HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-12-07 Committee of the Whole Agenda and Reports.pdfCity of Maple Ridge
COMM/TTEE OF THE WHOLE
AGENDA
December 7, 2015
1:00 p.m.
Counci/ 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. The meeting is live
streamed and recorded by the City of Maple Ridge.
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 Maple Ridge Tree Protection Amending Bylaw
• Tom Kerr
1.2 Social Services Research Project
• Scott Graham, Associate Executive Director, Manager of Research,
Planning and Consulting, SPARC BC (Social Planning and Research
Council of British Columbia)
2. PUBL/C WOR{(S AND DEI/ELOPMENT SERI//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:
Committee of the Whole Agenda
December 7, 2015
Page 2 of 5
1101 2015-309-RZ, 21773, 21787 and 21795 Lougheed Highway, RS-1 to C-2
Staff report dated December 7, 2015 recommendingthat Maple Ridge Zone
Amending Bylaw No. 7180-2015 to rezone from RS-1 (One Family Urban
Residential) to C-2 (Community Commercial) to permit construction of a two-
storey commercial building be given first reading and that the applicant
provide further information as described on Schedules A, C and D of the
Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999.
1102 2012-004-RZ, 23791 112 Avenue, RS-3 to R-1
Staff report dated December 7, 2015 recommendingthat Maple Ridge Official
Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7159-2015 to designate from
Conservation to Urban Residential be given first and second reading and be
forwarded to Public Hearing and that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No.
7111-2014 to rezone from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to R-1
(Residential District) to permit a future subdivision of approximately 16 lots be
given second reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing.
1103 2015-334-RZ, Zoning Bylaw Text Amendment, Use of Shipping Containers
Staff report dated December 7, 2015 recommendingthat Maple Ridge Zone
Amending Bylaw No. 7184-2015 to direct the use of shipping containers be
given first and second reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing.
1104 2015-361-RZ, Zoning Bylaw Text Amendment, 1 km Rule for Wine Stores in
Grocery Stores
Staff report dated December 7, 2015 recommendingthat Maple Ridge Zone
Amending Bylaw No. 7190-2015 to prohibit the sale of liquor in any grocery
store located within one kilometer of a licensed retail store or government
liquor store be given first and second reading and be forwarded to Public
Hearing.
1105 Maple Ridge Tree Protection and Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Staff report dated December 7, 2015 recommendingthat Maple Ridge Tree
Protection and Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015 be given first, second and
third readings, that Maple Ridge Ticket Information Utilization Amending Bylaw
No. 7191-2015 be given first, second and third readings and that Maple
Ridge Development Application Fee Amending Bylaw No. 7192-2015 be given
first, second and third readings.
Committee of the Whole Agenda
December 7, 2015
Page 3 of 5
1106 2011-130-RZ, 12240 228 Street, First One Year Extension
Staff report dated December 7, 2015 recommending that a first one year
extension be granted for Application 2011-130-RZ to rezone to the R-3
(Special Amenity Residential District) zone to permit a future subdivision into
approximately 4 single family lots not less than 292 m2 in area.
1107 2013-039-RZ, 20208 Mclvor Avenue, First One Year Extension
Staff report dated December 7, 2015 recommending that a first one year
extension be granted for Application 2013-039-RZ to permit future
subdivision into 13 single family residential lots under the RS-1b (One Family
Urban [Medium Density] zone.
1108 2012-115-RZ, 12018, 12038 Edge Street and 22554, 22566 Brown Avenue,
Final One Year Extension
Staff report dated December 7, 2015 recommending that a final one year
extension be granted for Application 2012-115-RZ to permit a three phased
mixed use development consisting of 240 apartment units in three towers,
commercial floor area, underground parking and above ground structured
parking subject to the CD-1-13 (Comprehensive Development) zone,
1109 2014-065-DP, 22355 Mclntosh Avenue, Multi-Family Development Permit
Staff report dated December 7, 2015 recommending that the Corporate
Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2014-065-DP to permit renovation of a
podium style three storey wood frame apartment with 21 one bedroom units
over a first storey concrete building.
1110 2015-300-DP, 25467 Bosonworth Avenue
Staff report dated December 7, 2015 recommending that the Corporate
Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2015-300-DP in support of a
development plan for a four (4) lot subdivision under RS-2 (One Family
Suburban Residential) zoning.
Committee of the Whole Agenda
December 7, 2015
Page 4 of 5
1111 2014-086-SD, 5% Money in Lieu of Parkland Dedication
Staff report dated December 7, 2015 recommending that the owner of the
subject property pay an amount that is not less than $47,650.00.
1112 Latecomer Policy
Staff report dated December 7, 2015 recommending that the Latecomer
Policy be adopted.
1113 Local Area Service - Hampton Street Extension Bylaw No. 7178-2015
Staff report dated December 7, 2015 recommendingthat Maple Ridge
Hampton Street Extension Bylaw No. 7178-2015 to establish road, storm
sewer, sanitary sewer and water services on the 20100 Block of Hampton
Street be given first, second and third readings.
3. F/NANC/AL AND CORPORA TE SER �/CES (including Fire and Police)
1131 2016-2020 Financial Plan Bylaw
Staff report dated December 7, 2015 recommending that Maple Ridge 2016-
2020 Financial Plan Bylaw No. 7194-2015 be given first and second
readings. Note: Report was circulated separately.
4. COMMUN/TYDEI/ELOPMENTAND RECREA T/ON SERI//CES
1151 Festivals and Special Events Review Process
Staff report dated December 7, 2015 recommending that the Festival and
Special Event review process be approved.
1152 Subsidized Ice Allocation - Minor Sports
Staff report dated December 7, 2015 providing information on subsidized ice
allocation available to minor sport groups in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows.
1153 Leisure Centre Pool Renovations Contract Award
Staff report dated December 7, 2015 recommending that the Corporate
Officer be authorized to sign and execute Construction Contract ITT-PL15-67
with Mierau Contractors Limited for construction of the Maple Ridge Leisure
Centre Pool, mechanical and filtration system and that a contingency of 10%
for the contract be established.
Committee of the Whole Agenda
December 7, 2015
Page 5 of 5
5. CORRESPONDENCE
1171
6. OTHER /SSUES
1181
7. ADJOURNMENT
8. COMMUN/TYFORUM
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
bylaws 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:
rr�a�l�rld�e.��
City of Maple Ridge
T0: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: December 7, 2015
and Members of Council FILE N0: 2015-309-RZ
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: First Reading
Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7180-2015
21773, 21787 and 21795 Lougheed Highway
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received to rezone the subject properties, located at 21773, 21787 and
21795 Lougheed Highway, from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to C-2 (Community
Commercial) to permit construction of a two-storey commercial building. To proceed further with this
application additional information is required as outlined below. For this application to proceed a
number of variances to the C-2 zone will likely be required.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
In respect of Section 879 of the Local Government Act, requirement for consultation during the
development or amendment of an Official Community Plan, Council must consider whether
consultation is required with specifically:
i. The Board of the Regional District in which the area covered by the plan is located, in the
case of a Municipal Official Community Plan;
ii. The Board of any Regional District that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan;
iii. The Council of any municipality that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan;
iv. First Nations;
v. School District Boards, greater boards and improvements district boards; and
vi. The Provincial and Federal Governments and their agencies.
and in that regard it is recommended that no additional consultation be required in respect of this
matter beyond the early posting of the proposed Official Community Plan amendments on the City's
website, together with an invitation to the public to comment, and;
That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7180-2015 be given first reading; and
That the applicant provide further information as described on Schedules A, C and D of the
Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999, along with the information required for a
Subdivision application for the lot consolidation.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Applicant:
Bissky Architecture and Urban Design Inc.
1101
Owner:
Pagliacci Holdings Ltd.
Legal Descriptions: Parcel "B" (Explanitory Plan 10251) Lot 8 District Lot
247 Group 1 New Westminster Plan 1007
Lot 1& 2 District Lot 247 Group 1 New Westminster
District Plan 12044
OCP:
Existing:
Proposed:
Zoning:
Existing:
Proposed:
Surrounding Uses:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Commercial and Urban Residential
Commercial
RS-1(One Family Urban Residential)
C-2 (Community Commercial)
Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-1(One Family Urban Residential)
Designation: Urban Residential
Use: Commercial and Residential
Zone: CS-1(Service Commercial) and RS-1(One Family
Urban Residential)
Designation: Commercial and Urban Residential
Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-1(One Family Urban Residential)
Designation: Urban Residential
Use: Commercial
Zone: CS-1(Service Commercial)
Designation: Commercial
Existing Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Site Area:
Access:
Servicing requirement:
b) Site Characteristics:
Vacant and Residential
Commercial
0.53 Ha (1.3 acres)
Lougheed Highway
Urban Standard
The subject properties are located on the north side of Lougheed Highway, east of the Quality Inn
and Firefly Fine Wines and Ales businesses (see Appendix A and B). The properties located at 21773
and 21795 Lougheed Highway are currently vacant, while the property located at 21787 Lougheed
Highway has an existing house that will require removal as a condition of final reading. The subject
properties are flat with low-lying vegetation on the western lot, with some hedges and trees
surrounding the existing house.
c) Project Description:
This application proposes to rezone the subject properties from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
to C-2 (Community Commercial) (see Appendix C) to permit the construction of a two-storey
commercial building with a total gross floor area of approximately 2,787 m2 (30,000 ft2) (see
Appendix D).
-2-
At this time the current application has been assessed to determine its compliance with the Official
Community Plan (OCP) and provide a land use assessment only. Detailed review and comments will
need to be made once full application packages have been received. A more detailed analysis and a
further report will be required prior to second reading. Such assessment may impact proposed lot
boundaries and yields, OCP designations and Bylaw particulars, and may require application for
further development permits.
d) Planning Analysis:
Official Community Plan:
The properties located at 21773 and 21787 Lougheed Highway are designated Commercial in the
OCP, and the property located at 21795 Lougheed Highway is designated Urban Residential. The two
parcels currently designated commercial fall under the General Commercial Category. General
Commercial lands are intended to provide a mixture of traditional highway commercial and other
retail development. The policies do not envision significant office use in this designation and should
be located within the Town Centre.
The proposed C-2 (Community Commercial) zoning does not comply with the Urban Residential land
use designation, however, the OCP amendment is supportable because this amendment permits a
logical assembly of land into one development. This property, given its residential designation; small
size and Lougheed Highway location, would likely remain undeveloped. Therefore, a future OCP
application is required to re-designate 21795 Lougheed Highway from Urban Residential to
Commercial. A detailed assessment of the proposed OCP amendment will be provided in a future
report to Council.
On September 15, 2015 Council endorsed the Housing Action Plan. This plan contains a number of
action items to protect existing and create new rental housing stock in the City. One key component
is to create new rental units above commercial developments. Currently, this practice is being
negotiated on an individual basis during the development process. To this end staff has sought the
inclusion of rental units on the second floor of the current proposal. This housing option has been
resisted by the applicant who hopes to have the building's second storey occupied by professional
offices. Staff will be returning to Council in the new year with a follow-up implementation report on
ways to support the Housing Action Plan.
Zoning Bylaw:
The current application proposes to rezone the subject properties from RS-1 (One Family Urban
Residential) to C-2 (Community Commercial) to permit the construction of a commercial building.
Any variations from the requirements of the proposed zone will require a Development Variance
Permit application. The plan as submitted required a variance to the size of the second floor for
office use. Given the residential land use on the northern boundary of the property, past practice
has been not to support height variances along this section of Lougheed Highway. The only
exception has been a second storey used as a residential rental use. Any variance requested will be
the subject of a future report to Council.
Council has been seeking the inclusion of rental apartment units, secured through a Housing
Agreement, above all recent commercial development proposal in an effort to boost the City's rental
stock. The applicant is proposing a second storey of office uses rather than rental apartments.
Council's position has been raised with the applicant but they have decided not to introduce a rental
-3-
housing component to the project. Council can insist on such a use if desired and this option is
outlined in the alternative section of this report.
Development Permits:
Pursuant to Section 8.5 of the OCP, a Commercial Development Permit application is required to
address the current proposal's compatibility with adjacent development, and to enhance the unique
character of the community. The initial design shown attached does not conform to all of the DP
conditions and thus may change prior to second reading of this zoning amendment bylaw.
Advisory Design Panel:
A Development Permit is required and must be reviewed by the Advisory Design Panel prior to
second reading.
Development Information Meetin�:
A Development Information Meeting is required for this application, as an OCP amendment is
required. Prior to second reading the applicant is required to host a Development Information
Meeting in accordance with Council Policy 6.20. It can be expected that this proposal will raise some
interest from the neighbouring single family dwellings to the north and east of the site. Efforts
should be made by the applicant to buffer the development from negatively impacting these
neighbours through appropriate, lighting, fenestration and landscaping.
e) Interdepartmentallmplications:
In order to advance the current application, after first reading, comments and input will be sought
from the various internal departments and external agencies listed below:
a) Engineering Department;
b) Operations Department;
c) Licences, Permits and Bylaws;
d) Fire Department;
e) School District;
f) Utility Companies;
g) Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure; and
h) Canada Post.
The above list is intended to be indicative only and it may become necessary, as the application
progresses, to liaise with agencies and/or departments not listed above.
This application has not been forwarded to the Engineering Department for comments at this time;
therefore, an evaluation of servicing requirements has not been undertaken. We anticipate that this
evaluation will take place between first and second reading.
f) Early and Ongoing Consultation:
In respect of Section 879 of the Local Government Act for consultation during an OCP amendment, it
is recommended that no additional consultation is required beyond the early posting of the proposed
OCP amendments on the City's website, together with an invitation to the public to comment.
'�
g) Alternatives:
Council could elect not to support this application in its current form and insist that rental
apartments be provided above the ground floor commercial units. This has been Council's position
taken in the past on a number of other commercial proposals in Albion, Silver Valley and West Maple
Ridge.
Council could also insist on another option where a third storey is provided containing rental
apartments. This would, however, require the need for a variance for building height from 7.5 m
(24.5 ft.) to approximately 11 m(36 ft.) which may negatively impact neighbours.
If Council is concerned about the request to have second storey office uses located outside of the
Town Centre, which has been historically the case, it is suggested that the impact be limited by
insisting the C-2 zone's restriction that: "the second storey floor area shall not exceed 50% in area
of the first storey" be maintained.
h) Development Applications:
In order for this application to proceed the following information must be provided, as required by
Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999 as amended:
1. An OCP Application (Schedule A);
2. A complete Rezoning Application (Schedule C);
3. A complete Development Permit Application (Schedule D); and
4. A Subdivision Application.
The above list is intended to be indicative only, other applications may be necessary as the
assessment of the proposal progresses.
CONCLUSION:
The development proposal is not in compliance with the policies of the OCP, however, justification
has been provided to support an OCP amendment to re-designate 21795 Lougheed Highway from
Urban Residential to Commercial. Council could insist, at this stage, that rental apartments occupy
the proposed second storey of the project.
It is recommended that Council grant first reading, subject to additional information being provided
and assessed prior to second reading.
-5-
The proposed layout has not been reviewed in relation to the relevant bylaws and regulations
governing commercial development permits or variances. Any development scheme provided is
strictly preliminary and must be approved by the City.
"Original signed by Adam Rieu"
Prepared by: Adam Rieu
Planning Technician
"Original signed by Chuck Goddard" for
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
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A - Subject Map
Appendix B - Ortho Map
Appendix C- Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7180-2015
Appendix D - Site Plan
'�
Scale: 1:1,500
District of
Langley
;
1� r � o
, ' i.�
�; -- � i �
,�
�o
� �
�U
��L
�
i Q
r� I
' I
l �o
i +
_ _ _ < � �-
-------
FRASER R. ����
21773/21787/21795 Lougheed Hwy
2011 Image
2015-309-RZ
DATE: Oct 7. 2015
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
� �
mapleridge.ca
BY: JV
APPENDIX B
�,. r.
�.
i . ' y6'' .�
C�; "- �, �4 �--1►�1 � �- � _ o- � � ri� Y , ?c.�+
�' � 3 �'- �' 0] � � �
r- B � • �,_ r . s� �
n�r `'},r iE ti ... - � -
s- j �- � ,
- � � � � � ,� . � . ��.;, .
�.-. �e. - r-. . � � � . ... � � - - �,
,r a. : . r ` .. - U] . • yY� .
� � � � �� � j.��_ `' .. � + r-, • � •�. � i� � : r�-.;J
:� �p� _.� " �F' = Q ��� ��-" . .
''�'�F' - �T�'�� ` � �T $�. F ar,,, '�� , .. �
�,r
— "'��• , .•'y� � ,n„�" _ ' "' . '� • - �, � �
� ; � � s s . "�"� �x;. _ _ � I
r
! �i�l,a _ � � �tg $�.' 2S r � y�� r�rQ_ _ .
f �b� _.-_ .. �
... � + , ,. _ : � � • QOVE
r � � � � � r .' �3 �
� � ,-- ti _ �;�:- K -
�-
: c� • c" cv - cv r cv � •4: � j �.�- �
r -.
. . :b � :� � � .
H�WiS�N AVE. � N
�r • � r� � ___ - ri� .'i Y
'd'•s c� N "' S r '+i0 r: - ^ � - �. � � ' _
' . fy�_ _ � C�3 .� if] � t�p .?� � �. . . � .s� � � s,.
��C• � • fn_�� �., � . ¢.���'�� �{ '
- � SUBJECT PROPERTIES .yy� � � �'��� �
C, � .� : h . . . �,7' R �: S, � . � ..� i� � F.. I
�� � ' �- _ s4 i �' �
. i � �� � 'r � 'f � �
_ �
_ . ._ .�.. • •I +. . _ . �' ' "
� �F �. ... f � __ . i�i•� - ' � . . �
� I � - f . � ... .}'µ }r, ��u'••� 4� � �
fF� � � �� '�! f�; 4..r• �: � .
� . , • � �J.'.-=+: y� �' �
� � �' • �� ti: �_ � � �. ;. .-� .
3 r. � ,,..."-- !. �Kat - y¢ 1 ., �� ro � ti
r '.. ` . . + _z : � 1 d-�� � � � .
i: �� . �:=Y . , . , ,�
�.�.�I�������� � � '� .: �s:' . e � i� !7
I �' • I� u7 t! i C'S , � `" ` . � . '` � x' �. � _ .
J 6 i'] lf] h � � � � •: r
r 1� � _ ti j r� r. [• :. s�:.-.. r� 'i: .
r- j N't r N: x - �f t:� .� �# ...
K �� �
_ . Y'. ._ :� .�. � .
� . � .._.. �,:.cc.-.-.� . .. .. . • a✓-:. . .:w;' - ._. . .. - --+ ���w+--,�-
: . a:
' LOLlGHE�' HWY. �' �
_ �.
� . �.�- c= r�+ � . � - _. R �
' � r
G " . . � . � ,�. � -
� l � �
� �
I . � : " �� ~' ����_ �� � � . �
, � � �, , - { �.;J N ,�� �e `/� � r� 7
� � ■• . :-. '� N
� �� _ �. � �'���ea�y v, � , :��'- -`} �'�:�
, � _ . . ,� _ � � .
�- �:. � � w t' i�,'"' . �' ' � ��-� ,s` .� Fa;_:�R'"- �,
, Y' ! � , '*- ` `•� -`- � N �, �'
, ,�° — .. .. :_ - ,�� � ~ , j � �.,:`
� �' � • } . ' ].��
� �. . � �-�� - ��. �.�: I�' �
� '��.�- � '�'. . . � n - —
, �.
! '^ 'y1Yes., .�1• � . � .. — .i � _ �'.. � .
uri _ -- .. _ � �, `+�''� � , � T 7
, . . i '�' _
__i�_ _ � _ � -* � �� City�f �+ ple R�id,ge
c�f Pi �
"'e °Ws; ��- `�r� '� �� ! ° 21773/21787/21795 Lougheed Hwy
� , �� .
i � �u�--� ;� 2011 Image
,o
� _ ] I V PLANNING DEPARTMENT
,
-1'L
j +J
_ � , .. � � � � � � �
_,�, �v� � � _ � �
_ �
N � � .
� , � ; : ..
District of , � mapleridge.ca
Langley ,� �
l +o
Scale: 1:1,500 -- — � � �_ 2015-309-RZ
-------
FRASER R. DATE: Oct 7, 2015 BY: JV
APPENDIX C
CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW N0. 7180-2015
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 City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows:
1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7180-2015."
2. Those parcel (s) or tract (s) of land and premises known and described as:
Parcel "B" (Explanatory Plan 10251) Lot 8 District Lot 247 Group 1 New Westminster
District Plan 1007
3.
