4,
Township 15, New Westminster District, Plan 13294 (the "Property").
3.2 The Mayor and Corporate Officer are authorized on behalf of the District of Maple Ridge
Council to sign and seal the Agreement in the form attached as Appendix "1" to this Bylaw.
3.3 Subject to all of the terms and conditions set out in the Agreement, that portion of the
Property described in the Agreement as "Lot 2" shall be exempt from District property
taxation for a term of five (5) years effective from the date on which the Agreement comes
into force.
Heritage Designation
4.1 Council hereby designates those portions of the Property containing the buildings described
in the Agreement as the "Existing Heritage Buildings" as protected heritage property for the
purposes of section 967 of the Local Government Act of British Columbia.
Exemptions
5.1 The following actions may be undertaken in relation to the Property without first obtaining a
heritage alteration permit from the District:
(a) non-structural renovations or alterations to the interior of a building or structure that
do not affect any protected interior feature or fixture and do not alter the exterior
appearance of the building or structure; and
(b) non-structural normal repairs and maintenance that do not alter the exterior
appearance of a building or structure.
5.2 For the purpose of section 5.1, "normal repairs" means the repair or replacement of
elements, components or finishing materials of a building, structure or protected feature or
fixture, with elements, components or finishing materials that are equivalent to those being
replaced in terms of heritage character, material composition, colour, dimensions and
quality.
READ A FIRST TIME this
READ A SECOND TIME this
day of 2010.
day of , 2010.
PUBLIC HEARING held this day of
READ A THIRD TIME this day of
ADOPTED this day of
PRESIDING MEMBER
, 2010.
, 2010.
, 2010.
CORPORATE OFFICER
APPENDIX "1" - HERITAGE REVITALIZATION AND TAX EXEMPTION AGREEMENT
THIS AGREEMENT dated for reference the 121h day of November, 2009 is
BETWEEN:
MICHAEL REG WHIELDON
P.O. Box 3376
Mission, British Columbia
V2V 415
(the "Owner")
I_1►113
THE CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
11995 Haney Place
Maple Ridge, British Columbia
V2X 6A9
(the "District")
WHEREAS:
A. The Owner is the registered owner in fee simple of the land and all improvements located at
28594 104th Avenue, Maple Ridge, B.C. and legally described as:
PI D: 009-797-530
Lot 1, Section 4, Township 15, New Westminster District, Plan 13294
(the "Land");
There are several buildings currently situated on the Land, all of which are labeled on the
sketch map attached as Schedule "A" to this Agreement;
C. The District and the Owner agree that those existing buildings labeled as "Dwelling",
"Chicken Coop", "Shed 2", "Storage Shed", "Sheep Shed", and "Water House" (collectively,
the "Existing Heritage Buildings") have heritage value and should be conserved but those
buildings labeled as "Original Ball House Fagade", "House Built in 1970", and "Shed 1"
(collectively, the "Existing Non -Heritage Buildings") do not have any heritage value and may
be demolished;
❑. The Owner intends to apply to the Approving Officer for the District for approval to subdivide
the Land into four parcels generally in accordance with the proposed subdivision plan
attached as Schedule "A" to this Agreement (the "Proposed Subdivision Plan");
E. If the Proposed Subdivision Plan is approved, the Existing Heritage Buildings will be situated
on that parcel labeled as "Lot 2" on the Proposed Subdivision Plan;
F. Section 966 of the Local Government Act authorizes a local government to enter into a
Heritage Revitalization Agreement with the owner of a heritage property, and to allow
variations of, and supplements to, the provisions of a bylaw or a permit issued under Part 26
or Part 27 of the Local Government Act;
4
G. Section 225 of the Community Charter authorizes a local government to enter into an
agreement with the owner of eligible heritage property that is to be exempt from municipal
taxation, respecting the extent of the exemption and the conditions on which it is made;
H. The Owner and the District have agreed to enter into this Heritage Revitalization and Tax
Exemption Agreement setting out the terms and conditions by which the heritage value of the
Land and the Existing Heritage Buildings are to be preserved and protected, in return for
specified supplements and variances to District bylaws and the exemption of Lot 2 from
District property taxation for a specified term;
THIS AGREEMENT is evidence that in consideration of the sum of ten dollars ($10.00) now paid by
each party to the other and for other good and valuable consideration (the receipt of which each
party hereby acknowledges) the Owner and the District each covenant with the other as follows:
Condition Precedent
1. This Agreement shall be subject to the satisfaction of the following condition precedent on or
before the date stipulated:
(a) On or before March 1, 2011 the Approving Officer of the District has approved a
subdivision plan in respect of the Land generally in the form of the Proposed
Subdivision Plan and that plan has been deposited in the Land Title Office and fee
simple title has been raised to each of the four new parcels.
This condition precedent is for the benefit of both the Owner and the District and it
cannot be waived.
Nothing in this Agreement commits the Approving Officer to approve the Proposed
Subdivision Plan.
In this Agreement, the defined term "Land" shall mean the four individual parcels
into which the Land is subdivided, unless expressly stated otherwise.
The date on which this condition precedent is satisfied is referred to as the "Effective
Date".
Conservation of the Existing Heritage Buildings
2. The Owner shall, promptly following the Effective Date, commence and complete the
restoration, renovation and conservation of the Existing Heritage Buildings (the "Work") in
accordance with approved plans and specifications set out in the Conservation and
Feasibility Study attached as Schedule "B" to this Agreement (the "Conservation Plans") and,
more particularly, as set out in Stage D: Strategies for Conserving Character Defining
Elements of the Conservation Plans and Stage E: Implementation of Heritage Conservation
Strategies.
3. Prior to commencement of the Work, the Owner shall obtain from the District all necessary
permits and licences, including a heritage alteration permit.
4. The Work shall be done at the Owner's sole expense in accordance with generally accepted
engineering and heritage conservation practices. If any conflict or ambiguity arises in the
interpretation of Schedule "B", the parties agree that the conflict or ambiguity shall be
5
resolved in accordance with the "Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic
Places in Canada", published by Parks Canada in 2003.
5. The Owner shall, at the Owner's sole expense, engage a member of the Architectural Institute
of British Columbia or the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British
Columbia (the "Registered Professional") to oversee the Work and to perform the duties set
out in section 6 of this Agreement.
6, The Owners shall cause the Registered Professional to:
(a) prior to commencement of the Work, provide to the District an executed and sealed
Confirmation of Commitment in the form attached as Schedule "C" to this
Agreement;
(b) erect on the Land and keep erected throughout the course of the Work, a sign of
sufficient size and visibility to effectively notify contractors and tradespersons
entering onto the Land that the Work involves protected heritage property and is
being carried out for heritage conservation purposes;
(c) throughout the course of the Work, effectively oversee the work of all contractors and
tradespersons and inspect all materials leaving and arriving at the site to ensure that
the Work is carried out in accordance with the Conservation Plans;
(d) obtain the District's approval for any changes to the Work, including any amended
permits that may be required;
(e) upon substantial completion of the Work, provide to the District an executed and
sealed Certification of Compliance in the form attached as Schedule "D" to this
Agreement; and
(f) notify the District within one (1) business day if the Registered Professional's
engagement by the Owner is terminated for any reason.
Variations to District's Zoning Bylaw
7. District of Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510, 1985 (the "Zoning Bylaw"), is varied and
supplemented in its application to the Land and the Existing Heritage Buildings in the
manner and to the extent provided in the table attached as Schedule "E" to this Agreement.
Timing of Restoration
8. The Owner shall commence and complete all actions required for the completion of the Work
in accordance with this Agreement within 12 months following the Effective Date.
Heritage Designation
9. The Owner hereby irrevocably agrees to the designation of those portions of the Land
containing the Existing Heritage Buildings as municipal heritage sites in accordance with
section 967 of the Local Government Act, and releases the District from any obligation to
compensate the Owner in any form for any reduction in the market value of the Land or those
portions of the Land that may result from the designation.
6
Ongoing Maintenance
10. Following completion of the Work, the Owner shall maintain the Existing Heritage Buildings
and the Land in good repair in accordance with the maintenance standards set out in Maple
ridge Heritage Site Maintenance Standards Bylaw No. 6710-2009.
Damage to or Destruction of the Existing Heritage Buildings
11. If one or more of the Existing Heritage Buildings is damaged, the Owner shall obtain a
heritage alteration permit and any other necessary permits and licences and, in a timely
manner, shall restore and repair the damaged Existing Heritage Building to the same
condition and appearance that existed before the damage occurred.
12. If, in the opinion of the District, a Existing Heritage Building is completely destroyed and the
Owner wishes to construct a replacement building on the Land, such replacement building
must be constructed in compliance with the Zoning Bylaw, in a style that is acceptable to the
District and substantially similar to that of the destroyed Existing Heritage Building, after
having obtained a heritage alteration permit and all other necessary permits and licences.
13. The Owner shall use its best efforts to commence and complete any repairs to the Existing
Heritage Buildings, or the construction of any replica or replacement buildings, with
reasonable dispatch.
Tax Exemption Conditions
14. The grant of a five (5) year District property tax exemption to the registered owner of that
portion of the Land described as "Lot 2" on the Proposed Subdivision Plan, as set out in
section 2.3 of Heritage Revitalization Agreement and Tax Exemption Bylaw 6709-2009
pursuant to which the District has entered into this Agreement, is subject to the following
conditions:
(a) all items agreed to within this bylaw must be met;
(b) any other fees and charges related to "Lot 2" due to the District of Maple Ridge are
paid in full.
(c) the property owner is not in contravention of any other District of Maple Ridge bylaw.
15. If any condition set out in section 14 above is not met to the satisfaction of the District,
acting reasonably then the Owner mustpay to the District the full amount of tax exemptions
received, plus interest, immediately upon written demand.
Interpretation
16. In this Agreement, "Owner" shall mean the registered owner of the Land or a subsequent
registered owner of the Land, as the context requires or permits.
Conformity with District Bylaws
17. The Owner acknowledges and agrees that, except as expressly varied by this Agreement, any
development or use of the Land, including any construction, restoration and repair of the
Existing Heritage Buildings, must comply with all applicable bylaws of the District.
Heritage Alteration Permits
18. Following completion of the Work in accordance with this Agreement, the Owner shall not
alter the heritage character of the Existing Heritage Buildings, except as permitted by a
heritage alteration permit issued by the District.
Statutory Authority Retained
19. Nothing in this Agreement shall limit, impair, fetter or derogate from the statutory powers of
the District, all of which powers may be exercised by the District from time to time and at any
time to the fullest extent that the District is enabled.
Indemnity
20. The Owner hereby releases, indemnifies and saves the District, its officers, employees,
elected officials, agents and assigns harmless from and against any and all actions, causes
of action, losses, damages, costs, claims, debts and demands whatsoever by any person,
arising out of or in any way due to the existence or effect of any of the restrictions or
requirements in this Agreement, or the breach or non-performance by the Owner of any term
or provision of this Agreement, or by reason of any work or action of the Owner in
performance of its obligations under this Agreement or by reason of any wrongful act or
omission, default, or negligence of the Owner.
21. In no case shall the District be liable or responsible in any way for:
(a) any personal injury, death or consequential damage of any nature whatsoever,
howsoever caused, that be suffered or sustained by the Owner or by any other person
who may be on the Land; or
(b) any loss or damage of any nature whatsoever, howsoever caused to the Land, or any
improvements or personal property thereon belonging to the Owner or to any other
person,
arising directly or indirectly from compliance with the restrictions and requirements in this
Agreement, wrongful or negligent failure or omission to comply with the restrictions and
requirements in this Agreement or refusal, omission or failure of the District to enforce or
require compliance by the Owner with the restrictions or requirements in this Agreement or
with any other term, condition or provision of this Agreement.
No Waiver
22. No restrictions, requirements or other provisions of this Agreement shall be deemed to have
been waived by the District unless a written waiver signed by an officer of the District has
first been obtained, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, no condoning,
excusing or overlooking by the District on previous occasions of any default, nor any previous
written waiver, shall be taken to operate as a waiver by the District of any subsequent default
or in any way defeat or affect the rights and remedies of the District.
Inspection
23. Upon request, the Owner shall advise or cause the Registered Professional to advise the
District's Planning Department of the status of the Work, and, without limiting the District's
power of inspection conferred by statute and in addition to such powers, the District shall be
entitled at all reasonable times and from time to time to enter onto the Land for the purpose
of ensuring that the Owner is fully observing and performing all of the restrictions and
requirements in this Agreement to be observed and performed by the Owner.
Breach of Agreement
24. Without limiting section 15 or any other provision of this Agreement, in the event that the
Owner is in breach of any of its obligations under this Agreement, the Owner agrees that the
variations to the Zoning Bylaw, as described in Schedule "F", shall be of no further effect,
and the otherwise applicable provisions of the Zoning Bylaw respecting the use of the Land,
or the provisions of any replacement bylaw, shall apply.
Notice
25. The District may notify the Owner in writing of any alleged breach of this Agreement and the
Owner shall have thirty (30) days to remedy the breach. In the event of any disagreement by
the Owner as to the existence of a breach, the Owner shall immediately notify the District and
the matter shall be determined by a panel comprising:
(a) the Owner if the Owner is a natural person, or the president of the Owner if the Owner
is a corporation or society, or one of the Owners if the Owners are joint tenants or
tenants in common;
(b) the Mayor of the District; and
(c) a third person selected by the other panel members.
26. The panel shall determine its own procedures to resolve this matter, the determination of the
panel shall be binding on the parties,.and the Owner and the District shall each bear an
equal share of the costs of the third person incurred in the determination of the matter.
Headings
27. The headings in this Agreement are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect the
interpretation of this Agreement or any of its provisions.
Appendices
28. All appendices to this Agreement are incorporated into and form part of this Agreement.
Number and Gender
29. Whenever the singular or masculine or neuter is used in this Agreement, the same shall be
construed to mean the plural or feminine or body corporate where the context so requires.
Successors Bound
30. All restrictions, rights and liabilities herein imposed upon or given to the respective parties
shall extend to and be binding upon their respective heirs, executors, administrators,
successors and assigns.
Severability
31. If any portion of this Agreement is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the invalid
portion shall be severed and the decision that it is invalid shall not affect the validity of the
remainder of this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Owner and the District have executed this Agreement on the dates set
out below.
Signed, Sealed and Delivered by MICHAEL
REG WHIELDON in the presence of:
Name
Address
Occupation
Date
The Corporate Seal of DISTRICT OF MAPLE
RIDGE was hereunto affixed in the presence
of:
Mayor:
Corporate Officer:
Date
MICHAEL REG WHIELDON
C/S
Z 'ON 9AJ9s,9Y URPUI APOUo7
lST'F!
a
N
I
g�
I
I
®
ry
L^
`^J
m
1919aIS za �06'Z
�
r
o
O� 'g
O ❑
N
m
N
I
m
O'OL g
99FF! 8
---
� --�
ooaF
Z
151i6
I
v
q
m
b
=
Ln s
sa
*Of
00
A C.,
W
4 M
qj
° -----
$
�
Q
.,
�..�
12,
{ o g
I U
N
100,81
a
.
A
I m
C�
q3 q
m
U
c
c
w
w
no
x
w
m
a
u
"
c
-
[
c
w
E
w
-
�
Y
�
s
Id
C
C
N
is
N
-
>
�i LL
Ui
41
v
u 'oo
�c �
W
w e
i
O m
" s p s
y
w s
y
cync_b0v
w
;; s , x
d
a
m w a L
v
A u w
_
U
xV
�c
n�ovo
n
i LJ
fA N
. . . . .
idro
{/1
. . .
N
. .
m
V1
C
L
_
_
�
ci
�
C;
y
J
C
J
V
E'
on
�
u
—
E
0
C
Y�
t
Y
V
—
T
—
C
V
� _
_
O V
-
v
_
b0
Y
CL
c
4.7
->
u
vN
U
-
41
Vl
cc
o
vc
-c c
S c
o
cc=
,,
— A •i
Urn
�
a :\.
