HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-11-05 Committee of the Whole Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdfDistrict of Maple Ridge
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
AGENDA
November 5, 2012
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. DELEGAT/ONS/STAFFPRESENTAT/ONS- (10 minutes each)
1:00 p.m.
1.1 Information Services Technology Update
- Christina Crabtree, Director of Information Services
2. PUBLIC WORKS AND DEVELOPMENT SERV/CES
Note: Owners and/or Agents of Development Applications may be 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/108/10, 11718 224 Street and 11731 Fraser Street, Status Report for
Rezoning Application at Northumberland Court
Staff report dated November 5, 2012 providing an update on the status of the
rezoning application process for Northumberland Court and recommending
that the report be received for information.
Committee of the Whole Agenda
November 5, 2012
Page 2 of 3
1102 RZ/063/10, 11655 Burnett Street, One Year Extension
Staff report dated November 5, 2012 recommending that rezoning
application RZ/063/10 to allow construction of a four -storey apartment
building with 21 units be granted a one year extension.
1103 2012-103-DVP, 10550 248 Street
Staff report dated November 5, 2012 recommending that the Corporate
Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2012-103-DVP to vary the maximum
height of some retaining walls proposed on site.
1104 2012 -087 -SP, 25788 98 Avenue
Staff report dated November 5, 2012 recommending that Application 2012-
087 -SP for a Soil Deposit Permit under the Agricultural Land Commission Act
for property located at 25788 98 Avenue be forwarded to the Agricultural
Land Commission.
3. FINANCIAL AND CORPORATE SERV/CES (including Fire and Police)
1131 Adjustments to the 2012 Collector's Roll
Staff report dated November 5, 2012 submitting information on changes to
the 2012 Collector's Roll through the issuance of Supplementary Rolls 06 and
07.
1132 Adjustments to the 2012 Collector's Roll
Staff report dated November 5, 2012 submitting information on changes to
the 2012 Collector's Roll through the issuance of Supplementary Roll 08.
4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND RECREATION SERVICES
1151 Maple Ridge Library 2013 Projected Budget
Staff report dated November 5, 2012 providing information on the Fraser
Valley Regional Library proposed budget for 2013 for the Maple Ridge Library.
5. CORRESPONDENCE
1171
Committee of the Whole Agenda
November 5, 2012
Page 3 of 3
6. OTHER ISSUES
1181
7. ADJOURNMENT
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
minutes.
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:
$relish CoLurnbF
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer
SUBJECT: Status Report for Rezoning Application at Northumberland Court at
11718 224 Street and 11731 Fraser Street
MEETING DATE: November 5, 2012
FILE NO: RZ/108/10
MEETING: CoW
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In 2009 Council worked with the neighbourhood, the new owner and others to successfully achieve
its objective of having Northumberland Court demolished. A secondary objective was to see the site
redevelop. The rezoning application RZ/108/10 to rezone and construct a mixed use
commercial/apartment and 29 unit townhouse project on the former Northumberland Court site was
given First Reading on November 23, 2010. Since that date (23 months ago) the applicant has
failed to complete the required rezoning conditions, nor submit the Development Permit applications
that would outline for Council the nature of the future development.
The applicant has also ceased all communication with the Planning Department and no longer is
employing the architect working on his behalf. In accordance with Section 16 of the Development
Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999, the file should to be closed where no activity occurs after a year.
Given the complexity and public sensitivity surrounding this site, the file was kept open due to
conversations with the applicant up until August 2011. All conversations have ceased since that
time and the applicant has not returned calls from staff or respond to emails. A registered letter has
been recently posted requesting the applicant respond to the District by indicating what his plans are
for the file and the property. If no response is received by mid-November, the rezoning application
will be closed.
RECOMMENDATION:
That "Status Report for Rezoning Application at Northumberland Court at 11718 224 Street and
11731 Fraser Street be received as information.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context
Applicant:
Owner:
Legal Description:
OCP:
Existing:
Proposed:
Zoning:
Existing:
Proposed:
Northumberland Fraserstreet Holdings Inc.
Northumberland Fraserstreet Holdings Inc.
Lot: 8, D.L.: 398, Plan: 8181, Lot: 1, D.L.: 398,
Plan: NWS8
Ground -Oriented Multi -Family
Flexible Mixed Use
RM -1 (Townhouse Residential)
CD (Comprehensive Development)
Surrounding Uses
North: Use: Apartment
Zone: C-3
Designation Town Centre Commercial
South: Use: Single Family Homes and Apartments
Zone: RM -1
Designation: Ground Oriented Multi -Family
East: Use: Townhomes
Zone: RM -1
Designation: Ground Oriented Multi -Family
West: Use: RM -2
Zone: C-3
Designation: Low Rise Apartment
Existing Use of Property: Vacant
Proposed Use of Property: Mixed -Use Commercial and Apartment, 29
Townhomes
Site Area: 0.464 HA (1.146 acres)
Access: 224th Street (Apartment), Fraser Street (Townhomes)
Servicing: Urban
Lot Size: 1.146 acres combined area
Previous Applications: N/A
Requested Variance: N/A
c) Planning Analysis:
An application to rezone the site of the former Northumberland Court site and a parcel of land
located at 11718 - 224th Street was submitted by Northumberland- Fraser Street Holdings Inc. on
November 4th, 2010. Staff had numerous meetings and conversations with the applicant prior to
making the application to work out an acceptable development scheme that consisted of a mixed
use commercial -apartment building on 224th Street and 29 townhomes on Fraser Street.
Preliminary plans were received and it was on this basis that staff advanced a rezoning application
to Council. First Reading to Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6771-2010 was subsequently granted by
Council on November 23, 2010 with conditions that the applicant proceed to make the required
Development Permit application. This has not been done and it is now almost two years after First
Reading was granted.
Between December 2010 and August 2011, staff has been trying to move the application forward.
Referrals have been made to other Departments based upon the preliminary submission details
received. Comments have been received and forwarded to the applicant in the hope of triggering
movement forward. Since late August 2011 staff has not been able to make contact with the
applicant. Calls and emails have been left with the applicant requesting him to please update the
District on his plans for the future. Such efforts have gone unanswered. Contact has been made
with the project Architect, who indicates that he has not been retained by the applicant for some
time and has been left with an outstanding balance for professional services.
Given these facts, this file will be closed pursuant with the provisions of the Development Procedures
Bylaw No. 5879-1999.
-2-
d) Citizen/Customer Implications:
The neighbourhood has endured many years of disturbance due to the poor state of most dwellings
within the former Northumberland Court project. They were pleased with the demolition of the
structures and securing of the site by the new owner in 2009. The lack of progress by the applicant
to advance this application will be a disappointment to the neighbourhood.
e) Alternatives:
Alternatively, Council could direct staff not to close this file, although this is not consistent with the
bylaw.
CONCLUSIONS:
Northumberland Court has been demolished and the site is secured by way of a portable fence.
These efforts have brought to an end the worst offending features of the previous use. The applicant
owns the site and can be expected in the future to proceed with some development proposal. Given
the lack of contact with the owner and his unwillingness to apply for a Development Permit or retain
the services of an architect, it is very doubtful the applicant wishes to proceed with the Rezoning
Application at this time. Given the lack of communication, the applicant's intentions cannot be
determined at this time. However, Council's request to proceed with a Development Permit has
been ignored and is now long overdue; therefore it is staffs intention that the application be closed.
"Original signed by Charles R. Goddard"
Prepared by: Charles R. Goddard BA MA
Manager of Development and Environmental Services
"Original signed by Christine Carter"
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
"Original signed by Frank Quinn"
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
GM: Public Works & Development Services
"Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule"
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A - Subject Map
-3-
co
2 °-
_17 (�V
J N
P 2899
17 1
�EP11040
E
Et
C
CI- CD
cvr" LO�� ,�
ti
CO
CO
em qk °E co
w 48 48 w'33' Rem
ce 49 50
/40
'29154-/
\2362/64
LLLLLL22356/58
99
P 50600
c Credit Union
Rem
ReP4143 2
4 1 11777
53
P
11765
52
2899
RTH AVE.