Lot 1 District Lot 247 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 12044
Lot 2 District Lot 247 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 12044
and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1647 a copy of which is attached hereto
and forms part of this Bylaw, are hereby rezoned to C-2 (Community Commercial).
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 , 20
READ a second time the
PUBLIC HEARING held the
READ a third time the
day of
day of
day of
,20
, 20
, 20
APPROVED by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure this day of
, 20
ADOPTED, the day of , 20
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
7 5J \
P 29839 P 28917 � P 31180 � 0 105 18 ,p 1e �
NN P 2 6917 N N P 14380 144 N N 166 N 167 N �1g9 6 � r,� �,,�eti
�° 134 58 �° ^^ 3 � g 9 2 6
g 9
DONOVAN AVE. � � 1o�1�gq1 �Q �g A c
> w rn ,��9�" 20 �Q-
� � m rn � nvi M v cn v rn I N�A �/ �O$ �1� � �6S` J
N N N N N N N N 293 O O 295 I� � N `� 1 ��93 O��'� 2� � � �
°' � °' N N � ��6Q A�S� 111 ,��.
198 199 200 201 202 203 204 m � m 208 209 11921
P 35 92 294 a Q a 296 P 35 92 �'�' 116 115 P 4 518 0^
11895 2 11888 \ p ry^�' 31
3609 ��'S� � o � 114 � 113 N 112
P 609 215 212 '�8� 9 N N N N N ry��
223 �, 222 221 220 219 218 217 216 ��eas ��esa 211 210 117 8,�
DOVER RD.
�`� � � � � � � 214 213 �� � �ie�s RW 44519-, � �o
N �
N N N N N N N N N � 118 (D O � W o 155 ti� O
N W W W � � O�^
HOWISON AVE. 11863 ry N N �
— N N 156���
119 150 151 152 153 154 �"
�� � � O N <D N O V V �
(D (D I� OJ m N M M � In (D I� p�
�� � � � � � � � � � � � � 11851 P 44 18
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N °' � 120 � 149 148 147 146 145 144 143
224 225 238 226 227 228 22g 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 N 237 � �°
P 36 99 121841 N N � � � ° � ° °
N N N N N ry C
Rem �92 P 120 4 11829 �a,uRiE AVE. RW 4451
122
6 319 2 1 B po �� � � � o ��
P 61812 N � ti'`$ ��° � � � � � � ��
P 1007 � N N N N N N N N N
� LP 77304 ��,� M ,� ,� � 123 124 125 126 I I
� o�� a � � m a 127 128 129� �130 131
N N N N N N N w P 44511
`" LOUGHEED HWY.
� � � � N � � � `�° � � � � � SL1 � � �m
ry N N N N N N N � N N N N� � N I�I N N N N�
Rem� N
275 2 d 840 C P 1 161 SL2 I� o � 3
'PP 67 r�
'PP075 'PP066 11772 SL3 � I � a
C "B" 1 2 3 11762 89 � 6 � � SL15
11767 11762 co SL4 � P 1278
2�6 �gg 5 M SL16
� SL5
P 8950 11753 $ � °9 L17o
P 11112 P 6664 P 6664 11750 11757 11754 4 d � SL6� � � 5117
277
� 11741 � 117 887c'� � 9 11747 117483 m S�� i�5L18U 6
a 278 � 186a � �p 11738 co C � SL19 117
��
11729 N 11726 a �
11737 2 M L$ I SL2Q �
279 185 11728 d SL9 � a 117
m � P3 510 11713 11712 �� � � SL21 g
� ;n �6 � �7 �$ $'rJ 11707 11721 11720 SL10 ��P 117
" � M 243 244 240 � 12 � � SL11 I SL22 g
_--EP 36421 `V Z N '� � `�° P 3 974 11706 rn � 11717 � 11708 I � SL23
N N M M a SL121 117
MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING
Bylaw No. 7180-2015
Map No. 1647
From: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
To: C-2 (Community Commercial)
N
SCALE 1:2,500
�..� ., �
, -.— o .— .�;.— �,
� � ,:
_ �: = T- � �., �. �. __ ._.
� — ,� T �;.�,..,C� �n�:: �.
! Proposed Sfte � � , C
55,675 sf ° ' I
:i
: � (
-� �
c m
Gross Bldg Area Main tl �o �
� & 2nd Floors: 30,000 sf TOTAL vUj 4
a -- c �g
Y � � �I�
_ _ _ _ _ _
y �S
�7 I
!
` . . � � n „ v n e. �� y �� I �5 I�i�� „ ., .. � .. � .. ., .. �I m .,_, ; ^ . '
-. � �
�� � � rmuiqwMme,omarnqmwyrpNne ,
'1���' _ 15mwkal�nCamp�1'N� p '
-� . I_ I_ I I�I I_!�I I I I � i' i Ti �, � � ��� i � i i i i ini i�; ;_ ;;:
2 Option (C2 2 tlrs com'I plus ongrade pa� inga) �
3
R
�
L
�i
a
APPENDIX D
�:�-.
_ .::;�� ..� � _ .
_ '^",,. ��.`_�'j.
_ . . . ,_
� .. : ;
�
, . .
. _.
. c_ _
.._ ... : �.. �1Yc �
_.,.. .. .. .. , � .
_ . "+:��.-x�+�".
��....._ ��� -._.,
... *.^a •_ - � ;� � _� ..
. . ` ��� . � , _ � .
�
.. ., q� ', ��' . . ...
...,.
f
�
�
G
a b�a
� ��o
� ��o-�
�. : pee�
� � :=?a"
cn "� d�„�
y �A :�dyC
� u �` n
� y � S
�0 � $ 9
J
� m
O
U Y
N �
� @
fl.
N �
N -d
U @
C m
O C
• O
n
O ?
U �-
N
A2.4
T0:
FROM
�il����ri���.��
City of Maple Ridge
Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE:
and Members of Council FILE N0:
Chief Administrative Officer MEETING:
December 7, 2015
2012-004-RZ
C of W
SUBJECT: First and Second Reading
Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7159-2015, and
Second Reading
Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7111-2014
23791 112 Avenue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received to rezone the subject property, located at 23791 112 Avenue, from
RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to R-1 (Residential District) to permit a future subdivision of
approximately 16 lots. The minimum lot size for the current RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
zone is 0.8 hectares (8,OOOm2) and the minimum lot size for the proposed R-1 (Residential District)
zone is 371m2.
The proposed R-1 (Residential District) zoning complies with the policies of the Official Community
Plan (OCP) for Urban Residential. However, this application requires an amendment to the OCP to
redesignate approximately 3756m2 from Conservation to Urban Residential.
Council granted first reading to Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7111-2014, and considered the early
consultation requirements for the OCP amendment on October 28, 2014. Since then, the bylaw map
has been amended to adjust the zoning boundary to protect a tree within the park dedication.
Pursuant with Council resolution, this application is subject to the Community Amenity Contribution
(CAC) program.
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. 7159-2015 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 bylaw;
2) That Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7159-2015 be considered in conjunction with
the Capital Expenditure Plan and Waste Management Plan;
3) That it be confirmed that Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7159-2015 is consistent
with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Waste Management Plan;
4) That Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7159-2015 be given first and second
readings and be forwarded to Public Hearing;
5) That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7111-2014, be amended as identified in the staff report dated
December 7, 2015 be given second reading, and be forwarded to Public Hearing;
6) That the following terms and conditions be met prior to final reading:
i)
vi)
Registration of a Rezoning Servicing Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant and receipt of
the deposit of a security, as outlined in the Agreement;
Amendment to Official Community Plan Schedules "B" and "C";
Road dedication as required;
Park dedication as required, including removal of all debris and garbage from park land;
Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for the geotechnical report which addresses the
suitability of the subject property for the proposed development; and
A voluntary citywide Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) be provided in keeping with the
direction given by Council with regard to amenities.
DISCUSSION:
1) Background Context:
Applicant: Aplin & Martin Consultants
Owner: Maple Industries Ltd.
Legal Description: Parcel "G" (Reference Plan 1387) except: portion on Plan LMP38552 of the
South East Quarter Section 16, Township 12, New Westminster District
C�I�
Existing: Urban Residential, Conservation
Proposed: Urban Residential, Conservation
Zoning:
Existing: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Proposed: R-1(Residential District)
Surrounding Uses:
North: Use: Park, Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential), RS-1b (One Family
Urban (Medium Density) Residential
Designation: Conservation
South: Use:
Zone:
Designation
East: Use:
Zone:
Designation
Single Family Residential, Park
R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District), CD-1-93 (Amenity
Residential District), RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Urban Residential, Conservation
Single Family Residential and future Fire Hall site
RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential, and
RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Urban Residential, Conservation
-2-
West: Use: Park
Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation: Conservation
Existing Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Site Area:
Access:
Servicing requirement:
Companion Applications:
2) Background:
Rural Single Family Residential
Urban Single Family Residential
5.950 ha. (14.7acres)
112 Avenue and continuation of 238 Street
Urban Standard
2012-004-SD, 2012-004-DP, 2012-004-VP
This rezoning application was received in January 2012 for a proposed townhouse development to
be zoned RM-1 (Townhouse Residential). In a report to Council for first reading dated February 6,
2012, the Planning Department did not support the development proposal because it conflicted with
the neighbouring single family houses and was not supported by the OCP infill policies. At the
Council meeting of February 14, 2012, Council denied first reading of Zone Amending Bylaw No.
6897-2012. At the Council Workshop meeting of February 20, 2012, Council approved a resolution
to reconsider the application at the next Council meeting. At the Council meeting of February 28,
2012, Council reconsidered the application and deferred Bylaw No. 6897-2012 pending further
analysis of the site.
In 2014 a revised development plan was submitted for single family residential development. The
original bylaw was cancelled, and the new Zone Amending Bylaw No. Bylaw 7111-2014 was
prepared to rezone the developable portion of the property to R-1 (Residential District) for
approximately 16 lots. At the Council meeting of October 28, 2014, Council approved first reading of
Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7111-2014.
3) Project Description:
The subject property is located in the Cottonwood area at the northwest corner of 112 Avenue and a
future continuation of 238 Street. The majority of the property is designated Conservation and a
narrow strip of land on the east side of the property, between the top-of-bank for Horseshoe Creek
and the east property line, is designated Urban Residential. North of the property there is a single
row of single family lots on the west side of 238 Street with steep slopes down to Horseshoe Creek in
the rear. This proposed development will continue that pattern south to 112 Avenue. Single family
lots are also located south of 112 Avenue. The lands north and west of the property are dedicated
park land for Conservation purposes. The future Fire Hall/Park property is to be located east of this
property at 23863 112 Avenue.
The subject property is 5.950 ha (14.7acres) in area (Appendices A and B). The applicant is
proposing to rezone the developable portion of the property to R-1 (Residential District) for
approximately 16 lots fronting onto 238 Street. The balance of the property will be dedicated as
Park for the protection of the steep slopes and watercourses. Road dedication is required to
construct 238 Street along the east side of the property as a continuation of the existing street at the
north end, and to connect with Kanaka Way at the south. To achieve this road alignment, additional
road will be dedicated from the City-owned property at 23863 112 Avenue, which is the future
location for Fire Hall #4. 112 Avenue terminates in a cul-de-sac on the south side of the property
and will not be extended further to the west across the Horseshoe Creek ravine due to the steep
-3-
slopes. In addition, a 4.5m (14.85ft) wide service corridor will be dedicated to the rear of the lots to
provide access for future maintenance of the municipal services to be located there.
4) Planning Analysis:
i) Official Community Plan:
The subject property is currently designated Urban Residential and Conservation, and the
proposed R-1 (Residential District) zone is consistent with Urban Residential Policies 3-18,
3-19 and 3-21 for Neighbourhood Residential Infill. The development is compatible with
existing single family housing in the surrounding neighbourhood.
An amendment to the OCP is proposed to redesignate approximately 3756m2 at the top of
the slope from Conservation to Urban Residential as a result of ground-truthing on the
property. Geotechnical and environmental assessments have established the location of
the top-of-bank and the required setbacks (Appendix C).
ii) Zoning Bvlaw:
The current application proposes to rezone the subject property from RS-3 (One Family
Rural Residential) to R-1(Residential District) (Appendix D) to permit a future subdivision of
approximately 16 lots (Appendix E).
The minimum lot size for the current RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) zone is 0.8
hectares (8,OOOm2) and the minimum lot size for the proposed R-1 (Residential District)
zone is 371m2.
iii) Off-Street Parking And Loading Bvlaw:
As per the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990, two parking spaces will
be provided for each lot, with additional parking available on the driveways. A restrictive
covenant will be registered at the subdivision stage to require the driveway access from
112 Avenue only for Lot 1.
iv) Proposed Variances:
Development Variance Permit application 2012-004-VP has been received for the following
variance:
1. Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw No. 4800-1993: to waive the
requirements for servicing upgrades on the 112 Avenue frontage west of the cul-de-
sac, as the road is not intended to extend further west.
The requested variance will be the subject of a future Council report.
v) Development Permits:
Pursuant to Sections 8.9 and 8.10 of the OCP, Watercourse Protection Development
Permit combined with a Natural Features Development Permit application 2012-104-DP
has been received to ensure the preservation, protection, restoration and enhancement of
watercourse and riparian areas, and to ensure the preservation, protection, restoration and
'�
enhancement of the natural environment and for development that is protected from
hazardous conditions. These permits are required for:
• all developments and building permits within 50 metres of the top of bank of all
watercourses and wetlands;
• all areas designated Conservation on Schedule "B" or all areas within 50 metres of
an area designated Conservation on Schedule "B", or on Figures 2, 3 and 4 in the
Silver Valley Area Plan;
• all lands with an average natural slope of greater than 15 °/o; and
• all floodplain areas and forest lands identified on Natural Features Schedule "C"
vi) Development Information Meetin�:
A Development Information Meeting is not required for this development as fewer than 25
lots are proposed.
vii) Parkland Requirement:
As there are more than two additional lots proposed to be created, the developer will be
required to comply with the park dedication requirements of Section 941 of the Local
Government Act prior to subdivision approval.
For this project, there is sufficient land that is proposed to be dedicated as park on the
subject property and this land will be required to be dedicated as a condition of final
reading.
viii) Citywide Community Amenity Contribution (CAC�program:
On October 19, 2015 Council passed a number of resolutions pertaining to the
establishment of a Citywide CAC program. Options for dealing with in-stream applications
were discussed and staff were directed to include information on the proposed CAC
program in future staff development reports. It is noted that the Resolutions passed at the
Council Workshop can be used as a guide for determining CAC contributions, in the interim
period while the CAC OCP amending bylaw is being considered.
As this application is to be considered by Council since the CAC discussion occurred, staff
have included the following condition in the recommendation section:
vii) That a voluntary citywide Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) be provided in
keeping with the direction given by Council with regard to amenities.
5) Environmentallmplications:
The subject property is located in the Cottonwood area at the northwest corner of 112 Avenue and a
future continuation of 238 Street. The majority of the property is comprised of a ravine with steep
slopes over 25%. Several small tributaries run off the slopes and into Horseshoe Creek, which flows
from the north through the property.
The clay slopes in the Cottonwood area are known to have significant slope stability problems, and
evidence of instability has been noted in the area. Both loading and unloading (cutting and filling)
associated with development can cause substantial changes to the stability of these slopes.
Detailed geotechnical and environmental assessments have been provided confirming suitability of
-5-
the property for development and to establish the setback requirements for geotechnical and
watercourse/slope protection on this property. Development is limited to the relatively flat bench
along the eastern edge of the property.
A significant tree on the south side of Lot 1 will be protected by a restrictive covenant at the
subdivision stage, and another significant tree behind Lot 14 will be protected by shortening the
depth of the lots so the tree is within the Park.
6) Interdepartmentallmplications:
i) Engineering Department:
The rezoning (off-site) servicing requirements for this application include the construction of
238 Street to an Urban Collector standard along the east side of the property as a
continuation of the existing street at the north end, and to connect with Kanaka Way at the
south. To achieve this road alignment, additional road will be dedicated from the City-
owned property to the east at 23863 112 Avenue.
Approval of a Variance Permit is required to waive the requirements for servicing upgrades
on the 112 Avenue frontage west of the cul-de-sac, as the road is not intended to extend
further west. The storm and sanitary services will be located within an access corridor to
the rear of the lots.
ii) Parks & Leisure Services Department:
The Parks Department has confirmed that a trail is not required within the proposed park
dedication as there is no opportunity for trail connectivity to the north.
iii) Fire Department:
The Fire Department commented that, given that this property is directly adjacent to the
future Fire Hall #4, it is recommended that the developer conduct a sound attenuation
study to measure the impact of noise generated from the proposed fire hall and training
facility. The use of noise abating construction materials is recommended, and this will be
included as a condition of subdivision approval.
7) School District No. 42 Comments:
Pursuant to Section 881 of the Local Government Act, consultation with School District No. 42
is required at the time of preparing or amending the OCP. A referral was sent to School District
No. 42 on April 2, 2015 and a response was received April 20, 2015, which notes that:
"Alexander Robinson Elementary has an operating capacity of 480 students. For the
2014-2015 school year the student enrolment is 534 students (111.25% utilization)
including 212 students from out of catchment.
Samuel Robertson Technical Secondary has an operating capacity of 600 students.
For the 2014-2015 school year the student enrolment is 802 students (133.67%
utilization) including 213 students from out of catchment."
'�
8) Local Government Act:
An amendment to the OCP 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
Local Government Act. The amendment required for this application, to redesignate a portion
of the subject property from Conservation to Urban Residential, 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
i m pact.
CONCLUSION:
It is recommended that first and second reading be given to OCP Amending Bylaw No. 7159-2015,
that second reading be given to Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7111-2014, and that application 2012-
004-RZ be forwarded to Public Hearing.
"Original signed by Ann Edwards"
Prepared by: Ann Edwards, CPT
Senior Planning 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
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A - Subject Map
Appendix B - Ortho Map
Appendix C- OCP Amending Bylaw No. 7159-2015
Appendix D- Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7111-2014
Appendix E - Subdivision Plan
-7-
APPENDIX A
N
�
District of
Langley
0 23791 112 AVENUE
.�
�
�
o �
�� �= CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE
�
Q PLANNING DEPARTMENT
_�
Scale: 1:2,500 � � FRASER R��—� � DATE: Oct 17, 2014 FILE: 2012-004-RZ BY: PC
APPENDIX B
''� ' _ � f �l ~�� '. ��• � ,�.. � � , .i� , fy
2, ,�� 3a . ,,� za� L a?� � �. � ;�::��+r - 1 :.qa,� I
3 y.
3� f � _��. i-�`'+$c�.,•? .�.'k-�'' '1�f` " `s� I
; � �'. � ,
� a-� ra�3: � .'A6 58 �� "a e�r..'j�: �� K.:. � -
,�, . . ,•� • .. .�,►- a �s a�
�i �hs:iS —���Zng 'r ` y� .�5� "�S'� ..�.y'�.e'�.�.'Y.x w �,,, -y� �[ 2� � _ 'P5 _ n,
�9 • J: 3 � i?2��� " r' �`-�3' � '' � = e Y.,
c �• , �'i � ��+�. '� � _ •. '�'�p, 3 r ' ;t3BAVc.
i� c: � 11386 : �1387' .. � .: �. :.i ..� . �:�'.'J�, [� " _ . .. -- .7!`•-,;1
� ' �a� ' SUBJECT PROPERTY � � 4 ! � �
35 � � � � �� ¢ � -�, � : . �..�
"� � a�� ."�-��
t � l', :.� . � f X.' a . x �
_� . T �-, �
i7 ' _ .�, ! t ��c �l>: i�?�qr .i. . 5 n37 : 32 � $3 � 34
� a�' . � � �:,. �
185 �A7367" s ' .�. ' ��^{��` . ,w A _ _
�3�s�0. �� �,�, �.�..,,.� ��' � �'- �' _ � � f- P
� T��7 �.�,;> �� -0 �';� �-:�� 4f.: � _ �' -� '�. w �'-.M. 6 . �y �0. �'
i5i5 '�135fi . �11357 ' �; � '� �, , . � :-r�•. .�'�4.:. .��� .�q 'a H. � t �� �� ��I
A $ ,. " �' F i + '� � � • �' �' T 29 . � t� g
�77342 -G� 113-05� ti '• � ' r ' �.