C
an c
.,.
a
.� r•
L .c
-'
�
a � 2
-
., c
� �
c� °;
•-
,_ Q
(�
Y
� L O
." �l
O N Z
PO
Q �
T � C t ✓
. • . .
T -
bhp O � '
41
. . . .
91
—
v
-
y
a
O
C O
Y
a
�
p
u
v
O
W
V
O
C
L
O
H
b0
m J
17
J W fl
T C
O
v S
O = E U
L V a O
N L
O a o
o
n
L
E
`o E
v �
C
N
C
FE
0
Q �
Ir'yde., V.
u�
ti
- e: Q-
v 3 „N•. v 2
ro c �__
e v_ =
e
0 OD
v+
-
L
.� t`
`
?% C
-
., •sJ' -
c� C
C
'u
i �.n `•- H
'j�
K u p s
'_
Ti �
- .U--
.0 C �%
-O n• C
WU-.° U
C L =� '�
c=
M C 'O L �
rJ
C CJ j
•_
7
� �
�� T
T. - c
-
- O e•
•Cyr
� z p ti ro .e 5
�_• N u
.=
Z
ao
�-
U
O"
S TM m
N C ro
.�•'�
y . � � :w
O _T. �c � -
.w �� �, 'u � �
c V
>
Fz
O C
•V u �'
'O -
N+J N
c�-
O
N y e `-" �
-• ?: C P ° C.
.c
L °
k
._
.�-�
'�
d �'
ID a+ J
C
-
a
7
O C
poC
. = :C
C•
`-° �
v ',r
� �
_ � ;�
r � _
p � c
U y CCL
y
r
ai C �
r
v � O
y e'
c
o.
-_
C
j
c
T-
-
� N
b] y
Q
> O
a
c
g
C
�
I
O•
O O � rt1 C
� �
N
C
T
-n
_
O =+
Y
C
C
y
-
i
E
O
c
L
o y
o E
o
o
a
Q °
cp�
Q
— ° c — 3 -o °
- ° U Y
Q °
—
F 'o
L
—
I
i
I�
N
ICI
�J
_
C
-
_
U—,i Q
T
C
•j
y
ti
m
co
Y
LIT
-
a
U._j
lm
v
im
r-Eris V
mInx
c
°
Imo^
Fy
a
U c
o
a
F= cl
x
V
m
2
C O N —
Y
,.
-
-
er
01
O
0o
C
o
v
C po
T
-
c o
_=
O
29
�—
y
b
e
S o fa
_C •� O
i C.L
Y d, 2
.� _
�J
2 i+ �J �..
Y
_cA r =
Ly V:
VO,
Z C S
U
-
Q C
/)
a
•V
M
u `� i �� •� 2 � i m z p c. ��_ 2 C ti o _
—- p i s -� ,� O y N � �� � 'N •' � v c m b
:Ll
zl
° -- E -- - — '_" ❑ c c mac.•, `�—�� w v
CD
_ n �
7)
_ m ai v occ:✓ - m a� v c 3 a =
75
J h y0 C^ J: n? O o m C
n p = 3 75 ;a .° ❑ y ua. C ai y- ., �✓ E y — >
.-� a oc `� � c `�— -`v c u J 2 eo � .� � _ � w _ : a . _ c ❑ ,� -�
�+ ro cr a =c v u t gib a c3 z
EL
t 6 c ° _ rc wa c- .> Ej
y U o ❑ b° u
i ac_
Ol t v G n T' L r- O T L ti M> QJ C �` C� L =� O -�_
O L
0 c x O? 3 .y a > o s .i o- u E c _ o
6L. — 1' e� �' T c N C E v, c N c v a c cc-n u C
u ° YI L o
O ao C c CS -E
v
> ti ac.z o ucE7—
ti
a
- � o
C ? F
4
a
C
L'
O —
_
k O Y On
-21
C 4J L
a
W u > - �=
c
6 ^ T N a
:L f0
C
U
N
O
a:
— U — S _ � y
-
_
V O c J T
r� t Cox. >
>zi
o
c _ C
C O C
O
,y a +: ^ O' C=� C v `+ U L Y O 1Ci•. N C u
o r
m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ . . . . . .
04
T
v
C = 9 _ v � v u n �'
x
= , J >. c ,. a', c 3
`J O L E d, b
n (, > L5
oac
7' - _ O .�,� ucA ~ O ri' C y �. O v e; _ L =' c sv+ b ;m =
v o '� J 5 c M o o; 0 `0 3 3 0 '�� N ° 3 0 i Y
:a D7 T 'O Gi v n U "C Ll o a;
0 ti c o. S g J O m L
p �_ �, a '^ _ r �-� L C
0 O L �, N O G U x
-c C. c c C N 2 c d o
p C
C O= O +C O `j
N ., s N a O L •� - e^ ^' >- ".`J
zz
C L v y .n C ao C1
'.-_' o c
• 1" ccu
p Of Oo
o c o c c-a v a,
- -
i" O
\
2&7a
#
¥
! �!
)!
}
\
»
``�!
�
-
•
�
4�
•
»t
-.
_�_#
b� ��
_
N
_
t
-
-
ap
-
- -��
n- N
z emu'
- •-
O
r
p
C
i
CC
J
d� �%
o
C
� N c =
U
-nIj
_
r.� -
n
C 9
c
u
ti,Q
- c _ s,^.
-c - �^ - N• c s J itl
'O
-o c
ul
-o +' y
_ `,'
-�19° N__ O
o
. . . .
0.
O
�]
E
i
41
41
V
03
r
r
Slo
GJ -C4-1
-
m
L y C
YY
i
=�
C
C, >
N
cZj
I
- 5
-
O
_
N
N
_
i
c N
i
-
p
-a
�
U X V N
F-,
o e= y c
O
o
' XL, J
�J N� n_
d
�
p
75
C; t
Q
U e•
U:' C' �_
_
rJ Q
m
'-
.p .Y .^a
U
- C7
-c UO
41
Fj
to
m o ti c
s
_
U
•
9
n G
r U -
C-
O
,y N
O
.^� sSyU�u3v
oo�o.�-Vo-c
u C u
ac
ur"� •� o
p c
de
N
c
S 5- ti �. 'o O 'O'�- -
U C
J b
,n v, O S w
n
i
O-� a O
JN �s N O u =n .o JO
J O
O .-; 'O i
u 2 na ra
-C.. u
.>. O•_
-�
m =
L
—
c
231
-
u
Imo.
a,
a—
C%
O O v C
d
C '�
O
C G
O C Y
O
G
a
a
a
m o
E
-
_
72
uu o
o
L a
o
v
O NO
-
-
0
co
r o c �. � -c •�
D
o -
U n 0
�
v .�o
Q a
o '- o ._
lJ C U -_
_ o v o
,� U L U
m
o
L
p d
o m
-
M
G
V-
_ -
M O
m d
-3
v` G L
C
O
N
E
L =
v a
0' b
__
n C•
- _
C
V
G
?
�
=
C �
� L
o >
a0
-
Ni
)
,u
0.
CL
2\[)§\);§
\
)\
\
)\�
\\ 1 \ )(
\\\\ {\
\/
ua"Q LZ
\ )
\ (
z
«
\}\
\\\\\\
\\
\\\\
�2_
a
J uN
n w u
I d
C
O
_
�. n
O,
♦+ .E
pQ u
C oa
in
E
,o
N
L
° c
c
o E
E�
a b
c
ta
.�-
° o c
"X
N
i
2s
O a
«'O o
E
o w
a o
m
m o
o°
--
3
o v
o
o° o 'X
o o
o m
v o
i
i
U m'c
U .= s
a
v
m O v s
U U
o>
U--
U C
a
w
r1 '>
w u
a
°
�
c+i
�
rn
o
o
V
� m
.Qi rai
M
m V
� s
Q
v
Q
v
Q
c
Q
C1
Q
V
s
c
0
c -
C
_
- C
c
F
o
-
-
� c
.n
�I
O
c
C
L
C
c'
C
-
L _
O -
>O =
Y
a
i d
� _ O
_u
�b
o
c--
�
_—
O
=
u= O c r a
9
C
-
_
V
k
10 Cp
a
—
9
L
u =O w
•-
E c
-
m p
`o'
—
E oOu
--
A
_ _
c '^ p
_ _
„
❑ O � _ a v
� a�
c m
O
—
cO'
Q _uo
U O L
u u
- u „>
u o
w° u .0 A
2 b
u `O
O
c
E
E
p
O
E
v O
�I
Q
M
a e
v
o -
—
-
c s
_'v
c
— O —
_
_
cN
= o
L
_
c
O
v �
n
-
7 N
_
C1 —
O
a m =
0
-
O
O
C
O
c
�
O
-
y
s
_
O O
—
2 p
O Cl
O i
�N
> 4
O
-
O
OU
_
U
o
v C O
_
uo�
-
uw
-
_
'
•,
O`
C�
i 0 0 `u' O N
C W .c
c0 G
� .n , _-
ti� � L:
_ O Q
cO
U `o �', U
a
w o
U$
V o` C o
:� o= .`
U
u n
w O 0
U
L'
a
'o
-
-
K Q Q
m
m
N
N
N
N
4
N
a
V
O
1 C
-
c
= P
LF
r
0 0
�
N
� o
71
=
L
L C
is
L
N
Jl
C p
G �
C
d
L 5o
Cr
y C
'm v
a�
4)
e
m
E
i
P
L
0
o.
0
a
0
00
O
O
'�O
E o
O Y U
O
u
o w d0
° G
a
2o r
;
3 E r 0
°°
L
_
00 p" >o
.o
eo z
o m v-_=
c o
-
oo d o
w v
c E m
t' c
m L
_—
v° Y m
o
a
--
L v
o
LL w .v
E
3- o=
o
o
-
a
o
O
O
O
u0
U .� i=—
ui U °u a s c
U v .°c
U o C] U
U O
�
y
v
l;
y
l7
m r¢i
m
m M
M
_
�
N
C
Q
M
-
c
L.
i
C
O
-
`o
S
i
G
o
L
O
-
_ O
_
O y
�
- Q um-
L
C
_
c
m
a
—
_
ET
O� O r
O v2'+ O O
h
N VI
C
N
N N
_
Q
C
- _
TJ W
= OL
n -
cl
c �
—
-
— - -
-
V
_
U
Z+
m
-
L
5
C
_
�
A
_Y
c
a.
AID
v a
O (Q
v �
W (A
—
ilk
m
v
ho
v
�
p
v
u
O
> o
0
O
3 �
j
� u
a 3
O a
�
H
O
2 c
v. O
td
C
L
a
N i
O
V >
d
O
O
n
0
—
t
3
`° o S Y
o-
L
O Y c °
c °
ro
a
�—
CO O CO
'_'' d
V � 3
N
C
C
•M
1
i
41
O
(`d
W
i
A�
W
04
to
i.+
.T�
l
O
c
c�
4J
4)
C.
E
W
tw
Cd
u
u
y
y
_
C
C L
O
1.
C
s c
-
- v
c
c
c
o
_
O
O
C
> c
Iy1
Y
z
O
i
O
3
O
3�
O C,
O _°
C
z-
O
C C
-
- C -
u c
° y
_0
y N
y
O Q O
'U
O
.>
c o;.
c
r
Cc
,-
y
C
--
O
y
b
u
p
nn
- o
V
—
Q ti C
1
ra
S
z
t "
o
_—
y —
c
'5o
y �
Q
= O u
w- j
C' -
V a
—
N
M
\
\\
\\
\\
\
o
-
2£
(
\\\\}I\\
\�\_`/
\\\
\�
ne
*21So
I
,
32:
a
/`
s
-
sti
�
Z u
_ Z
p >
p >
L
7.W
L F.
N
N'
_
c
p
—
— c
c
c-
c
c
c
c
o
o
Fd
-
u
o
v
_
_
l
v
°
3 15
— -
rt
Ei
p •_
O .-
.0
F-
^
V
Z fl' by .- Z
i
2
l O
_
-
- — -
m
L
�'
�
C
.CS' C
a'
L•
C
c
O
C
O
c
c
c
_
-
J p
O p
O
O
GJ
2 C
U r
L J
C
n
Y
n y
N �C
G O
G
—
r
c
3 �
S
O m
O ti
0
O h
O
O ti
O A
N
—
Y
_
-
{
r
LE
C
C
C
Q
G
C:
b U
-
`4 • -
c
-
- O
G s
U
L
^_
—
�
L —
`'
:y:
O
Y
O
115
Lo
—
Ci
..-
�
C
J
N
—
� O d
'w -
❑
�
_
2
-
Y
Y
-
L C
G -
N
L
-
-
H
J
a
o
a
c
J
G
o
G
G
00
N
a
CJ
J
Y
N
W
Y
CJ
9J
4:
U
O
O
0
0
0
-
—
O
�
o
u
Y
Y
tb
J
7
Y:
U 2ly
L
Y
^ .+
p
c
v
—
--
y
o N u
�
alb
� c _
C
Y
.fl
ar
c
—
\
\
\
\k\
2
\\
\
\
\\
\
\ \
\ \
\
\ \
\_L
\
\/\\
\
\
\
\
}\ } \ \
\
-
y
)
-
\-
\I%^;
SCHEDULE C
CONFIRMATION OF COMMITMENT BY OWNER
AND COORDINATING REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL
This letter must be submitted before issuance of a Heritage Alteration Permit or a building permit.
To: THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
(the authority having jurisdiction)
Re: THE MILLER RESIDENCE
Address
Legal Description
The undersigned has retained as a coordinating
registered professional with experience in heritage conservation to coordinate the design work and field
reviews of the registered professionals required' for this heritage project. The coordinating registered
professional shall coordinate the design work and field reviews of the registered professional required for
the project in order to ascertain that the design will substantially comply with the Miller Property
Conservation and Feasibility Study, the Standards and Guidelines.for the Conservation of Historic
Places in Canada, the B.C. Building Code, and other applicable enactments respecting safety, not
including the construction safety aspects.
For this project, field reviews are defined as those reviews of the work:
a) at a project site of a development to which a Heritage Alteration Permit relates, and
b) at fabrication location where building components are made that will replace
deteriorated materials identified as character -defining elements for this project.
That a registered professional in his or her professional discretion considers necessary to ascertain
whether the work substantially complies in all material respects with the plans and supporting documents
prepared by the registered professional and with the Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax
Exemption Agreement Bylaw No. 6709-2009, for which the Heritage Alteration Permit is issued.
The owner and the coordinating registered professional have read the Miller Property Conservation and
Feasibility Study and the Standards and Guidelines for the Conservation of Historic Places in Canada.
The owner and the coordinating registered professional each acknowledge their responsibility to notify
the addressee of this letter of the date the coordinating registered professional ceases to be retained by the
owner before the date that the coordinating registered professional ceases to be retained or, if that is not
possible, then as soon as possible. The coordinating registered professional acknowledges the
responsibility to notify the addressee of this letter of the date a registered professional ceases to be
retained before the date the registered professional ceases to be retained or, if that is not possible, then as
soon as possible.
It is the responsibility of the coordinating registered professional to ascertain which registered professionals are
required.
The owner and the coordinating registered professional understand that where the coordinating registered
professional or a registered professional ceases to be retained at any time during construction, work on
the above project will cease until such time as:
a) a new coordinating registered professional or registered professional, as the case may
be, is retained, and
b) a new letter in the form set out in Schedule C in the Heritage Designation and
Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Bylaw No. 6709-2009, is filled with the
authority having jurisdiction.
The undersigned coordinating registered professional certifies that he or she is a registered professional
as defined in the British Columbia Building Code, who also has experience with heritage conservation
projects and agrees to coordinate the design work and field reviews of the registered professionals
required for the project as outlined in the attached plans and specifications.