4r:0Ni/
a �[V
2
A 11783
M; 387
11784
P 5414
-EP 8383
A'
P 71022
P 6645
LOUGHEED H1GHWAY
14)
u -J
u�
o`r
LWC
ct
F2em5I'1
P 9742 11779 ls,
1' 8274 4
P P09211771
11774/78
94
P 44960
o_
NORTH AVENUE
Rem Rem
48 49
P 51411 11743
Rem 105
11770 C
P 5194
SUBJECT PROPERTY
(
P 8641 l
Rem 311771 i
1 WS
71. Tr 92
r� 11767
co
11735
3
P 19374
L
CO
CO CO
N N
22 21
P 155
19
11715
11697
18 1
11701-39
76
P 35742
NWS 8
2
g 74
11686
R3m. 6'
of3
P 8181 11697
r 11685
4
A
P 5871 LMP 1864
11672 3 LMS 683 11671
B 11675
P 9800
RP 52214F
31
P
2
u0
co
0)
155
13
PA
RP 6192)
14
u0
ti
RK
P16
CO
2
RP 5637
4641641
1
CALLAGHAN AVE.
L:\114
Scale: 1:2,000
Cit .f Pitt
Measows '
9RICKWOOD
CLOSE
rco
163n
2
P 0
1, (YR
cb
A
P 42732
Ln
N
N N
N
4-3
N
1 2 3
P 9372
11760 14
62/64/66 p
22503 15
05/07/09
13
769
10
F
Rem. 58
P 48518
11742
11724
70
P 63225
NWS 2:
11698 1
11668 6 15
11662 7 14
656
8 �� s•&
CV
38
8
7
36
11718 224 STREET &
11731 FRASER STREET
District of
Langley
FRASER Rfr-
MAPLE RIDGE
British Columbia
CORPORATION OF
THE DISTRICT OF
MAPLE RIDGE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: Oct 29, 2012 FILE: RZ/108/10 BY: PC
Oaep Aarls
Gnarl' Meigh2c
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: November 5, 2012
and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/063/10
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: Rezoning - First Extension
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6752-2010 and
Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No.6751-2010
11655 Burnett Street
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The applicant for the above noted file has requested an extension to this rezoning application under
Maple Ridge Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999. The proposal is to rezone the subject
property from RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential zone) and C-3 (Town Centre Commercial zone) to
RM -2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential zone) to allow future construction of a four -storey
apartment building with 21 units.
This project meets the requirements for inclusion in the Town Centre Incentives (TCI) Program under
the "New Residential Construction -4 storeys and higher" category falling within Sub Area 1 of the
Town Centre Area. The applicant has been actively working towards satisfying Council's conditions
and it is anticipated that final approval will be sought within a few months.
RECOMMENDATION:
That a one year extension be granted for rezoning application RZ/063/10 and that the following
conditions be addressed prior to consideration of Final Reading:
Approval from the Ministry of Transportation;
ii. Registration of a Rezoning Servicing Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant and receipt
of the deposit of security as outlined in the Agreement;
iii. Amendment to Schedule "C" of the Official Community Plan;
iv. Registration of a Geotechnical Report as a Restrictive Covenant which addresses the
suitability of the site for the proposed development;
v. Road dedication as required;
vi. Removal of the existing buildings;
vii. Park dedication as required;
viii. Registration of a Habitat Protection Restrictive Covenant for environmentally sensitive
areas that will be outside the areas dedicated as park;
ix. Registration of a Restrictive Covenant protecting the Visitor Parking.
-1-
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Applicant:
Owner:
Legal Description:
OCP:
Existing:
Zoning:
Existing:
Proposed:
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 requirement:
Companion Applications:
Wayne Bissky of W S Bissky Architect Inc.
Shishu P Sharma and Sheila Sharma
Lot: 10, Section: 17, Township: 12, Plan: 12197;
PID: 008-956-278
Low -Rise Apartment, Conservation
RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential), C-3 (Town Centre
Commercial)
RM -2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential)
Apartment
C-3 (Town Centre Commercial), RS -1 (One Family
Urban Residential)
Low -Rise Apartment, Conservation
Single Family Residential
RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Low -Rise Apartment, Conservation
Lougheed Highway and Burnett Street, beyond which
is Single Family Residential
RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Urban Residential
Single Family Residential
RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Ground -Oriented Multi -Family
Vacant
Multi -Family (Apartments)
0.58 acre (2347.26 m2)
Burnett Street
Full Urban
DP/063/10; DVP/063/10; 2011 -039 -DP (WPDP)
This application is to permit 21 units in the RM -2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential) zone.
The following dates outline Council's consideration of the application and Bylaw/s 6752-2010 and
6751-2010:
• The First Reading Report was considered on August 30, 2010.
• First Reading was granted August 31, 2010
• The Second Reading Report (see attached) was considered on August 29, 2011.
• Second Reading was granted August 30, 2011.
• Public Hearing was held September 20, 2011
• Third Reading was granted October 11, 2011
-2-
Application Progress:
Approval from the Ministry of Transportation was received on November 25, 2011. The applicant has
completed most of the terms and conditions to be met prior to Final Reading of the Zone Amending
Bylaw. The major outstanding item is the finalizing of the Rezoning Servicing Agreement outlining
the off-site servicing upgrades and the associated monies. The initial design for off-site servicing
works has undergone revisions based on comments from the Engineering Department and the final
drawings are being prepared by the applicant's engineer which is anticipated to be submitted soon.
It is anticipated that final approval along with the Development Permit (form and character) approval
will be sought within a couple of months.
Alternatives:
Council may choose one of the following alternatives:
1. Grant the request for extension;
2. Deny the request for extension; or
3. Repeal Third Reading of the bylaw and refer the bylaw to Public Hearing.
CONCLUSION:
The proposal is located within the south-eastern portion of the Town Centre Area and fits well with
Council's vision of increasing residential density within the Town Centre Area. It is anticipated to
provide smaller units (one and two bedroom units ranging from 56 m2 to 78.6 m2 unit size each). It
also promises substantial clean-up and enhancement in the riparian areas around Creek 33 and its
tributary, including increased conservation areas on site.
The applicant has been actively pursuing the completion of this rezoning application and has applied
for a one year extension. It is anticipated that within the next few months, request for Final Reading
approval will come in.
"Original signed by Rasika Acharya"
Prepared by: Rasika Acharya, B -Arch, M -Tech, UD, LEED® AP, MCIP, RPP
Planner
"Original signed by Christine Carter"
Approved by. Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP
Director of Planning
"Original signed by Frank Quinn"
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
GM: Public Works & Development Services
"Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule"
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A - Subject Map
Appendix B - Second Reading Report
-3
Rem. 63
P 51655
FLILTON ST
RITCHIE AVE.
12
1830,r
1
11
2
11692
11695
co
c0
10 M1
ti 3
11682
co
co
11681
EL
a
11672
4
11669
8
5
11662
11661
7
',FE'
,
c-
N
m 6
rn
ti
N
CV
CD
ry
16
15
7
ti
CN
CO
CN
14
13
OD
CN
12
13
M1
07
07
D
22790 a
22782
14
J
17
•
7
9
10
11
12
co,
LOT 1
a S 1/2 1
11749
LPA 82566
P81957
r z i (Jac
A
11750
r 'i u u 1
Rem.
108
11747
Rem
N 1/2 5
1736
o
CO
co
Rem a
S 1/2 5
1716
11739
P 1258
Remi
11690
8
E�
60'
P 12588
2
SUBJECT PROPERTY
11646 Q
10
P 12197
11632
EP 12951
B
Rem.
1
12316
NM -
2
P 12316
11633
11621
A 11607
RP 13279
13
M
1
A
P 16473
,±21/1P,:7992
3
N� nnII
N :.1
N 4
aD
10
11597
1/567
11553
1
e
E
11644
6
P 16011
zap
D 227
ti
228
11675
11671
238
c,i
CLIFF AVE.
10)
N
0
P r1
0
C)
51
4�
P 8881
Rem.A
6)
N
P7 03
83
26
117 AVE.
CD
N
243 244
P §5141
1686 242
24:
11680
171
172
Lf)
17;
GILLEY AVE
5
P 14
1
22908/10
2
22904/06
NWS 3378
1
P 83761
1
LMP 30408
18:
BC:
RF
Cit sf Pitt
Measows '
11655 BURNETT STREET
Scale: 1:2,000
District of
Langley
FRASER Rfr-
MAPLE RIDGE
British Columbia
CORPORATION OF
THE DISTRICT OF
MAPLE RIDGE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: Oct 29, 2012 FILE: RZ/063/10 BY: PC
❑a ep Run's
areal& HectMs
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: August 29, 2011
and Members of Council FILE NO: RZ/063/10
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: Second Reading
Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6751-2010;
First and Second Reading
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6752-2010
11655 Burnett Street
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On August 31, 2010 Council gave First Reading to this application and the applicant had one year to
submit all the pending reports/applications and present to the Advisory Design Panel. This has been
accomplished.