,�,c' •�' n�' ,�,L , : ,� �,�' . � --�1 . 7�g�,�.•} -�'
.Ih'32 �� ��r� - � � _�+`' r � � 7 � .6 28 •.i`* �
�� v �.� � ... ���} .�.; �.. .� . � ~ 2Q . � F
� F �
�� • � .. . � ,�i, � •- . : ,� , G_
� �� `r �{]YS� ;� �' � � �r�.„sF � ...� . • F ¢ �7, � `38�
113n�'1`�:�L 'j��.r-�'�^ ' ' ��-'� -,!�C� �,Y,. � �� �' ��,li `�3,�. �.-
_ _ __ • v-...� � �: � `' � .:t..:l•. k: 'S ' -.�+�' •�l. � • , . ' . � . :.. �, x � 0 t�,. �3
�4- fi- �' � 2fi -�;
� ,� °' • �1:.4: s �'!� .+� �.� ::�• .h � ry .
9 � iBC��B�$ ,wa� �.��`.: r t �, '-.. :�• _� .. �;.: -- --- ' � +ry
,� s � y: , ' :� � -: : y �p�'� ;'�: �'`.. Y � �,. F w r''.ar�r 22 �r }
1 f3 . ' 'p �• . - :
� P27 � � l � �t} _ ��:►'l�P� � • �{ . � _ x. J. �� . ,�'3.,� � ;_ = .".: �: .. `� �`� �. i25 0 24J � �� 23
_ ' „ Z39_`�� �� - '.�"' _ • ~r . � � ' `* �. ,�3 P.S[.-
� � ' .. �'�" �jl,�, .. F .' � � 4" '_ 1s`i .
"��E,- • . A- �y� " ��' 7 �� r + `
361 3— �-�... s„�' �NfP�� �Rx, :�Y�, f� � , � .. . �„ .!�'�'� :� �sr. . . -'�. 5 ;�;., r � .
�� ¢� �' �'� ", a ,'* � ` � ��` �j, ',.I�'�,ry'-'# ' `�' 'i �' -x�'►'y►�, ^ _.''r- -
� � •. I ! � �ki F2 }� �:�,.r3�}� �a,�r: cr� . � g �7� _ ��' -
x r 2;, . +�•: r• +�-: � rF. , � , +� ',�L� �`� • ' a .. .
s �-•� .� �r=r c : . ' � , . : F., :�: - ,�,
Y�� r
1 AV E. . �p U , �?..,� ���„ � �i � ., . �_ � .-. - r �,'.,.r�"':t4 - .-� � � r R �. .��, .
��� '1�289 �A'•i�� � ��..-�� '# ' •� • , .r �x�n 5.
�:: .+ ��' - i t .� {
'�'` -- ;�:,,,�� ��: . - � �� � ,� •:n
_ ,� { s; n, a l2 F t• ; : �,�' s: • � � �' t:�r�,' �+x4 -, , � ..
L�� ..,.. ... . • a.- - i
.. ; 9 � � n f�r�"�' �,;� y�' ` . ` �,r,' ' r - .. ' " ' . � " h1
n 5 " � M1 �'�M� 3 1 E �:, ��r�'�+- ' ` ,� _ `'T � , . �,-
a�., � � �
�� _� . Y � � �'..���_- ;� � .-���,�., �_ . ,.s-a
� . . .� �a= '.. _ .��: �'i�• � `�jf,�: -.. •�:
�•r� ._ .. , w e:.�; � �•� _� . � �
..� � , �h ' �. �i �f� '"r ''� - ;
� �.
� �y �� � _...�3 � i� �`+ _ ,•;. .; � • w�y :.r•- i r , _ . , i.
�i "� "�� �Q 9 sr �� `,.� • �;:�n.w.:i r� � ;i�� r
y - ,�. �w . ,��i .. �''�F _ .. . . . _ . r . . � r''''" �V I
VE.� T � ��e . �.'. : . �O'� �.�. . - .... -��x
A n^L 13 : .; �,..
- � �?�] r-�� �a�(�,' �r, � .,;�"': - t�;, _
� `�7324i� � i .. � ��a �} '.r�,�y, ' ,.��� E . . . . . I
] . ��i � • y �,��i�' . '.. 'L •T !' , 1+� ,
, �,�rt � �7323� �� • ► � � �..-� � ��e-� �,,: ,�••.�.._� �y � ; , Pci. 'P; -
F: �- �,� �i e-� ; '�:. �" _ �� 5:..' � �. ' I
� 26 23>>22s ,;�� ��.:�,'"�r�-�'�'��,{ • Rem G � � R� i224
j-.� �"
,� ��z22'49 2q �iz2s. � :�i e�. ,t •' � �ti"' ' . � _ - -
� •" .�._,
17 16 �� 25.1t219 i �.�i;��t��M- , M`'� �� � . � -- — �� � • ��� �y//i���nw
- I,F �L�'����� �1f . .- n .. ' _ _ . � � ��r
' ii2�2�� 2 15 � ■ ,�,6 ;�a RP 387, -. �,.� '�'.. �"':�
I s � �,�-,!�,`' ,.,� •`�-�. � ,.a'�:�1►' � , �.
�.2oa
� ?�: �_. 2 _ � C• � �,� � . "
S3�FV� �p���I}FJ I�-R .� w- � !:', r� k�}`� . . � A. •.��.r..���. '.� .. . .... F� '
� � � � � :� �. { i
�' � �� CP 42841 " � ' `�xs �''�'` . x"' F_ � • "r•■- _ , _.--•.. �- • �-•- •- .
� r. r . i ~ - �:, aa� . '�--�' ".
14.. �15ri1 29 112�F1 ., � t�_,r� �-_ a-r+. - LM P 2 __t �Aft K
�� - _ _ . °�' �...
,�8d � : . � ' _ � � � • d �._. � ,
-�e'� 7i19� • . . � �r_pARK �y�,.i..- 2� � � ��' �i �� '�j"• / 5. �a.
c �?
,,,�.�; ,� w• �� ", �, g �� ,�s
� . 10 � � , c�, �• 2, 3 � fS ,�,
• - � 11187 � �: ��-��' 2677i ' �s3� a' 24 .. . �0 . ''�+j°� .. . "
� � �f .�7 .. . + i. � . '" 4$' .g��` �°7 /1a � T►-f�
�9 i •i. � � • T6� � �r�� ,�. - . -� � j � -
,� , .a- � . ii„':.� ; � �23757 R �23p �i��. . .Q:`• �y- ' �1P. �i
� �� i9 i 71 . � ���- i� � '�'� � ��
'-� ' � �3� �. � ,�.' � `� =
8� c..j 7-.. � r.. �� {EP5 1815} 23T53 - s :�� y�r= P.�, '� i.15r .
m �;•. � � 1.•'•:,
� t � sz A�.. .; _
3r s � �,y
� � 6 ' o �' r a � - - 43'. P . ' o ^ :�,� '� r� • �',�T '�! $1 �'d..t� ,
�_ Y �. �. " � T+�s [� 8 Distr�ctiofy
� i755` N i� .
- ��"'� ���� - ,iE.'.� A4 `o � C�" � ,�,�. "'a •' !/ _c ��
Ci+� nf Pi++ � ��c J� .
N
Scale: 1:2,500
District of
Langley
0 23791 112 AVENUE
�� (2011 photography image)
�
o �
�� �= CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE
�
Q PLANNING DEPARTMENT
,
�
� DATE: Oct 17, 2014 FILE: 2012-004-RZ BY: PC
APPENDIX C
CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW N0. 7159-2015
A Bylaw to amend the Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014
WHEREAS Section 882 of the Local Government Act provides that the Council may revise the
Official Community Plan;
AND WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend Schedules "B" &"C" to the Official Community Plan;
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge, enacts as follows:
1.
2.
3.
Q
This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Official Community Plan
Amending Bylaw No. 7159-2015
Schedule "B" is hereby amended for that parcel or tract of land and premises known and
described as:
Parcel "G" (Reference Plan 1387) Except: Portion on Plan LMP38552 of the South
East Quarter Section 16 Township 12 New Westminster District
and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 908 , a copy of which is attached hereto and
forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby re-designated from Conservation to Urban
Residential.
Schedule "C" is hereby amended for that parcel or tract of land and premises known and
described as:
Parcel "G" (Reference Plan 1387) Except: Portion on Plan LMP38552 of the South
East Quarter Section 16 Township 12 New Westminster District
and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 909 , a copy of which is attached hereto and
forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby amended by removing Conservation.
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 is hereby amended accordingly.
READ a first time the
READ a second time the
PUBLIC HEARING held the
READ a third time the
ADOPTED, the day of
day of
day of
day of
day of
,20 .
,20
,20
, 20
,20
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
1430 11431 llns� '' F 57
13 22 31 40 " iiaza
1420 11421 11422 11423 � 77474 LI
M 23 32 � 41 Y
14 � 1141z 11413 w
1410 O 11411 O �
15 `�' 24 33 "' 42 "
1398 d 11397 r �1396 d 11399
16 � 25 � 34 � 43
11386 11387
11384 11385 N >>376
17 26 35 44
11374 11375
11377
18 27 36 45
11364 11365 11366 11367
19 28 37 46
11354 11355 11356 11357
1 � 4 5 � 8
11346 � 11347 11342 � 11345
11336 N 11337 11332 N 11335
2 v 3 6 v 7
PARK
113A AVE.
15 9 BCP 26244
11316 11315
16 �14 �13 �12 11� 10 N
11306 B P 27 84 iisos a
��296 MP 361 3 ii2a� � LMP 43730
1
11290 ,n 3 M 4 � 5 � �,., m LMP 36165
2 m �✓� PARK
M � N � 2
"� EP 81201 Q � 11279 �
112B AVE. m
� — 11269 M
� Z 12 a
m � �
6� � 7 � 8 � 9 � 10 �� �' PARK
LMP 361 3 11261 `" o LMP 36163
— N
CP 24 04 Y
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11257 w
01011253 � BCP 17100
� �
N��"� >>zae PARK
112AAVE. UIZ>>Zqs
16 � 15 � 14 13ii24i
iizao
11230 1$11231 F 11232 21 2211233
�
N�
iizzs � iizz� �' iizzs 20 23>>zza �ao
� �
iizzoN 9iizzi �>>zzz 19 pqiizzs �� Park
3� 10 >>zi6 18 25>>z�9
iizis v >>zi� BCP 41985
4m 11 iiziz 17 26iizis
iizio iizii P7iizoe
$ 5 12 112AVE.
r iizos pgiizos
a g 11207
C 42841
o���� 13 140 �1 �1 29— iizoi 112AVE.
� 53 ".,, ,.,.,.
�a PARK
58
Rem G
RP 1387
N 21 20 � � �
1��Qo� iiaos L P 313 4
,�11399 L P 337 7
11391 46 M45 M44 �43 �42 41
2 11396 � � � ^ 40 3
N
11385 N `� '�
3 113B AVE. � �
Y � 11379 N
� � 4
d� �
�,.� 11373 N 32 � �
5 �31 � 33 � 34 N35 w ^^'
11365 L p N 36 � �
g 30 33 g� N 37 "
a iiss� >>s�o MP
7 �isso 18 � 33797
29 19 ���,°�
$ 11349 11350 ^ 73g8 � �,`5� 16
11341
28 n� 5 23g92
9 11340 �`7 20 23a84
,� 17333 � 2� z38�g 15
� � 77330 � z38>� 23878
�� 2'�3?S ti^� 26 � 21 z3g6 14 ^
1,786 g �
173� 22 3
�3 25 � 24 °' � 23 z386? 13 MM
,'4 '3p9 11, PJ� Z3gS8 12 g
5 °3 11
���� LMP 33577
i
�
I
I�
��
a
��
�
�
� Pcl. 'P'
�
I N RP 1224
v
la
I � RP
I LMP 30218
N I �
BCP 42842 / pg 25 0 °' `�
397 >>>es PARK � 27 N ^ � � o � �g`� 6 ��e
10 � � � a7 E P P 26771 � 2��s�, w �, 24 �1 2 3�,6 �� 7� `'�'8�, '`5
� 9 28 23�ss �� r�,� 8�',�
11179 �'\ M� 23757 �`cO 9 829 Py �
,-BCP 72854 N$ EPP 26772 '� ^n,a ?3j60 Q � e 1 O�'�82 �t-P'� w �
11171
B U 7 � (EPS 1815)N m� 2s�ss z3jss22 \,� �2 �� `'�a2� S �lp�P `'�' ' 16
21 I�20 ��1 85 1 Im 611163 Q w� �� 29 z,�z�Ts�21 ��2��'8�' � 2��� ��1817
��' iiiss " � �. s
eCP izess Y , P�E. r��, 'ps �� 14�� \� �� `'�,��, 19
'....BCP21398 w �11P a c�i Fo 20 �,P `''�8`�0�
711 AAVE. w 30 �`� 20
� N Nw w"'rn 19 15 �s �,�� s
MAPLE RIDGE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDING
Bylaw No. 7159-2015
Map No. 908
From: Conservation
To: Urban Residential
N
SCALE 1:3,000
1430 11431 llns� '' F 57
13 22 31 40 " iiaza
1420 11421 11422 11423 � 77474 LI
M 23 32 � 41 Y
14 � 1141z 11413 w
1410 O 11411 O �
15 `�' 24 33 "' 42 "
iass d 11397 r 11396 d 11399
16 � 25 � 34 � 43
11386 11387
11384 11385 N >>376
17 26 35 44
11374 11375 11377
18 27 36 45
11364 11365 11367
11366
19 28 37 46
11354 11355 11356 11357
1 � 4 5 � 8
11346 � 11347 11342 � 11345
11336 N 11337 11332 N 11335
2 v 3 6 v 7
PARK
113A AVE.
15 9 BCP 26244
11316 11315
16 �14 �13 �12 11� 10 N
11306 B P 27 84 iisos a
��296 MP 361 3 ��2s� a
� � LMP 43730
11290 ,n 3 M 4 � 5 � � m LMP 36165
2 m � i PARK
_ M � N / U 2
"� EP 81201 Q � 11279 �
112B AVE. m
� —11269 M
� Z 12 a
m � �
6� � 7 � 8 � 9 � 10 �� �' PARK
LMP 361 3 11261 `" o LMP 36163
CP 24 04 N
Y
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11257 w
01011253 � BCP 17100
� �
N��"� >>zae PARK
112AAVE. UIZ>>Zqs
16 � 15 � 14 13ii24i
iizao
11230 1$11231 F 11232 21 2211233
�
N�
iizzs � iizz� �' iizzs 20 23>>zza �ao
� �
iizzoN 9iizzi �>>zzz 19 pqiizzs �� Park
3� 10 >>zi6 18 25>>z�9
iizis v >>zi� BCP 41985
4m 11 iiziz 17 26iizis
iizio iizii P7iizoe
$ 5 12 112AVE.
r 11206 2$11205
a g 11207
Cp 42841
o iizoo � 13 14� �� �� 29�>>zoi 112AVE.
BCP 42842 �
397 ^� >>>es
N $
�
11155 y
�� BCP 12855 ��BCP w
w
53
58
PARK
Rem G
RP 1387
1
? i sas
3
Y � 11379
� � 4
d �,.� 11373
5
11365
a 6iss�
N 21 20 � � �J
iiaos L P 313 4
L P 337 7
46 M45 M44 �43 �42 41
11396 � � � ^ 40
N �
N `�
113B AVE. `�
�
�3� � 32 � 33 � 34 N.,� � �
] 77360
i�3as 29
$ 77350 n
9 »sa� 28 n°'
77340 �`7
,� 17333 � 2�
tL � 77330 �
� � 2 ��3?S �,�' 26 ,l
3 �'3j�
�� 25 � 24 °' � 23
4 309
5
��303
25 0
PARK / 27 26N
EPP 26771 � 28 2'��s� w � 24 �1 2
23766
EPP26772 7'_^n,a/ 23757 ?3�sp
(EPS 1815)N m/ 23753 z3jss22 �
z3 s
o�`a � 29 z,�� T�21 �.
�11 P P�� c��, 2`�� p20 �.P�� 14�
i �� N36 �
P 33 g� N 37
Mg M 33797
19 � 17 ��,
z3 � �,M� 16
8g5 23g92
2� 23ag4
z3a�9 15
2,�38>� 23878
3PJ� �3a
11
Pcl. 'P'
RP 1224
LMP 24722 PARK
\ �
Py
P�P� v
�l3'� `',� > 1
��_ �o _ 17
8 � �� '��� 19
�>> A avE. zisss gp a�, o `'8 0 �� 20
� N Nw „"'s 19 15 �m`' `'�'� e
MAPLE RIDGE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDING
Bylaw No. 7159-2015
Map No. 909
Purpose: To Remove Conservation from Schedule C as shown
RP
LMP 30218
N
SCALE 1:3,000
APPENDIX D
CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW N0. 7111- 2014
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 City of Maple Ridge, enacts as
fol lows:
1.
2
3
This Bylaw may be cited as " Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7111- 2014."
That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as:
Parcel "G" (Reference Plan 1387) Except: Portion on Plan LMP38552 of the South
East Quarter Section 16 Township 12 New Westminster District
and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1626 a copy of which is attached hereto
and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby rezoned to R-1(Residential District).
Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended and Map "A" attached
thereto are hereby amended accordingly.
READ a first time the 28t" day of October, 2014.
READ a second time the
PUBLIC HEARING held the
READ a third time the
ADOPTED, the
day of
day of
day of
day of
,20
�
, 20
, 20
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
1430 11431 llns� '' F 57
13 22 31 40 " iiaza
1420 11421 11422 11423 � 77474 LI
M 23 32 � 41 Y
14 � 1141z 11413 w
1410 O 11411 O �
15 `�' 24 33 "' 42 "
iass d 11397 r 11396 d 11399
16 � 25 � 34 � 43
11386 11387
11384 11385 N >>376
17 26 35 44
11374 11375 11377
18 27 36 45
11364 11365 11367
11366
19 28 37 46
11354 11355 11356 11357
1 � 4 5 � 8
11346 � 11347 11342 � 11345
11336 N 11337 11332 N 11335
2 v 3 6 v 7
PARK
113A AVE.
15 9 BCP 26244
11316 11315
16 �14 �13 �12 11� 10 N
11306 B P 27 84 iisos a
��296 MP 361 3 ii2a� � LMP 43730
1
11290 ,n 3 M 4 � 5 � � m LMP 36165
2 m � i PARK
M � N / U 2
"� EP 81201 Q � 11279 �
112B AVE. m
� — 11269 M
� Z 12 a
m � �
6� � 7 � 8 � 9 � 10 �� �' PARK
LMP 361 3 11261 ' o LMP 36163
CP 24 04 N
Y
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 11257 w
01011253 � BCP 17100
� �
N��"� >>zae PARK
112AAVE. UIZ>>Zqs
16 � 15 � 14 13ii24i
„zao
11230 1$11231 F 11232 21 2211233
�
N�
iizzs � iizz� �' iizzs 20 23>>zza �ao
� �
iizzoN 9iizzi �>>zzz 19 pqiizzs �� Park
3� 10 >>zi6 18 25>>z�9
iizis v >>zi� BCP 41985
4m 11 iiziz 17 26iizis
iizio iizii P7iizoe
$ 5 12 112AVE.
r 11206 2$11205
a g 11207
C 42841
o��� � 13 140 �1 �1 29 �>>zoi 112AVE.
58
53
PARK
Rem G
RP 1387
1
? i sas
3
Y � 11379
� � 4
d �,.� 11373
5
11365
a 6iss�
N 21 20 � � �J
iiaos L P 313 4
L P 337 7
46 M45 M44 �43 �42 41
11396 � � � ^ 40
N �
N `�
113B AVE. `�
�
�3� � 32 � 33 � 34 N.,� � �
i �� N36 �
P 33 g� N 37
MP
7 �isso 18 � 33797
29 19 ���,°�
$ 11349 11350 ^ 73g8 � �,`5� 16
11341
28 n� 5 23g92
9 11340 �`7 20 23a84
,� 17333 � 2� z38�g 15
� � 77330 � z38>� 23878
�� 2'�3?S ti^� 26 � 21 z3g6 14 ^
1,786 g �
173� 22 3
�3 25 � 24 °' � 23 z386? 13 MM
,'4 '3p9 11, PJ� Z3gS8 12 g
5 °3 11
BCP 42842
iiies PARK � 27 26N ^ 25 � 1
1397 � 0 "' �
���a� EPP 26771 / 2'�'s� " N 24 �1 2
r 9 28
� 11179 r 23766
N
,-BCP72854 N $ 11171 EPP26772��'\ ^n,QI 23757 ?3�sp
21 �20 B� �1 85 1 pUp 7 11163 w (EPS 18154a m� 29 2s�53 z T3os622 `c
� s
6 ° �u 2�,� 2 � �
iiiss " ; J.