Coordinating Registered Professional Owner
Name (Please Print)
Address
Phone
(Prtrli':,�410nal's 5r111 and Signouirk r
Date
Name (Please Print)
Address
Name of Agent or Signing Office (if applicable)
Date
Owner's or Owners appointed agent's signature (if owner is a
corporation the signature of a signing officer must be given
here. if the signature is that of the agent, a copy of the
document that appoints the agent must be attached.)
(if the coordinating registered professional is a member of a firm, please complete the following)
I am a member of the firm and I sign this
letter on behalf of the firni.
SCHEDULE D
CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE
This letter must be submitted after substantial completion of the project but prior to
final inspection by the authority having jurisdiction.
TO: THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
(the authority having jurisdiction)
RE•
Discipline (e.g. Architectural, Engineering etc.) (Print)
Name of Project (Print)
Address of Project (Print)
Legal Description of Project (Print)
(Each registered professional shall complete the following:
Name (Print)
Address (Print)
Phone
I hereby give assurance that:
Date
Prs�l'rss.inn7.l". Seal and Sigiiawm
a) I have fulfilled my obligations for field review as outlined in Section 6 of the Heritage
Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement Bylaw No. 6709-2009 and the
attached Schedule C, Confinnation of Commitment by Owner.
b) 1 am a registered professional as defined in the British Columbia Building Code.
(if the registered professional is a member of a firm, complete the following:)
I am a member of the firm and I sign this letter on
behalf of the firm.
SCHEDULE E
VARIATIONS TO
THE MAPLE RIDGE ZONING BYLAW NO.3510-1985
PERMITTED THROUGH
HERITAGE DESIGNATION AND REVITALIZATION
AND TAX EXEMPTION AGREEMENT
BYLAW NO. 6709-2009
The variances identified in this Schedule E to the Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax
Exemption Agreement Bylaw No. 6709-2009 apply to and only to those lands within the District of
Maple Ridge described below and any and all buildings, structures, and other development thereon:
PID: 009-797-530
Lot 1, Section 4, Township 15, New Westminster District, Plan 13294
Through the Heritage Revitalization Agreement, the RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) zone
regulations shall apply to the property noted above, with the following exceptions:
Part 6 Residential Zones, 601, A, Pennitted Uses of Land, Buildings, and Structures,
shall be amended as follows:
o The uses for Lot #2 (as shown on the attached plan) will be expanded to include
an artist studio/gallery, a professional office, and/or a bed and breakfast.
• Schedule "D", item 2, shall be amended as follows:
o Where a community water system, as defined in the Zoning Bylaw, is not
provided upon subdivision, the minimum lot size for the Lot #1 (as shown on the
attached plan) shall be not less than 1.79 hectares. .
These variations to the Zoning Bylaw will be permitted upon full execution and subsequent registration
in the Land Title Office of the Heritage Designation and Revitalization and Tax Exemption Agreement
Bylaw 6709-2009.
/�?? wy� �yl' ,�\
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 6710 - 2009
A bylaw to establish minimum maintenance standards for protected heritage properties
WHEREAS, pursuant to section 970 of the Local Government Act, Council may establish minimum
standards for the maintenance of real property that is designated as protected by a heritage
designation bylaw, or within a heritage conservation area;
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge enacts as
follows:
Citation
1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Heritage Maintenance Standards Bylaw No.
6710 - 2009".
Definitions
2. In this Bylaw:
(a) graffiti has the meaning set out in District of Maple Ridge Regulation of Untidy and
Unsightly Premises Bylaw No. 6533, 2007, as amended;
(b) heritage alteration permit means a permit issued under section 972 of the Local
Government Act (British Columbia);
(c) heritage property means real property located in the District of Maple Ridge that is:
(i) designated as protected by a heritage designation bylaw; or
(ii) within a heritage conservation area,
and includes buildings, structures and other improvements affixed to the land;
(d) heritage revitalization agreement means an agreement made under section 966 of
the Local Government Act (British Columbia).
Purpose
3. A heritage property requires a reasonable level of maintenance to be effectively retained.
The purpose of these maintenance standards is to ensure that significant deterioration does
not jeopardize the life of a building.
Owner's Responsibility
4. The maintenance of a heritage property is the responsibility of the owner. The owner may
need to obtain a heritage alteration permit, building permit or other approval from the
District, depending on the extent and type of maintenance work to be done.
Pagel of 3
Maintenance of Heritage Property
5. Every owner of a heritage property shall maintain the property in good repair. Every owner of
heritage property shall preserve all original exterior and interior materials of that property
until such time as a material has deteriorated to the point where it can no longer serve its
purpose. When replacement of a deteriorated material is necessary, the owner shall replace
that material with another material that is the same or very similar to the original material in
type, form, texture, size, colour, and method of installation.
6. Upon completion by the owner of any work required in a heritage revitalization agreement,
the owner shall maintain that work to the conservation standards set out in the heritage
revitalization agreement.
Weather and Infestation
Every owner of a heritage property shall maintain the property so as to reasonably prevent, or
effectively retard, damage from the elements. This includes, but is not limited to, preventing
water penetration and excessive damage to materials from wind, sun and infestations.
Exterior Finish Materials
8. Every owner of a heritage property shall maintain every building on the property as necessary
to protect exterior finish materials, and shall ensure that new exterior colours and colour
placements are in keeping with the period and style of the building.
9. Every owner of a heritage property shall remove graffiti using removal techniques that
minimize damage to exterior finish materials.
Structural Integrity
10. Every owner of a heritage property shall maintain all buildings located on the property and
their structural members in good repair and in a manner that provides sufficient structural
integrity so as to sustain safely the weight of the building and any additional loads and
influences to which it may be subjected through normal use.
Extended Periods of Disuse
11. Any building located on a heritage property that is left unoccupied for 15 to 45 days shall be
secured by the owner at all points of entry to minimize the potential for vandalism and theft,
and the owner or a person known to the owner shall check on the property at least every 3
days.
12. Any building located on heritage property that is left unoccupied for 46 days or longer shall
be secured by the owner at all points of entry and the owner shall post a sign (available free
of charge from the District Planning Department) on the property that reads as follows:
PROTECTED HERITAGE SITE
No Vandalism or Removal of Materials
Maximum Individual Penalty: $50,000 and 2 years imprisonment
Page 2 of'3
In addition to the above, when a heritage property is left unoccupied for 46 days or longer,
the owner shall ensure that all windows are covered to prevent window breakage and other
acts of vandalism, to the satisfaction of the Maple Ridge Fire Chief and the Manager of
Building Services.
Enforcement
13. Failure by an owner to comply with these minimum maintenance standards for heritage
properties may result in an application by the District to the Supreme Court of British
Columbia for compliance or restoration under Section 979 of the Local Government Act
(British Columbia).
14. Every person who violates or contravenes any provision of this bylaw or who suffers, permits
or causes any act or thing to be done in contravention of any provision of this bylaw, is guilty
of an offence punishable on summary conviction and is liable to a fine not exceeding
$2,000. Every day a violation continues is deemed to be a separate offence.
Severability
15. If any section of this Bylaw is held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such
invalidity shall not affect the remaining portions of the Bylaw.
READ A FIRST TIME this day of 2010.
READ A SECOND TIME this day of 2010.
READ A THIRD TIME this day of 2010.
ADOPTED this day of 2010.
PRESIDING MEMBER
CORPORATE OFFICER
Page 3 of 3
i
DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
Deep Roots
Greater Heights
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: January 7, 2010
and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/085/08
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W
SUBJECT: First Reading
Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No.6703-2009
13260 236 Street
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received to rezone the subject property from RS-3 (One Family Rural
Residential) and RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential), to
permit an approximate 51 unit townhouse development. This application is in compliance with the
Silver Valley Area Plan of the Official Community Plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6703-2009 be given first reading and be forwarded to Public
Hearing; and
2. That the following terms and conditions be met prior to final reading.
i. Registration of a Rezoning Servicing Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant and receipt
of the deposit of security as outlined in the Agreement;
ii. Registration of a geotechnical report as a Restrictive Covenant which addresses the
suitability of the site for the proposed development;
iii. Road dedication as required;
iv. Removal of the existing buildings and structures;
V. Registration of a Restrictive Covenant protecting the Visitor Parking.
Id6*140.3aLei A
a) Background Context:
Applicant: Wilson Chang, MAIBC
Owner: Amarjit S Samra
Surinder K Dhanoa, Surinder S Dhillon
1102
Legal Description:
Lot: 21, Section: 28, Township: 12, Plan: 47603
OCP:
Existing:
Medium High Density Residential
Zoning:
Existing:
RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential),
RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential)
Proposed:
RM-1(Townhouse Residential)
Surrounding Uses
North:
Use:
Single Family Residential
Zone:
R-1(Residential District)
Designation
Medium / High Density Residential
South:
Use:
Single Family Residential
Zone:
RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential)
Designation:
Medium / High Density Residential
East:
Use:
Single Family Residential
Zone:
RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential)
RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation:
Medium / High Density Residential
West:
Use:
Single Family Residential
Zone:
RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential)
RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation:
Medium / High Density Residential
Existing Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Access:
Servicing:
Site Area:
Companion Applications:
b) Project Description:
Single Family Residential
Multi -Family Residential
236 Street
Full Urban
1.221 HA (3 ac)
DP/085/08
The site is approximately 3 acres in size. The applicant is requesting to rezone the entire property
from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) and RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to RM-1
(Townhouse Residential) to permit the development of approximately 51 townhouses. Access to the
proposed townhouse site is at the southern end of the site off 236 Street. The access has been
designed as a separated double access to ensure that vehicles can enter and exit the complex at
the same time without interference from each other.
-2-
The townhouse complex has been designed with duplex units facing 133 Avenue to respect the
single family development across the street. Each street facing unit has a pedestrian pathway from
the street to the front door, and garages at the rear, to maintain a consistent streetscape. Housing
blocks of 4 face 236 Street, with more dense blocks of 5 units internal to the development. All
townhouse units have been designed with a double garage which meets the parking standards of
the Maple Ridge Off -Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350 - 1990. This project is also
required to have 11 visitor parking spaces and 12 visitor stalls have been incorporated into the
project design. To meet the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) zoning regulations, the project is also
proposing a large common activity area in the centre of the development with children's playground
equipment.
c) Planning Analysis:
Official Community Plan:
The development site is within the Silver Valley Area Plan which forms part of the Official Community
Plan. The subject property is located just outside of the 400m defined "River Village" hamlet
boundary which is intended to be the main Commercial centre in the Silver Valley Plan. The property
is designated Conservation and Medium/High Density Residential. The RM-1 (Townhouse
Residential) zone positively correlates with this designation. The RM-1 (Townhouse Residential)
zone also provides a transition in density between the single family developments to the north, to
the more dense developments intended for the hamlet centre.
Zoning Bylaw:
The proponent will require a development variance permit for the development as proposed.
Variances necessary to support the development include a reduction to the required setbacks for
the primary building face along the front and exterior side road frontages for consistency with the
lots across the street, interior side setback to allow for the exterior patio areas, and to increase the
building height allowed under the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) zone. These variances will be
outlined in a future report to Council.
Development Permits:
This development is subject to a Multi -Family Residential Development Permit as outlined in section
8.7 of the Official Community Plan. Accordingly, prior to the issuance of a building permit, the
Development Permit must be reviewed and approved. The purpose of a Multi -Family Residential
Development Permit is to enhance existing neighbourhoods with compatible housing styles that
meet diverse needs and minimize potential conflicts on neighbouring land uses. An application for
the Development Permit has been received. Adherence of this project to the guidelines of this
permit will be provided for Council in a future report.
-3-
Advisory Design Panel:
This application was originally presented to ADP at the April 14, 2009 meeting. The applicants at
that time had requested a preliminary review by ADP and discussion to guide them towards evolving
a more detailed design scheme.
The final design was brought back to the Advisory Design Panel at the October 13, 2009 regular
meeting at which time the Design Panel supported the application. A few suggestions were made to
enhance the project which the applicant has received and will respond to in the Development Permit
drawings. The Development Permit will be the subject of a future Council Report.
Development Information Meeting:
A development information meeting on Wednesday, January 6, 2010 at Yennadon School Library
was held by the developer and representatives from the builder. As per Council Policy 6.20,
invitations were mailed to qualifying property owners, advertisements were placed in the local paper
and a notice was attached to the development sign on site. Twenty-four (24) people signed in on
the attendance sheet and four comment sheets. The Development Information Meeting summary
provided by the applicant is attached as Appendix D. Additional concerns expressed were:
• The address on the sign is incorrect
The address on the sign has been confirmed as being correct
• There is insufficient off -site services to support further density
A rezoning servicing agreement is a requirement of final reading to bring all required off
site -services up to current bylaw standards, including curb, gutter, sidewalk and street
lighting.
• Provision of multi -use trails
The OCP outlines that an East-West connection for a multi -use trail is on 132 Avenue, one
block south of the proposed project.
• Density is too high for neighbourhood
The proposed RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) zoning respects the Silver Valley Area plan
and provides a transition in density from single family to the north and the hamlet centre to
the southwest.
d) Interdepartmental Implications:
Engineering De artment:
The Engineering Department has identified that all of the services required in support of the
rezoning do not exist to the site. It will, therefore, be necessary for the applicant to enter into a
Rezoning Development Agreement and post the required security to complete the necessary works
prior to final reading.
1EAZ
Parks & Leisure Services Department:
The Parks & Leisure Services Department have identified that after the subdivision is completed
they will be responsible for maintaining the street trees. In the case of this project it is estimated
that there will be additional trees added to the street tree inventory. The Manager of Parks & Open
Space has advised that there is maintenance requirement of $25.00 per new tree which will affect
their operating budget.
Fire Department:
The Fire Department has no concerns with this development proposal and is supportive of the
separated double access.
CONCLUSION:
The development proposal is in compliance with the land use designation of the Silver Valley Area
Plan. It is therefore recommended that first reading be given Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw no.
6703-2009 and it be forwarded to Public Hearing.
AL
Prepared by. J sikos
tis ping Technician
L\
App oved : J Pick g, CP, MCIP
Director oOlanNng
Approved by: F nk Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
M: Public Works & D pment Services
Concurrence: J L. (Jim) Rule
hief Administrative Officer
JC/dp
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A - Subject Map
Appendix B - Zone Amending Bylaw 6703-2009
Appendix C - Site Plan
Appendix D - Development Information Meeting Summary
WE
f
1 �2 �3
SUBJECT PROPERTY
RP 1804A
15218
Rem. Pd. G
A
Appendix A
19 11 1°
a
^' 20 10 e
04- py i u
ti
v
15
1
J
�6
�A 21 rL
G
G�,� ,gyp$
9
1�
133;
M 22
yF
8 g .
133
12
23.
@
ry� 7
el
y 24
18
8
�6
,y
25 7 ^�
tiA
133
10
a
� 4p
A�
p27 S, 5
p
�
1 9
c 4
133
9
17 ryP �yE
2
Y� $9 }
� 4
23137
133
16
Ftl43
3
8
15
P 30
3
23741
7
14 112
31
Ys'+"�
2
4374
23743
13
23887
1
a 63
$ 5 8 9 f)
11 ..
z3eAi
2
23745
J 133
5
N Fv'
W
Z3697 33
2:f7�B
7
23747
3
4 13:
133 AVE
r--
District of d
Pitt Meadows 13260 236 STREET
- � 'r �Silver Valley + j
' - I CORPORATION OF
t5f
THE DISTRICT OF
N — L MAPLE RIDGE
<INna
District of � -� l _ _ .� l• PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Langley jZ
SCALE 1:2,500 ^ =
Tn-._ DATE: Sep 18, 2008 FILE: RZ/085/08 BY: PC
Appendix B
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 6703-2009
A Bylaw to amend Map "A" forming part
of Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended.
WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -
1985 as amended;
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple
Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6703-2009."
2. That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as:
Lot 21 Section 28 Township 12 Plan 47603 New Westminster District.
and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1467 a copy of which is attached hereto
and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby rezoned to RM-1(Townhouse Residential)
3. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended and Map "A" attached
thereto are hereby amended accordingly.
READ a first time the day of , A.D. 200.
PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , A.D. 200.
READ a second time the day of , A.D. 200.
READ a third time the day of , A.D. 200.
RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of
PRESIDING MEMBER
, A.D. 200.
CORPORATE OFFICER
n
5 en
IJ370 Ln
o_ nc 05 1 Q C
a
` 10�y06 �P/
15
49
�*Sb g20 ��1 9
21 \ I � �10 9
oo
73360 a
3
56 122 LIPa 1�� 8 ��
9 ' 2
\
5� 23 g9 ,g 7
zz►sa
18 ��y5' ti 4Z�1 � 6
BCS 1577
yak 4 25 \ 7 �1N
ti9 �b� hg 2 6 1 ��
13336/40
�� 5�5
17
4
I
I �� �ySB ��F ��b �y1 �� ?`a31a
p373�
16 � n3 .>2 ;� 2T�
3
�b� 6
61
15 ov 11 q3. 351� 30 3
23741 i
14 13 12 a Z 3 i \ 2373
2
23742
23741
8 11 2s6t�7 2
5�6h7�, 9 0 h 32
i
73741
3 1
Z.i743
RP 1804A
133 AVE.
16
Rem. Pd. C
1,484 he
PARK
Ilk
�
h
O
h
21
I3245
B P 48925
38
39
P 47603 1.214 he.
P 4078
1.222 he.
0.785 ha.
0.785 he.
13260 M 23
24
I 0.845 ha.
1,205 he.
35
P 4
603
32
33
N 0.429 he. I3227
N
* PP159
0.429 he.
cV
22
20
13215
0.405 he.
0.405 he.
o_ 34
�
N h
ti
'PP157
ti
h
0.429 he.
N
ti
A
0.809 he.
h
N ry ry
_77—
b O
n
U P 2637 ti ti
Rem 1
MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING
Bylaw No. 6703-2009
Map No. 1467
From: RS-3(One Family Rural Residential)
and RS-2(One Family Suburban Residential)
To: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential)
1:2500
Appendix C
t[54
E
W
m
LU
�y4@§
V Qa rLL
LL W 0
��
N W
g 5
N
girt
BYSbE£ 3 _ -
3AV ES _
i --- — - cq-,Z6b] w£1 69 - -- - -- _�
r [3 Lr toti] wsrc��, i v DtI'�srxri WF6T
in,
��N I
71
I
'4s�•.,hY1 I ' �� II - lid: �' fYP'' �.� � � r,
_ - -
W OR
OI9
N - " 'a `' w
\, illLot] ViOL"i
ro rr7n w F
z
GOZ]
� +g
it
`� rN7VA1 r �,OOI] W94'OL j.S-,44] N29'll Ls-,9C] w90'lt �+
9C] WSO'll ].S $"], Wa l'll l 5-,9L N '9
LOW w6£ 92
101
RZ/085/08 Townhouse Development
13260 236 Street, Maple Ridge
Appendix D
Wilson Chang Architect Inc. MAIBC
architecture + online collaboration hypertects.com
t 604.630.9488
f 604.630.9487
To: Planning Department, District of Maple Ridge
Re: Development Information Meeting for 13260 236 Street
January 7th, 2010
DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION MEETING SUMMARY, RZ/085/08
A development information meeting was held at the Yennadon Elementary, 23347 - 128th Avenue,
Maple Ridge on Wednesday, January 6, 2010 from 6 pm to 8.30 pm regarding the residential
development at 13260 236 St, Maple Ridge, File #: RZ/08S/08.
The meeting was attended by a group of approximately 30 people of which 24 signed in the attached
attendance list.
Wilson Chang and Peter Martin from Wilson Chang Architect opened the meeting welcoming the
attendees. Wilson encouraged the people to sign in the provided attendance list and fill out the
provided comments sheets. Mr. Chang continued with a presentation of the proposed development
including project analysis, neighbourhood context, and site planning and building design. After the
presentation the attendees were encouraged to express their comments and concerns on the
proposed development. One goal is to create a Whistler Village -like townhouse development that
people can safely walk within the community.
The major comments and concerns:
1. The proposed density is too high.
Wilsons Respond: The project follows Maple Ridges Official Community Plan.
2. Existing infrastructure is not enough to support the additional population.
Wilsons Respond: The project and its future residence generate more tax dollars for City and
therefore provide opportunities for better infrastructure and facilities.
3. Effect to existing lifestyle related to proposed building types, street parking, and crime
Wilsons Respond: Through better construction (stone and timber) and planning (park space,
separated safe pedestrian access), the project encourages quality density. Density can be a
solution to many social issues, the key lies in its quality.
Page 01 Development Information Meeting summary
Wilson Chang Architect Inc. MAIBC
Deep Roots DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
Greater Heights
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: January 07, 2010
and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/022/09
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W
SUBJECT: First Reading
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6699-2009
Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6700-2009
23300 and 23400 136 Avenue
y:4*8111111kTJ:&1111uM l_11.0
An application has been received to rezone the subject property from RS-3 (One Family Rural
Residential) to RS-1b (One Family Urban -Medium Density Residential), to permit the subdivision of
21 single family lots.
This application requires an Official Community Plan amendment to Schedule "C" to define the
conservation boundary of the North Alouette River and an amendment to Figures 2 & 4 of the Silver
Valley Land Use Plan to change the designated open space pockets.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. That Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6699-2009 be given first
reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing;
2. That in accordance with Section 879 of the Local Government Act opportunity for early
and on -going consultation has been provided by way of posting Official Community Plan
Amending Bylaw No. 6699-2009 on the municipal website and requiring that the applicant
host a Development Information Meeting, and Council considers it unnecessary to provide
any further consultation opportunities, except by way of holding a public hearing on the
bylaw;
3. That Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6699-2009 be considered
in conjunction with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Waste Management Plan;
4. That it be confirmed that Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6699-
2009 is consistent with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Waste Management Plan;
5. That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6700-2009 be given first reading and be forwarded to
Public Hearing; and
6. That the following terms and conditions be met prior to final reading.
1103
Registration of a Rezoning Servicing Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant and receipt
of the deposit of security as outlined in the Agreement;
ii. Amendment to Schedule "C" of the Official Community Plan;
iii. Amendment to Part VI A of the Silver Valley Figure 2 Land Use Plan and Part VI A of
the Silver Valley Figure 4-Trails/ Open Space Plan and Part VI A of the Silver Valley
Figure 5-Transportation network Plan;
iv. Registration of a Geotechnical Report as a Restrictive Covenant which addresses the
suitability of the site for the proposed development;
V. Registration of a Restrictive Covenant which addresses recommendations to mitigate
wild fire hazards for the proposed development;
vi. Registration of a No -Build/ No -Disturb Restrictive Covenant on the rear yards of all the
newly created lots, including all the lands on the eastern edge forming part of Lot 21;
vii. A Statutory right of way plan and agreement for the Equestrian/ Horse Trail must be
registered at the Land Title Office:
viii. Consolidation of the development site;
ix. Road dedication as required;
X. Park dedication as required, including construction of walkways and Equestrian/
Horse Trail.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Applicant: David Laird of Damax Consultants Ltd
Owner: Progressive Construction Ltd
Legal Description: Lot: 3; Sec: 28; TP: 12; NWD Plan: 2409; PID: 000-
490-911 and Lot: 4; Sec: 28; TP: 12; NWD Plan:
2409; PID:000-490-890
OCP:
Existing: Low Density Residential, Conservation and Open
Space
Proposed: Medium Density Residential
Zoning:
Existing: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Proposed: RS-1b (One Family Urban Residential -Medium
Density)
-2-
Surrounding Uses
North: Use: Road and Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation Low Density Residential, Conservation, Park and Open
Space
South: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: CD-1-99 (Comprehensive Development)
Designation: Low & Medium Density Residential, Conservation
and Open Space
East: Use: Vacant (District owned lands)
Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation: Low Density Residential and Open Space
West: Use: North Alouette River and Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation: Conservation, Open Space and Eco Clusters
Existing Use of Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Site Area: 6.087 Hectares (15.04 acres)
Access: Balsam Street (to be built with approval of subdivision
on the south through SD/001/09)
Servicing: Full Urban
Companion Applications: SD/022/09 and DP/022/09 (Watercourse Protection
Development Permit)
b) Site and Project Description:
The subject site consists of two vacant lots located south of 136th Avenue in the Silver Valley area
and will require consolidation. The North Alouette River flows along the western boundary of the
property. In general the site slopes down from east to west with steeper grades on the eastern and
western edges of the property. Due to these steep sloped areas the rear yards of all the lots will
have a "No -Build & No -Disturb Covenant". 21 single family lots in the RS-1b (One Family Urban
Residential -Medium Density) zone have been proposed. Access to the proposed single family
subdivision is through Balsam Street to be extended through a subdivision proposed on the south of
subject sites, expected to be completed soon. This street generally bisects the property into the
eastern upper lots and the western lower lots. The majority of the site has deciduous and coniferous
trees and a substantial part (3.66 hectares) is proposed to be dedicated as "Park" to protect these.
An unofficially existing Equestrian Trail runs west of the proposed lots 1-9 connecting the property
on the south and 136th Avenue on the north. The applicant has agreed to register a Statutory Right -
Of -Way document and plan to permit continued use of this trail by the Haney Horsemen, until the
park dedication plan has been registered.
-3-
The applicant has submitted a preliminary Geotechnical Report dated January 30, 2009 by Valley
Geotechnical Engineering Services Ltd; an Environmental Assessment Report dated February 26,
2009 by Golder Associates; an Arborist Report dated March 26, 2009 by Arbotech Consulting Ltd;
Wild Fire Management Plan reports dated August 26 and November 09, 2009 by Diamond Head
Consulting Ltd. The Geotechnical and Environmental setbacks have been established and the
reports conclude that the proposed site is safe for the development of 21 single family lots.
c) Planning Analysis:
Official Community Plan:
The development site is within the Silver Valley Area Plan which forms part of the Official Community
Plan. The development of Silver Valley is based on principles associated with achieving a complete
community with good pedestrian linkages. Within the Silver Valley Area Plan, the subject site falls
outside the Forest Hamlet (east of 236th Street) and is designated "Conservation", "Low Density
Residential" and "Open Space". The proposed single family designation lines up with the Official
Community Plan designation and the proposal in general must comply with the Silver Valley Area
Plan policies. Some of the development principles outlined in the Official Community Plan that
support this proposal are stated below:
Principle 3.2.2 of the Silver Area Plan states the following:
• Plan for a linked park and open space system that responds to recreational needs of the
community and visitors;
• Maximize the multiple use of trails and greenway corridors by providing for and
accommodating all users and patterns of use
• Promote patterns and forms of development that allow for retention of existing mature trees
and vegetation;
• Maintain or improve fish habitat through an adaptive approach to establishing creek buffers;
The subject sites have small pockets designated as "Open Space" in the Silver Valley Area Land Use
Plan. Open spaces in the Silver Valley Area Plan are meant to be linked through developments to
form a network of greenways throughout Silver Valley. Specific to this site, the open space
requirement will be satisfied through a dedication of up to 60% of the land area for park with a
multi -purpose trail facilitating pedestrian and equestrian linkage through the site. Part VI A of the
Silver Valley Figure 2- Land Use Plan and Part VI A of the Silver Valley Figure 4-Trails/ Open Space
Plan will need to be amended to reflect this. Part VI A of the Silver Valley Figure 5-Transportation
network Plan will need to be amended to reflect the proposed road network changes.
The environmentally sensitive area around North Alouette River will be protected to retain existing
mature ,vegetated areas and improve habitat through park dedication. An amendment to
Schedule "C" of the Official Community Plan is required to define the conservation boundary of
the North Alouette River.
IZE
Zoning Bylaw:
The RS-1b (One Family Urban Residential - Medium Density) zone requires a minimum lot area of
557 m2; a minimum lot width of 15 metres and a minimum lot depth of 27 metres. The proposed 21
single family lots are greater than 557 m2 and comply with the minimum width and, depth required
for each lot.
Proposed variances:
Any rezoning application is expected to upgrade all off -site servicing including roads. Particular to the
location of this site, the 1361h Avenue segment north of the subject sites is anticipated to remain an
unopened road due to the existing excessive grades. A variance has been proposed to retain 136th
Avenue in the current condition.
A variance to the front yard setbacks of all the proposed lot has been requested. The required front
yard setback for the RS-1b (One Family Urban Residential - Medium Density) zone is 6.0 metres and
the proposed setback is 4.0 metres. The setback variance has been requested to allow for a
pedestrian -friendly streetscape and to resolve grading concerns in the rear yards. This request will
be the subject of a later report.
Development Permits:
Due to its proximity to the North Alouette River and due to the existing topography, this application
will be subject to a Watercourse Protection Development Permit.
Advisory Design Panel:
This proposal is not required to be reviewed by the Advisory Design Panel.
Development Information Meetin_:
On November 17, 2009 the applicant and team of consultants held the "Development Information
Meeting" at the Yennadon Elementary School at 23347 128th Avenue from 4:45 p.m. to 6:45 p.m.
As per Council Policy 6.20, invitations were mailed to qualifying property owners, advertisements
were placed in the local paper and a notice was attached to the development sign on site. All the
proposed drawings and the Silver Valley Area Plan were displayed for all interested residents. This
meeting was attended by approximately 20 people with the following comments:
• Representatives from the Haney Horsemen attended the meeting and had questions about
the Horse Trail upgrading and connection through this site to 136th Avenue. The applicant
confirmed that a Statutory Right -of Way document for the Horse Trail connection will be
registered on title as an interim measure until park dedication occurs, as the Horse Trail will
be within the dedicated "park" area. The Haney Horsemen are in support of this proposal
which will facilitate a well built trail connection through the subject site.
WE
• Some questions were raised about tree protection and the applicant explained that only
trees within the roadway and developed portions of the lot will be removed and that a
substantial portion of the subject site will be dedicated as "park" with re -vegetation and
enhancement works. It was suggested by a participant that evergreen trees instead of
deciduous trees should be planted along the roadways. The applicant suggested that there
could be root damage problems affecting the driveways and sidewalks hence a better
solution may be to plant evergreen trees within the newly created lots.
• Some residents were concerned with the impact of flooding due to increased run off from
this project. The applicant confirmed that each proposed lot will have an Infiltration
Covenant registered on title and a Storm Water Management Plan worked out prior to
subdivision approval.
• Some questions were raised about the connectivity of surrounding lands such as the
proposed development on the south and the District -owned lands on the North and East of
subject sites and the over-all future traffic generated.
• There appeared to be no major objections for the proposal; attendees were pleased to note
that this application will provide an Equestrian Trail connection and park area. The meeting
ended at the scheduled time.
d) Interdepartmental Implications:
En ineerina Department:
The Engineering Department reviewed the proposal and determined that all the required off -site
services do not exist. The deficient services which are required to be provided through a Rezoning
Servicing Agreement include the following: All off -site upgrades including road upgrades, sidewalk,
sanitary sewer, storm sewer, water main, street trees, etc. Road dedication of the triangular road -
right -of -way at the southeast corner of the site is required for the 136th connector.
Parks & Leisure Services Department:
The Parks & Leisure Services Department have identified that after the subdivision is completed
they will be responsible for maintaining the street trees. In the case of this project total number of
street trees will be estimated at the final subdivision design stage. The Manager of Parks & Open
Space has advised that the maintenance requirement of $25.00 per new tree will increase their
budget requirements. The Equestrian Trail right-of-way plan has been reviewed by the Parks &
Leisure Services Department staff and they support it.