The proposal is to rezone the subject property from RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential) and C-3
(Town Centre Commercial) to RM -2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential) to allow future
construction of a four -storey apartment building with 21 units.
This project meets the requirements for inclusion in the Town Centre Incentives (TCI) Program under
the "New Residential Construction -4 storeys and higher" category falling within Sub Area 1 of the
Town Centre Area.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. 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. 6752 - 2010 on the municipal website, and Council considers
it unnecessary to provide any further consultation opportunities, except by way of holding
a public hearing on the bylaws;
2. That Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6752-2010 be considered in
conjunction with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Waste Management Plan;
3. That it be confirmed that Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6752-
2010 is consistent with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Waste Management Plan;
4. That Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 6752-2010 be given First and
Second reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing;
5. That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6751-2010 be given Second reading and be forwarded to
Public Hearing; and
6. That the following terms and conditions be met prior to final reading.
i. Approval from the Ministry of Transportation;
ii. Registration of a Rezoning Servicing Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant and
receipt of the deposit of security as outlined in the Agreement;
iii. Amendment to Schedule "C" of the Official Community Plan;
iv. Registration of a Geotechnical Report as a Restrictive Covenant which addresses
the suitability of the site for the proposed development;
v. Road dedication as required;
vi. Removal of the existing buildings;
vii. Park dedication as required;
viii. Registration of a Habitat Protection Restrictive Covenant for environmentally
sensitive areas that will be outside the areas dedicated as park;
ix. Registration of a Restrictive Covenant protecting the Visitor Parking.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Applicant:
Owner:
Wayne Bissky of W S Bissky Architect Inc.
Shishu P Sharma and Sheila Sharma
Legal Description: Lot: 10, Section: 17, Township: 12, Plan: 12197;
PID: 008-956-278
OCP:
Existing: Low -Rise Apartment, Conservation
Zoning:
Existing: RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential), C-3 (Town Centre
Commercial)
Proposed: RM -2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential)
Surrounding Uses:
North: Use: Apartment
Zone: C-3 (Town Centre Commercial), RS -1 (One Family
Urban Residential)
Designation Low -Rise Apartment, Conservation
2-
South:
Use:
Zone:
Designation:
East: Use:
West:
Zone:
Designation:
Use:
Zone:
Designation:
Existing Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Site Area:
Access:
Servicing requirement:
Companion Applications:
b) Site and Project Description:
Single Family Residential
RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Low -Rise Apartment, Conservation
Lougheed Highway and Burnett Street, beyond which
is Single Family Residential
RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Urban Residential
Single Family Residential
RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Ground -Oriented Multi -Family
Vacant dilapidated structures
Multi -Family (Apartments)
0.58 acre (2347.26 m2)
Burnett Street
Full Urban
DP/063/10; DVP/063/10; 2011 -039 -DP (WPDP)
The subject site located at 11655 Burnett Street, is trapezoidal in shape with an approximate area
of 2339.99 m2 (0.58 acres), located on the south-eastern edge of the Town Centre Area. An existing
vacant house was recently removed and an outbuilding situated at the northeastern portion of the
lot, exists in a dilapidated condition. The south and west edges of the property are impacted by
Creek 33 and an unnamed tributary, designation 'conservation" in the Town Centre Area Plan. The
proposed apartment building is within 50 metres of the top of bank and requires a Watercourse
Protection Development Permit. It is anticipated that the riparian areas will be cleaned, enhanced,
re -vegetated and dedicated as "park".
This application is to rezone the subject property from RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential) and C-3
(Town Centre Commercial) to RM -2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential) to permit the
development of a four storey apartment building containing approximately 21 units. A similar
apartment building was recently completed to the north. A Geotechnical Report dated May 09,
2011 by Valley Geotechnical Engineering Services Ltd, has been submitted, noting that the site can
be safely used for the intended use. Main access to the site is proposed from Burnett Street.
Garbage and recycling bins are proposed in a weatherproof enclosed room adjacent to the driveway.
Landscaping is proposed to enhance semi -private areas and buffer adjacent uses.
This proposal is taking advantage of the reduced parking standards applicable for development
within Central Business District and the Sub -Area 1 of the Town Centre Incentives program and
proposes at grade parking stalls for residents and visitors. Main access to the site is from Burnett
Street. A Traffic Impact Analysis Report dated August 11, 2011 by OPUS International Consultants
Ltd. concludes that the existing intersection at Lougheed Highway and Burnett Street does operate
adequately and safely and that the proposed project does not negatively impact the existing traffic.
-3-
c) Planning Analysis:
Official Community Plan & the Town Centre Area Plan:
The subject property is located within the Central Business District and is designated "Low -Rise
Apartment" and "Conservation" in the Town Centre Area Plan. The proposed RM -2 (Medium Density
Apartment Residential) zoning aligns with the Low -Rise Apartment land use designation which is
intended to be 3 to 5 storey apartment form of housing with central access to all the units.
However, an amendment to schedule C of the Official Community Plan is required to adjust the
conservation boundary after significant portion of the environmentally sensitive areas is dedicated
as "park". In addition to this some environmentally sensitive areas outside the dedicated areas, will
be placed under a Habitat Protection Restrictive Coveanant.
Zoning Bylaw:
The current application proposes to rezone the property located at 11655 Burnett Street from RS -1
(One Family Urban Residential) and C-3 (Town Centre Commercial) to RM -2 (Medium Density
Apartment Residential) to permit the development of a four storey apartment building containing
approximately 21 units (1 and 2 bedroom units ranging from 56 m2 to 78.6 m2 unit size each).
The proposed RM -2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential) zone is intended for low to medium
density apartment use and permits a maximum floor space ratio of 1.8 times the net lot area. The
usable open space required in this zone is 20% of the consolidated net lot area and the required
common activity area in this zone is 1 m2 per unit. The maximum height permitted in this zone must
not exceed 15 metres and 4 storeys. The permitted minimum setback from all property lines for this
zone is 7.5 metres. The proposed zone also requires a minimum of a common usable open space of
20% of the net lot area and the applicant has proposed an open space of 328.6 m2. The zone also
requires a Common Activity Area of 1 m2 per unit. 38.7 m2 of Common Activity Area has been
proposed (Appendix D).
It is anticipated that some retaining wall height and setback variances will be required for the
proposed structure, due to significant portion of the lot that will be dedicated as "park". These will
be discussed in a future report for Council consideration.
Off -Street Parking and Loading Bylaw:
This proposal is subject to the revised minimum parking standards applicable within the Central
Business District of the Town Centre Area due to location. The Town Centre Parking Strategy
completed in 2008 revisited parking standards for some uses within the Town Centre Area and
include revised parking standards for residents based on number of bedrooms for a multi -family
residential use. For this proposal, as per Section 10 of the Maple Ridge Off -Street Parking and
Loading Bylaw 4350-1990, a minimum of 1.0 space per one bedroom unit and 1.10 spaces per two
bedroom unit, is required to cater to the residents parking requirement and 0.2 space per unit for
the visitors parking (without off-street parking available) is required. Out of the total parking spaces
required, 10% of them may be for small cars. This proposal requires 22 resident parking spaces
and 5 visitor parking spaces, as per the ratios stated above. A total of 27 at grade parking spaces
(including one handicapped and two small cars), for residents and visitors have been proposed
-4-
(Appendix D). Section 10.3 of this bylaw also specifies long-term and short-term bicycle parking
required for all developments within the Town Centre Area. Based on the ratio of 6 spaces for every
20 units, 4 short-term bicycle racks have been proposed closer to the main entrance foyer of the
building, in a well -lit area visible to pedestrians and cyclists. Based on the ratio of 1 long-term
parking space for every 4 units, 6 long-term bicycle storage lockers have been proposed within the
at grade parkade, closer to the Common Activity Area (Appendix D).
Development Permits:
Pursuant to Section 8.9 of the Official Community Plan, a Watercourse Protection Development
Permit application is required for all developments and building permits within 50 metres of the top
of bank of all watercourses and wetlands. The purpose of the Watercourse Protection Development
Permit is to ensure the preservation, protection, restoration and enhancement of watercourse and
riparian areas. The proposal is within 50 metres of the top of bank of Creek 33 and its unnamed
tributary; hence subject to Watercourse Protection Development Permit approval. This will be
approved after final reading by Council on the rezoning application.