�� BCP 12855 Y pJE� `'a� 96 � 14u(
'...BCP21398 w �11P a a� � 20 �P�
�>> A ave. w 30 � 15
� N �w w "'s 19
MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING
Bylaw No. 7111-2014
Map No. 1626
From: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
To: R-1 (Residential District)
Pcl. 'P'
RP 1224
RP
LMP 30218
LMP 2472� PARK
6 `'�e
2�8 4S
u'j
P�
3 y
y�P m
P,�P i'o,, N
�lp� `'�'� ' 16
�,�_ o _ 17
N
SCALE 1:3,000
M/ Plm 1387
�e�sza mz g
(�.e� n ) _
S
R-1 LOTS
371 m2
MlNIMUM 12m X 24m
S
N
$
S
3
S
$
N
3
$
N
flm BfP.A172
��
APPEND
4
� � � ���
��
��
� ,�.� / / � A v
��
J219 Y
h
��� $ / / bry
uj 18L3 m7 / /
vi
J&64 /
$ �$ /
i51.1 m1 ��+ /
C ( $ /�p
.xu � � �
g N IH g
�rar ,�z I
azoa
N I DA TE.• SEPTEMBER 3, 2015
b PAPER SIZE.• 17"x11 "
�9AJ m2 �
'�°° a� �� 5� SCALE 1: 750
a I 0 f 0 25 50 75 m
saxa ms I
�soo
flm BfP.A112
3 I N
'�.5.21n'1 I
IBPD
3 I N
SBJi.T In7 I
I&00 �
sl IN
5AS1 m1 ^
I&PD I o
7J10.0 mP I
$
�ST m1
i&00 S� I
$ IN
5851 m1
I8W I
N Isasa ma
�soo I
S Isvsz m2 I
I&00 89H Q02 S�0
� I
5B$7 mT � I
1888 I
Y
saee ma g I .,��
528J .�� I .,r '+
1
4� IB9Q7 m1
SG9B I
'o
ffi7.8 m7 a 'g I �
N
I �"�
9�.J m1
R'm (IP2&
Plm TBI8.7 ` i
RN %m I12�
' /""1 /'l / I /I /'` I /l A / /""1 /
1� 10
w�
____—_—_--- ��9 _
22371 St Anne Avenue, Maple Ridge, BC Tel: 604-463-2509 Flle: MR13-851sk_SUB
R
IX E
rna�l�rld�e.��
City of Maple Ridge
T0: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read DATE: December 7, 2015
and Members of Council FILE N0: 2015-334-RZ
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W
SUBJECT: Zoning Bylaw text amendment directing the use of Shipping Containers
First and Second Reading
Bylaw No. 7184-2015
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Council has invited staff to bring forward bylaw amendments in advance of adopting the new Zoning
Bylaw in its entirety. The reasons that specific bylaw amendments are pursued relate to priority
concerns of Council and the community. Due to a concern for safety and orderly development, this
report outlines a proposed amendment for directing the use of shipping containers.
Shipping containers are the enclosed units constructed for storage and transport of goods via ship,
rail or truck. As they are abundant and readily available, there is significant incentive throughout the
community to repurpose them as accessory buildings. Compared to conventional wood framed
structures, these units cost less per unit volume. Due to these circumstances, there is a risk that
the use of these structures may proliferate throughout the community.
A building permit is required for any structure over 10 square metres in area. However, unlawful
structures exist in the community, and bylaw enforcement for such a structure usually occurs as an
official response to a neighbourhood complaint. Unique challenges associated with shipping
containers relate to the risks they pose to health and safety if not appropriately modified for an
alternate use. This risk is due to the combination of poor ventilation and structural strength of these
structures if not modified. If ignited, stored flammable materials can cause these structures to
explode. Documented examples have shown that accidents under these circumstances have
caused human injury and death.
Due to the risks involved, the process of bylaw enforcement for these non-compliant structures
needs to be made clear. A beneficial approach is to explicitly identify in the Zoning Bylaw the
circumstances under which these structures could be used. This approach would assist in
expediting the process of bylaw enforcement if necessary.
A further concern relates to aesthetic considerations. There are examples of adaptive reuse of
shipping containers for residential purposes; however, without architectural intervention these
structures can be unsightly. For this reason a recommended approach is to direct the use of these
structures into uses that will benefit from their economical utility, and prohibit the use of these
structures where they may cause community concerns, especially in residential settings.
1103
This report discusses the issues surrounding shipping containers and recommends Zoning Bylaw
text amendments to direct this use. The four main goals of this report and bylaw recommendations
are to ensure:
1. That the potential risks involved with these units are communicated;
2. That shipping container structures, where permitted, are regulated or modified in
compliance with the Building Code in order to be safe for the use intended;
3. That the economical utility of these structures may be realized where appropriate; and
4. That the potential for the unsightly placement of these structures and the resulting conflicts
be minimized.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7184-2015 be given First and Second Reading, and
be forwarded to Public Hearing.
BACKGROUND:
Applicant: City of Maple Ridge
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This proposed text amendment has arisen out of concerns for the unlawful use of shipping
containers as accessory buildings. A few of these structures have been placed on residential
properties within the community, and enforcement process has proven especially challenging with
the absence of specific language in the Zoning Bylaw. To assist with meeting this challenge, this
proposed text amendment will explicitly outline the conditions for using these structures for
temporary, industrial, agricultural, or institutional purposes. This text amendment does not
anticipate the use of shipping containers on typical urban residential properties, except as a
temporary use during a phase of construction.
PLANNING ANALYSIS:
As shipping containers are plentiful and inexpensive, there is considerable incentive to repurpose
them as accessory buildings. However, there are serious potential risks involved with their use, and
neighbours often find them unsightly.
1. Communicating the risks: In September 2014, the Fire Chief's Association of BC issued a
position paper (https:,(Jfcabc.ca/Files/FCABC%20Shi�ping%20Containers.pdf) that noted the
potential explosive effects of shipping containers if improperly used for storing flammable
substances. In 2011, a shipping container explosion in Enderby BC, created by an internal fire
caused the container doors to eject, which struck and killed the attending fire captain. A similar
incident in Saanich in 2013 caused by a leaking barbecue tank did not cause injury, but the radius
of the explosion was 274 metres (300 yards).
-2-
These two incidents demonstrate the considerable risks associated with these structures, unless
modified to accommodate the new use by venting or weakening the structure. The reason these
structures are so risky is due to their poorly ventilated but sturdy steel construction. Their structural
strength allows these units to withstand significant internal pressure buildup, with the doors being
the weakest part of the structure. The lack of proper ventilation will allow internal atmospheric
pressure to build to the point of exploding the structure. Small volumes of stored fuel are sufficient
to cause this effect.
The Fire Chief's position paper recommends a number of steps for Federal and Provincial
governments to take for accident prevention. The recommendation for local governments is to
adopt bylaws to regulate the use of shipping containers as buildings, requiring code upgrades and
inspection services prior to approval and placement.
2. Regulating or modifying shipping containers to be safe for the use intended: The Fire Chief's
position paper discusses potential mitigation strategies for reducing risks associated with shipping
containers. These strategies include adopting regulations, requiring structural alterations, and
establishing safety protocols. Regulations for these structures could involve prescribing or
prohibiting the types of substances that could be stored within the shipping container. Modifying the
structure to eliminate the risk of explosion could involve weakening the structure, or installing
ventilation to equalize the pressure difference. Ventilation would also allow smoke to escape from
the structure, which would therefore alert those nearby of the presence of a fire. It should be noted
that these modifications would be required as part of the building permit and inspection process
established for making these structures legal and code compliant. Safety protocols could be a
standard set of operating procedures for fire departments to follow when faced with a potentially
hazardous situation involving shipping containers.
3. Recognizing the economic utility of shipping containers: As an adaptive reuse, shipping
containers are economical to use for storage purposes. For this reason, it is recommended that
they be permitted in specific contexts, as follows:
a) as a temporary use during construction: a shipping container could be used as a
temporary office or for equipment storage on a property for which a valid building permit
had been issued. In this instance, security would need to be posted to cover the cost of
removal of the structure within 30 days of the closing or expiry of the building permit.
b) as accessory to an institutional use: Reduction of visual impact with a continuous
landscape screen would be a condition of use.
c) as accessory to an industrial use: Reduction of visual impact with a continuous
landscape screen would be a condition of use.
d) as an agricultural use: Demonstration of need would be required, along with farm status
from BC Assessment Authority.
In all cases where shipping containers are permitted, a building permit and inspection services will
be required to ensure that the structure is modified to be safe for the intended use.
-3-
4. Minimizing the potential for unsightly premises:
Shipping containers are proposed to be permitted as a temporary use on residential properties
during a period of construction where a valid building permit has been issued. With this exception,
shipping containers are recommended to be prohibited as accessory structures for residential uses.
Zoning Bylaw:
In order to recognize and regulate this use, the following recommendations are proposed to amend
the Zoning Bylaw.
Part 2 Definitions,
Shipping Container means an enclosed unit used or intended to be used for storing and
transporting goods via ship, rail or truck, whether or not it is actually being used for such a purpose.
Part 4 General Regulations,
A shipping container may be used:
a) as a temporary use for office or equipment storage in all zones, during a phase of
construction in progress, subject to issuance of a current and valid building permit.
Security must be posted to cover the cost of removal of the structure within 30 days of
the closing or expiry of the building permit.
b) as accessory to an institutional use where enclosed behind a continuous landscape
screen.
c) as accessory to an industrial use where enclosed behind a continuous landscape
screen.
d) as accessory to an agricultural use. Demonstration of need would be required, along
with farm status from BC Assessment Authority.
Where permitted, a shipping container shall only be used, placed, stored, repaired, cleaned,
upgraded, or modified to comply with the requirements of the zone as if it were a building or
structure.
The following shall not be stored in a shipping container:
(a) Gasoline, propane, or any other flammable, combustible liquid or compressed gas; or
(b) Explosive as defined in the Maple Ridge Fire Prevention By-law No. 4111-1988.
CITIZEN/CUSTOMER IMPLICATIONS:
The intent of this bylaw amendment is to protect public safety and maintain orderly development
while recognizing the needs of industrial, institutional, and agricultural users.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS:
This proposed bylaw amendment has been prepared in collaboration with staff from the Maple
Ridge Fire Department, Planning, Building, and Bylaws.
-4-
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
Increased staffing costs for inspection services and permitting are anticipated to be recovered
through the municipal application fee schedule.
ALTERNATIVES:
Council is advised to proceed with a bylaw amendment that recognizes the use of shipping
containers in specific contexts to maximize their economic utility, but prohibits this use in residential
settings in order to avoid hazards and unsightly premises concerns. As an alternative, Council may
wish to prohibit these structures entirely within the municipality, or to leave the Zoning Bylaw
unchanged.
CONCLUSION:
This proposed bylaw amendment has been prepared in response primarily to concerns for public
safety. In addition, aesthetic concerns are being considered, and as a result the proposed use of
these structures is intended to take advantage of their economic utility by locating them in
industrial, agricultural, or institutional contexts. With the exception of temporary uses during a
phase of construction, these structures are proposed to be prohibited in residential zones, where
nuisance issues would be most apparent.
"Original signed by Diana Hall"
Prepared by: Diana Hall M.A., MCIP, RPP
Planner 2
"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
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A- Zoning Bylaw No. 7184-2015
Link: BC Fire Chiefs position paper on shipping containers:
https:,(Jfca bc. ca/ Fi l es/ FCABC%20S h i� p i n g%20Co nta i n e rs. pdf
-5-
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW N0.7184-2015
A Bylaw to amend the text of Maple Ridge 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 City of Maple Ridge, enacts as follows:
1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7184-2015."
2. PART 2, INTERPRETATION
Insert the following definition in alphabetical order after the definition of "setback".
SHIPPING CONTAINER means an enclosed unit used or intended to be used for storing and
transporting goods via ship, rail or truck, whether or not it is actually being used for such a
purpose.
3. PART 4 GENERAL REGULATIONS, SECTION 402 REGULATIONS FOR PERMITTED USES OF
LAND, BUILDINGS, AND STRUCTURES.
Insert the following as subsection (14)
A shipping container may be used
a) as a temporary use for office or equipment storage in all zones, during a phase of
construction in progress, subject to issuance of a current and valid building permit. Security
must be posted to cover the cost of removal of the structure within 30 days of the closing or
expiry of the building permit.
b) as accessory to an institutional use where enclosed behind a continuous landscape screen.
c) as accessory to an industrial use where enclosed behind a continuous landscape screen.
d) as accessory to an agricultural use. Demonstration of need would be required, along with
farm status from BC Assessment Authority.
Where permitted, a shipping container shall only be used, placed, stored, repaired, cleaned,
upgraded, or modified to comply with the requirements of the zone as if it were a building or
structure.
The following shall not be stored in a shipping container:
(a) Gasoline, propane, or any flammable, combustible liquid or compressed gas; or
(b) Explosive as defined in the Maple Ridge Fire Prevention By-law No. 4111-1988.
4. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended is hereby amended
accordingly.
READ a first time the day of , 20 .
READ a second time the day of , 20 .
PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , 20 .
READ a third time the day of , 20 .
ADOPTED, the day of , 20 .
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
rn��l�rrdge.��
City of Maple Ridge
T0: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer
MEETING DATE: December 7, 2015
FILE N0: 2015-361-RZ
MEETING: COW
SUBJECT: First and Second Reading
Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7190-2015
Zoning Bylaw Text Amendment for a"1 km rule" for Wine Stores in Grocery Stores
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
At a Council Meeting held on November 24, 2015, Council directed staff to bring forward a bylaw to
establish a 1 kilometre distance rule (the 1-km Rule) through a Zoning Bylaw amendment for all
future alcohol beverage retailers in Maple Ridge. Council passed the following resolution:
That the City hereby begin the preparation of a zoning bylaw in the form of a bylaw attached as
Appendix "H" of the staff report dated August 31, 2015 to prohibit the sale of liquor in any
grocery store located within one kilometer of a license retail store or government liquor store.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7190-2015 be given first and second reading, and
forwarded to Public Hearing.
BACKGROUND & DISCUSSION
Council received a letter dated June 18, 2015 from the Alliance of Beverage Licensees (ABLE BC)
(see Appendix A) regarding Bill 22, the new Special Wine Store Licence Auction Act. The Alliance
expressed concern about the impact of wine sales in grocery stores on private liquor stores (referred
to as "licensee retail stores" under the Liquor Control and Licensing Act and the Liquor Control and
Licensing Regulation).
At a Council Meeting held on July 28, 2015, Council directed staff to prepare a report on options for
implementing a minimum 1 kilometre distance rule (the 1-km Rule) through a Zoning Bylaw
amendment for all future alcohol beverage retailers in Maple Ridge. Council passed the following
resolution:
That staff be directed to prepare a report on options for the implementation of a minimum
one km distance rule for all future beverage alcohol retailers in Maple Ridge.
The requested report was presented at Workshop on August 31, 2015, at which time; Council was
presented with three options to proceed with in response to the ABLE BC.
1104
These options were:
1. Make no changes and maintain the "status quo" with the Liquor Control Licencing Branch
regulating the licensing of liquor sales in grocery stores through their regulations and
directives; or
2. Amend the Zoning Bylaw to prohibit liquor sales in all grocery stores, such that a site specific
Zoning Bylaw amendment would be required for any grocery store wishing to sell wine or
other liquor; or
3. Amend the Zoning Bylaw to prohibit the sale of liquor in grocery stores that are located within
1 kilometre of an existing liquor store
Council selected Option 2, granted first and second readings to Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw
No. 7162-2015 on August 31, 2015, held Public Hearings on September 15 and October 20, 2015,
and defeated the bylaw when third reading was considered on October 27, 2015. In the interim
period between Council's decision to defeat the amending bylaw (No.7162 - 2015) and the decision
to again reconsider the matter (Nov 27t", 2015), an application was received for a business licence
from a grocery store for wine sales. Given that there was no restriction in place and Council had
dealt with the issue fully, the business licence was issued. Any new amendment by Council to the
Zoning Bylaw intending to restrict wine sales in grocery stores cannot be applied retroactively to this
store (i.e. it is now grandfathered).
On November 27, 2015, Council directed staff to bring forward a bylaw in line with Option 3 to
establish a 1 kilometre distance rule (the 1-km Rule) through a Zoning Bylaw amendment.
The requested bylaw Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7190-2015 is attached as Appendix B.
CONCLUSION
On November 24, 2015, Council requested that a 1 kilometre distance rule (the 1-km Rule) be
established through a Zoning Bylaw amendment for all future alcohol beverage retailers in Maple
Ridge, be brought forward to be considered for first and second reading and be advanced to Public
Hearing. That bylaw is attached for Council's consideration.
"Original signed by Adrian Kopystynski"
Prepared by: Adrian Kopystynski, MCIP, RPP, MCAHP
Planner
"Original signed by Chuck Goddard" for
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
"Original si ned by Frank Ouinn"
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng.
GM: Public Works & Development Services
Appendix A- Letter from Alliance of Beverage Licensees (ABLE BC)
Appendix B- Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7190-2015
Ju�� 18, 2015
APPENDIX A
AT,L�ANC� OF BEVERAGE L�CENSEES
Maple Ridge City Council
3.3995 Haney Place
Maple �iidge, BC V2X 6A9
FOR A RESP�NS[BLE LIQUQR INDUSTRY
As President of BCs A[liance of Beverage Licensees (ABLE BC), I represent the interests of liquar
[icensees operating in your communi#y. As the only assaciation re�resenting pri�aie liquar
stores, E�ars, pubs, and hotel liquor primaries, ABLE BC is uniquely p[aced to �ro�ide industry
expertise across the spectrum of our industry. Our �.,000 mernbers operate in every region of
the pravinee, directly emp�oy r�early 1ad,000 British Columbians, and account for almost 60
percent of the I.iquor DistriE�ution Board's annual revenue.
Or� behalf o� ABL� BC, I want to Earing to your at�ention our cancerns abo�t the BC
go�er�ment's recent decision to aliow wine on grocery shei�es and t�e serious consequences
it poses for BCs liquar industry.
AIlnv�rin� �rocerv stores ta sell wine on she[�es is a�ad fit for BCs economv and BCs wine
industrv in ihe lon�term. ABLE BCs anal sis of' ��� .�.�.��.��. "." "'.....°�....�__
y interr�at�anal experience demonstrates that,
when wine is af (owed an grocery shelves, between 65-70 percent of af! wine sold in that
jUrisdiction is sold in grocery stores. Small distrib�tors are squeezed aut of the markei and local
businesses are forced to clase.
Recer�t{y, t�e Legislature passed B�II 22 (5pecial Wine 5tore License Auction Act), which sets the
stage fror the government to auctian off a limited nUmber of special wine licenses to sel) BC
wine on grocery sheives. These licenses are �ot subject to the 1_lcifometre distance rule,
m�aning your communityl could ha�e a shopping plaza with a BC EiqUor Store or private liquor
store next door to a gracery store with a large section of wine. High density of aEcohal retailers
can pose serious social consequences and wil! present significant cancerns for the future of BC`s
pri�ate retailers. ,
. ./2
���
5U1TE 2,6d, 948 HOW� ST, YANCUUVER, 8G V6Z f N9 T 604 b88 5560 F 604 688 8560 wwwablebc.ca
-2-
On June 2"d, Kamloops City Council passed a motion to insYitute a 1 kilometre distance rule
for all future liquor licenses and stores, including Grocery Auctioned BC Wine Licenses.
Following up on the leadership of Kamloops, ABLE BC strongly encourages Maple Ridge City
Council to do the same and implement a minimum 1 kilometre distance rule for all future
bevera¢e alcohol retailers in Manle Ridee. This will help restrict liquor licenses for wine in
grocery stores, protect small businesses and the people they employ, and provide necessary
industry stabilization.
I am also pleased to send you a copy of The Publican — BCs premier liquor irrdustry magazine.
Distributed quarterly to nearly 3,000 bars and private liquor stores across the province, The
Publican keeps ABLE BC members and the public up-to-date on current liquor industry issues,
trends, and events. It is also an excellent way for elected officials to keep abreast of the day-to-
day issues affecting our industry's small business owners.
Thank you very much for your time. I wouid like to reiterate ABLE BC's sincere interest in
working with government to implement changes in the best possible way for BC's liquor
industry.