Fire Department:
Several policies in the Official Community Plan emphasize the importance of maintaining safe and
secure communities through fire protection. Policy 4-26 states "Maple Ridge will continue to provide
fire protection services to maintain a safe and secure community, in accordance with the Fire
Department Master Plan". The details of both the Fire Management System and the Fire Protection
Plan were presented to Council in June 2007, and Council adopted the recommendations contained
within the plan in principle, pending a detailed implementation plan. Policy 5-18 states "Maple Ridge
will review the issues concerning forest fire interface areas, flooding, slope stability and other
M
hazards and will consider developing or revising regulations and guidelines for development within
these areas". A report on implementation process is anticipated to be presented to Council for
approval in the near future. In the interim, all developments within the wild fire hazard area will be
required to implement mitigation measures to minimize fire spread through a restrictive covenant.
Policy 5-19 of the Official Community Plan states "The following should be considered in evaluating
development to minimize forest interface hazards: a) the siting of development and construction
practices that will not contribute to forest fire risk exposure in forest interface areas; b) the selection
of appropriate building materials and maintenance practices that will minimize contribution to the
spread of fire; c) the use of landscaping that minimizes contribution to the spread of fire". The
subject site is identified within the wild fire hazard area and needs to consider mitigation measures
to minimize fire spread. Based on the above mentioned Official Community Plan policies a "Wild Fire
Management Plan study report" has been submitted for this site. The intent of the report is to
assess interface fuels in the wildfire hazard areas; to recommend site -specific fuel treatments and
suppression capabilities and to recommend suitable building and landscape materials that will
minimize the wildfire hazards.
The Fire Department has reviewed the proposal along with the preliminary Wild Fire Management
Plan report and recommends that appropriate measures be implemented to reduce wild fire risk. A
restrictive covenant will be registered on title as stated under recommended conditions prior to final
reading and will deal with siting, building materials and landscaping.
e) Intergovernmental Issues:
Local Government Act:
An amendment to the Official Community Plan requires the local government to consult with any
affected parties and to adopt related bylaws in compliance with the procedures outlined in Section
882 of the Act. The amendment required for this application, is considered to be minor in nature. It
has been determined that no additional consultation beyond existing procedures is required,
including referrals to the Board of the Regional District, the Council of an adjacent municipality, First
Nations, the School District or agencies of the Federal and Provincial Governments.
The amendment has been reviewed with the Financial Plan/Capital Plan and the Waste
Management Plan of the Greater Vancouver Regional District and determined to have no impact.
f) Environmental Implications:
Approximately 60% of the land will be dedicated as park for conservation purposes. A Watercourse
Protection Development Permit will be required for this proposal which will include enhancement,
restoration and re -vegetation work within the setback areas. An "Enhancement and Protection
Agreement" outlining refundable securities to complete works and maintenance for 5 years will be
registered on title prior to approval of the Watercourse Protection Development Permit. The final
subdivision plan will be approved upon registration of the Watercourse Protection Development
Permit on title.
-7-
CONCLUSION:
The proposal is for a single family neighbourhood surrounded by conservation area and good
pedestrian connectivity through the multi -purpose trial. It promises adequate restoration and
enhancement works including dedication of 60% of the land as "park" and a north -south Equestrian
Trail connection from the property on the south of subject sites. It fits well with the neighbourhood
and complies with the policies of the Silver Valley Area Plan of promoting complete neighbourhoods
with good pedestrian linkages.
It is recommended that this application proceed to Council for First Reading and Public Hearing
subject to conditions noted above.
kW44�__
Prepared by: Rasika Ac arya, B-Arch, M-Tech, UD, LEED® AP
Planner —
Approved Jan ickerin P, MCIP
L- De r Plan g
r
Approved by: F nk Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
M.. Public Works & Development Services
Concurrence: J. L. (#rm) Rule
ChieflAdministrative Officer
RA/d p
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A - Subject Map
Appendix B - OCP Amending Bylaw 6699-2009
Appendix C - Zone Amending Bylaw 6700-2009
Appendix D - Proposed Subdivision Plan
Appendix A
N 200' 9 1 l I
it 3
a
T?
a
P 26077
29
' �■� Ifll
Sc�L: jy'Zill�gl:1=�
District•
-•
Lany
SCALE et
136 AVE.
P 2409 P 2409
3
SUBJECT PROPERTIES
26
j
LMP41
P 20636 LMP 45 B
- - — PAR
_ I
J 23300 & 23400 136 AVENUE
o CORPORATION OF
Gt5' THE DISTRICT OF
MAPLE RIDGE
I i
• PLANNING DEPARTMENT
r ,r
DATE: Apr 30, 2009 FILE: VP/022/09 BY: PC
TASER R. �[
Appendix B
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 6699-2009
A Bylaw to amend the Official Community Plan
WHEREAS Section 882 of the Local Government Act provides that the Council may revise the Official
Community Plan;
AND WHEREAS it is deemed desirable to amend Section 10.3 Part IV - Silver Valley Area Plan,
Figures 2, 3B and 4 of the Official Community Plan;
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, in open
meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending
Bylaw No. 6699-2009
2. Figures 2 and 3B are hereby amended for those parcels or tracts of land and premises
known and described as:
Lot 3 Section 28 Township 12 Plan 2409 New Westminster District.
And Lot 4 Section 28 Township 12 Plan 2409 New Westminster District.
and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 787, a copy of which is attached hereto and
forms part of this Bylaw, are hereby redesignated as shown.
3. Figure 4 is hereby amended for those parcels or tracts of land and premises known and
described as:
Lot 3 Section 28 Township 12 Plan 2409 New Westminster District.
And Lot 4 Section 28 Township 12 Plan 2409 New Westminster District.
and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 788, a copy of which is attached hereto and
forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby amended by adding Conservation.
4. Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No.6425-2006 is hereby amended accordingly.
READ A FIRST TIME the day of , A.D. 200.
PUBLIC HEARING HELD the day of , A.D. 200.
READ A SECOND TIME the day of , A.D. 200.
READ A THIRD TIME the day of , A.D. 200.
RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of A.D. 200.
MAYOR
CORPORATE OFFICER
Aped ix f s
MAPLE RIDGE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDING
Bylaw No. 6699-2009
Map No. 787
From: Low Density Urban, Open Space and Conservation
To: Z�2 Conservation Med/High Density Residential
N. 200' 9
n 3
.930 ha.
0
0 2.023 ha. 2.023
r EP 79495
136 AVE.
P 2409 P 2409
3 � � 4 5
cD 3.921 ha.
2.023 ha. 2.023 h
u7
0_
f003 1
PA
LM
1.720 ha.
BCP 42355
PARK
P 26077 26 0.619 ha.
MAPLE RIDGE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDING
Bylaw No. 6699-2009
Map No. 788
PURPOSE: TO ADD TO CONSERVATION ON FIGURE 4
1:2500
Appendix C
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 6700-2009
A Bylaw to amend Map "A" forming part
of Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended.
WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -
1985 as amended;
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple
Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6700-2009."
2. Those parcels or tract s of land and premises known and described as:
Lot 3 Section 28 Township 12 Plan 2409 New Westminster District.
And Lot 4 Section 28 Township 12 Plan 2409 New Westminster District.
and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1465 a copy of which is attached hereto
and forms part of this Bylaw, are hereby rezoned to RS-1b (One Family Urban
(Medium Density) Residential)
3. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended and Map "A" attached
thereto are hereby amended accordingly.
READ a first time the day of , A.D. 200.
PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , A.D. 200.
READ a second time the day of , A.D. 200.
READ a third time the day of , A.D. 200.
APPROVED by the Minister of Transportation this day of , A.D. 200.
RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 200.
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
A-F?044X tc
MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING
Bylaw No_ 6700-2009
Map No. 1465
From: RS-3(One Family Rural Residential)
To:
RS-1 b(One Family Urban(medium density) Residential)
1 :2500
Appendix D
Qa
�. ... ......... ....... ..
..rr
s
xr
$ Balsam Street a
I
■ -FSy
7
r
a�
o
0
2
o <�e
2
_/ Ryas
i
VI
Deep Roots
Greater Heights
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: January 13, 2010
and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/050/06
Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Committee of the Whole
Maple Ridge Development Procedures Amending Bylaw No. 6706-2009
Council Action Item out of October 2009 Development Process Review Reports
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This report follows up on two reports presented to Council in October of 2009 outlining options and
recommendations of implementing changes to the current development procedures that have been
in place since November of 2007. On October 13th, 2009 Council passed the following resolution
directing changes to the current process: "That staff be directed to prepare the necessary
implementation steps with respect to Options 2 and 3 in the staff report dated September 30, 2009
for Councils consideration; and further that any changes made to the development process, through
the implementation of Options 2 and 3, be reviewed within one year of adoption".
This report provides the legislative changes required to implement Council's direction. In addition, it
would be prudent to consider a minor change to Council's policy for Development Information
Meetings to require the ads placed in local papers by applicants to be a minimum size for easy
recognition by the public. Finally a new Council policy in handling permit landscape securities to
reduce the security currently required. This change will allow monies for completed works to be
released at an earlier date.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That Maple Ridge Development Procedures Amending Bylaw No. 6706-2009 be given
first, second and third readings.
2. That the existing clause 8 of Council Policy No. 6.20 - Development Information
Meetings, be deleted entirely and replaced by an amended Clause 8 as follows:
"The notice of the Development Information Meeting must be published in at
least 2 consecutive issues of a local newspaper, the last publication to appear
not less than 3 and not more than 10 days before the meeting. The notice
must be a minimum 9 cm X 12 cm (3 inches X 4 inches) in size and include a
property location map, the civic address of the property under application, the
date, time and location of the Development Information Meeting, and a contact
number for the applicant and the Planning Department".
3. That Appendix B "Landscape Security Policy" be adopted.
1104
Background:
On October 1311, 2009 Council directed staff to begin work on implementing Options 2 and 3 of the
staff report dated September 3011 2009. Option 2 related to Council's desire to lessen the amount
of detailed information that is required at first reading of an amending bylaw. The September 2009
report outlined the current development process and suggested the changes listed below that were
subsequently endorsed by Council: namely,
1. an application be received and processed with preliminary information as outlined in a
checklist;
2. at first reading a report be prepared for consideration by COW and forwarded to the next
available Council meeting;
3. Council would review the application; approve or deny first reading and if approved direct
that the next level of detail of information be required before the application could go to
second reading and public hearing;
4. The application remains at this level until the applicant has fulfilled the information
requirements and can be referred to public hearing. It was suggested a time limit be placed
on how long an application could remain at this level in order to ensure relevance of the
proposal to community and Council goals.
Option 3 of the September report related to a return to the COW format of earlier years where each
application is presented at the COW meeting in a manner that allows for responses to questions of
clarification and encourages the applicant to be engaged in representing his or her application to
Council.
DISCUSSION:
1. AMENDMENT OF THE ❑EVELOPMENT PROCEDURES BYLAW 5879-1999
Bylaw Amendments:
On October 13t", 2009 Council endorsed the decision to amend the Development Procedures Bylaw
No. 5879-1999. The intent was to introduce an option for applicants to proceed to Council for
consideration earlier and with limited information and minimal expense. This change will impact on
how the Planning, Engineering and Clerk's Departments organize and conduct business and will
require changes to the District's Amanda record keeping and process management system.
The amended Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999 is attached as Appendix "A" and has
been changed as follows:
• Section 3 "Applications", Subsection (3) has been modified to reference a new Schedule "I"
(Rezoning Application for Bylaw First Reading Only). This change allows the new process to
be implemented and outlines the initial limited submission requirements;
• Section 3 "Applications", Sub -section (4) has been modified to allow consideration of first
reading to a zoning amendment bylaw with reduced information but not permitting the bylaw
-2-
to proceed to second reading until all of the normal applications and requirements as
outlined in Schedules "A" to "H" of the bylaw are received and fully assessed;
• Section 10 "Inactive Applications", Sub -section (ii) has been modified to, place a time limit on
how long an application can sit at first reading without fulfilling the obligation to provide
Council with the supporting applications and documentation as outlined in Schedules "A" to
"H" of the bylaw. The intent is to ensure applications move ahead in a timely manner once
Council has given its initial support. In order to minimize the backlog of applications, and
ensure applications remain current, a six (6) month time period from the date of first reading
for the applicant to complete the full submission requirements is recommended. After that
period, the application will be closed.
Application Process:
If the changes are adopted, an applicant will have the opportunity to either submit all of the
applications for a project simultaneously with all supporting documentation or submit only the
rezoning application with enough information to consider the OCP and zoning/land use issues.
Regardless of the application path taken by an applicant, all rezoning applications will proceed to
first reading as soon as possible. This will ensure all applicants are treated equally at the initial
stages. However, once first reading is granted to a bylaw, the processing path of an application will
diverge:
• Complete applications will proceed immediately through the normal evaluation/referral
process as exists today;
• Applications submitted under the new Schedule "I" will receive a letter confirming first
reading and detailing the information and applications necessary to proceed to second
reading. (This information required is outlined in Schedules "A" to "H" of the Development
Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999, where applicable.)
It is important to note that the bylaw(s) considered at first reading will now be preliminary and very
likely in need of revision at second reading once additional information is submitted and fully
analyzed. The submission of full application materials after first reading will necessitate a second
report and presentation to COW and Council. These reports will look and feel like the current COW
reports with conditions spelled out for bylaw approval, bylaw boundaries fixed and a public hearing
date set. The Courts have made it clear that all information pertaining to an application, including
background studies, must be made available to the public for scrutiny before a public hearing
occurs. Failing to do this would leave an amending bylaw vulnerable to legal challenge.
Once this bylaw amendment is adopted, future applicants will be made aware of the changes to the
rezoning process. They will be free to decide which process suits their needs best. For those
applications currently in the system, they will continue to be processed as normal as they have
already have provided all the information required.
-3-
Implications of Modified Process:
The Planning, Engineering, and Clerks Departments can expect some changes to their processes for
handling bylaws and referrals as a result of the new process. One of the most apparent changes is
that 2 reports will need to be presented for Council consideration instead of one and that will require
more attendance at COW meetings for applicants. Although the changes outlined are coordinated
by the Planning Department, cooperation and flexibility of other departments is essential to
successfully implement the changes throughout the development approval process. Of critical
concern will be the likely numerous bylaw alterations between first and second reading that will have
to be coordinated between the various key departments.
2. REVITALIZATION OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE:
Some discussion has occurred that the Committee of the Whole (COW) format was not fulfilling
Council's need of being informed and being able to ask questions and seeking information directly
from applicants and their consultants. The current process involves a presentation about how the
proposals meet or differ from Council's current bylaws and objectives and represents an opportunity
for applicants to present to Council. With relative ease the COW process has been altered to make it
more informal and more responsive to Council's needs. Each applicant is requested to be present
at the COW meetings with their primary consultant(s) prepared to speak to Council. This gives
Council greater opportunity to engage with the applicant and applicants to present their proposals.
This leads to better informed discussion and give Council the opportunity to look at details and raise
particular points of concern.
While levels of information will vary, developers, professional consultants, and realtors should be
expected to participate in the COW meeting when requested. Staff will continue to make a short
project related presentation as a lead into the fuller discussion. In discussions with applicants it has
been determined that the majority are satisfied with the staff presentation and some prefer to
simply be present at the COW meeting to respond to questions if required.
While items 3 and 4 were not part of the September 2009 report, they are minor items related to the
development process that require Council consideration.