The Town Centre area is divided into seven precincts and the subject site lies within the South of
Lougheed Highway (SOLO) precinct of the Town Centre Area, which supports development of a 3 to 5
storey apartment building. This proposal is for a four storey building. Pursuant to Section 8.11 of
the Official Community Plan the proposal is subject to the Town Centre Area Development Permit
guidelines to address the form and character of the development. This will be the subject of a
future Council report.
Advisory Design Panel:
On May 10, 2011, the Advisory Design Panel reviewed the proposal and resolved that the following
issues/concerns be addressed with the Planning Department and further that Planning staff forward
this on to the Advisory Design Panel for information:
• Consider reconfiguring the bike storage area;
• Consider addition of security around the parkade;
• Reconsider treatment of the front entrance; add an entry statement;
• Consider the addition of prominent features to the visible corners of the building;
• Re address the common activity area; include a backdrop element other then chain
link fence; architectural wall or screen;
• Consider addition of benches or other permanent furniture;
• Consider two storey culture stone elements where lower floor and upper floors align;
• Consider the addition of stone cladding to the exterior parkade columns;
• Consider relocating visitor parking closer to elevator lobby;
• Consider green wall element near visible elevations;
• Consider Reducing the prominence of fire fighter access stairwell;
• Reconsider the use of western red cedar adjacent to the building to a smaller more
appropriate building edge tree; more columnar;
• Consider simplifying the variety of planting species around building edge;
• On Drawing A07 correct the labeling of the South and West elevations.
-5-
The project architect has addressed the Panel's concerns and revisions have been sent to the Panel
for review. This will be discussed in the Development Permit report at a later date for Council
consideration.
Development Information Meeting:
As per Council Policy 6.20, a Development Information Meeting is not required for a proposal with
less than 25 units. This project is proposing 21 units.
d) Citizen/Customer Implications:
The affected parties/citizens will get an opportunity to express any concerns at the Public Hearing.
e) Interdepartmental Implications:
Engineering Department:
The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal and has the following comments:
• West side of Burnett Street needs to be widened to the collector standard. At the south
property line the dedication would be approximately 4 metres and would curve or taper to
zero moving to the north. Exact road dedication will depend on the final road design;
• Other upgrades include the following: New curb, gutter and sidewalk on the west side of
Burnett Street fronting this property; A davit -arm street light on the west side of the road
near the south end of the site; Street Trees for the frontage of the subject site; under -ground
utilities; review existing water system in the area and confirm adequacy for the proposed
development;
Fire Department:
The Fire Department has reviewed the proposal and comments have been provided to the applicant.
The applicant has revised drawings to address concerns and ensured that all these will be
addressed through the Building Permit drawings at a later date.
Building Department:
The Building Department has reviewed the proposal and comments have been provided to the
applicant. Revisions have been incorporated into the Geotechnical Report to address concerns
expressed. The applicant has ensured that any other concerns will be addressed through the
Building Permit drawings at a later date.
Parks & Leisure Services Department:
The Parks & Leisure Services Department have identified that after the development permit is
approved they will be responsible for maintaining the street trees. In the case of this project it is
estimated that there will be some additional trees which will be based on the landscape plan
submitted by the Landscape Architect and will be attached to the approved Development Permit.
-6-
The Manager of Parks & Open Space has advised that the maintenance requirement of $25.00 per
new tree will increase their budget requirements.
f) School District Comments:
A referral was sent to the School District Office and there was no response.
g)
Intergovernmental Issues:
Ministry of Transportation:
On December 21, 2010, a referral was sent to the Ministry of Transportation. Preliminary approval
from the Ministry, for one year, was received on January 13, 2011.
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, (defining the conservation boundary)
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.
h) Environmental Implications:
The subject site is impacted by Creek 33 (nutrient stream) and its unnamed tributary on the western
boundary (Appendix A). The proposal is within 50 metres of the top of bank and hence subject to
Watercourse Protection Development Permit approval. An Environmental Assessment Report dated
April 04, 2011 by TERA Planning Ltd. has been submitted along with the Water course Protection
Development Permit application that is being processed. This report identifies the riparian area
around the watercourse which will be cleaned of blackberry species and enhanced/re-vegetated
before dedicating as "park" to the District. Some areas outside the dedicated areas will be placed
under a `Habitat Protection Restrictive Covenant". Approximately 1006.3 m2 of the area will be
dedicated as "park" and 207.4 m2 of the area covenanted, for conservation purposes. The goal of
the enhancement is an environmental management concept which provides more water to the
stream, stabilize the ravine slopes and provide a riparian protection zone. Some enhancements
proposed include: clean up garbage/debris and re -slope eroding side -slopes of the ravine; eradicate
blackberry/invasive species; plan and restore the area. A refundable security to do these works will
be paid by the applicant to do these works and will have a 5 year maintenance agreement to ensure
the planting survives.
-7-
CONCLUSION:
The proposal is located within the south-eastern portion of the Town Centre Area and fits well with
Council's vision of increasing residential density within the Town Center Area. It is anticipated to
provide smaller units (1 and 2 bedroom units ranging from 56 m2 to 78.6 m2 unit size each);
substantial clean-up and enhance the riparian areas around Creek 33 & its tributary, including
increased conservation areas. The proposal qualifies for the Town Centre Incentive Program hence it
is recommended that this proposal be given Second Reading and forwarded to Public Hearing.
Prepared by: Rasika Achar(ya, B -Arch, M -Tech, UD, LEED® AP
Planner
C&dil
(1
/clpproved by: Jane Pickering, MCP, MCIP
V Director of Planning
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
GM: Public Works & Development Services
currence: J. L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A - Subject Map
Appendix B - OCP Amending Bylaw 6752-2010
Appendix C - Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6751-2010
Appendix D - Proposed Site Plan
Appendix E - Proposed Elevations
Appendix F - Proposed Landscape Plan
-8-
245
Rem. 63
P 51655
RITCHIE AVE.
o
h.
N 12
NW
1830 e°
vti? 1
11
2
11692
11695
10
n
3
11682
CO
c
11681
0_
a
9
4
11672
11669
8
5
11662
11661
7
S
r -n
0
6
N
N
N
N
N
N
16
15
14
m
00
N
N
13
co
N
(o
G
LOT 1
co
bCP
a•
2 LOT2
c0
a S 1/2 1
11749
LP 82566
A
P 81957
A APPENDIX A
Rem
N 1/2 5
11736
Rem
S 1/2 5
11716
C0
a
P 12588
Rem.1
11690
E
60'
1
P 12588
\1678
SUBJECT PROPERTY
2
-o
a
67
0
N
N
0
227 N
0
l�
ti
-ay
a
228
11675
238
11671
Z3LIFF AVE.
0
2
P71
P 8881
Rem. A
CD
N
[T�
17
P 703
1
2
117 AVE.
244
5141
CO
0'
N
172
N
T
N
GILLEY AVE.
11646
11632
M
184
173
cp
EP 12951
B
13 rn
0
22790
22782
J
14
A
P 16473
13
1
LMP
2
r
m
N
1
LMP 30408
SCALE 1:2,000
Cliffstf Pitt
Meadows..]
11655 BURNETT STREET
District of
Langley `r
ERASER--�� -
6 IIiS(, Co',mhia
CORPORATION OF
THE DISTRICT OF
MAPLE RIDGE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: Apr 6, 2011 FILE: VP/063/10 BY: PC
APPENDIX B
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 6752-2010
A Bylaw to amend Schedule "C" forming part of the
Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 6425-2006 as amended
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 Schedule "C" to 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. 6752-2010
3. Schedule "C" is hereby amended for that parcel or tract of land and premises known and
described as:
Lot 10 Section 17 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 12197
and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 801, a copy of which is attached hereto and
forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby amended by adjusting Conservation boundary.
4. Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No.6425-2006 is hereby amended accordingly.
READ A FIRST TIME the day of . A.D. 20 .
READ A SECOND TIME the day of , A.D. 20
PUBLIC HEARING HELD the day of , A.D. 20 .
READ A THIRD TIME the day of , A.D. 20 .
RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 20 .
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
2
11695
co 3
r --
r-- 11681
op
P 12588
Rem.1
11690
0
E
m
60'
1
227 ry
0
1.