If you require additional information or would like to meet with ABLE BC to discuss these issues
further, please contact our Executive Director, Jeff Guignard at 604-688-5560 or
jeff@ablebc.ca.
Sincerely,
vj ;
��� � �4���uv��� �
Poma Dhaliwal
President of the Alliance of Beverage Licensees
Owner/Operator of Jolly Miller Pub and Liquor Store, Chilliwack
SUITE 200, 948 HOWE ST, VANCOUVER, BC V6Z I N9 T 604 688 5560 F 604 688 8560 www.ablebc.ca
APPENDIX B
CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW N0. 7190-2015
A Bylaw to prohibit liquor sales in grocery stores within one kilometre of a liquor store
WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Bylaw No. 3510-1985;
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows:
Citation
1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7190-2015."
Amendments
1. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 is amended by adding the following under
Part 4, GENERAL REGULATIONS, Section 401(3):
(g) The sale in or from an ineligible grocery store, or in or from a store located in an
ineligible grocery store, of beer, cider, wine or spirits, or any other product
intended for human consumption, that contains more than 1% alcohol by volume;
except a product produced primarily for cooking purposes, and for this purpose
"ineligible grocery store" means a grocery store any part of any public entrance to
which is located within 1 kilometre, measured in a straight line, from any part of
any public entrance to a Licensee Retail Store or government liquor store that is
carrying on business when sales referred to in this section commence.
READ a first time the
READ a second time the
day of
day of
PUBLIC HEARING held the day of
READ a third time the day of
ADOPTED, the day of
2015.
2015.
2015.
2015.
2015.
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
T0:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
MAPLE RIDGE
6ritish Columbia
• � � •
City of Maple Ridge
Her Worship Mayor Nicole Reid DATE: December 7, 2015
and Members of Council FILE N0:
Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: COW
First, Second and Third Readings
Tree Protection and Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Ticket Information Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 7191-2015
Development Application Fee Amending Bylaw No. 7192-2015
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The proposed Tree Protection and Management Bylaw No. 7133 - 2015 (Tree Bylaw) will provide a
more responsible and pro-active approach to tree protection, management, and replacement in
Maple Ridge.
The proposed Bylaw considers ongoing issues, challenges and opportunities that our community is
facing based on feedback from Council and citizens. It reflects current social, economic, and
ecological principles, objectives and policies reflected in the municipal Official Community Plan and
Corporate Plans. It also considers the unique geography of Maple Ridge, along with other important
factors such as weather patterns, land use history, socio-economic conditions, and new information
about how tree management can assist local governments to grow in a smarter and more
sustainable manner. Overall, it includes a comprehensive regulatory framework that emphasizes
new requirements with respect to tree protection, management and replacement measures.
In Nov. 2014, Council directed that the Tree Bylaw be reviewed and the process was subsequently
endorsed in February 2015. Since that time, there has been extensive feedback from residents,
tree experts, and other community stakeholders stemming from on-line questionnaires, open
houses, emails and meeting with Council.
The result of this consultation is a balanced bylaw that neither prohibits nor impedes development
related activity or routine tree maintenance on private property. Rather, it is designed to improve tree
protection, mitigation and replacement efforts especially where large scale clearing and cumulative
tree removal is taking place over time. It is designed to promote responsible tree cutting practices
across the City to help mitigate or reduce impacts on neighboring properties. It also includes re-
planting or cost recovery requirements where tree clearing is taking place to help offset impacts to
the broader community from cumulative tree losses and ensure a healthy tree canopy cover for
future generations.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. That Maple Ridge Tree Protection and Management Bylaw No. 7133 - 2015 be given first,
second and third reading.
2. That Maple Ridge Ticket Information Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 7191-2015 be given first,
second and third reading.
3. That Maple Ridge Development Application Fee Amending Bylaw No. 7192-2015 be given first,
second and third reading.
Page 1 1105
BACKGROUND
Historically, Maple Ridge citizens have noted through various consultation programs, surveys,
correspondence, their key concerns and issues associated with irresponsible and large scale tree
removal that has negatively impacted adjacent properties, citizens, municipal resources, and
taxpayers.
Common issues generally include erosion and sediment control concerns, slope stability, drainage
and flooding, risks associated with blowdown or windfall where new forest edges have been created,
as well as long term impacts to the natural landscape that have been established in neighborhoods.
Other key issues associated with cumulative tree loss and large scale tree removal includes loss of
numerous economic, social, and ecological services and benefits that trees provide to the
community.
The Tree Bylaw (No. 7133-2015) has been drafted taking into consideration lessons learned from
other local governments from the Lower Mainland and other municipalities in B.C. Numerous
discussions have taken place with other municipal tree bylaw officers and urban foresters to learn
from their successes and mistakes. The City of Maple Ridge has also had an opportunity to work
with the City Solicitor to review the proposed Tree Protection and Management Bylaw so it can be
enforceable in a B.C. Court of Law. Furthermore, there has been over nine months of tree permit
application review involving over 300+ properties within Maple Ridge that have helped as a testing
ground for existing and proposed regulations, issues, and concerns on the ground.
Furthermore, the proposed Tree Protection and Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015 includes a
regulatory framework that reflect current community values, principles, and objectives concerning
protection and management of trees which are outlined in the Maple Ridge Official Community Plan.
Existing Maple Ridge OCP Policy Framework
The main components of the proposed Tree Protection and Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
reflect current OCP principles, objectives, and policies as listed below:
Tree Protection
OCP Objectives: Ensure mature trees are maintained and protected where possible and replant if
necessary encouraging the use of native species.
(OCP Policy 5-13) Maple Ridge will promote retention of urban and mature trees and woodland
areas, and ensure additional trees are provided as part of all development
p ro posa Is;
(OCP Policy 5-40) Maple Ridge will encourage tree retention and tree protection programs;
Tree Management
OCP Objectives: Maple Ridge will pursue low impact development measures where possible and
increase 'carbon sink' effects through tree planting and protection.
(OCP Policy 5-22) Landscape disturbance should be minimized by retaining trees where possible
and require replanting or enhanced planting as a condition of development;
(OCP Policy 5-43) Maple Ridge will maintain and enhance its forests and woodland areas; and
(OCP Policy 5-45) encourage low impact `smart' development, and will promote initiatives that
reduce community greenhouse emissions & help offset climate change impacts;
Page 2
Tree Replacement
OCP Objectives Identify, protect and enhance ecosystems, sensitive areas and features
(OCP Policy 5-31) Require enhancement & rehabilitation of lands as part of development process;
(OCP Policy 5-40) Maintain and enhance forests and woodland areas; and
(OCP Policy 5-43) Include climate change considerations and initiatives
CONSULTATION PROCESS
The following consultation process was endorsed by Council on February 2, 2015 as part of the
previous Tree Management Bylaw review to encourage community input, transparency, and provide
citizens with opportunities for feedback:
Table 1. Tree Management Bylaw Process & Timelines
Step I- Council Endorse Review Process & Amendments to current Bylaw No. Feb.2,2015
5896-2000
• Council to endorse the Tree Protection and Management Bylaw ✓
review/consultation process;
• Consideration and granting of 1St, 2nd, 3rd reading of Tree Protection
Amending Bylaw 7134-2015 at Workshop.
Step II - Focus Group Feedback - proposed "draft" Tree Management Bylaw to be Late Feb.
circulated to local professional tree experts including arborists, foresters, woodlot March
managers, development consultants, environmental professionals, and
environmental stewardship groups. ✓
Step III -Open House - consultation with general public & neighbourhood groups April 2015
✓
Step IV - Consultation Update to Council - provide feedback on what we heard to June to
Council with reports and presentation on revisions to Tree Protection and Sept. 2015
Management Bylaw for review, questions, and consideration. ✓
➢ Additional consultation step added Sept. 15- Oct 5, 2015.
➢ Final update to Council at Workshop Nov. 16, 2015
Step V- Final Consideration of Tree Protection and Management Dec 8,
Bylaw No. 7133-2015 for 1St, 2na, and 3rd Reading 2015
Step Vl - Final Adoption Jan 2016
Page 3
CONSULTATION RESULTS
An outline of the Tree Bylaw consultation process was presented and endorsed by Council on
February 2, 2015. An update on the proposed Bylaw, the review process and consultation feedback
was provided to Council on four separate occasions at Council Workshop; including February, June,
September, and November of 2015. Over the past nine months, the overall consultation process
included feedback and comments received from a wide variety of participants through various
consultation mechanisms which are outlined below:
1. There were 639 Tree Bylaw questionnaires submitted to the City of Maple Ridge;
2. Over 30 tree experts and other local government Tree Bylaw officers that provided verbal and
written comments;
3. Approximately 150 people attended the Public Open House attendees for the proposed Tree
Protection and Management Bylaw;
4. Over 240 permit applications and site visits occurred under the interim tree bylaw;
5. Over 200 phone calls and emails from citizens;
6. There were four Council Workshop sessions;
7. City Solicitors review; and
8. There were 64 written responses during the final consultation period.
Overall, the extensive consultation review process provided by the City enables citizens, tree experts,
Council, City Solicitors, and other stakeholders in the community to participate and provide feedback
which helped to create an innovative, balanced, and responsible Tree Protection and Management
Bylaw for the City of Maple Ridge.
Brief Outline of Tree Bylaw Consultation Process and Findings to Date:
(1) November 2014 - Council directed staff to prepare a scoping report for a review of tree
regulations based on feedback from community stakeholders over the past several years.
The Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw was identified as being outdated, ineffective, and
inflexible.
(2) February 2015 - Council directed a review of previous regulations and practices take place
and that amendments occur to ensure more effective regulation for tree removal activity.
(3) February to November 2015 - The Tree Bylaw review and consultation period included:
• A regional wide comparative assessment of what other municipalities are doing with
respect to tree bylaws including emphasis on protection and management
regulations;
• An analysis of local weaknesses, strengths, opportunities, and options in terms of
tree regulations, standards or best practices, fiscal implications, and exemptions;
• Meetings with tree experts, questionnaires and open houses with general public, and
workshops with Mayor and Council on the proposed tree protection and management
objectives, regulations, processes, and best practices;
• A review of interim tree permit applications including consideration of implications for
previous, current and proposed tree management requirements; and
• Solicitor's input with emphasis on creating a legally sound regulatory framework that
is enforceable in a court of law.
(4) Final consideration by Council of the proposed Tree Protection and Management Bylaw -
Page 4
The proposed Tree Protection and Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015 and consultation process will
result in the following improvements:
• Legislative clarity and consistency with requirements of senior environmental
agencies as well as municipal OCP objectives, bylaws, and best practices;
• Improved framework that focuses on pro-active protection, responsible management,
and replacement requirements for new developments and clearcutting applications;
• Comprehensive and flexible framework for dealing with potential tree protection,
management, and replacement efforts for non development applications in urban,
suburban, and rural areas;
• Greater consideration of services and benefits associated with tree canopy cover;
• Improved supervision, coordination, & monitoring by professional consultants;
• Greater flexibility and cost recovery opportunities for permit application fees; and
• Greater strength and clarity with respect to enforcement measures.
�'II_\�i�L�PI �:,�/l��i�ii
There are five key components to the proposed Tree Protection and Management Bylaw:
1. Application and scope of the Tree Management Bylaw
2. Tree Protection Measures
3. Tree Management requirements
4. Tree Replacement requirements
5. Exemptions and Fees
The following is a summary of key components under the proposed Tree Bylaw 7133-2015:
Permit Application and F�cemption Measures:
o Applies to Permit Trees over 20cm dbh;
o Applies to tree cutting applicants in urban, suburban, and rural areas;
o Applies to development and non-development tree cutting activity;
o Exemptions for farming activity, hazard trees, dead or dying trees, trees within 2
metres of building structures, and minimum 10 trees can be removed per year in
rural areas (lots over 0.5 ha) if they have met minimum tree canopy cover targets,
and limited exemptions for alders/cottonwoods per year in urban/rural areas;
o Tree Management Plans required for new developments or larger scale clearing
(more than 20 trees) and Arborist Report required for building permits, smaller scale
cutting (more than 5 trees), or cutting of Significant Trees.
Proposed Protection Measures:
o Protection assessment is required for significant trees on every site with
consideration for tree expert opinions, recommendations of consultants of record,
along with City Arborist and other municipal decision makers;
o Retention plan, tree survey and arborist report is required for significant tree stands
with new greenfield developments, and tree permit applications where clearcutting is
taking place, or more than 20 trees are being removed;
o Requirements on all sites for retention measures for trees located along the
perimeter of properties, retention consideration for blowdown concerns, drainage,
and root protection zones;
Page 5
o On site retention measures are required before, during, and after construction for
development activity to ensure long term survival of trees that are supposed to be
protected including park trees, protected areas, adjacent sites;
Consideration must be given to factors such as risk and safety, land use rights, site
characteristics, developable areas, and compensation opportunities with each site.
Proposed Management and Mitigation Measures:
Tree mitigation requirements for new developments, or clearcutting applications, or large
scale removal where more than 20 permit trees are being removed or cut:
o Tree Management Plans and tree survey including supporting studies, tree inventory,
retention and replacement plans, mitigation recommendations;
o Supervision, coordination, inspection, and monitoring by tree expert of record;
o City Arborist - site visits, permit review, enforcement and compliance;
o Tree security deposits for significant tree replacements & maintenance.
Tree mitigation requirements for new building permits and other development related
permits where less than 20 permit trees are being removed:
o Arborist report and tree survey including information on what is being removed, what
is being retained, what is being replaced;
o Mitigation measures proposed during construction;
o Replacement plan and potential security deposits.
Replacement Measures:
A minimum retention ratio of 16 trees per acre (40 trees per hectare) is required for all sites
with a Tree Permit application or appropriate tree replacement measures are required.
Currently, Metro Vancouver has a regional target of 40% tree canopy cover target for the region
as a whole, but t h e C i t y o f Maple Ridge will likely exceed this tree canopy cover
target. G iven existing and proposed tree protection and re-planting requirements under the
Tree P r o t e c t i o n a n d Management Bylaw, in addition to other municipal conservation
requirements, the City of Maple Ridge should maintain an overall tree canopy cover of 50-55%.
If trees cannot be replaced on the same lot, the owner may plant on another parcel, private or
public land, as approved by City; or may pay cash in lieu of $425 per replacement tree (to a
maximum of 40 trees per ha or $17,000 and 16 trees per acre or $6,800). The cash
compensation would be placed in a Tree Fund that will be used only for planting of trees on
public and private lands to replace tree canopy lost, for tree stewardship initiatives, or to
purchase public land for re-planting purposes.
Enforcement and Compliance:
The administration and enforcement of the Tree Bylaw will be the responsibility of the Planning
Department's Environmental staff. Implementation of this bylaw will involve a review and inspection
mechanism similar to the one already used by the Planning Department for the current Tree Permit
and Soil Deposit Permit Process. An Environmental Technician who is a certified Arborist and Tree
Risk Assessor will review and evaluate permit applications, and conduct site visits to confirm bylaw
compliance.
Page 6
There are various tools that can be used by the City to help with enforcement related matters and
improve compliance with municipal objectives and requirements:
o Certified tree experts of record and landowners will be responsible for ensuring safe
practices, and they will be responsible for preparing Tree Management Plans for each site,
supervising tree cutting crews and monitoring tree protection measures until development
completion.
o Proposed Stop Work Orders and tickets can be issued immediately for Bylaw
infractions rather than fines which can take time to implement or enforce in a Court of
Law.
o Staff can deny a tree cutting permit application that doesn't meet or comply with
Tree Management Bylaw regulations.
o Environmental performance securities are proposed for protection of trees and where
replacement trees are required.
o Appeal to Council if a Tree Permit is denied.
Maple Ridge Ticket Information Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 6929-2012 has been amended to
include some larger fines, expanded to include new regulations proposed in the Tree Management
Bylaw, and there are also a few updates to Bylaw section numbers. Details can be found in Appendix
B. It is recommended that the Maple Ridge Ticket Information Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 7191-
2015 be given first, second and third Readings.
Proposed Permit Fee Structure
The proposed Permit Fee Structure will provide the following:
o Self-sufficient fiscal mechanism to support staff resources for Bylaw implementation
including provision of technical assistance to landowners, permit review, enforcement
and outreach.1
o Reasonable costs for small scale tree removal or small scale development with
minimum tree removal to encourage citizens to work with Tree Permit process.
o Higher permit fee costs for larger scale clearing vs. cost based on size of properties to
help offset costs of staff resources and costs to community from tree removal impacts.
o Some fee exemptions are included for applicants that wish to pursue tree removal that
have active farm use status, landowners with hazard trees, dead or danger trees, trees
within 2 metres of building structures, or trees that are causing economic damage to
infrastructure and structures.
The following permit fees are being proposed for the new Tree Bylaw No. 7133-2015:
TREE CUTTING PERMIT (see Bylaw 7133-2015)
(a) Urban Area and Urban Reserve lots
and Rural parcels less than 0.5 ha $50 for first tree +$25 each additional tree;
(b) Rural Area on
parcels greater than 0.5 hectares $50 for 11th tree +$25 each additional tree;
(c) Development & large scale clearing
(d) Tree replacement
(e) Parcels with active farm use
$200 base fee + $25 per tree;
$425 per tree;
$0
1 The Planning Dept. 2016 Business Plan includes a request to fund an Environmental Technician (Arborist).
Page 7
The additional fee per tree to be removed will help the City of Maple Ridge recover costs on more
complex sites where substantial tree removal is taking place and additional municipal resources are
required to carry out site visits, review information and coordinate consultants, and carry out
enforcement duties.
A City Arborist position will be funded through the proposed tree permit fees. The City will likely
reduce previous costs associated with tree cutting by having a full time City Arborist. A City Arborist
can help implement, monitor, and enforce the Tree Protection and Management Bylaw. The
previous Tree Bylaw emphasized a reactive approach to tree cutting with minimal technical
assistance, supervision and enforcement capability which resulted in increased costs to the City
from safety concerns and liability issues, enforcement works, and staff time attempting to clean up
after the damage had been done. The proposed permit fee structure will likely reduce the number
of enforcement calls, liability issues, and impacts that occurred in previous years.
Therefore, Maple Ridge Development Application Fee Bylaw No. 5949-2001 has been amended to
reflect the new fees as shown in Appendix C. It is recommended that the Development Application
Fee Amending Bylaw No. 7192-2015 be given first, second and third Readings.
TABLE 2. Summary of Tree Protection and Management Bylaw Changes
Bylaw Section Previous Bylaw Application Tree Protection & Mgmt Bylaw
Application Urban Area only on lots larger Trees > 20 cm dbh;
than 1 acre; or large enough All urban and rural lands;
to subdivide; both development and non-
Watercourse areas up to development lands except where
15m; exemptions apply
Steep slopes over 30%.
Exemptions First 3 tree removals on urban All tree removals require a permit
lots require no tree permit; except where exemptions apply:
Exemptions urban lots < 1 ➢ trees <20cm dbh width;
acre; ➢ hazard, dead or dying trees;
Exemptions for rural lots; ➢ trees within 2 m of structures;
Exemptions for development; ➢ hedges, alders & cottonwoods
with some parameters
➢ up to 10 permit trees/yr on rural
lots if >0.5ha, trees < 70cm, and
lot must meet 30% canopy
cover.
Permit No criteria to refuse permit; Circumstances listed under which tree
Requirements No qualifications required for cutting permit will be issued or denied;
safety and knowledge of work Qualifications for work to be performed
Page 8
Replacements Only required if violation i.e. Replacements required on all sites, if
removals in a watercourse less than 16 trees per acre (or
setback or on steep slopes or equivalent) remain on parcel;
unpermitted removals Cash in lieu option if unable to
accommodate replacements;
Security Deposits for large scale cutting;
Tree No requirements to protect or ➢ Protection criteria for Significant
Protection retain trees on development Trees > 70 cm DBH where possible;
sites or non development ➢ Heritage Trees on Shady Lane
sites; Heritage protection for ROW;
trees on Shady Lane road ➢ Retention Plans for trees along the
ROW; perimeter of lots and low impact
development requirements;
➢ Protection requirements to ensure
temporary protection of trees from
damage during construction period;
➢ Protection areas required for
developers with re-planting zones.
Hazardous No requirements to manage ➢ Requirement for professional
Trees for hazard trees on hazard tree assessments to be
development sites or consider completed before and after
impacts to adjacent property. development activity completed;
➢ Requirements to consider impacts
including wind firm edges.