3. LANDSCAPE SECURITY POLICY REQUIRED
No policy currently exists to deal with taking and returning landscape securities for development
projects. In 1990 Council endorsed the practice of taking 2.5% of the total construction value of a
project as a security to ensure the project gets completed as per the Development Permit. This
practice has proven to be a burden for some applicants who find it difficult to finance a sum that is
usually significantly higher than strictly the landscape component of a project. Most municipalities
require a permit security to reflect only the provisioning of the landscape component of a project.
They also generally release 90% of the security upon satisfactory instillation and completion of the
works as certified by a coordinating professional such as a landscape architect. The remaining
security of 10% should be held for an additional year to ensure the plant material survives a
reasonable period of time. It is recommended that a new Council policy relating to the taking and
releasing of Landscaping security be approved as shown in Appendix B.
i!
4. REVISION TO DEVELOPMENT INFORMATION MEETING POLICY 6.20
The current Council Policy 6.20 for Development Information Meetings (DIM) does not specify a size
requirement for the ads used to notify the public of an upcoming DIM in their neighbourhood. Some
applicants have placed DIM notices as small as one square inch (3 cm X 3 cm) in the classified
sections of the newspapers. Since the purpose of the ads is to inform the public of an upcoming
meeting they should be easy to see and recognize. Since the purpose of the meeting is to foster
communication and interaction between areas residents and the applicant, it would be prudent to
amend the existing policy to stipulate an ad must be a minimum 9 cm X 12 cm (3 inches X 4 inches)
in size and contain a location map of the subject property. Currently, the cost of such an ad is
approximately $200.00 to $400.00.
CONCLUSION:
Council has directed staff to prepare bylaw amendments to the current development process which
will allow applicants the opportunity to appear before Council with limited information. A process to
accomplish this is proposed within the confines of the existing Development Procedures Bylaw No.
5879-1999 and ensures applications are dealt with in a professional and complete manner. It is
expected that some applicants will proceed with full application submissions while others may
choose a quick first reading option with background and supporting documentations to be provided
prior to second reading. This process will again be reviewed for effectiveness with Council in the
latter part of 2010. Two other development process changes, related to DIM ads and landscape
securities, should also be implemented to improve efficiencies.
Prepared by: Charles R. G=elopment
d, BA MA
Manager of and Environmental Services
Approv�g Officer
App ved ane Pick�g;` MCIP
Dire of ann'
Approved by. F ank Quinn
GM:1blic /97 and qevoprnent Services
Concurrence: J.L. (J4{nj Rule
Chief; Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A - Development Procedures Amending Bylaw 6706-2009
Appendix B - Draft Landscape Security Council Policy
-5-
Appendix A
DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO.6706-2009
A Bylaw to amend Maple Ridge Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999 as amended.
WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Development Procedures Bylaw
No. 5879-1999 as amended;
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, in
open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Development Procedures Amending Bylaw
No.6706-2009.
2. Section 3, Application, clause (3) shall be deleted and amended with the following;
Applications for amendments or permits will not be considered complete until:
(i) all the necessary attachments identified in "Schedules "A-H as applicable" have been
provided to the Planning Department; or
(ii) all the necessary attachments identified in Schedule I - "Rezoning Application for
Bylaw First Reading Only" have been provided to the Planning Department; or
(iii) the applicant has received a written statement from the Director of Planning varying
an alternative application process and submission requirements are acceptable.
3. Section 3, Application, clause (5) is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:
Notwithstanding subsection (4) above, amendment applications will be accepted for
residential, commercial, industrial and institutional zones when all necessary attachments
identified in Schedule I - "Rezoning Application for Bylaw First Reading Only" are provided
to the Planning Department. These amendment applications, however, will not be
advanced to second reading until all accompanying applications outlined in section (4) are
received, complete with all the necessary attachments identified in Schedules A-H as
applicable.
4. Section 3, Application shall be amended by the addition of Clause (6) as follows:
Notwithstanding subsection (4) and (5) above, staff may recommend an alternative
development process to Council for applications covering large areas of land,
involving multiple sites and land uses and which are intended to be developed in
phases over time.
5. Section 5, Process shall be amended by deleting the word "Current".
6. Inactive Rezoning Applications, Clause 10 shall be amended by replacing the word
"rezoning" in the first line, with "Amendment", and by adding the following after item (i)
(ii) Where an application has been granted first reading, the applicant must provide all of
the required information outlined in the staff reported noted in Section 3 (4) and all
of the necessary applications and background material outlined in Schedules A-H as
applicable, within 6 months of the date of receiving first reading. Failure to do so will
result in the application being closed without notice.
7. New Schedule "I" as attached is hereby added after Schedules A - H.
S. Maple Ridge Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879 - 1999 as amended is hereby
amended accordingly.
READ a first time the day of A.D. 200.
READ a second time the day of , A.D. 200.
READ a third time the day of A.D. 200.
RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of A.D. 200.
MAYOR CORPORATE OFFICER
Attached: Schedule "I"
MAPLE RIDGE
British Columbia
DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Development Application Submission Checklist
Schedule I
REZONING APPLICATION (For Bylaw First Reading Only)
Applications for bylaw amendments to first reading are to be made to the Planning Department, and
must include the following:
1. A completed application form with the prescribed fee;
2. A Certificate of Title and a Consent Form (if the applicant is different from the owner shown on
the certificate of title) plus copies of any restrictive covenant documents registered against title
to the lands;
3. A Site Profile;
4. A written statement describing the proposal or amendment including an assessment as to
consistency of the proposal with Official Community Plan policies and guidelines;
Additional information may also be required as follows:
5. A metric scaled preliminary site plan sufficient in detail to demonstrate what is being
proposedon the site, compliance with the Zoning Bylaw and any development permit guidelines.
All variances must be clearly notes.
I
I
cmam
Deep Roots
Greater Heights
Title: LANDSCAPE SECURITY POLICY
Authority: x Legislative ❑ Operational
Approval: x Council
Policy Statement:
❑ CMT
❑ General Manager
Appendix B
POLICY MANUAL
Policy No:
Supersedes: Nil
Effective Date: January 26, 2010
Review Date: February 2011
That with respect to landscape securities, be it resolved that the policy take effect when approved
by Council.
1. For any application involving the taking of landscape securities, the applicant shall provide
security in the amount of 100% of the landscape cost estimate prior to issuance of the
permit.
2. The landscape cost estimate must be provided by a Landscape Architect or Coordinating
Professional. Where the landscaping is specifically related to watercourse enhancement
and restoration works, a Landscape Architect and/or an Environmental Consultant is
required.
3. The following standards for landscaping are imposed:
+ All landscaping works and planting materials shall be provided in accordance with
the landscape plan and specifications;
• All planting material provided shall be able to survive for a period of one (1) year
from the date of the District receiving the L-3 Inspection Report from the
Landscape Architect, Coordinating Professional or Environmental Consultant.
4. As a condition of issuance of any permit, the District of Maple Ridge will hold the security
set out below to ensure satisfactory provision of landscaping in accordance with the terms
of the permit and any plans attached.
• The applicant shall complete the landscaping works required by the permit prior to
occupancy permit being issued by the Manager of Inspections or by his/her
designate;
• A condition of the posting of the security is that should the applicant fail to carry out
the works as outlined in the permit, the District of Maple Ridge may use the security
to complete these works by its servants, agents or contractors, and any surplus
Page 1 of 3 Policy
paid to the Applicant;
• If the applicant fails to carry out the works as outlined in the permit, the District of
Maple Ridge also has the option of continuing to hold the security until the required
landscaping is completed or has the option of drawing on the security and using the
funds to complete the required landscaping;
If the District of Maple Ridge draws on the security the District or its agents have
the irrevocable right to enter onto the property to undertake the required
landscaping for which the security was submitted.
5. Should the applicant carry out the landscaping works permitted by the permit, the security
shall be returned to the applicant, provided that the sum of 10% of the original landscape
security stated in Clause 1 above may be withheld by the District of Maple Ridge for an
additional year from the date of occupancy permit being issued for the final phase of the
development. At year end and upon re -inspection and written proof from the Landscape
Architect and/or Coordinating Profession, if the District deems the landscaping to be
completed, the 10% hold back will be released. Should the applicant fail to remedy any
aspect of the landscaping not in accordance with the approved plans or specifications, the
District may deduct the cost of remedying the defect from the said security and recoup
additional costs from the applicant if necessary.
6. The landscaping security shall only be returned to the party that submitted the security
unless a written notice of assignment has been received by the Finance Department of the
District of Maple Ridge.
7. Acceptable landscape securities areas follows:
• A irrevocable standby Letter of Credit provided that:
- the document includes an automatic renewal clause; and
- the document is issued by a Canadian Financial Institution.
• Term Deposits provide that:
- they are registered by a Financial Institution without qualification in the
name of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge;
- interest is payable by the granting institution directly to the applicant;
- the document is issued by a Canadian Financial Institution.
Purpose:
To establish a formal policy regarding the receiving and return of landscape securities for the
various permits listed under Part 26 - "Planning and Land Use Management", Division 9 -
"Permits and Fees" of the Local Government Act. The authority to require landscape securities is
specifically referenced in Section 925 - "Requirement for Security" of the Act.
Page 2 of 3 Policy
Definitions:
"Automatic renewal clause" must state that: "It is a condition of the Irrevocable Standby Letter
of Credit that it shall be deemed to be automatically extended without amendment for a further
one (1) year period from the present or any future expiration date hereof, unless at least 30
days prior to the present or any future expiration date, the issuer notifies the Corporation of
the District of Maple Ridge in writing by registered mail that it does not elect to consider this
Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit to be renewable for any additional period."
"Canadian Financial Institution" - Those which are named in the Municipal Investment Policy
for the investment of municipal funds.
Key Areas of Responsibility
Action to Take
• Landscape Plan received and reviewed
• Landscape Cost Estimate provided
• Final Landscape Plan and Cost Estimate reviewed
• Landscape Security received prior to permit issuance
• Security forwarded to Finance Department
• L-3 Schedule received after landscaping is completed
• Release of 90% of security when work is completed as
required (staff inspection may occur) and 10% of
security retained
• Project placed on one year maintenance period
• Submission of re -inspection letter from Coordinating
Professional assuring landscaping has survived a one
year maintenance period and all deficiencies
arecorrected.
• Memo to Finance Department to release the
remaining 10% security
Responsibility
Planning Department File
Manager
Page 3 of 3 Policy
DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
Deep Roots
Greater Heights
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: January 4, 2010
and Members of Council FILE NO: DVP/015/08
DP/015/08
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W
SUBJECT: Development Variance Permit and Development Permit
11252 Cottonwood Drive
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Eighty-one townhouse units have been proposed for 11252 Cottonwood Drive. This application is
subject to the Development Permit Guidelines for Multi -Family development as outlined in the 2006
Official Community Plan.
In support of this application, a Development Variance Permit application has been received to vary
the minimum required front and interior side yard setbacks, maximum building height and for
retention of the aboveground utility plant fronting the site on the east side of Cottonwood Drive.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal DVP/015/08 respecting property
located at 11252 Cottonwood Drive; and further
That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal DP/015/08.
L1�Y�i�J,�yLL'19
Applicant: W S Bissky Architect Inc. Wayne Bissky
Owner: 664190 B C LTD
Legal Description: Lot: 14, Section: 16, Township: 12, Plan: 27689
OCP:
Existing: Conservation, Urban Residential
Proposed: Conservation, Urban Residential
Zoning:
Existing: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Proposed: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential)
1105
Surrounding Uses
North: Use:
Townhouses
Zone:
RM-1 (Townhouse Residential)
Designation
Urban Residential
South: Use:
Townhouses
Zone:
RM-1(Townhouse Residential)
Designation:
Urban Residential
East: Use:
Single Family Residential, Cottonwood Creek
Zone:
RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation:
Conservation
West: Use:
Salamander Creek
Zone:
RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation:
Conservation
Existing Use of Property:
Vacant
Proposed Use of Property:
Townhouse Residential
Existing Use of Property:
Vacant
Proposed Use of Property:
Townhouse Residential
Site Area:
4.6 HA (11.3 acres)
Access:
Cottonwood Drive
Servicing:
Full Urban
Companion Applications:
Zoning and OCP Amending Application (RZ/015/08)
Development Variance Permit (DVP/015/08),
Environmental Protection Development Permit (DP/019/08)
a) Project Description:
Development Permit application DP/015/08 requests a multi -family development permit to allow for
the construction of 81 townhouse units. The development will be accessed by a single driveway
located off of Cottonwood Drive. In terms of site lay -out, the proposed buildings are located to the
west side of the site to respect the steep slopes east of blocks 11 and 8.
The townhouse units range in size but are all three bedroom units. The primary fapade of the
buildings will be vinyl siding with accent vinyl `cedar shingles' with cultured stone around the garage
doors. "Woody" red exposed wood timber brackets and front entry doors are also included in the
design as architectural accents. All units are provided with two in -garage parking spaces, either
tandem or double. Twenty-four visitor parking spaces will be provided throughout the site, 7 more
than the required 17 spaces.
A generous amount of landscaping is included around the housing blocks with more natural -style
native planting located behind the townhouses and community garden. A perimeter fence is
proposed to discourage residents from entering into the Cottonwood ravine conservation area.
WAN
The project includes amenity areas for both children and adults. A children's play area is located to
the east of block 8. This well landscaped feature includes benches for adults and a paved pathway
around the play structure accessible for wheelchairs and strollers. A community garden, located at
the east end of the site is also proposed. This amenity includes 12 garden plots, a small utility shed,
benches and deer fencing. Another feature of this development is the `living wall' proposed in the
middle of the site for ground stabilization instead of a traditional retaining wall.
b) Planning Analysis:
Official Community Plan:
These properties are subject to the guidelines applicable to Section 8.7 Multi -Family Development
Permit Area Guidelines of the Official Community Plan that aim to regulate the form and character of
a multi -family residential development. This development respects the key guideline concepts as
outlined in this section.
1. New development into established areas should respect private spaces, and incorporate local
neighbourhood elements in building form, height, architectural features and massing
Townhouses are the predominant housing form in this area. This application is consistent with this
housing form.
2. Transitional development should be used to bridge areas of low and height densities, through
means such as stepped building heights, or low rise ground oriented housing located to the
periphery of a higher density developments.
Townhouse developments are located on both the north and south side of this property.
3. Large scale developments should be clustered and given architectural separation to foster a
sense of community, and improve visual attractiveness.
This development plan has townhouses in blocks of 3, 4 and 5 units. Each unit is separated from its
attached neighbour using architectural details and a variety of complimentary colours.
4. Pedestrian circulation should be encouraged with attractive streetscapes attained through
landscaping, architectural details, appropriate lighting and by directing parking underground
where possible or away from public view through screened parking structures or surface
parking located to the rear of the property.
This development has townhouses facing the street with driveways at the rear of the units away
from the public street. Townhouse blocks are facing Cottonwood Drive with plenty of landscaping
and direct pedestrian pathways to each street facing unit to ensure an attractive streetscape.
-3-
c) Development Variance Permit
In support of this application, Development Variance Permit DVP/015/08 seeks to vary the
minimum required front and interior side yard setbacks, maximum building height and maximum
eave projection allowances in the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw no. 3510-1985
Front Yard Setback:
• To vary the minimum front yard setback in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) zone from
7.5m to 3.4m to the eave of block #1
• To vary the minimum front yard setback in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) zone from
7.5m to 6.6m to the primary building face for blocks # 17, 18 and 19 and to 5.39m for the
furthest projecting eave.
Bringing the buildings closer to the street frontage will give the townhouses a friendlier street image
on Cottonwood Drive. The townhouse project to the north has also received a variance relaxing the
Cottonwood Drive setback to 3 metres for its only street fronting building. Block # 1 of this
development proposal neighbours this building and as such creates more of a sense of consistency
for the buildings on the east side of Cottonwood Drive.