Lt)
3-
3-
a
228
4
11669
5
11675
11661
/ i3 12197 rifi-
7 0
N
N
m 6
N
11646
BCP 356
10
P 12197
N
N
op
m
N
11632
15
14
13
EP 12951
B
2
P 12316
11633
Rem.
1
P 12316
11621
A 11607
RP 13279
rn
co
rn
rn
r --
CC CC
ww
cc
z
22908/10 22904/06
m
22790
22782
14
10
11597
V
A'DLE RIDG
Bylaw No.
Map No.
From:
To:
OFFIC
6752 2010
801
C onservation
AL
Low—Rise Apartment
COV
\ITY PLA\ AVE\DI\G
MAPLE RIDGE
9ritish Columbia
SCALE 1:1,500
APPENDIX C
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 6751 - 2010
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. 6751- 2010."
2. That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as:
Lot 10 Section 17 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 12197
and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1488 a copy of which is attached hereto
and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby rezoned to RM -2 (Medium Density Apartment
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 31st day of August, A.D. 2010.
READ a second time the day of , A.D. 20 .
PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , A.D. 20 .
READ a third time the day of , A.D. 20 .
APPROVED by the Minister of Transportation this day of , A.D. 20 .
RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the day of , A.D. 20 .
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
15
10 n
co
d
T CO
r-
N
N
Ot5
�r^55 1
2
11695
m 3
11681
00
eL
4
11669
5
11661
m 6
N
N
13
13 rn
0
22790
22782
,3›� 14
15 ��$
cal 1171b
of
2
-J
P 12588
Rem.1
11690
0
E 0)
60' N
1
117 AVE.
227 N
0
(0
10
1
d
228
11675
8
11646
9
13CP 356
10
P 12197
11632
(0
EP 12951
B
A
Rem.
1
P 12316
2
P 12316
11633
Rem
E
11644
11621
6
P 16011
22$90
A 11607
RP 13279
3
P 14406prl*
1 '- 2
22908/10 22904/06
10
11597
VADLF AGF ZO\E AV- \D!\G
Bylaw No. 6751 2C10
Map No. 1288
From: RS -1 (One Family Urban Residential)
C --3 (Town Centre Commercial)
RM -2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential)
To:
NWS 3378
MAPLE RIDGE
British Columbia
SCALE 1:1,500
APPENDIX D
virmo
I. W.'. .01MMINNIPPle IM,M141.
/OM '.Id OMN.zl4' Me .w, +wror tin
6uip ing;uawuedy gawng
UOl;ellloUOoaa
8 ueld a;IS
MOM31N ,NINNVId
'NI NM.] Nvean 311f103LNJtN
ANSSIB N3Hd3JS 3NAVM
0
Zoning Analysis of 11855 Bums11 Sits
116656.0 s..n.»....n..O
.w: ....n iz• mw. wn 12121
.9.1 cMro. •..n 11.1.1C
t
INNANNV0.100
»..a rr013..a wwu.d N.
201.0 m .mow..,..»..w....,..
Let WW1: 30 rn 42.62 m
Percents. 0100,4. Wale be MOW smenden.1.0.430. 4 b..
44.0 made 10 tm v.1 tom 0714
.w.u..w: ..m ,.m m..16m...a»
31.2
swab ,.:m 0.0m r..
t
L
!9tv
iii
R1�
QRS $C%
77!
Hi
11
111'1111
Numbr 01 21 UNIX
.......vw per. awa. 12..wcn.mnw..•
0 61•16
aw. aw. 2.torm..m.m..».w»
-WYr.u.v w. 27.4
4
S
1
p2p
bg
1!
..
�s
Proposed Lot Line Dimensions i)
14E
of
F-�
2 z
OUg
Wu
Z.
Z2
02-
3-
cc
orcc
Z
ccJ
y
0-
0.
uanaws
se •301,18 eideW
Lean 0awne SS%I L-sse,PPV 1
6ulpling }uawpedy gauJng
191
1
a�
A
0
o$
W
suoi}enaIB 6wpr
1..18-17171
APPENDIX E
1
APPENDIX F
1
3
8
g
tl -
,(W\V-19 CED -ID not
111111111
111111111111 1M
R
0
O.
CO 0Z
CA C
M �
` J
2
4
MAPLE RIDGE
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: November 5, 2012
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2012-103-DVP
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: COW
SUBJECT: Development Variance Permit
10550 248 Street
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A Development Variance Permit application has been received for the subject site to vary the
maximum height of some retaining walls proposed on site. A Multi -Family Development Permit was
recently approved along with some setback and height variances for 34 townhouse units in eight
blocks, for the subject site.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2012-103-DVP respecting property located
at 10550 248 Street.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context
Applicant:
Owner:
Don Bowins
0865274 BC LTD.
Legal Description: Lot: 43, Section: 11, Township: 12, Plan: BCP36341;
OCP:
Existing:
Proposed:
Zoning:
Existing:
Proposed:
Surrounding Uses:
Medium Density Residential
Medium Density Residential
RM -1 (Townhouse Residential)
RM -1 (Townhouse Residential)
North: Use: 106th Avenue and vacant currently; future Multi -Family
Residential (townhouses)
Zone: RM -1 (Townhouse Residential zone)
Designation: Medium Density Residential
South: Use: Vacant currently; future Multi -Family Residential (townhouses)
Zone: RM -1 (Townhouse Residential zone) and A-2 (Upland
Agricultural zone)
Designation: Medium Density Residential & Conservation
East: Use:
Zone:
Designation:
West: Use:
Zone:
Designation:
Existing Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Access:
Servicing:
Previous Applications:
Requested Variance:
b) Project Description:
Vacant currently; future Single Family Residential
R-1 (Residential District zone); RM -1 (Townhouse Residential
zone) and A-2 (Upland Agricultural zone)
Medium Density Residential & Conservation
248th Street and Single Family Residential
R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District zone)
Medium Density Residential
Vacant
Multi -Family Residential (34 townhouse units)
248th street
Full Urban
RZ/090/04; SD/090/04; DP/114/07 and DVP/114/07
Maximum height of some retaining walls on site
The subject site (Appendix A), which was historically a gravel pit, has been heavily modified by site
grading over the years. The existing grades are challenging and will require substantial retaining.
The whole site has now been re -graded and slopes down towards 248th Street. The units are
designed to match the proposed grades. The proposed retaining walls along the eastern boundary
have been stepped and staggered to minimize any visual impacts. These retaining walls are required
to retain the steep grades on the east, adjacent to the future bare land strata road. The townhouse
units are oriented in the north -south direction to maximize southern exposure and to minimize any
visual impact of the proposed retaining walls along the eastern portions (Appendix C). A total of 34
units are proposed in eight blocks; each block consisting of four to five units. Each unit has its own
two -car parking garage and the required visitor parking stalls are well distributed throughout the site.
Two main accesses are proposed from 248th Street to allow adequate access to all the blocks
(Appendix B).
The subject site was zoned in 2007, after which this and the surrounding properties changed hands.
The new owners/developer is committed to ensuring the stability of the steeper slopes on the east.
c) Planning Analysis:
The proposed design of townhouses is consistent with the "Multi -Family Development Permit
Guidelines" for form and character as per Section 8.7 of the Official Community Plan. Council
supported some height and setback variances for the proposed 34 townhouse units. A Multi -Family
Development Permit was issued. At that time details of the retaining wall were not provided.
d) Zoning Bylaw:
The RM -1 zone (Townhouse Residential District) is intended for low to medium density townhouses
and multi family residential buildings. The proposal meets this intent but the site has a challenging
topography, triggering some retaining walls that exceed the maximum 1.2 metre permitted height.
The proposed retaining walls are along the eastern portion, in the side yards of buildings 2, 4, 6 and
8 as proposed and identified on Appendix B and C and are not anticipated to negatively impact the
future residents, as all the townhouse units are oriented in the north -south direction and the future
single family homes on the east will be at a much height than the retaining walls, overlooking them.
None of the units will be directly facing these retaining walls.
-2-
e) Variances to the Zoning Bylaw:
Part 4, Section 403(8) i.e. Maximum Retaining Wall Height, in any zone within the Zoning Bylaw, is
permitted to be 1.2 metres. The applicant is proposing some walls to range from 1.25 metres to
3.17 metres in height depending on the location within the eastern setbacks of the proposed
townhouses (Appendix C). This is achieved by stepping and staggering the retaining walls in the side
yards of proposed buildings 2, 4, 6 and 8, over the total height of soil to be retained, into two walls,
lower and upper walls (Appendix C). This is supported by a Geotechnical Report done by Valley
Geotechnical Engineering Services Ltd.