Tree No requirements Requirement for developers, builders
Management and large scale clearing applicants to
Plan consider how to mitigate the impacts of
tree cutting both on site & off site;
Tree retention plan and Tree
Replacement plans are required;
Requirements for site supervisor,
coordination by Forester or Arborist.
Page 9
NEXT STEPS:
A brief summary of the next steps and recommendations
• Ongoing Review of Tree Management Bylaw
The proposed Bylaw will require a review with Mayor and Council in 2016 to address any
potential issues, resource requirements, and revisions that might need to occur.
Clarify Communications Responsibilities & Outreach For Stakeholders
Further clarification on Tree Bylaw procedures, requirements, and b
needed for community stakeholders which can be achieved through
including development of educational and outreach materials on the
Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015 with the assistance of the mu�
counter handouts, building forum presentations, and updates to d
information checklists.
• Amend Maple Ridge Ticketing Bylaw and Permit Fee Bylaw
�st practices will be
various mechanisms
Tree Protection and
iicipal website, front
�velopment package
It is recommended that Maple Ridge Ticket Information Amending Bylaw No. 7191-2015and
Maple Ridge Development Application Fee Amending Bylaw No. 7192-2015 be amended to
reflect the proposed changes to the Tree Protection and Management Bylaw 7133-2015.
Details on the proposed amendments to these Bylaws are included in the Appendices.
CONCLUSIONS:
Based on the City of Maple Ridge's OCP objectives and policies in addition to feedback from Council
and the broader community stakeholders, there is a need for a more comprehensive, effective, and
suitable Tree Protection and Management Bylaw for the City of Maple Ridge.
The proposed Tree Protection and Management Bylaw No.7133-2015 will result in the following
improvements:
• Legislative clarity and consistency with requirements of senior environmental agencies as
well as municipal OCP objectives, bylaws, and best practices;
• Improved regulatory framework that focuses on pro-active protection, responsible
management, and replacement requirements for new developments, clearcutting
applications, large scale tree removal and for all other tree permit applicants;
• Comprehensive and flexible permit framework for dealing with tree protection, management,
and replacement issues in urban, suburban, and rural areas;
• Greater consideration of services and benefits associated with tree canopy cover including
minimum tree canopy cover targets and replacement requirements;
• Improved supervision, coordination, & monitoring by professional consultants;
• Greater flexibility and cost recovery opportunities for permit application fees; and
• Greater strength and clarity with respect to enforcement measures.
Page 10
Therefore, it is recommended that the proposed Tree Protection and Management Bylaw No. 7133 -
2015 be granted first, second, and third readings.
"Original signed by Rod Stott"
Prepared by: Rod Stott,
Environmental Planner
"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
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A. Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Appendix B. Maple Ridge Ticket Information Amending Bylaw No. 7191-2015
Appendix C. Maple Ridge Development Application Fee Amending Bylaw No. 7192-2015
Page 11
APPENDIX A
CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE
TREE PROTECTION & MANAGEMENT BYLAW
BYLAW N0. 7133-2015
A bylaw to manage the urban forest and tree canopy and regulate, prohibit and impose requirements
in relation to tree cutting and removal in Maple Ridge.
WHEREAS, section 8(3)(c) of the Community Charter enables Council by bylaw to regulate and
prohibit, and impose requirements in relation to the cutting and removal of trees;
AND WHEREAS, sections 15 and 194 of the Community Charter enable Council to permit and
establish conditions and fees for permit issuance;
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows:
1. Citation
This bylaw may be cited for all purposes as the "Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-
2015".
2. Repeal
The "Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw No. 5896-2000" is hereby repealed.
3. Definitions
"Agricultural use" means the use of land for the growing of crops or the raising of livestock as
permitted under the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw.
"Certified Arborist" means a person who is certified by the International Society of Arboriculture
(ISA).
"City" means the City of Maple Ridge.
"City Arborist" means a person employed by the City of Maple Ridge, who has current certification as
a Certified Arborist and uses that certification as part of their job description.
"City Tree Fund" means the money collected by the City through replacement cash-in-lieu as per
Schedule "E" of this Bylaw for the sole use of replacing lost tree canopy through the planting of trees
on public and private properties, and affiliated extension activities to educate the public on the
importance of trees and requirement of tree permits within the City.
"Conservation Area" means a streamside protection and enhancement area as defined in the
Streamside Protection Regulation or slopes over 25% or land subject to a geotechnical covenant or
habitat protection covenant.
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Page 2
"Critical Root Zone" means the area of land surrounding the trunk of a tree contained within a circle
of radius equal to the DBH of the tree multiplied by 18; or equal to the dripline of the tree; whichever
is greater.
"Cut" and "Cutting" means the removal, knocking down or cutting into, any or all parts, of any tree in
such a manner that damages or is detrimental to the health of any tree; and shall include the
topping of a tree.
"Damage" and "Damaging" means any action which will cause a tree to die or to decline in health;
including, but not limited to, cutting, ringing, poisoning, burning, topping, or excessive pruning.
"DBH" means the diameter of a tree at breast height, measured from a height of 130 cm above
natural grade of the ground, as measured from the base of the tree. For multi-stemmed trees, the
DBH is equal to the cumulative total of the DBH of each stem.
"Developable Area" means the parts of a parcel which are not in a Conservation Area
"Drainage System" means the system and network of streams, creeks, waterways, watercourses,
waterworks, ditches, drains, or sewers located in the City on private or public property, by which
water is conveyed or travels from lands.
"Drip Line" means the vertical line extending down from the outer most branches of the tree to the
natural grade of the land.
"Environmental Technician" means the person employed by the City of Maple Ridge with the job title
of Environmental Technician.
"Excessive Suspended Solids Discharge" means an indirect or direct fluid discharge containing
suspended solids exceeding 75 milligrams per litre into any drainage system.
"Farm Plan" means a plan prepared by a professional Agrologist that indicates the proposed use of
agriculturally zoned land for agricultural purposes. The Farm Plan would indicate placement of
structures and production areas, ponds, pastures and fencing specifically for agricultural use.
"Floodplain" means the land that is adjacent to a watercourse that is subject to regular flooding, as
depicted on the current Maple Ridge mapping floodplain layer.
"Hazard tree" means a tree that is determined to be currently in a condition dangerous to people or
property in a report prepared by a Qualified Tree Risk Assessor, that is to be reviewed and approved
by the City.
"Heritage Tree Protection Area" means the area of land designated for tree protection as shown in
Schedule "A" to this Bylaw.
"Large Scale Building Permit" means a permit for the construction of the following:
• Building complexes such as apartment buildings, multiple residential developments,
or townhouses with more than five units;
• A building that is designated for industrial, commercial, or institutional use;
• A large structure where the building lot coverage is equal to or larger than 2000
square metres.
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Page 3
"Large Woody Debris" means fallen trees, dead trees and snags, eroded root structures and logs
within a Conservation Area.
"Manager" means the Manager of Development and Environmental Services for the City of Maple
Ridge and his/her designate.
"Natural Causes" means death or decline of a tree as a result of natural diseases, pests, climatic
conditions, or inherent structural defects.
"Owner" means the registered owner or owners of a fee simple parcel of land, or the strata
corporation of a strata lot.
"Permit" means a permit issued by the Manager under the authority of this bylaw to cut or remove a
tree or trees.
"Permit Tree" means a tree that is 20 centimetres DBH or greater.
"Prune" or "pruning" means the selective cutting of living or dead branches of a tree consistent with
promoting the health and growth of the tree, as consistent with the International Society of
Arboriculture's standards of arboriculture practice. This does not include topping of a tree.
"Public Utility" means a utility service provided by the City of Maple Ridge, BC Hydro, Telus, Terasen
Gas and any other company, utility or authority providing a public service or utility.
"Qualified Tree Risk Assessor" means a person who has a valid Tree Risk Assessment Qualification
as awarded by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA).
"Replacement Tree" means a tree required to be planted to replace a tree that has been cut or
damaged in accordance with this Bylaw.
"Rural Area" means areas of the City of Maple Ridge outside the Urban, Urban Reserve, and
Suburban Area boundaries as shown on Schedule "B" of the current Maple Ridge Official Community
Plan.
"Significant Tree" means a tree that is greater than 70 cm DBH; not including Cottonwood or Alder
species.
"Significant Tree Stand" means a stand of three or more Significant Trees with less than ten metres
between any two trees, and all vegetation within the outer dripline of that stand.
"Streamside Protection Regulations" means the watercourse setback protection methodology that is
adopted and used by the City for protecting watercourses, ponds, wetlands, and water features.
"Topping" means the removal of major portions of a tree crown by cutting branches to stubs or
cutting of the main leader or branches, and includes re-topping of previously topped trees.
"Tree Management Plan" means a plan prepared by a Certified Arborist or Registered Forester to
indicate the removal and retention of trees as per City requirements in Schedule "B".
"Tree Protection Barrier" means a barrier erected to protect a tree and its roots from damage during
site work or construction; and as specified in Schedule "C" of this Bylaw.
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Page 4
"Tree Risk Assessment" means a written assessment prepared by a Qualified Tree Risk Assessor of
the risk of trees to persons and property using the most current International Society of Arboriculture
Tree Risk Assessment Standards and Tree Risk Assessment Qualification.
"Tree Survey Plan" means a survey plan prepared by a registered BC Land Surveyor. The plan
illustrates the location of trees in relation to the property lines of a lot, along with the size and
species of each tree, plus any other information required for the purpose of assessing a Permit
application.
"Urban and Suburban Area" means the areas of land designated as "Urban Residential", "Estate
Suburban Residential", "Suburban Residential", "Urban Reserve", "Commercial", "Industrial" and
"Institutional" on Schedule "B" of the current Maple Ridge Official Community Plan,.
"Vulnerable Aquifer" means an aquifer that has been provincially designated as high vulnerability by
the BC Water Resource Atlas and aquifers identified in the Aquifers Map Figure 7 in the Maple Ridge
Official Community Plan, Bylaw No. 7060-2014.
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
4. Prohibitions
Page 5
4.1 No person shall cut or damage or cause or permit the cutting or damaging of a Permit Tree
without first obtaining a Permit.
4.2 No person shall cut or damage or permit to be cut or damage a tree in the Heritage Tree
Protection Area without first obtaining a Permit and written confirmation that the tree is a
Hazard Tree.
4.3 No person shall cut or damage or permit to be cut or damaged a tree in a Conservation Area
without first obtaining a Permit and written confirmation from a Qualified Tree Risk Assessor
that the tree is a Hazard Tree.
4.4 No person shall cut or damage or permit to be cut or damaged a Significant Tree and a tree
and all vegetation within a Significant Tree Stand without first obtaining a Permit.
4.5 No person shall cut or damage or permit to be cut or damaged a tree that is on a highway, park
or land owned by the City unless the work is undertaken by or on behalf of the City.
4.6 Without limiting sections 4.1 to 4.5, no person shall carry out any of the following activities in
respect of any tree protected by those sections without a Permit or contrary to a Permit issued
pursuant to this bylaw:
a. topping so as to significantly alter a tree's natural canopy except if the tree forms part of a
hedge;
b. cutting or damaging the roots within the Critical Root Zone of a tree;
c. operating or storing heavy equipment within the Critical Root Zone of a tree;
d. placing fill, building materials, asphalt or erecting a structure within the Critical Root Zone
of a tree;
e. stripping bark, gouging or otherwise damaging the trunk of a tree;
f. depositing, within the Critical Root Zone of a tree, concrete washout or other liquids
harmful to the health of a tree;
g. removing soil from within the Critical Root Zone of a tree; and
h. undermining the roots within the Critical Root Zone of a tree.
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
5. Exemptions
5.1 No Permit is required to cut a tree for which a Permit is required under section 4 where:
Page 6
Cutting is undertaken by or on behalf of the City on park, highway or land owned or held
by the City;
b. Cutting is undertaken by a public utility for the purpose of safety, maintenance or
operation of the public utility's infrastructure following standard arboricultural
practices;
c. Pruning is required to ensure the health and sustainability of the tree following
standard arboricultural practices;
The tree is an alder or a poplar tree (including a cottonwood) located in the Rural Area,
outside of a Conservation Area and provided that:
i) not more than 10 Permit Trees have been cut on the parcel in the previous
twelve months; and
ii) 40 trees per hectare (16 trees/acre) are being retained on the parcel.
e. Cutting of no more than 10 trees in any twelve month period on parcels greater than
half a hectare in the Rural Area; provided that there remains 40 trees per hectare over
20 cm DBH on the parcel, and the trees being cut are not over 70 cm DBH.;
The tree is a Hazard Tree;
g. The cutting is permitted by statute;
Trees that are being cut for survey lines less than 2 metres wide, and the trees are less
than 30 centimetres DBH; and
Cutting is required for construction, improvement, repair or maintenance of public
works or services undertaken by a government authority.
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
6. Permits
Page 7
6.1 An application for a Permit or an amendment to a Permit shall:
a) be submitted to the Manager;
b) include a completed and signed application form as set out in Schedule "D";
c) include all required plans and approvals in accordance with Section 7 of this Bylaw; and
d) be accompanied by the applicable Permit fee in accordance with the Maple Ridge
Development Application Fees Bylaw No. 5949-2001.
6.2 Subject to Section 12 of this Bylaw, after reviewing an application for a Permit, the Manager
may do any of the following:
a) issue a Permit which may impose terms and conditions in accordance with this Bylaw;
b) refuse to issue a Permit and provide written notice of the reasons for refusal within 15
days of the date of refusal.
6.3 The Owner who is subject to a decision of the Manager to grant or refuse a Permit, or to
impose conditions on the granting of a Permit is entitled to appeal to Council to have the
decision reconsidered. An application for reconsideration must be made in writing to the City
Clerk. There is no fee for an appeal application for reconsideration.
6.4 When a Permit authorizes a tree to be Cut, cutting shall be undertaken in compliance with the
conditions imposed by this Bylaw and the Permit.
6.5 All work authorized by a Permit shall be conducted by the Owner or by a tree service company
that has a valid business license to work within the City of Maple Ridge.
6.6 A Permit in respect of a Significant Tree or a tree in a Significant Tree Stand shall not be issued
unless one of the following circumstances applies:
a) The tree is a Hazard Tree;
b) The land use and density permitted under the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw cannot be
undertaken on the parcel in accordance with all the provisions of the Zoning bylaw without
the cutting of the tree;
c) The tree is within 2 metres of an existing building foundation wall;
d) The tree is causing structure or infrastructure damage as determined by the City or a
qualified professional engineer with the approval of the City;
e) A Permit related to subdivision or building has been issued and identifies tree removal and
protection areas in an approved Tree Management Plan as per Schedule "B" or an Arborist
Report as per Schedule "F";
f) The Cutting of the tree is required to site a building, driveway, septic field, roadway, or
utility corridor as approved by the City prior to issuance of a building permit;
g) The tree is on a lot zoned for agricultural use, with active farm status or a Farm Plan that
shows that the tree will interfere with the best use of the land for agricultural purposes;
and
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Page 8
h) More than 50% of Significant Trees on the parcel shall be retained where possible and
there will be a minimum of 40 Permit Trees per hectare (16 trees/acre) retained.
6.7 For the purpose of calculating whether a parcel retains 40 Permit Trees per hectare under
section 6.6(h), there will be credit granted for the retention of trees on the parcel as per the
table below where the number in the right column indicates how many Replacement Trees
each retained tree of specified size in the left column equals:
DBH of trees to be retained
20cm - 50 cm
50cm - 70 cm
More than 70 cm
# of Tree Credits
1 tree
3 trees
6 trees
6.8 All Owners and contractors shall ensure that all tree work is performed in a safe manner as
outlined in WorkSafe BC regulations and International Society of Arboriculture Best
Management Practices.
6.9 A Permit is valid for a period of four months from the date of issuance. Application for
amendments to the Permit can be made within the four month period.
6.10 A Permit may be revoked by the Manager if the terms and conditions of the Permit have been
breached or the information supplied by the applicant is determined to be inaccurate,
incomplete or erroneous.
Notice of Tree Cutting or Removal
6.11 Written notice of a Permit shall be posted on the parcel in respect of which the Permit has
been issued in a location visible to the public at least 24 hours prior to the commencement of
any tree cutting; and shall remain posted on the parcel until the completion of the work. The
notice shall provide the Permit number, address, number of trees to be removed, expiry date of
the Permit, a City contact number, and a map showing where trees are being removed.
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
7. Plans and Conditions
Page 9
Where an application for a Permit is required by this Bylaw, the application must contain the following
information:
a. Proposed planting plan for required Replacement Trees in accordance with Schedule `E'
with security deposit required by section 9.7 of this Bylaw;
b. Any applicable Federal or Provincial submissions for approvals, including a Bird Nesting
Survey if removing trees between March 15 and August 1 as per the Wildlife Act (British
Columbia) and its regulations;
c. Tree Management Plan, in accordance with Schedule "B"; where:
(i) the parcel is subject to a permit application related to development,
(ii) more than 20 Permit trees are proposed to be cut; or
(iii) clearing more than 500 square metres of land.
d. Arborist Report, in accordance with Schedule "F", where
(i) the parcel is subject to a development permit application and 20 or less Permit
Trees are proposed to be cut; or
(ii) the parcel is in the Rural Area on a parcel greater than 0.5 hectares and between
11 and 20 Permit Trees less than 70cm are proposed to be cut;
(iii) the parcel is in the Urban and Suburban Area or the parcel is less than 0.5 ha in
the Rural Area and more than 5 Permit Trees between 20 and 50cm DBH are
proposed to be cut; or
(iv) one or more Significant Trees are proposed to be cut.
e. Where tree removals will be within 50 metres of a watercourse or slopes over 25°/o, a
survey prepared by a B.C. Land Surveyor that identifies top-of-bank or top of ravine bank,
along with watercourse setbacks and geotechnical setbacks approved by the City will need
to be identified and prepared by a B.C. Land Surveyor on the ground and in a legal survey
plan.
8. Tree Cutting
A person cutting a tree must:
a. dispose of the tree parts in a manner approved by the City and in accordance with
Provincial and City regulations;
keep the Drainage System free of Excessive Suspended Solids Discharge originating from
the tree cutting area, as per the Maple Ridge Watercourse Protection Bylaw No. 6410-
2006;
c. stabilize all bare and exposed soil by Oct. 15 of any given year in order to reduce potential
erosion impacts in accordance with City regulations;
d. restrict all tree cutting work to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Monday to Saturday,
excluding holidays;
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015 Page 10
On parcels on which the applicant proposes to cut more than 20 Permit Trees or all trees
within an area of 500 square metres or more:
e. cut trees between August 1 and October 15, unless an erosion control plan prepared by a
Qualified Professional in accordance with the current Maple Ridge Watercourse Protection
Bylaw has been approved by the City and implemented prior to site disturbance; and,
f. obtain a bird nesting survey prepared and submitted by a Qualified Professional Biologist if
cutting trees between April 15 and August 1;
Conservation Area:
g. when cutting a Hazard Tree, within a Conservation Area, leave the larger pieces of the tree
as Large Woody Debris and leave the cut tree stump at a safe habitat height in order to
retain fish and wildlife habitat;
9. Replacement Trees
9.1 Where a person cuts a tree for which a Permit is required under this Bylaw, the owner of the
parcel on which the tree was located shall install Replacement Trees in accordance with
Schedule E.
9.2 An owner shall maintain Replacement Trees in good health in accordance with standard
arboricultural practice.
9.3 A person shall provide Replacement Trees as per Schedule "E" and approved by the City
Arborist in respect of trees unlawfully cut on highways and City-owned lands.
Cash in Lieu Option
9.4 If an owner determines it is not feasible or desirable to provide Replacement Trees on the
same parcel on which the trees were cut, the Owner shall provide to the City a cash-in-lieu
payment for each required Replacement Tree not replaced on the parcel into the City Tree
Fund in accordance with Schedule `E'.
9.5 Replacement Trees of all sizes cannot be cut without a Permit.
9.6 Trees that were planted as part of a landscaping plan pursuant to a Development Permit for
multi-family and commercial units shall require an Arborist report as per Schedule `F', and a
phased removal and replanting plan approved by the City in accordance with the intention of
the original Development Permit landscape plan.
Security Deposits for Replanting
9.7 Prior to the issuance of any Permit, the Owner shall provide the City with a refundable security
deposit in cash or irrevocable letter of credit in the amount of $425.00 per Replacement Tree
to a maximum of $17,000 per hectare and a maximum of $100,000 per application.