Side Yard Setback:
■ To vary the minimum side yard setback for block #17 in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential)
zone from 6.0 metres required for an interior side lot line for a wall with a window to a
habitable room to 4.11m to the wall and 3.49m to the eave.
As the subject property is not a proper rectangle in shape, this corner of the property is squeezed
with an acute angle in the southwest corner. Block 17 is the southern most housing block facing
Cottonwood Drive, as such the southeast corner of the building encroaches into the setback area.
■ To vary Section 403(4)(b)(2) - Siting exceptions, the interior side yard setback may be
reduced by not more than 0.61 m for eave projections to 0.91 m as proposed.
With the exception of Block 17, all other buildings meet the required side yard setback to the
primary building face in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) zone, however, the eaves have been
exaggerated slightly to add architectural detail and interest.
Height:
• To vary the maximum height in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) zone from 10.5 metres
and 2.5 storeys to 11 metres and 3 storeys.
Cottonwood Drive slopes down north to south. This site is significantly below the site to the north
and the height relaxation will not affect the consistency in this neighbourhood. Also, as most
-4-
building blocks are internal to the site the additional height will not have a significant visual impact
from surrounding areas.
Servicing:
• to vary this requirement to retain the aboveground utility plant fronting the site on the east
side of Cottonwood Drive.
Schedule "A" of the District of Maple Ridge Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw No. 4800
- 1993, as amended, requires full urban services in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) zone
including underground wiring. This DVP request is supported by Council Policy 9.05, attached as
Appendix E under the exemption of paragraph 1.
d) Advisory Design Panel:
This application was initially reviewed by the Advisory Design Panel at a regular meeting held
January 13, 2009. At that time the Panel discussed the application and made the following
resolution:
That the Applicant be requested to bring the project back to the Panel for further review
after the following have been addressed:
• Review architectural detailing and inconsistency
• Provide a Streetscape elevation & view from Cottonwood Drive
• Consider improving open space and liveability, Block 19, Unit 81
• Provide further design development on community garden
• Provide additional landscaping in the vicinity of the green wall
• Consider the green wall in respect to safety
• Additional parking opportunities on site
• Provide completed architectural elevations
• Address the three storey faces of the buildings
The proponent revised the drawings respecting the Panel's recommendations and the application
was brought back to the Advisory Design Panel at the March 10, 2009 regular meeting at which time
the Design Panel commended the applicant for addressing all of the previous comments and made
the following recommendation:
That the application be supported as presented.
e) Financial Implications:
A refundable security equivalent to 2.5 % of the estimated value of construction will be provided by
the developer to ensure that the development, including the landscaping, is carried out in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the Development Permit. Based on an estimated
construction value of $8,000,000.00 the security will be $200,000.00.
WIN
f) Alternatives:
Under Section 919.1 of the Local Government Act and Section 8.1 of the Official Community Plan
the property has been designated a Development Permit Area with special requirements for
development. Council approval is required for the Multi -family Residential Development Permit prior
to a Building Permit being issued.
LKOXMIX44111,13
As the development proposal complies with the guidelines for the Multi -Family Development Permit
Area for form and character, it is recommended that VP/015/08 and DP/015/08 be given
favourable consideration.
1
Prepared by. 1Csikos T
la ning Technician
ved b
Approved by:
Ja�TV
P+ckerin , MCIP
irec fanning
tnk Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
Public Works & Dever
Concurrence: I L Jim) Rule
Chi f Administrative Officer
Jc /
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A - Subject Map
Appendix B
- Site Plan
Appendix C
- Building Elevations
Appendix D
- Landscape Plans
Appendix E -
Council Policy 9.05
if,
Services
I VE
District of
Pitt Meadows
;
11252 Cottonwood Dr
_
�H,
I°
D
*
CORPORATION OF
{
V I
THE DISTRICT OF
i f -
❑
i
-
MAPLE RIDGE
N
e�
�Distric�,,� tl
Langley
L [ �
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: Feb 29, 2008 DP/dij/08 BY: PC
SCALE 1:3,500
sr
epeueo'38'95ply91cloW s�oegjac Appendix B
.,... '.Z.:.:r'•.: «: Y".."'u: 'anuvsd poomuolloO Z5Z i 6
�� = ^�+• =- _,�,;; luawdojanaQ awoyumol podgy Nf/lc
0 0 0 7 z
r 0000
I _
' a
o cu
fi y i �� w
✓ s: 7 ni
{ i ` o
o m
W U)ZI
2
a.aati ;i ,
o
0
6.01m iR4c`P.t ---- z W U
4!A Mo
l
� f i a ybA
f �� Irk• yF1: �j�. �'f;5 ='
a
'+9�y=�• N
!iu N O
S O) c
N
U)
I I � _ •f j �
ti2f J
N wv9'LL - _ paa
y R2i ]ii¢ Y M
m i59n U � �PPA i 'V 1
�l1� ; � i�i3o Y ❑
0
,9 m axSo ri �, o
S w9E Sl wi�5 HI1L ._-_-_--_-___ _ S• "-
f 7 �
EE
wG0s
wcvv1 cu
J I '� di6o Y a
- N
Cd
f asps' y
5.99m - i = mi`o f O
'• i 'o E
_ N
c>
401- N
co
2' Z ¢
' 4
i / B Mvc
Q �0
ce:es+ra�aaaysau.s�..ux: __...
e� a�nxr�sse r�s.� w�
epeueo'og'aspcw OwN Suc
'anup pow 0-0 ZSZ 1 l
luawdaranap awogw a-L pasodwd: O '
o ¢
o �
�
— $
x
aea �qd
N o
O
PoF
_
I.
�
a]
m
LJ
o
11
c _
w_1
ry�� on
5
- ap°
I
{i'
�
d FF �
ff
Q J
l
e j
\
l
o
LA
i
��w�
ow���Nopr�azo4�mWg
—
IL
�Z
ymggxp uo R3... —
� ¢
O i Nei°owz�N�w�o?3
wo<
o
'9
0
.;
LL E gS
�
O
6
¢
w
•ly^d,I
7
1
0
1
U)
V
0
❑OD
m
N
Appendix C
O
cu
w
.� I �II I I I•
I
II I I.I�I I I• ;III,; � E
�� S s
N9a1�6G
..W .""..� .".....��... .....^.
cesaii'd s 019 Hon seio"
:0 9".wMroW�w.
k
g e
epeueZ�D8 'a6piy aideW SUOIJL'/�213
O
'anup pooMUO11Oo ZSZ l t ,µ v
luawdOIanad awoyuMoj pasodOld ZOtF i�0�8
ND153G aOI—NI ONIN—d
NOIssO Nvean 3anll3ilNDar
ANSSI9 N3Hd31S 3NAVM
6
A
d-
-y
„-Q
��....�.—.'.r•
LU
U)
N
O
I p
00
"2
w� woji"`
a 'o688Q'p
r�
LU
0
i c`
0
0
Bl9li Nbld l]IlLLiq a3191�LLS3M A91
' 21 dIH5NM0191 NOIll3S f I lOT
w•Tnrpq I
.ace t I � W
� �
/y�
yam/
epeueo'09 86P!N al"
'anus
SUOIJeA913
�
_
O
pooenuollOO ZSZ L t
luawdo!ana4 awoyuMol pasodad
}, .µ
VOtF
VV a Nals3a NOIa31Nl 'JNINN'd
'I��la Nals3o Nv9an 3anll3Jlroav
A115518 N3Hd31S 3NAVM o s
of N
I
�
T. 'I
�+
I
J'.
L_
._........._...__--
W
a
❑
4.,
1
.... ....... _
z ��.I i III `CIS
f4
LL o a']
❑
�
I,
it
IiEl w W
S
C
-
a O
ED,-
_Ile
H :y N
.1
u o
m
L .i•,3anum lii u:n;, l,:iil.
1
m
3eUe:) '08 Wpjy ajdev4 SUOIje-AG13CV)
jo P00muO11OO Z SZ L L NDIS3 NOW- DNI-14
_L pasodOJd
a awoqumo s�
o# 001,a _
SSIS N3Hd31S 3NAVN\
............. ...
0
.0
m >
>
LLJ
V;
m
LLJ
LO
Lo
C)
0
or
is
0 . . . .. ....... . . . . ................ -
> >
N LU
0
U) j. 0
............
LO
LO
0
LLLL . . ......... — - - - - - - - - - -
C3
Eml
j], W
. ...... ..... . -
-E
F]OP
cq
LL
S.
z
u
OHM�o M ,
P
X Z,�
0
xm �mohe E
W W
ook
Ila
6A9G2 NVId 1JIILL910 tl31NIN193M M3N
F�' �� `1 6 z[dwSNM0191 N01ll35 bI l
epeue�'�g 'a6ply aldeOlW
s
,..�„ 'anu ooMuo 0 I xx � OP � S LL
i� Z Z
r
l � ;uawdolanap awoyumol pasodold
ID
N
ni
g �wfD'6L
N
1
1
1
1
N
LL
N
LL
I �
N
LL
�I
11
�
III
cl-.I_l
o^
II
{'
R !
1
o
>
�..__
fl
w
s
Cfl
�ry
Y
O
t�
r
m
n[A
$ 3
G —
ft
N i
SUOIJLn913
aaµN"�,bo 9
az _
M
90.'./. � 0018
tt O
,u�153o
A�IS518
aola3lNl �IwlHna
NHS"' Hd 3an3N),Vav
N3Hd315 3NAVM
x
�
I
,I
,
o
-.. ==
/
0
l'
it
W11 l,I
I
I
� Odi�o��Nurozwr O'm�O3T
w p"a»u'u'"`x�x>3��jja'oiouig€
F-
LU
6e91? Wd 13I9L9p 9315v1wls3m maw � A� '�
zi awsxmai 9�woillas ri ioi n:R
epeueo'De'a6plyaldew SUO!IeAa13
'aAp(] pooMuollo� ZSZ L L �oisaaaoonwi 'JNINNvId l �-
ivawdolanap awoqu of pasodoid LQ# '17. 019 Noisza ]Hd aanINAVAA e
AJISSIvon
B N3Hd31S 3NAVM
o I�i11 I a
1 w o / _-� O
cu
` w
7Lo
. �.- I� LL it'i..Ii''• i.'�� i. w
� I
O / I
a j ��.._ J y N� °°
Nto
$
LU
K a�u�rv$�Up I��E��aLL
O=o m�8 t=
wo �>3wIoEa�'kwa3
H U
w yf rvmemmnm _____«_rvry
699<2 N3lSNiN153M Max
2l diHSNM0191 NpL1J35 el 101
epeueo'08'a6pia SIdeW SUOIILAB13
'anud poomuol3oo Z S Z L L (f .�y VV
ivawdolanaa awoyumol posodold 80# ' 0018
Q
1
cu
> lqy
W
A
's
i x
co
o
m
11
p HE
3 .
_LL�
oo�ax
W W F5gg' �Omr3oU��F3:o ���3
(n oNgOmi�W�� hobo
wV'�pQoou��>
rc�V LL.Ny___
g
0 >wwa
O p>'>uu�LLr�>3Iaoious¢3
y
W w
W
O
.y
N
a
W
_
O
_
m
Li
oo
Y
O
O
{
m
t x
x
m
i Z
D
,y
�r
ole x'*an f.. J
It 9
ti
M�f3n NON-1 �NfJNVId
°
d-
'JIS30 Nv8W1 3an1J"n'
SSIB N3Hd31S 3NAVM
f �31'$II'
�3 fiB9[2 NVlG 1]INLgO tl]LSNIW153M N0,
� � II � �� ��„T"'y_'l'°W' 2l d/1SNM0191 NOI1J3501 101
epeueo'J9'a6p!NaldeW SU0.1jeA813
'anup pooMuoAo� M L L V
luawdo!anad awoyuMol pasodold 60# i0oie
N01530NOIN31N1 'JNINWd
NDIS30 Nv9Nn 38N]311H]NV
SS18 N3Hd3lS 3NAVM
U
D
a
0
c O
O It
+, U
cB L+
N �
W
V)
am "'
O
M
U
U
O
m
❑ N,
❑ M1I
O
O
ca
N
W
s
O
z
rn
O
U
O
m
LI
I
cR
I
�jLL�
m
7�
it
O
v
o �� �: _
�
cz
>
1
i
jrj
III,: ❑
❑
n��
W
_
1.
4E=M
m
1 a
❑
1 ❑
W
..�II
ILIA.,
W
....
EY
cn
11s
�� /
.N
N
1
1
•
.iJI
r-v:r�: .. LL n
Iv 1
— ..
cz
W
N
'i�
II'I
,I
Q
- ,
O
5
I"
o
m
__•
o
m
-
1-
lt
IL
ZD
IL
629LZNda �=ga�rNl=M 11 ..,.a
21 a 0191 NO�1J35 61 J61 _otv � aoEe
epeue:)'Dg'a6PIN alCw: SU011BA913
'anup POOM0110D 292 L L [7 N—Q 801—N11 �N11-
luawdolanaa awoqumol posodoid 0 �# Noole Sig
N3Hd aan3NkVAA
AJI5518 N3Hd315 3NAVM
z�
C
0
f�
a�
W
O
V)
yO
l•h
U
O
m
N
C
M
N
LL it
;Ir n F
LL
ZD
CIF,
1r
N ...__..........—_
O
\
Lu
¢
+�
LU M
Lu
U
—
\
Do
1'
E Y'
_L LLLJ
Qo
N
H Q
a6
�1=:a = i NOUN3M
sass=",��NMol9,�0�ll3=>�>m
_.a:v.
i
eg i3�:�. W �^�"w..•M".
P O p.N I w' SUOI��A2��
I4pe
:�^ ..,..
MUlog
'aAIJQ pOOIJO;;OQ ZSz L I
;uawdolanaQ nn awoyuol ���IB
N'J153O LOIk31Nl 'JNINNVId
3Nf11]311V
pasodwd y y}}�
I A�IS519 N3Hj3Hd315 3NAVM � x =
-
—
m
0
0
N
N
N
Q
d
N
D)
C
I u
C
O
�L<
W
2
all
0_nm'a�w Suo|R'AG_(lPoazI d���(]��a__. Z
L#1098 ANSSIS
�\
{
!` Q
�X-�
§
, ..
,
/
# ;
)!
\r•�`::;,
! , !.
co
0
:
§
�
j
aas« �"aM ll3 m �o;
epeueo'08'96p%aldew suOiJena13
'anus poorvu0
1100 ZSZ L L (�++ I
ivawdolanad awoywvol pasodaG d — Y# 10010
��issa aoiadiw ONIN—d
Noisda uvean 3anu3iiHnav
'USSIS N3Hd31S 3NAVM
0
0
cu
JJ
L
O
'»
U
O
o
.Y
W
N 2 ReHH '.1 �w�w
1 a
� OQmHo� c�3�o-°a z3
U W Oa»�urvrv..->3H8. a M.
w` °
LLI
i.
LU
l ='. m
m
,wma,
101, 'a1pi
�I
E.•1;
s_
j'..y
„^�.„.=
epeao l aldeW
anud pooanu01103 ZSZ L L
, _ I;
e
_
ie,,,,•,�,_•„• •,,,,_, �,_.•
luawdolana4 awoyuMol pasodoJd
O
O
N
E
`aE
N
14
i
I
LLI
m
Y
S
Api
I E
1 I=T
}
Ilmr
li
nj
�I)
p
v
I
�
I
III
ill. li
I'i�I�I'.
i'
m
I
.IIII
,lil
d 1
I
>_
a I
4
9 m
:11. oe�[ SSW
Su011en013 °°°,'9,
cv
Nos3o aoianinti owurr.nd
6
+,11F �0018 Iaoisaa
3Hd S 3NAVav
Y Y'fi' a AA5519 N3Hd315 3NAYM
3 M d`-_
R Q
1
ti
o
N
i f'
L1J
{
II
f
W
'
f
I
i I
�
4 1
U
l r
4,
I� I
m
I�L
f
EM
epli '38'afjpN aldeh
'9A!JCI POOMUOIJOD ZSZ L t
zu9wdoj9Aa(] awoqumo _L pasodwd
SUOIJeA913
9 6# � 0019
NDIM NVO"
A�ISSJG N3H891S 3NAVAA
N
T-
cj
0
cu co +-j
I.._...._....__
>>
ai
Lu
-C
_-pG-r;�-® + -- 4-1 4-1
CA
0 z0
LO
ti
-E u ... .............. . .