The heights of the proposed retaining walls are as listed below (Appendix C):
i. For the retaining wall between building 2 and the eastern property boundary, the upper wall
is proposed to be 1.7 metres high; requiring a variance of 0.5 metre;
ii. For the retaining wall between building 4 and the eastern property boundary, the lower wall is
proposed to be 1.4 metres high; requiring a variance of 0.2 metre and the upper wall is
proposed to be 1.6 metres high; requiring a variance of 0.4 metre;
iii. For the retaining wall between building 6 and the eastern property boundary, the upper wall
is proposed to be 1.7 metres high; requiring a variance of 0.5 metre;
iv. For the retaining wall between building 8 and the eastern property boundary, the upper wall
is proposed to be 2.0 metres high; requiring a variance of 0.8 metre;
v. For the retaining wall between building 6 & 8 and the eastern property boundary, the lower
wall is proposed to be 3.08 metres high; requiring a variance of 1.88 metres and the upper
wall is proposed o be 1.7 metres high; requiring a variance of 0.5 metre;
vi. For the retaining wall between building 2 & 4 and the eastern property boundary, the lower
wall is proposed to be 3.17 metres high; requiring a variance of 1.97 metres and the upper
wall is proposed to be 2.20 metres high; requiring a variance of 1.0 metre.
The above noted retaining walls are required due to challenging topography of the site and are not
anticipated to negatively impact any neighbours. The design of the retaining walls has been signed
off and sealed by a professional engineer.
f) Interdepartmental Implications:
Engineering Department:
The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed variances and has no concerns.
Fire Department:
The Fire Department has reviewed the proposed variances and has no concerns.
Building Department:
The Building Department has reviewed the proposed variances and has no concerns.
g) Citizen/Customer Implications:
The mail outs to inform residents of the proposed variances were mailed 10 days prior to the
anticipated Council Meeting date. Concerned residents in the neighbourhood have had the
opportunity to voice their opinions.
- 3 -
h) Alternatives:
Council recently approved the Multi -Family Development Permit along with some setback and height
variances for the 34 townhouse units. The developer is eager to get Building Permits for phase 1
which will comprise of 17 units while the other half are anticipated to be built in phase 2. Council
approval for the proposed retaining wall height variance is required prior to the Building Permits
being approved.
CONCLUSIONS:
The subject site was zoned in 2007 after which the properties changed hands. The new
owners/developer is committed to ensuring the stability of the steeper slopes on the east. Council
recently approved the Multi -Family Development Permit along with some setback and height
variances for the 34 townhouse units. It is anticipated that these will be built within a year or two, in
two phases. The proposed variances for the retaining walls are neither anticipated to negatively
impact the residents of the townhouse units nor the future owners of the bare land strata lots on the
east. This is because the townhouse units are oriented to face away from the retaining wall and the
future bare land strata single family lots on the east are at a much higher level, over -looking the
townhouses. It is recommended that 2012-103-DVP respecting property located at 10550 248th
Street, be approved.
"Original signed by Rasika Acharya"
Prepared by: Rasika Acharya, B -Arch, M -Tech, UD, LEED® AP, MCIP, RPP
Planner
"Original signed by Christine Carter"
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP
Director of Planning
"Original signed by Frank Quinn"
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
GM: Public Works & Development Services
"Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule"
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A - Subject Map
Appendix B - Proposed Site Plan (approved)
Appendix C - Proposed Landscape Plan and part sections showing the location/height of
the proposed retaining walls
-4-
g 11 7 1067 9
11 1
99
c.7
1067 6 6
6 1067 5
a 31
1067 2 ti a�� 30
4 'r 1067 6 121
1067
1067 7
a
1067 0
9
17
ti
°j,
v.
118
5
1066 9
10668
tip`b�
� ^ 29
7, 139 a
1066 6
4
10
1
16
ryas ^6 ,i,',` a.°
73 -< 10666 70639138 7p669
10665
10662 18 o-� rO ry
pj m
10656 119 co 140
10660 3 1110659 w
15 19ryZO0'5'
�P-k ,O6
'1 658
w� 10660
,63 \�o�P �° p, 137 Q 70667
10656 2 1
14
22 21" •
653 °p a m 141
10650 10655
10652
7094,3 y
,° 5 w 136 70
1
13
23 706
Is
135 0 142 663
tRK 134 P 260 143 'o 0,,
1333 0G
144 °6w
145 °,
0# w
°146 °� w 1061 6
GQ 6 °
0 147 679 Ptn of
148 7006SK 73 N 1/2
65041/4
r1
N
42
10640
4s
10643
24
A6j'
25
,
M
0
26
28
<
0
27
a
10601 moo' a 11
5 P 18 280
Gj 10606
BCP 36341
�P
7°se0 11 ^ 13 70,6 12
7€26> 7
106 AVE. 24860
6. s
7o7p6j0'g1 • 1 150705>a1 ,>
5 ,0 0
los 2 6 80. 17,0 7056> ' es", 706. s'' 3132
7056 Ses �O5 °
0
33
•
• 45 BCP
36341
7 18 9, 30
6 6 19 70667 4o 7°556° 29 . 103366
705665
2077:659 loss 28na 35
OSss ? 2 10553
43 Property,
10550
�Q
7004 2170557 1 7054626 36 1054
6 %4
3
�LSubject
706
70540 4^ 4ql, 706 ° 25 37
F 36
636 0, 227054 24 0
2' 7%, 7
io •
38
N
39
N
40
N
41
1 CO 23 7
/6;
P 12923
2
BCP 36341
10480 44
P 12 923
Rem 1
BCP 35626
Rem1
,L4
N
Scale: 1:2,500
Ci _.f Pitt
CMI ea
__
*�
"1►
j
10550-248 St
I VII
0
.rn
.II
I to
��
1•��
n�
to
I
CORPORATION OF
THE DISTRICT OF
.miA AdizE
aERIC
u'�k�'y,_
k
..E.
I
�I
;�:,_'
i�
I■..-
�.�
! y
YCf}'W`�
_.,
t•
0
MAPLE RIDGE
British Columbia
MAPLE RIDGE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
District of
_
fa
I1 JI
_
Langley =1 a .��•_m.
..
7
Jr�=�'
DATE: Sep 28, 2012 2012 -103 -VP BY: JV
ASER�
1
APPENDIX B
g I
z
Q
al 31
z
co
0
0
a
0
of •
OIPII" IPZMAIMM171.11 7) • MVMJI
i= MEOW MIMEMIE 111=11Z1"41WP" "Kik.
IIME11-tEMILimill.lrairIMMEIMillitniEll •
411 i1614°P-11-411124'
1610
111- 1111:111A,
LI
1
Mal=
Pileik •
MIN i*M1:1"7
le Yti
!i
gil
3y �j
fid[
via
Y
YY
APPENDIX C
w
az
�a I`ea
ilIIIIIIIfl�-lfllowing � r ,1 rs a NI
11 I
11117116': X11 II! 11 r te■,
fipp�� is
a
ALBION TOWNHOUSES
W
1
QZ
NO
Z~
u
oQ YA o w
JIA h o v
SECTION KEY PLAN
ld
0
m
ld
SECTION B LOOKING SOUTI-4 FROM FL TO LANE (BETWEEN BLDG
SECTION A LOOKING SOUTI-4 FROM PL TO BUILDING 2
ld
SECTION D LOOKING SOUTH FROM PL TO BUILDING 6
SECTION C LOOKING SOUTH FROM PL TO BUILDING 4
SCALE 3/16" • I'-0"
113
Mr:.r'I a R;0•;:;
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT: Soil Deposit Permit
25788 98 Avenue
['Cep fluvr5
Grum, Ne,gh2L
District of Maple Ridge
His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin
and Members of Council
Chief Administrative Officer
MEETING DATE:
FILE NO:
MEETING:
November 5, 2012
2012 -087 -SP
C of W
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
A Soil Deposit application has been made to the District which falls under Section 20(3) of the
Agricultural Land Commission Act. This site is 8.0 hectares and is within the Agricultural Land
Reserve (ALR). This application arises from the property owner's interest to improve agricultural
utilization of the property. The proposed volume of soil material for deposit at this property is
32,000 cubic metres (m3); approximately 4600 truck loads. The land owner's proposal consists of
an average fill depth of 1.0 metre and the fill area covers approximately 3.8 hectares (9.4 acres).