9.8 The security required under section 9.7 shall be held by the City for one year from the date a
Replacement Tree is planted, and shall thereafter be released to the Owner provided that the
Manager is satisfied that the Owner has complied with the tree replacement criteria and has
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Page 11
maintained the Replacement Tree in good health for one year from the date of planting. No
interest shall be paid by the City on security deposits.
9.9 If the Owner has not complied with the tree replacement criteria as outlined in this Bylaw, the
City may use the security provided under section 9.7 to meet the replacement conditions
specified in the Permit.
10. Tree Protection and Mitigation Requirements
10.1 Where the Critical Root Zone of any tree to be retained, either on the parcel or on an
adjacent parcel is within 5 metres of any excavation, demolition, construction or engineering
works, the owner must install a Tree Protection Barrier around the tree.
10.2 No work authorized by a demolition permit, building permit, or tree permit shall commence
before all Tree Protection Barriers required by this Bylaw have been installed and approved
by the Manager.
10.3 No subdivision servicing works shall be permitted before the Tree Protection Barrier has
been installed and approved by the Manager.
10.4 Tree Protection Barriers shall remain in accordance with Schedule "C" until all construction is
completed and a final completion certificate or final occupancy permit is issued by the City.
10.5 The Owner shall protect all land dedicated or transferred to the City, and all covenanted
conservation lands on the parcel, by erecting a fence, as per the specifications in Schedule
"C" around that dedicated or transferred land prior to any development. The on-site clearing
or removal of any vegetation, the alteration of on-site grades, and the removal or deposition
of soil from or to this dedicated or transferred land is prohibited.
11. Administration and Enforcement
11.1 The Manager, the Environmental Technician, a Bylaw Enforcement Officer and all City
employees under their direction will have the right at all reasonable hours to enter upon and
inspect any land or premises in the City to determine if the provisions of the Bylaw are being
met.
11.2 The Manager may suspend work carried out under a Permit or in violation of this Bylaw if the
work is not being undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Permit or
this Bylaw.
12. Offense and Penalty
12.1 Every person who violates any provision of this Bylaw or who suffers or permits any act or
thing to be done in contravention of this Bylaw commits an offence against this Bylaw and is
liable to the penalties hereby imposed.
12.2 Every person who commits an offence against this Bylaw is liable to a fine and penalty of not
more than $10,000.00 for each offence.
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015 Page 12
12.3 Where more than one tree is cut or damaged in violation of this bylaw a separate offense is
committed with respect to each tree.
12.4 Each day that a violation exists or continues shall constitute a separate offense.
12.5 When a tree has been cut or damaged in violation of this Bylaw, the Owner shall submit a
complete Permit Application and the applicable fee, a post-cutting assessment fee, plus a
refundable security deposit for Replacement Trees in cash or letter of credit in the amount
specified on the Permit or penalty notice. When a post-cutting assessment does not provide
evidence satisfactory to the City of the size of the tree cut or damaged, the tree shall be
deemed to be > 70 cm DBH for the purpose of providing Replacement Trees.
12.6 If work not in compliance with Permit conditions is proceeding, a stop work order shall be
posted on the parcel, and no further work shall take place on the parcel until the work is in
compliance with the conditions of the Permit.
12.7 Any owner who cuts or damages, or suffers or permits any tree to be cut, or damaged in
contravention of this Bylaw or in violation of any terms and conditions of a Permit shall be
required to submit a Permit application (including appropriate fees and securities) for the
trees cut or damaged and to replace trees on the same parcel in accordance with Schedule
,� E„
12.8 If an owner fails or refuses to plant the required replacement trees as specified on the Permit
or in the Replacement Planting Criteria in Schedule "E", within ninety (90) days of receiving
written direction from the City to do so, the City may use the security collected to either have
the trees planted on the Owner's parcel or to plant the trees on City-owned property.
12.9 Where an owner fails to comply with section 9.1 or 12.5 of this Bylaw, the City may plant
Replacement Trees in accordance with Schedule `E' of this Bylaw on the parcel on which
trees were cut and the Owner shall pay the City's costs, which costs may be collected in the
same manner and with the same remedies as property taxes and if due and payable by
December 31 and unpaid on that date shall be deemed to be taxes in arrears.
13.
14.
If any section or lesser portion of this Bylaw is held invalid, it will be severed and the validity
of the remaining provisions of this will not be affected.
Schedules "A", "B", "C", "D", "E", and "F" attached to this Bylaw are incorporated herein and
form part of the Bylaw.
READ a first time the
READ a second time the
day of
day of
READ a third time the day of
ADOPTED the day of
PRESIDING MEMBER
, 2015.
, 2015.
, 2015.
, 2015.
CORPORATE OFFICER
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
SCHEDULE "A"
HERITAGE TREE PROTECTION AREA
Page 13
�
� AREA UNQER -
PR�TECTION -- ,
FERITAGE TREE PRDTECTIOh
AREA ��A�� � B�`LA':1� 5896•2000
SCFEDL,'LE 11
� � ' � CORPORA.TION OF
L� + = THE ❑ISTRICT DF
r -
^''rt � - hw'APLE_RIdGE
� -
- -- z�. z-' '�="'-=-'. ;.-t za. r_..
x-� -
� 4,..-- �� __ __ _'__' _ �s °h�� °__ = 'I i_ _ ' _
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
SCHEDULE "B"
TREE MANAGEMENT PLAN REQUIREMENTS
Page 14
For lands under development permit applications
And for tree permit applications proposing the removal of more than 20 trees
And for tree permit applications proposing the clearing of more than 500 square metres
Applicants shall provide a comprehensive Tree Management Plan prepared by a Certified Arborist or
registered Forester and approved by the City before any trees are cut. This Plan is required to clarify
the intent with respect to protection, management, replacement and hazard assessment of trees
that are on and adjacent to the site.
A Tree Management Plan shall include the following:
1. Initial Tree Assessment to be prepared by a qualified professional forester or Certified Arborist.
The assessment and initial sketch plan shall include the following information:
i) the location, species, size (dbh) and number of Permit Trees to be removed within the
Developable Area where tree cutting is required or proposed;
ii) the location, species, size, age class, health condition, and number of Significant Trees
and Significant Tree Stands outside of Conservation Areas to be retained or removed
within the site where tree cutting, disruption or development activity is proposed;
iii) the location, species, age class, and health condition of Permit Trees identified for
retention or replacement on Developable Areas of the parcel. This includes:
• Permit Trees within 10 metres of the property boundary line and Conservation Areas;
• Permit Trees within 10 metres of Significant Trees, Heritage Tree Protection Areas, or
Significant Tree Stands where development activity and Tree Cutting is being proposed;
and
• Permit trees within 10 metres of the existing or proposed building envelope footprint
including building structures, accessory buildings, servicing and infrastructure;
iv) location of the proposed development layout and/or building envelope layout including
existing or proposed structures, accessory buildings, services, and other infrastructure.
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Page 15
2. Tree Retention Plan to identify trees to be retained outside Conservation Areas using selective
clearing methods that demonstrates an intention to achieve the following:
• retain trees along the perimeters of parcels with consideration for windfirm forest edges,
critical root zones, and privacy;
• to minimize impacts to adjacent properties including consideration of retention of trees
to minimize impacts to groundwater, drainage, blowdown; and
• to retain Significant Trees and Significant Tree Stands through appropriate development
or building layout siting and low impact design efforts.
A Tree Retention Plan shall include a complete description of proposed trees to be retained,
includingthe names (common and botanical names), locations, quantities, health condition, and size
in centimetres DBH of trees to be retained, and the Critical Root Zone for each retained tree.
3. Tree Protection Measures During Construction with recommendations for tree protection
measures and monitoring during construction, including consideration for grading, drainage,
irrigation, space, and placement of Tree Protection Barriers around the Critical Root Zone of
retained trees and trees located on property boundaries in accordance with Schedule D.
4. Tree Risk Assessment completed by a Qualified Tree Risk Assessor to identify all trees that are a
potential hazard to proposed development during and after construction. Tree Risk Assessments
shall be submitted to the City before construction begins and after construction is complete; and
will include trees within Conservation Areas or adjacent City-owned lands that are within 10
metres of proposed structures. All mitigation for risk of Hazard Trees identified in the report
shall be addressed and confirmed prior to final approval of the works under the Permit.
5. Replacement Planting Plan in accordance with Schedule "E".
If the proposed development does not retain a ratio of 40 Permit Trees per hectare within the
Developable Area, then replacement trees are required. The replacement plan must identify
locations for re-planting, numbers of Replacement Trees, species and size of Replacement Trees,
or the cash-in-lieu total to be paid.
Trees to be retained within the Developable Area count as Replacement Trees. Size of retained
tree determines equivalent number of replacement trees, as per the following:
DBH of trees to be retained Replacement Credits
20cm - 50 cm 1 tree
50cm - 70 cm 3 trees
More than 70 cm 6 trees
6. Monitoring Schedule for tree retention and planting on the site during and after the construction.
A Certified Arborist must be retained as a monitor to ensure proper protection measures and
planting quality. Monitors may be requested by the City to report on issues that arise on site
throughout the construction phases.
7. Calculation of security amount on the planted and retained trees, to be paid by the applicant in
accordance with Schedule `E'. Each tree to be planted or retained requires $425 security; not to
exceed a total of $17,000 per hectare to a maximum of $100,000 per application. This security
shall be returned one year after the trees have been planted by the applicant with the
submission of a Certified Arborist report confirming the healthy condition of the trees, and
approved by the Manager.
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Other plans that are required as per the site conditions include:
Page 16
8. Groundwater Impact Assessment as related to tree removals when removing more than 20
Permit Trees or clearing more than 500 square metre area over a Vulnerable Aquifer. The
assessment shall be prepared by a qualified hydrological professional.
9. Phased Clearing Plan, (except for farm use), if the area to be cleared has slopes over 15%, or is
on a Floodplain. The Plan will indicate how cutting will be phased to minimize the immediate
impacts of clearing.
10. Windfirm assessment for clearing activity that will create a new forest edge; to address
blowdown risk and mitigation including tree removal, pruning and replacement
recommendations, and retention of Large Woody Debris within Conservation Areas. This
Assessment shall be prepared by a Registered Forester or a Certified Arborist with experience in
blowdown risk mitigation.
11. Detailed Tree Survey to be prepared by a registered BC Land Surveyor to indicate proposed tree
retention and replacement areas that require restrictive covenants. A BCLS survey will also be
required for location of trees to be cut within five (5) metres of property boundary lines,
Conservation Area boundaries, or areas with steep slopes over 25%.
All protection and mitigation measures shall be inspected and reported by the Certified Arborist, and
submitted to and approved by the City, before development work can begin on site.
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
SCHEDULE "C"
Tree Protection Specifications
Page 17
Trees that are identified for protection through a Permit require the following protection measures to
be implemented if any demolition, construction or change of land grade will take place within 5
metres of the Critical Root Zone of the tree; and for all existing trees on the highway fronting the
parcel on which construction is to take place:
A protection barrier or temporary fence of at least 1.2 meters in height shall be placed around
the Critical Root Zone of the tree. This barrier shall be in place before any excavation or
construction work begins, and the barrier shall remain intact throughout the entire period of
construction.
Specifications for Construction:
1. 1.2 m (�4') height;
2. 2"x 4"s to be used for vertical posts, top and bottom rails and cross-bracing (in an "X"); round, un-
treated vertical posts may be used with a minimum diameter of 9 cm;
3. Spacing between vertical posts to be a minimum of 3.7 m(12') on center;
4. Structure shall be sturdy with vertical posts driven firmly into the ground;
5. Continuous plastic mesh high visibility screening (e.g. orange snow fencing);
6. Posted with visible all weather signage advising that encroachment inside the protected area is
forbidden;
7. Located at a distance from the tree based on the calculation of its Critical Root Zone.
The area within a Tree Protection Barrier shall remain undisturbed and not be used for any purpose
including storage, dumping, parking and machinery operation.
Any required excavation in and around the Critical Root Zone of a tree shall be approved by the City
and shall be completed by hand. (eg. underground servicing, footings, etc.) under the supervision of
a Certified Arborist.
Grades within the Critical Root Zone shall be maintained as original. Re-grading outside the Critical
Root Zone shall not negatively affect the drainage or the health of the retained trees. Trees within
the Critical Root Zone shall be adequately cared for throughout the construction process.
If trees within the Critical Root Zone are damaged beyond repair, the Owner shall provide 4
Replacement Trees for each tree damaged.
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015 Page 18
SCHEDULE "C' con't
Tree Protection Specifications
. �
� . �
�� .
d� J � - -
� �
. - `�
� ���C -
.�
- , ° � i
�5 , a � � � � �
D f � mir�i.�:�imouE�i�eo3
P>�st:� ^��esl7 � � # � � brarr�l7e.s {de�piiesel
a"C F�Et:T'�Fl� q �
________-------- - 6 8 Ll .
_ _ �� ��
� _h � ____�� � I� �k
. __ �` I
��..
'4 � }
� �� '.+�s�. �� � ~�� _ � —�k�'k
� `L� x x�4r.����� � �� ' — �+__
j1��. . ��'�.��x,�.� ___� --___ - -____
� ,�k. . _____.:._ �-�_ _-
� �� �' .r - � � l- .�'-
+ �� �� ��5--�� - - - _ - _ - _- - - �
i � �� �'�,�y � � � �. - - x� �'W�
�. � � �.�,... . _ _ - -_ � _ ,:. •. .� �,``... .
�
�'�'�� -�� �—___��:� �--g-�-------- ---� ~; __ ___- -�������.
� J �.�� -�+ � � �� 5
_ -- ' � 5 `�,C � - � P AR� r ,' X
` ;� d� t RE�Tai�����R I +� •
Y h .. ` � _ 1L�GP —�'�' � xS
+�, � ' �' •}{'�' -p; _ _ _—_ -- � .i
� �,� 'J K �� ' �5 � � ------ �
����� x .' '� �
..�1 ` fi ���'���;� � ���s � i� ��' .
. . �,� � �� ., � .�:���' _ ____ }
- �, � J1� -
A Solad �afrier
,� u . � {� x �';�
Tr�e� ��r�t��#i�� ����i�r
FJo:,e: �:�a stia��e o��;:i���ng TMa�rkx:•s
�svi<I�if� or a�ai-�ss pro�ac =��-� b�tsrie r
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Schedule "D"
Tree Cutting Permit Application
1. Full name(s) and address of applicant:
Postal Code: home phone: cell:
Email:
2. Full name(s) and address of owner (if different than applicant):
Postal Code: Telephone:
Page 19
Email:
A consent form signed by the Owner must accompany this application if applicant and owner are not
the same.
3. Full name(s) of tree cutting company:
Telephone: email:
4. Property proposed for tree cutting:
Street Address:
Or Legal Description:
5. Purpose of proposed tree cutting:
6. Number and Species of trees to be cut:
7. Drainage and erosion control methods to minimize impacts to adjacent lands or to nearby
watercourses from the tree removal site. Attach erosion control plan in accordance with the
Maple Ridge Watercourse Protection Bylaw No.6410-2006.
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Page 20
8. Methods proposed to restore the site to a suitable condition, including appropriate disposal of
wood waste and stabilization of bare and exposed soil:
9. If trees to be removed are not affiliated with a subdivision or Large Scale Building Permit, then
attach a dimensional sketch of the parcel which shows the location of the trees to be cut, the
location of the trees to be protected, the location of barrier fencing, the location and species of
any required Replacement Trees, topographic and hydrological features, structures, roads and
other information useful in determining location.
10. A Tree Management Plan must accompany this application if tree cutting is taking place on
parcel that is under a development application, when cutting more than 20 trees; or when
clearing more than 500 square metres of land.
FEE: Applications for a permit shall be accompanied by the prescribed fee as set out in the Maple
Ridge Development Application Fees Bylaw No. 5949-2001.
I HEREBY DECLARE that the above information is correct, and that I have read a copy of the City of
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015 and that I will abide by all the applicable
provisions of the said bylaw and such terms and conditions as may form part of any Tree Removal
Permit issued pursuant to this application.
Name of Applicant(s):
Signature of Applicant(s):
Date:
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
SCHEDULE `E'
REPLACEMENT TREE CRITERIA
Page 21
The criteria below applies to the replacement of trees required under Section 9 of the City of Maple
Ridge Tree Management Bylaw. The Bylaw sets a target of 40 trees per hectare (16 trees per acre) to
be on every site within the Developable Area of the parcel.
Size of Tree Replacement Requirement per tree Retention requirement or cash-in-
Removed cm removed lieu
DBH
0-20 1 in Conservation Areas N/A
20-50 2 in Conservation Areas or if not 40 trees/ha (16/acre) or $425 per
retaining 40/ha (16/acre) replacement tree
50-70 4 in Conservation Areas or if not 40 trees/ha (16/acre) or $425 per
retaining 40/ha (16/acre) replacement tree
>70 6 in all areas $425 per replacement tree
Notwithstanding the above, Replacement Trees will NOT be a requirement:
1. When the parcel is being actively used for agricultural uses -with farm status or with a
proposed Farm Plan reviewed by the City;
2. When the tree being removed is dead;
3. On parcels that are retaining a minimum of 40 Permit Trees per hectare (16/acre) outside of
Conservation Areas, provided that the trees being removed are < 70 cm DBH.
City Tree Fund
If trees cannot be replaced on the same parcel, the Owner shall pay cash in lieu of $425 per
Replacement Tree; to a maximum of $17,000 per hectare. The cash compensation will be placed in
a City Tree Fund and will be used to plant trees on public and private lands to replace tree canopy
lost and for the promotion and stewardship of maintaining a healthy tree canopy in the community.
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
SCHEDULE `E' con't
Trees to be retained count as Replacement Trees if they are not in Conservation Areas
Page 22
The size of a retained tree determines how many Replacement Trees it equals, as per the following:
DBH of trees to be retained Replacement Credits
20cm - 50 cm 1 tree
50cm - 70 cm 3 trees
More than 70 cm 6 trees
Species and Size:
Replacement Trees shall be a species proposed by the Owner and approved by the City and shall
meet the current BC Landscape and Nursery Standards for quality of plants, spacing and installation.
Replacement Trees
• For sites under a rezoning, subdivision or building permit shall be a minimum of 6 cm DBH at
time of planting for deciduous trees and 2 metres in height for coniferous trees;
• for residential non-development sites shall be a minimum 4 cm DBH or 10 gallon pot size for
deciduous trees and 1.5 metres in height for coniferous trees.
• Two small stature trees (mature height of less than 10 metres) are required to equal one
large stature tree (mature height over 10 metres).
Location and Spacing:
In determining the location of Replacement Trees, the Owner shall consider the mature space
requirements for the species and shall not plant trees within 3 metres of a building foundation wall
or within 1.5 metres of a property line.
Proposed locations must be approved by the City Arborist.
Time of Replacement Planting:
Where no construction or site disturbance is proposed that would affect the planting of Replacement
Trees, the Replacement Trees shall be planted within ninety (90) days of the date of tree removal or
of the issuance of a notice of compliance from the City.
Where construction or site disturbance is proposed within 10 metres of the Replacement Tree
installation, the tree shall be planted within ninety (90) days of the end of construction.
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw No. 7133-2015
SCHEDULE `F'
ARBORIST REPORT
Page 23
An Arborist Report is required for a Permit as per Section 7(d) in the following instances:
(i) the parcel is subject to a development permit application and 20 or fewer Permit Trees are
proposed to be cut;
(ii) the parcel is in the Rural Area and between 11 and 20 trees are proposed to be cut; or
(iii) the parcel is in the Urban and Suburban Area and more than 5 trees are proposed to be
cut
(iv) the tree to be Cut is a Significant Tree.
The Arborist Report shall include the following:
1. Tree Assessment which identifies:
a. The location, species, size DBH and health conditions of Permit Trees proposed to be
removed from the parcel;
b. The location, species, size DBH and health conditions of Permit Trees proposed to be
retained or replaced within 10 metres of property boundary lines, Conservation Area
boundaries, or proposed buildingfootprints including infrastructure;
c. The location, species, size DBH and health conditions of any Significant Trees being
retained or removed within the proposed building envelopes; and
d. The locations of any park boundaries, conservation or setback areas on the parcel
along with existing or proposed building layout and infrastructure.
2. Replacement Plan If the proposed cutting activity does not retain a ratio of 40 Permit Trees
per hectare within the Developable Area of the parcel, then Replacement Trees are required.
The replacement plan must identify locations for re-planting, numbers of Replacement Trees,
species and size of Replacement Trees, or the cash-in-lieu total to be paid.