0 0
co co
. ..... ... .. . .. ........ .. . ..... . ....... . . . ... ........ . . .........
LO
..........
2!'E
co
Lu - 3,:
Sp rc
Hum
MHW2,-N,5282F
0 -fFV
Pu
c
2
4-J
m
�'�_ 6891Z NVId llItl15O tl319f�f153M M3;
24 dIx6NM0194 NOIll36 e410
a eue '86 I a c
..a �.. . �... 'anua p00xuo3303 292 L L V a
� 4• 3-awdolaAaCl awoyumol pasodad Q
1=
0
w
0�
r co a
U c E
Q �
0
cEeE
E � m
ry ;SOyw
ago yo°
Eamf°
3 ,a�
al z_
n¢ � � w a✓
a Ul�oSIo�o�=�n08�
Z �� a HIa
maayo Hy
� U
E c I
Nals3a Aol-, 'JNINNVId
N'JI53o Nv6Na 3N DmloNv
ANSS18 N3Hd31S 3NAVM
m
bHsSIo� IN �M
a pw, "'w w
e N
epeueD'Dq la6pia aldeN
SUOIJeAE)13
'anup pooMuoxloD ZSZ l L
1uawdolan9❑ awoyuMol pasodo-id
L �,# V ��018
NDI-801—t �NINNb1A
TIM' 3ann3aHnav
x
�
�'
g
ANSSI9 N3Fid315 3NAVM
m
maw
Lw
4.
609GZ Ntlld 1.]YL6100L6NIW19SM M3(^WI.PWslq:ww. y r
ZI dI11M0191 NOIll3S bl l01 SnFP[9t?D9�1 UMP�'gP y?n�dew d IS
epeue�)'Z)g'a6p!a21daviSUO!Iena13
'anup Poo^nuolloZ) ZSZ L L NOSMSOIWA oNInd
NolsaoN9an
luawdolanad awoyueOJ. paead% 8 6# V001-3 5518 N3Hd31$ 3NAVaMv d-
LLo
a
oti
as
O.._
__ •
_. ........
..
.ca
M
W LL.wi E
+c•
j
........ .
.._..-----.._---..-z-
L1J
1'
- --
+�-
caIS
_�
V)
— � Z ic'Pp�do °�o �o
° ;wa'
- _
- I-
00
— LL
L Oy�m Q�w3 torcaan
Eowaw3
•.
m
m
,I
tj
11E.
Lj
m
.E
o
I
E
�c
. „...............
-
----
to
I
I..
W
I'�
li�Ii
"'LO
IIIiI
�
m
.0
I'
�3
o
m
m
V)
CID
j g
I
ITL
I
o
^ II
Ilfl
II
r
I
RIMLL
irf
m
�a.�rr.-m xuew
M0191 rn^ �llbl �mm ~ � � H
epeue313g'abpia aldeW SUOIjeAGI3
'anu4 poonau0}}00 ZSZ I L "oisao MWINI o"ov"ne
3uawdolanap awoyuMol posodad 61,# 10019 Z aSeud w'0'
S gg pp
3NAVM g• g # -�', Q
U) 3 z 5
a wE�2
= j ww�;omp�i�w
w ��'o miau �zua m° irc�u x' E
? xz2E°�omao�3'
uggl
--- W m ll iii 1 1
c
O
E ca
a�
w
E 4-)
o 0
CZ
U
O
� m
LLo
m
N
w
4-1
Z)
c
O
cz
Q)
w
+j
En
U
mO
Appendix D
•
�
O
Z S
8�>
r'
;' W �► a�
ry +s l:;• '' as
nn
0.3
pay...��
w,�����
=PAM
A�'•r �'y"-K�ii_,'- —I■aI1�` •1R' «� 'ter � m
Gav III
a _� fiii•
,�� Illre_ ills * Y+■ I ■ ...
i6 y�j ZIP
• am. :. I
���:,� 4• 4 � rpr
�, ■ - � -'fir= -1�
M
• r �10�� � I.
a. ■ ra I
fit
!C
-
7 7'1\
I
I
I
0000
r F
LL
[
lt4`1
v a� O W,. `; r N 3
~ k `ill e'• [ r s�.- = r•.fY cn w (-n =
�r N `or• @ � ���
.I asi si 2• ti � - -
m -n3 rr• Jam• 9� �y .• - -
+ A� x.�.,msi�;��V.z.' r• �'� f � `£.�5. � �r [C � � 7 � -r,', �vAR i Y
i C E�.
.
E6p I I_
I
r
f�
i;
i�
0 --� ' Sir• u % � y �. � yz
Y
OO
` . \ \ 2 ` ■ ( Q | ��
fit| �, !| ! o;ƒ e! .
\
7ii|�
\� §! ` | ®� | ■|
ArT.1!
1; T;:
i
■V
Fyy l
E� 3 A►� S� 'e 8 jNi Jy B
�IAMZX311 ;ts -' AS
I
1
1
pupp��ii� ..
1p16 $ �9
{z iAi}� '� jG # i i � � E[ i r ! i i•� ]q�
}• }A+�l FJ � i t i �S f Ix x!? ii= �4 y � il'1
}y =:i� F! S �! j � q } q � i # ii_ }3; a ��� :# 1 �q{j�9
i r7S { f i ; 4 ii i iif t}: iiff EG! fi
j ai iF j }F, ti 1A I
➢{ jly � ! f � F'4ii C F ' 'iG f � } t f� �3 �5� � �$h f(E a 3:�y�
I all# y■1� #
s; F5�( f' � a y�8� � i1 ;ipp` f � } �} � }=#i i iFF f `# f•l#Ci l �1
I lF f1) E i gty{ # ■ a ; iF Eii fill
[s�€
i; lid Fa�q;€
1itJillr��F-=z qi�j ? 11Jill!
=t ]J #.lrai ,
j; ]1 ff 1} i 4 zgE Ii}#3 i}s# iilfaJt]ix3]i q`f jl;ijaiill i}1{I}.
,ligl alf } , . , .:3 ,;aia ,: ,.., ,.aa�
F } 1
it( a} }� '1 # E•E � � Ii } � r 1.i € � j � fxf 3 � ! �! � j I � � fl p
Ili f�lHIM, i
j`
r;};
� F t# 1 •}�• � F � � G_ 1 C ! 1 1€ a�p } !7 ,� tad 3 = 1 � ll q€ �a =
Willif i ] S;{ i]i 5' i �rsztc !i i ➢ i E i'i ] ;
1 _339?93
l iI�
i
p¢ i
E
x � i
liiaigf.1H
Appendix
Deep Roots
Greater Heights
TITLE:
POLICY NO.
APPROVAL DATE:
POLICY STATEMENT:
DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
CONVERSION OF EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY WIRING TO
UNDERGROUND WIRING
9.05
July 23, 1996
Council will support development variance permit applications to waive the requirement of Maple
Ridge Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw 4800-1993 as amended, to provide
underground wiring on highway right of ways serviced by existing overhead utility systems, where the
abutting road is required to be upgraded to an urban standard, on the following conditions:
1. The existing overhead utility system is shown on the attached plan, or
2. There is less than a total of 250 metres of contiguous redevelopment potential fronting both
sides of the highway right of way designated on the Official Community Plan.
Further, in those cases where undergrounding of existing overhead utility lines is required, and a
development has less than 250 metres of frontage on the highway right of way, the developer will
service his development with underground dips off the overhead line and deposit with the
Municipality sufficient funds to achieve the required undergrounding in the future.
Date Printed: 2009-09-23 Page 1 of 2 Policy 9.05
Date Ni d! 200 23 Paget d 2 %lily U5
DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
Dee{ Roots
Greater Heights
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: January 07, 2010
and Members of Council FILE NO: SD/081/09
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W
SUBJECT: Strata Plan Approval with a Previously Occupied Building at 12191-228 Street
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A subdivision application was submitted to stratify an 11 unit townhouse development at
12191-228 Street. The project contains a older single family structure that has been fully
ungraded and integrated into the new project. Prior to registering the strata plan the Strata
Property Act requires the Approving Authority of the District to sign the plan. In this case, the
approving authority is not the Approving Officer but Municipal Council. This is because the
original dwelling was previously occupied and is now being converted to a strata unit.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Mayor and Corporate Officer execute the Strata Plan for Lot A, Section 20, Township
12, N.W.D. Plan BCP23946 at 12191-228th Street.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Applicant:
Owner:
Legal Description:
.Isis
Existing:
Proposed:
Zoning:
Existing:
Proposed:
Norquist Watkins Barristers & Solicitors
Gold Creek Developments Ltd.
Lot A, Section: 20, Township: 12, N.W.D.,Plan:
BCP23946
Urban Residential
Urban Residential
RM-1 (Townhouse) Residential District)
RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District)
-1-
1106
Surrounding Uses
North:
South
East
West:
Use:
Zone:
Designation
Use:
Zone:
Designation
Use:
Zone:
Designation
Use:
Zone:
Designation
Existing Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Site Area:
Access:
Servicing:
Companion Applications:
b) Project Description:
Single Family Residential
RS-1
Urban Residential
Townhomes (4 units)
RM-1
Urban Residential
Single Family Residential
RS-1
Urban Residential
Single Family Residential
RS-1
Urban Residential
Townhomes (11 Units)
Townhomes
1 acre (4,047 sq. m.)
22811 Street
Full Urban
Nil
The Strata Property Act under Section 242 requires a person wishing to deposit a strata plan
containing a previously occupied building to obtain approval from the "approving authority". In this
case the Act defines the "approving authority" as the municipal council. The project was approved in
2006 but ddid not complete construction until very recently. Due to financial difficulties the project
has changed hands and the new owner now wishes to complete the strata titling process. The project
proceeded with the existing home being retained for its heritage value. The home has been vacant
for many years and has now undergone a significant upgrade to meet the current BC Building Code
standards.
c) Planning Analysis:
Strata Property Act:
The Strata Property Act clearly outlines that the Approving Authority in cases where approval for
conversion of a previously occupied building exists rests with Council and not the Approving Officer
unless Council has specifically passed a resolution under Section 242 (10) to delegate this authority
to the Approving Officer. This has not been done in Maple Ridge. Council cannot approve such a
strata plan unless the existing building substantially complies with all applicable bylaws of the District
and the BC Building Code. In making this decision Council must consider the priority of rental
accommodation in the area, any proposal to relocate persons occupying the building; life expectancy
and maintenance costs of the building and any other matters considered relevant by Council.
-2-
Through the construction process the existing heritage structure and the new townhomes all comply
with the BC Building Code. Final occupancies of all structures are pending this approval. The
heritage dwelling conforms to the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) zoning provisions with some
variances for yard setbacks approved previously. As the heritage building was not a purpose built
rental home and has not been occupied for many years, the strata conversion of the homes will not
negatively affect rental supply in the District. Maintenance costs associated specifically to the
heritage dwelling should be minimal given that the structure has been upgraded to meet the BC
Building Code.
Official Community Plan:
The OCP contains policies that in Section 3.2 "Affordable, Rental and Special Needs Housing" under
clause 3-33 that supported the provision of rental accommodation and encourages the construction
of rental units. It also states that: "Maple Ridge may also limit the demolition or strata conversion of
existing rental units unless district wide vacancy rates are within a healthy range as defined by
CMHC".
As the existing heritage dwelling was not intended to be a rental property and was not used in such a
manner in the past, the OCP policy restriction does not apply. None of the structures on the property
have been occupied since their construction and/or upgrading. The approval of this strata plan will
not affect the District's available rental stock.
Zoning Bylaw:
In 2006 the property was rezoned from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to RM-1 (Townhouse
Residential) to accommodate 10 townhouse units arranged in duplexes and one heritage styled
existing single family dwelling. The project was approved but stalled at the Building Permit stage prior
to completion. The current owner has completed construction and is now seeking to stratify the
entire project. The project was not developed as a rental project but was to be a strata titled market
housing project.
Development Permits:
A Development Permit was also approved for the development which showed the heritage dwelling
being relocated to the front of the lot facing 2281" Street and being completely renovated to meet the
current BC Building Code standards. The District continues to hold landscaping security for the
project. The project has been completed in accordance with the approved Development Permit.
Landscaping will be completed in the Spring of 2010.
-3-
CONCLUSION:
It is recommended that Council authorized the Mayor and Corporate Officer to sign the Strata Plan for
the property located at 12191-228 Street.
Prepared by: C arles R. Goddard MA
Manager of Development and Environmental Services
Approving Officer
A p p ved b ne P�Plan
MCIP
Direr
Approved by: rank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
GM: Public Works & D elo ment Services
Concurrence: J. L.
CG/
im) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A - Strata Plan for Lot A, Plan BCP 23946
-4-
D O
C ? m i
C
`I
��
�
'n
CO v J
a I
O 4 C
OCb
��
C
NAr-�
c
•� o o m yA m�
o a n R• m �P..
-
m n
G7
o� cn EL
a CA y LI)
� � ®• n cn p
� n
�• o
N j c Q
C y o p A o=
NO�rV `
Nro
c S
is O �.
Ui
N
Q m
o c Sc
°
k�_
B.
m
c) co
G�
N
y o
Q e
G
N p
'��•
tO
m
°p
o'
°Q 3� w
N
QN o
m
Of p Q
InOl
A j p' (QO
~
(�D
?
o
(D
l yis
O p
00C 00
N•T
?
°
=3
to cam
v `�
pO
"R °O y 0 0- A > >
�� °�
Cb
$
cp
CD
T�
I
,-
o� c o
o? cb c„ c� 3 a
m O'n
a'
o c�
U O
°
m
m
0
d
Q p p
3
y y
T yCbb
co yCb
Cb to
OOi
Cb
p
p
y
N
Nco
O
O_ �•
^
L J
N
o
IT
O
'�, 1
o
� V
.I
A `
'•h
p co
U
$
fp
~j
aa
I1 sly
L
�p �•
� c S � �
2i
c
v.
to
J'
y y y
O
0
�C N
rt O p� r• w
�
IB g
Q^
cn
Na o �•
�
�
I
p
p C °• � OPT �
TT
� y
1N :�
oI
w
C v "lit
N
C
i 19
�i g
N)
�, •A.
N
(
W
Hcil
C1
4.1
•
C.
m
0 O �. (n
i71
�
c o
IpT
v
O
a
C fD cn p
�
� 8
o C'j
G
L i
PiY ;,i
n O C��T
vrnui rn m
n �
b
�' p �'p '• �
nnl
ocr Ctl
r
�
Q y y n
�s
k
it01Y
d
m� 2 c
40.21
m a
0036'06'
cr n
228 STREET
� O
1
Cb ao Ks:
—2 p�cn
-w
T• p IQ*C •l. y C
j p O
`•��
1 e
y
I y
iD
Q y p Q�'
g
4
Ci
a C O p 4
n 0 T W R O
I O
t Z p
in
�n3rn E`�°f°.��.��
y •+ C 7.
-w
ypp.
T.
�; y C.
Tpy
paw m_ T. S
NN yam
O W b
�p
(D am1 °�c QCb om,(')
?y O
I
y
^
V
GO ce II'
C°aQm `D v
`?W
ya
vJ
=
cb c
c.a � a rn o 3 a
�Fv
� o
E
m
cOp Q C C1 G
Pb
o C
I-
4
a
71 y