This application is being processed under the requirements of the Agricultural Land Commission
(ALC) which requires Council's comments and recommendations concerning the proposed fill activity
on ALR land prior to forwarding the application (with Council's comments) to the ALC for review.
Based on the information provided by the applicant, discussion with ALC staff and review of ALC
policies, District Staff support this application. The property is currently farmed and the property has
Farm Tax status. Any fill application approved by the ALC will be required to conform to the District's
regulations (specifically the Soil Deposit Bylaw No. 5763-1999).
RECOMMENDATION:
That the application for a Soil Deposit Permit under Section 20 (3) of the Agricultural Land
Commission Act for the property at 25788 98 Avenue be forwarded to the Agricultural Land
Commission.
BACKGROUND:
Applicant:
Owner:
Legal Description:
Zoning:
OCP:
Surrounding Uses
North:
Existing:
Existing:
Use:
Zone:
OCP:
Zone:
OCP:
Al Morris (Co -Pilot Industries Ltd.)
Doreen Keel and Alfred Keel
Lot 21, Sec. 1, Tp 12, NWD Plan 43282
100% RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential)
100% AGR (Agricultural)
4 properties, Agricultural and Rural Residential
(2) 100% RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential)
(2) 100% AGR (Agricultural)
(2) 100% RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential)
(2) 100% URBRES (Urban Reserve)
South Use: Suburban Residential and Rural Residential
Zone: 100% RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential)
OCP: 86% SUBRES (Suburban Residential)
14% RURRES (Rural Residential)
East Use: 4 properties, Agricultural and Rural Residential
Zone: 100% RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential)
OCP: 100% AGR (Agricultural)
West Use: 2 properties, Agricultural and Rural Residential
Zone: 100% RS -3 (One Family Rural Residential)
OCP: 100% AGR (Agricultural)
Existing Use of Property: Agricultural, Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Agricultural, Single Family Residential
Access: Spillsbury Street
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The property is located within the Agricultural Land Reserve, not within a floodplain, and over an
underground aquifer (Grant Hill Aquifer) that is used for local resident water supply.
The mainstem of Sprott Creek flows north to south along the western property boundary. Three
tributaries to Sprott Creek flow north to south within the southwestern portion of the property and
one tributary flows from the north-west to the south-east across the southeastern corner of the
property. Sprott Creek has a 30 metre setback, and provides drainage for properties to the north,
east, south and west of the subject property. Of the three tributaries in the south-west corner of the
property, the western most tributary would have a 30 metre protective setback. The tributary along
the southern boundary of the property would have a 10 metre protective setback from the Top of
Ravine Bank. Limited filling and grading work is proposed within the identified protective setbacks,
however the short term filling activity is not expected to negatively affect these watercourses as the
appropriate erosion and sediment control measures will be required along with monitoring by a
qualified environmental professional. The habitat within the protective setbacks will be restored
with native vegetation following completion of the fill and grading work.
The applicant has proposed to bring fill onto the property in order to reduce the uneven terrain that
limits the operation of agricultural machinery in certain areas of the property and subsequently the
importation of fill is expected to improve soil quality. A soils study completed by Madrone
Environmental Services Inc. has concluded that filling according to the company's prescriptions will
improve soil quality from a mixture of Class 2 to Class 7 soils to Class 2 soils.
The applicant is proposing to place 32,000 m3 of soil over 3.9 hectares (49%) of the property. The
elevation of the 3.9 hectares will be raised an average of 1.0 metre.
The applicant has submitted survey drawings from Wade & Associates Inc., a geotechnical
assessment report, proposed contours and fill elevations from Valley Geotechnical Engineering
Services Ltd., and a hydrological assessment and soil quality assessment prepared by Madrone
Environmental Services Ltd. An amendment to the Hydrological and Soil Quality assessment report
from Madrone Environmental Services Ltd. states that the underlying aquifer and subsequently
2-
groundwater wells used for residential purposes will not be impacted as a result of the proposed fill
activity.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS:
There are concerns associated with the potential impacts of filling with regards to management of
storm water and water quality during and following the proposed filling activity. Two tributaries to
Sprott Creek are located in close proximity to the proposed soil deposit and grading area. The
western tributary is located along the western boundary of the fill project and the southern tributary
is located south and downslope of the proposed fill site As a condition of the Permit, the Permit
holder will be required to restore riparian habitat along these two tributaries to Sprott Creek and
establish protective fencing for these protected riparian areas.
If Council supports the Permit and it is approved by the ALC, the Permit holder will be required (in
compliance with the Watercourse Protection Bylaw) to provide assurances (refundable securities)
that adequate stormwater management and erosion and sediment control measures are
established for this site to ensure that negative impacts to the adjacent watercourse and
neighbouring properties do not occur as a result of this proposed soil deposit project.
INTERGOVERNMENTAL ISSUES:
Agricultural Land Commission:
Under the existing regulations, if the local government approves, in principle, the Soil Deposit
Application, the ALC must review the proposal for Soil Deposit in the Agricultural Land Reserve. If
the ALC does not approve the Application, the District cannot grant a Permit. If the ALC does
approve the Application, the District is obligated to grant a Permit, however, the District can and will
regulate the soil deposit through the requirement of professional reports and assurances,
appropriate securities, and permit conditions as permitted by the District of Maple Ridge Soil
Deposit Bylaw (No. 5763-1999).
It is our understanding that the proposed Soil Deposit Permit application will need to be approved
by the ALC as per Section 20 of the Agricultural Land Commission Act.
CITIZEN/CUSTOMER IMPLICATIONS:
There are ongoing Resident concerns related to existing fill operations located within rural
residential areas and in ALR areas within the District. The four most notable concerns that have
been raised by residents regarding soil deposit sites and activities in rural areas include impacts to
road safety, impacts to road conditions, an increase in noise and environmental impacts as a result
of increased truck traffic and site disturbances.
The District has the ability to apply conditions to the Permit in an attempt to address the concerns
outlined above.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS:
Filling, land grading, traffic and road conditions within this rural residential area are issues that
affect Planning, Engineering, Building, Enforcement and Operations Departments. Consensus on
-3-
acceptable risk standards and traffic volumes would provide a consistent approach and
requirements for similar proposals for properties in rural residential and agricultural land areas.
ALTERNATIVES:
The applicant is asking for a Permit to raise the level, and grade, of approximately 49% of the
property. The arguments for depositing the 32,000 m3 (4600 truck loads) include improving soil
conditions and improving topographical constraints that currently limit farm use of land on the
property.
Alternatives that could be considered to provide some improvements would include the following.
1. Grading the land without additional soil material to improve access.
2. Install groundwater/stormwater management system to capture surface water runoff
and transfer this water, in a controlled fashion, to Sprott Creek.
CONCLUSION:
Based on the information provided by the applicant, the Soil Deposit Permit Application is supported.
It is our understanding that the proposed Soil Deposit Permit application provides adequate
justification for this activity to occur on land within the Agricultural Land Reserve. It is recommended
that this proposal be approved through resolution by Council and forwarded to the ALC. The ALC will
determine whether this non-farm use proposal would be beneficial to agriculture.
"Original signed by Mike Pym"
Prepared by: Mike Pym, MRM, MCIP, RPP
Environmental Technician
"Original signed by Christine Carter"
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL. MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
"Original signed by Frank Quinn"
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng.
GM: Public Works & Development Services
"Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule"
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A - Subject Map
-4-
I
es7° P 38306
P 27538
P 2019
P 290321
9837
1
9825
I
•P
2019
19
16
S 112 6
17 +
i
14
4
/
`
I-
I
SUBJECT PROPERTY
w
w
93 AVE
''NI
1 �?I;L' P43282
ri,
`.
16,
1
Icv
I
Lo
co
co
m
_
Remy
9770
\
,
1
1
d
9707H
9844
P 6220
N.
I 1,21
IIII
1
r!
1
II
I
`
I
1
j
1
I
3
9730
'cc.',
',
Rem of W. 637.6
of
l
1,—
l
14
I
I
I
/ /
..
a
/
2
4
.
II
J r
i
f
` 0
/ /
/�
r�
■ 1 i
f
,._.
1
{
i
I
BCP 36535
PARCEL 'A'
n 12
P 41521
,L\,,
N
Scale: 1:3,000
Cit of Pitt
Mea cows "
"
--
ISI
_,-III
!
25788 98 AVENUE
0.1.1117-61=-7,-4"7/-�
lll-�
3
Mr
- isatS
'l"�
„,y5
1V L
�:n
15
:r.
i 1j-2...o-
j O
, -
CORPORATION OF
THE DISTRICT OF
—ju_:,�,-,
r':
�;=:�,:
e
L
L
,�
it,
j
oar
���ti�
N
,jam
MAPLE RIDGE MAPLE RIDGE
District of:,
British Columbia PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Langley7M,
��
MIA '�
DATE: Oct 29 2012 FILE: 2012 -087 -SP BY: PC
FRASER 13,____.-- - -----....
MAPLE RIDGE
British Columbia
Deep Roots
Greater Heights
TO:
District of Maple Ridge
His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: Nov. 05, 2012
and Members of Council FILE NO: T21-212-003
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C.O.W.
SUBJECT: Adjustments to 2012 Collector's Roll
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
BC Assessment (BCA) has revised the assessed value for the 2012 Collector's Roll through the
issuance of Supplementary Rolls 06 and 07. The Collector is required to make all the necessary
changes to the municipal tax roll records and reports these adjustments to Council.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
The report dated Nov. 05, 2012 is submitted for information.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Five folios were adjusted in total:
Reductions were made to the assessments of a vacant commercial property, as well as two
residential properties to accurately reflect their current conditions and values. One property had its
farm status reinstated. A successful appeal to the Property Assessment Appeal Board (PAAB) by the
owners of a commercial/residential split property in the area of 223rd Street and 117th Avenue
resulted in a reduction of the assessed value of the improvements.
(Municipal tax revenue changes: Decrease in Class 1 (Residential) $6,670; Decrease in Class 6
(Business) $6,215; Increase in Class 9 (Farm) $238)
b) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
There is a total decrease of $ 12,647 in municipal tax revenue.
CONCLUSIONS:
Corrections by BC Assessment and an appeal settled by PAAB resulted in a decrease of $1,631,300
to the Residential assessment base, a decrease of $528,900 to the Commercial assessment base,
and an increase of $8,863 to the Farm assessment base.
This report dated Nov. 05, 2012 is submitted for information and is available to the public.
"Original signed by Silvia Rutledge"
Prepared by: Silvia Rutledge
Manager, Revenue & Collections
"Original signed by Paul Gill"
Approved by: Paul Gill, B.B.A.; C.G.A.
General Manager: Corporate & Financial Services
"Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
MAPLE RIDGE
British Columbia
Deep Roots
Greater Heights
TO:
District of Maple Ridge
His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: Nov. 05, 2012
and Members of Council FILE NO: T21-212-003
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C.O.W.
SUBJECT: Adjustments to 2012 Collector's Roll
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
BC Assessment has revised the assessed value for the 2012 Collector's Roll through the issuance
of Supplementary Roll 08. The Collector is required to make all the necessary changes to the
municipal tax roll records and reports these adjustments to Council.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
The report dated Nov. 05, 2012 is submitted for information.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Three folios were adjusted in total:
The owner of two commercial properties located between Dewdney Trunk Road and Lougheed
Highway east of 203rd Street, as well as the owner of a commercial property located in Albion,
appealed their 2012 assessments. For the first two properties it was determined that rental
revenues used to calculate building values were overstated and resulted in an incorrect valuation.
For the third property it was determined that the condition of the building warranted a decrease of
the assessed value of improvements.
(Municipal tax revenue changes: Decrease in Class 6 (Business) $34,477)
b) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
There is a total decrease of $ 34,477 in municipal tax revenue.
CONCLUSIONS:
Appeals of 2012 assessed values settled by the Property Assessment Appeal Board of British
Columbia resulted in a decrease of $2,934,000 to the Commercial assessment base.
This report dated Nov. 05, 2012 is submitted for information and is available to the public.
"Original signed by Silvia Rutledge"
Prepared by: Silvia Rutledge
Manager, Revenue & Collections
"Original signed by Paul Gill"
Approved by: Paul Gill, B.B.A.; C.G.A.
General Manager: Corporate & Financial Services
"Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
-11
MAPLE RIDGE
Brit Ih Gciumh'u
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: 2012-11-05
and Members of Council FILE NO: CDPR-0640-30
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Committee of the Whole
SUBJECT: MAPLE RIDGE LIBRARY 2013 PROJECTED BUDGET
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Fraser Valley Regional Library proposed budget for 2013 for the Maple Ridge Library is attached.
A significant adjustment is attributed to a change in inter -library usage as a result of the opening of
the new Pitt Meadows Library. This change was anticipated and planned for so that the proposed
FVRL budget falls within funding plans anticipated in the District's 2013 budget plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
No resolution required.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
An agreement between the Municipality and Fraser Valley Regional Library (FVRL) for the
operation of the current Library has been in place since 2002.
The Pitt Meadows Library opened in 2012 and increased usage at this location has had an
impact on the inter -library usage formula. This is not unusual and a similar impact would have
occurred in other Municipalities when the Maple Ridge Library opened.
b) Desired Outcome:
The desired outcome of the agreement and of our relationship with FVRL is the provision of good
quality Library services in a cost effective manner that provides seamless service throughout the
region.
c) Strategic Alignment:
Library services are a fundamental component of Council's strategic direction of a safe and
livable community. The Library contributes to this direction through resources, inclusive services
and community gathering opportunities.
d) Citizen/Customer Implications:
The 2011 Parks and Leisure Services random sample survey conducted by Points West
Consulting Inc. identified that 67% of households use the Maple Ridge Library and that the trend
in usage is increasing from year to year since we began measuring Library usage in 2002.
e) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
The 2012 budgeted amount for the Library was $2,486,131. The budgeted amount for 2013 is
$2,616,123. The FVRL proposed budget of $2,603,564 can be accommodated within this
envelope.
A notable cost driver within the proposed budget is due to a change in net usage which results in
an increase to Maple Ridge's contribution by 92.29%. This adjustment was anticipated and can
be accommodated within the planned budget for the Library.
CONCLUSIONS:
The agreement with FVRL has been very positive in terms of providing valuable services to Maple
Ridge residents. FVRL's proposed 2013 budget for the Maple Ridge Library falls within what was
anticipated in the District's 2013 budget plan.
Prepared by: Kelly Swift, General Manager
Community Development, Parks and Recreation Services
Approved by: Paul Gill, General Manager
Financial and Corporate Services
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
KS
Fraser Valley Regional District Budget 2013 analysis
2013 Draft Budget - v1c4b
October 31, 2012
Direct Costs
Salaries and Benefits
Photocopier
Capital Expenses
Total Direct Costs
Shared Services Costs
Client Services
Library materials
Information Technology
Shipping & Receiving
Outreach Services
MarComm & Purchasing
Administration
Total Shared Services Costs
Usage Adjustment
Less cost to other FVRL communities
Plus costs from other FVRL Libraries
Adjustment for Metro Vancouver minimum
Net Usage Adjustment
Less: Revenue
Maple Ridge
2013 2012
Diff
$ 1,401,947.00 $ 1,356,922.00 $
$ 8,580.00 $ 8,580.00 $
$ 40,000.00 $ 40,000.00 $
$ 1,450,527.00 $ 1,405,502.00 $
45,025.00 3.32%
0.00%
0.00%
45,025.00 3.20%
$ 71,089.00
$ 549,883.00
$ 236,915.00
$ 31,390.00
$ 46,524.00
$ 53,711.00
$ 313,687.00
$ 1,303,199.00
60,892.00
550,917.00
239,196.00
48,859.00
46,547.00
44,200.00
269,650.00
1,260,261.00
$ 10,197.00
$ (1,034.00)
$ (2,281.00)
$ (17,469.00)
$ (23.00)
$ 9,511.00
$ 88,951.00
$ 42,938.00
16.75%
-0.19%
-0.95%
-35.75%
-0.05%
21.52%
32.99%
3.41%
$ (181,505.00) $
$ 248,205.00 $
$ (199.00) $
$ 66,501.00 $
(179,527.00) $
214,395.00 $
(285.00) $
34,583.00 $
(1,978.00) 1.10%
33,810.00 15.77%
86.00 -30.18%
31,918.00 92.29%
$ 216,664.00 $ 214,215.00 $ 2,449.00 1.14%
Member Assessment $ 2,603,563.00 $ 2,486,131.00 $ 117,432.00 4.72%