3. Protection and Mitigation Plan which details mitigation and protection measures that will be
in place to avoid or reduce negative impacts to protected trees on the parcel and on
neighbouring parcels. This plan shall include measures to protect Critical Root Zones and to
address blowdown concerns, drainage issues and Hazard Trees.
4. Final Tree Survey to be prepared by a registered BC Land Surveyor of proposed tree retention
and replacement areas that require restrictive covenants. A BCLS survey will also be
required for location of trees to be cut along property boundary lines, or within 5 metres of
Conservation Area boundaries, or areas with steep slopes over 25%.
APPENDIX B
CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE
Maple Ridge Ticket Information Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 7191-2015
A Bylaw to amend the text of Maple Ridge Ticket Information Utilization Bylaw
No. 6929-2012 as amended.
WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Schedule 25 of the Maple Ridge Ticket Information
Utilization Bylaw No. 6929-2012;
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows:
1
2
This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Ticket Information Utilization Amending Bylaw
No. 7191-2015."
Maple Ridge Ticket Information Utilization Bylaw No 6929-2012 is hereby amended by
deleting SCHEDULE 25 in its entirety and replacing it with the following:
Schedule 25
Maple Ridge Ticket Information Utilization Bylaw No. 6929-2012
From Maple Ridge Tree Management Bylaw 7133-2015
Offence
Remove tree without permit
Remove Significant Tree without permit
Cut or damage tree on City owned land
Damage tree
Fail to comply with permit conditions
Fail to post notice of Permit
Dispose of tree parts contrary to regulations
Fail to keep drainage system free
Fail to stabilize bare soil
Work outside of permitted hours
Clear cut trees without ESC plan
Cut trees without nesting survey
Fail to leave tree debris in Conservation Area
Fail to comply with replacement requirement
Cut replacement tree without Permit
Fail to comply with Tree Protection Requirements
Fail to comply with Stop Work Order
Section
4.1
4.4
4.5
4.6
6.4
6.11
8.a
8.b
8.c
8.d
8.e
8.f
8.g
9.1
9.4
10
12.6
Fine
$1000
$5000
$500
$500
$1000
$500
$500
$500
$500
$200
$500
$500
$1000
$1000
$500
$1000
$500
READ a first time the
READ a second time the
READ a third time the
ADOPTED, the
day of
day of
day of
day of
, 2015.
, 2015 .
,2015 .
, 2015.
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
APPENDIX C
CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE
Maple Ridge Development Application Fee Amending Bylaw No. 7192-2015
A Bylaw to amend the text of Maple Ridge Development Application Fee Bylaw
No. 5949-2001 as amended.
WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Development Application Fee Bylaw
No. 5949 - 2001;
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows:
1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Development Application Fee Amending Bylaw
No. 7192-2015."
2. Maple Ridge Development Application Fee Bylaw No. 5949 - 2001 is hereby amended
by:
a) deleting Section 0 in Schedule `A' in its entirety and renumber subsequent sections
accordingly; and
b) adding the following section in Schedule `A' as Section P
TREE CUTTING PERMIT (see Bylaw 7133-2015)
(a) trees in Urban Area and Urban Reserve
and Rural parcels less than 0.5 ha
(b) trees in the Rural Area on
parcels greater than 0.5 hectares
(c) Development & large scale clearing
(d) tree replacement
(e) parcels with active farm use
READ a first time the
READ a second time the
READ a third time the
ADOPTED, the
day of
day of
day of
day of
$50 for first tree +$25 each additional tree
$50 for 11t" tree +$25 each additional tree
$200 base fee + $25 per tree
$425 per tree
$0
, 2015.
, 2015 .
,2015 .
, 2015.
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
T0:
FROM
����������'�� City of Maple Ridge
Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE:
and Members of Council FILE N0:
Chief Administrative Officer MEETING:
SUBJECT: Rezoning - First Extension
Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No.6891-2011
12240 228 Street
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
December 7, 2015
2011-130-RZ
CofW
The applicant for the above referenced file has applied for an extension to this rezoning application
under Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999. This application is to rezone the subject
property located at 12240 228 Street (see Appendix A and B) to the R-3 (Special Amenity Residential
District) zone to permit a future subdivision into approximately 4 single family lots no less than 292
m2 in area. Pursuant with Council resolution, this application is exempt from the CAC program, due
to it being presented at public hearing and subsequently received third reading.
RECOMMENDATION:
That a one year e�ension be granted for rezoning application 2011-130-RZ and that the following
conditions be addressed prior to consideration of final reading:
Road dedication as required;
ii. Removal of the existing buildings; and
iii. A disclosure statement must be submitted by a Professional Engineer advising whether
there is any evidence of underground fuel storage tanks. If so, a Stage 1 Site
Investigation report is required to ensure that the subject property is not a contaminated
site.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Conte�:
Applicant:
Owner:
Mangal Sindhar
Tanbir Sindhar
Legal Description:
OCP:
Existing:
Zoning:
Existing:
Proposed:
Surrounding Uses:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Lot 3, Section 20, Township 12, NWD Plan 13667
Single Family Residential
RS-1(One Family Urban Residential)
R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District)
Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-1(One Family Urban Residential)
Designation: Single Family Residential
Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District)
Designation: Single Family Residential
Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-1(One Family Urban Residential)
Designation: Single Family Residential
Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-1(One Family Urban Residential)
Designation: Ground-Oriented Multi-Family
Existing Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Site Area:
Access:
Servicing requirement:
Companion Applications:
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
0.141 hectares (0.35 acres)
Proposed lane
Urban Standard
2011-130-SD, 2011-130-DP
The following dates outline Council's consideration of the application and Zone Amending Bylaw No.
6891-2011:
• First reading was granted on February 14, 2012
• Second reading was granted on October 14, 2014 (see Appendix C)
• Public Hearing was held November 18, 2014
• Third reading was granted November 25, 2014
-2-
Application Progress:
Given that the application conditions cannot be satisfied before the expiry date, the applicant has
applied for an extension. The applicant has worked hard to complete most of the terms and
conditions to be met prior to final reading of Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6891-2011. The major
outstanding item is the demolition of the existing building. Pursuant with Council resolution, this
application is exempt from the CAC program, due to it being presented at public hearing and
subsequently received third reading
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 applicant has been actively pursuing the completion of this rezoning application and has applied
for a one year extension.
"Original signed by Therese Melser"
Prepared by: Therese Melser
Planning Technician
"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
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A - Subject Map
Appendix B - Ortho Map
Appendix C- Second Reading Report
-3-
APPENDIX A
v N � v N 12316 12313 12308 � �
2 � 2 51 52N 53 N 5
2 114 N ti 10 2 � � P 43 05 P 17 73
12313 12314 a M 12313 12306 12301
P 51 13
1 `� 78 `V 11 332 333 56 57 � ° 59
Z � a N 58 �
12301 O 12304 � 12303 12298
� 122 96 P 45 78 122 87
80 � 79 N 12 307 308
12287 12288 a 12293 RO
122 78 122 75
291 N � �
Rem. 64
� 22 7s " °° �
N N N
P 112 00 222 � 22 �3 290 P 44 73 122 65 65 66N 67 N 68N
P 40082 12276 292 P 4177
12274 �
A 12261 �
PARK RP 16335 � I1225s 12255 J 91 92 93 94
�, w
$ 122 53 N 4 � � 352 Z 122 58 � � �
N � � w N N N
SUBJECT PROPERTY 12240 � � �
P 7607 10 3 a � 353 M
334 °°
12243 N � � �
12238
� N N N
P 2578 � 9 122 AVE. � O2 103 104 105
� 12229
o � � N �
M
2 � �N N2 N3 N4 N P41 74
71970 $ N N N N N 113 114 115 116
12211 B P 2103 6
6 P 2923 P 136 7 12224 � � �,
14396 2 � 12203 � N N N
12201 12208
Rem. N
N BCP 23946 � 75' of 1 288
ti � 12194 12192 N N
M
N � � 12195 126 127 128N 12
� �
a 12191 � P 483 6 N
P 58171 12183 Rem. 1 � 289
/2 10 12169 �2� $2 � 12185 213 214 215 216
336
2 10 BC S 56 9 303 P 4 3 96304 I� 2 � so N � N
� � �
N N N
Cit f Pitt , ._ j
Mea ows__' 6 � �� 12240-228 St
� i �°
r�
� �
.
� ",� r � ! �
_ �o *
` !�� — CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE
� �
� �� ,�� � �� 0 PLANNING DEPARTMENT
N � � � � �
District of
Langley __
�� �.
Scale: 1:1,500
FRASER R. DATE: Oct 2, 2014 2011-130-RZ BY: JV
APPENDIX B
• N , ,� . _
,� ,. 1 ���$ � . _ ; �'3 I 9 23Ci�--' , '�"' � o
- ����'� '� �� 2 � Y - � cti
� �_ � �1 P�� .05 � .�� 5�� � 53�
� 1��: :,� 9� � :�... __�. ;�� r� � �77�
6::� _�
'� 23fi � - ; ra. � � � `3os ��P •51 1 r ���:� �`.� . , - _
4 *.r'. ' .
� � r �r -.�' ..�.'��3 : � � .. :., �: � • . I� r• � �f
��� Z � � �� � �� '�j :�. �332 � 3 • � �� � � 5g a
f � •.�. . :�. �3• i ., • r
� 3��-- a a� `�:fY- .� 30 � ��` 2�s
,� � . -� . y ,
.� � _ �� .,,, � �� =1 j�2�9 3� P�� ',� �� a
s � �=- �
� �-�- ' � N.. � � � � - —° -
� '
�87 1��$$ : . ,��::'. ;.. . �22 � �� � ' �:'' ' . .
�._ -. . _ i2�78� � ". -��' �
E z;j�•' � . � � p.. �91 �d ' �p2�` I
�I�em. 64 � �9.a � - -
P � � 2an - �� ����:��7� � � 44� 7� .�. ���s� -�� ��
� - -
�� , ��[�$2 ��2z�� ,� 29�`�? � �� �
- _ __ _ - �12274 � � �
;;��,,,.�_ �;s '122�58�� �' � -
PARK �; � RP�-1 �� �_ �;' � _ �� `��2 ,� �.�"� •
]8 }������ �:, ��: - � �' 4 ,�, �� ° 35 � � � �
, �`�2253 r� ''.� [` t--� �' z 58 n
�°.:,�. ..L��: -��1 N
�r Jtl i (Q. t� Y �1 _ �,
----�5�92 _ -� . �- � ��;�; ,T - .,� _��, � � �:
-- ''� .�. - ; n �. . . 1 �24q�.;� .� �-s C7
� �
wP^.r ?�Y � ���n � � � 3 , a � �'3 �
' �.-� 1' 334 �f ' - � - _,, • �:;� _ =�
- � : z�3 � i :;� ��
— - --�-_- _ - --- �, _ -- -- - .. � . ., ,: � ,
� 34� ��a, " a '�� _ � 22 AuE. �' .. � '
..P��^�78' �' g � �_.� � - fl2
� � ',. r�.
_ y�� �, ,,-..,_ „�1 �yi� :.
. :y�'_T ________�• �IGLch7, -� tii, � �
-, - ri �� ={,e `I -" , � ° �„� �°� �4 ' �
o , ' ... �" - `I
� ' �,�: � r:: �� _
_ - � -��., � r - ��:� :.�..
- --_ �_:�: y�:.
. �. pP.� 292�; , ��:
' E�, ;. ��za
6. � , �': �"P 136 7 t .
� �� :_- ., �,,�,- � � � 6 � 1 �2� Q3_. ''- " ;' � .� • � .. t v
� • _' � - �'�220� r t� � - = c3-�.�-�''
�;;:.� -. �1��.:._
� � �� � ��•—J - . �P,.Cl1. -{' r• n�
B,CP 23946 � 75' of �1 �-.�. 8 '
� s ' - : .. ' u ,._ �__.. �- o� I �' 1 �.�92 -
�y b2194I 12195 i
— - �� r.�. .I� - r 1 • - ' �°3"i!!'�' � r i �4 �7 -
'� _ _ . . . . ...1 a
rCO �. � ,.� .. �' .w..,
�:.
� "' , • '
� �...� .., ,P �483� � �� � � .I �,�
,., �: • � -v. � - � ..
�'.
128.L�
_- z. y { ' � - ,erri�: 1.. _ �� �8� � • ,. ��.,,�
,
��Y 1�1
-�'�'; � 3 � �� 169 • r..- �...,�'` f �.a9 �185 2�f � � . � ,�:.� '.1.�
��f_ R�v y'�w:.-.�� ��'"�' P���`"F ���U^_,�{� 'j r r
•�j� - . - � � r� � "�
.�;r .� . . . . _ ���. �'� _ �� ��� ' � ...-._ 3p4 � ����.�..y `�y..
r`: � ._ ; ,� .'."- ._ .
- ; - District of Maole Ri'c
N
Scale: 1:1,500
District of
Langley
_._._ .,P
� 12240 228 STREET
�� (2011 photography image)
�
o �
�� �= CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE
�
Q PLANNING DEPARTMENT
,
�
� DATE: Oct 2, 2014 FILE: 2011-130-RZ BY: PC
r����.� �����
Brihkh&dlilnbfa
City of Maple Ridge
T0: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer
MEETING DATE:
FILE N0:
MEETING:
SUBJECT: Second Reading
Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6891-2011
12240 228 Street
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
APPENDIX C
October 6, 2014
2011-130-RZ
CofW
An application has been received to rezone the subject property, located at 12240 228 Street, from
RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District), to permit a future
subdivision into four single family lots, no less than 292 m2 (3143 ft2) in area. The proposed R-3
(Special Amenity Residential District) zoning complies with the Town Centre Area Plan in the Official
Community Plan (OCP). This application received first reading for Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6891-
2011 on February 14, 2012.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. That Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6891-2011 be given second reading, and be
forwarded to Public Hearing;
2. That Council require, as a condition of subdivision approval, the developer to pay to the District
an amount that equals 5% of the market value of the land, as determined by an independent
appraisal, in lieu of parkland dedication in accordance with Section 941 of the Local
Government Act; and,
3. That the following terms and conditions be met prior to final reading:
Road dedication as required;
ii. Removal of the existing buildings; and
iii. A disclosure statement must be submitted by a Professional Engineer advising
whether there is any evidence of underground fuel storage tanks. If so, a Stage 1 Site
Investigation report is required to ensure that the subject property is not a
contaminated site.
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:
Mangal Sindhar
Tanbir Sindhar
Lot: 3, Section: 20, Township: 12, NWD Plan: 13667
Single Family Residential
RS-1(One Family Urban Residential)
R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District)
Single Family Residential
RS-1(One Family Urban Residential)
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District)
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
RS-1(One Family Urban Residential)
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
RS-1(One Family Urban Residential)
Ground-Oriented Multi-Family
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential
0.141 hectares (0.35 acres)
proposed lane
Urban Standard
2011-130-SD, 2011-130-DP
-2-
b) Project Description:
The subject property is located at the northeast corner of 122 Avenue and 228 Street and is
relatively flat (see Appendix A). The applicant proposes to rezone and subdivide the subject property
into four single family lots. Three lots will front onto 228 Street, and the fourth lot will front onto 122
Avenue. Each newly created lot will have a detached carport or garage, and all four lots will be
accessed via a lane running north-south. The form and character of this intensive single-family
residential development will be regulated through a Development Permit which will be the subject of
a future report to Council. The applicant has submitted building elevations for the proposed homes.
c) Planning Analysis:
Official Community Plan:
The subject property is designated Single Family Residential in the Town Centre Area Plan, Section
10.4 of the OCP. This designation provides options for increasing density and choice of housing
form, while retaining the single family character in established neighbourhood blocks. The R-3
(Special Amenity Residential District) zone is compatible with this designation. This development will
create a more compact single family development pattern along 228 Street, while providing a
transition in density from multi-family housing on the west side of 228 Street to the larger single
family lots outside of the Town Centre Area Plan to the east. The current proposal is consistent with
the following policies of the Town Centre Area Plan:
Policy 5-9 Maple Ridge will encourage the retention of laneways and the creation of new
laneways should be considered, where appropriate and feasible.
Policy 5-10 Laneways should have a maximum paved width of 6 metres.
Policy 5-11 Access to both underground and surface parking areas is encouraged to be
provided off a laneway.
A new lane will be constructed as part of the development, and will have a paved width of six metres
(19.7 ft). The lane will serve to reduce the number of driveway accesses from 228 Street, which is
categorized as a Collector Standard Road.
Zoning Bylaw:
The current application proposes to rezone the subject property, from RS-1 (One Family Urban
Residential) to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) to permit future subdivision into four single
family lots (see Appendix B). This proposal is in compliance with the requirements of the R-3
(Special Amenity Residential District) zone, which are: a minimum lot area of 213 m2 (2,293 ft2), a
minimum lot width of 7.9 metres (25.9 ft), and a minimum length of 27 metres (88.6 ft).
-3-
Proposed Variances:
A Development Variance Permit will be required for the Subdivision and Development Servicing
Bylaw No. 4800-1993 to allow for the reduced lane right-of-way from 7.5 metres (24.6 ft) to 6
metres (19.7 ft). The paved width will have a maximum width of six (6) metres to comply with the
policies of the Town Centre Area Plan to achieve an urban, walkable pedestrian-focused
development. Additionally, the applicant has requested a variance for a reduction in the distance of
the driveway from the intersection for proposed lot 3(see Appendix C). The Zoning Bylaw requires a
minimum distance of 7.5 metres (24.6 ft), however the applicant has requested a relaxation for this
amount. The requested variances will be the subject of a future report to Council.
Development Permits:
Pursuant to Section 8.8 of the OCP, an Intensive Residential Development Permit application is
required to ensure the current proposal provides emphasis on high standards in aesthetics and
quality of the built environment, while protecting important qualities of the natural environment.
The applicant has submitted four different housing designs to ensure that the styles are not
repeated along the 228 Street streetscape (see Appendix D). The materials include hardi-plank,
hardi-shingle, and stone. The proposed hardi board colours include beiges and browns, blues,
greens and greys. A carport will be provided as a detached parking structure accessed from the rear
lane, and the front yards will be landscaped with small shrubs. Compliance with the key guidelines
of the Intensive Residential Development Permit application will be the subject of a future report to
Council.
d) Parkland Requirement:
As there are more than two additional lots proposed to be created, the developer will be required to
comply with the park dedication requirements of Section 941 of the Local Government Act prior to
subdivision approval.
For this project, no parkland is required from the subject property; therefore it is recommended that
Council require the developer to pay to the District an amount that equals the market value of 5% of
the land required for parkland purposes. The amount payable to the District in lieu of park
dedication must be derived by an independent appraisal at the developer's expense. Council
consideration of the cash-in-lieu amount will be the subject of a future Council report.
e) Interdepartmentallmplications:
Engineering Department:
The Engineering Department has reviewed this development and has determined that all off-site
services exist for the rezoning application requirements, therefore a Rezoning Servicing Agreement
is not required. All on-site service improvements will be necessary prior to subdivision approval.
'�
CONCLUSION:
As the subject application is in compliance with the policies of the Town Centre Area Plan, it is
recommended that second reading be given to Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6891-2011
and that application 2011-130-RZ be forwarded to Public Hearing.
It is further recommended that Council require, as a condition of subdivision approval, the developer
to pay to the District an amount that equals 5% of the market value of the land, as determined by an
independent appraisal, in lieu of parkland dedication.
"Original signed by Amelia Bowden"
Prepared by: Amelia Bowden
Planning 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
Appendix B- Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6891-2011
Appendix C - Subdivision Plan
Appendix D - Building Elevations
Appendix E - Landscape Plan
-5-
T0:
FROM
rna�l�rld��:. ��
City of Maple Ridge
Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read
and Members of Council
Chief Administrative Officer
MEETING DATE: December 7, 2015
FILE N0: 2013-039-RZ
MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: Rezoning - First Extension
Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7121-2014 and
Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7022-2013
20208 Mclvor Avenue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The applicant for the above noted file has applied for an extension to this rezoning application under
Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999. This application is to permit future subdivision into
13 single family residential lots under the RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential)
zone. Pursuant with Council direction, this application is exempt from the Community Amenity
Contribution (CAC) program because it has been presented at Public Hearing and subsequently
received third reading.
RECOMMENDATION:
That a one year extension be granted for rezoning application 2013-039-RZ and that the following
conditions be addressed prior to consideration of final reading:
i. Registration of a Rezoning Servicing Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant and receipt of the
deposit of a security, as outlined in the Agreement;
Approval from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure;
iii. Amendment to Official Community Plan Schedules "B" and "C";
iv. Park dedication as required;
v. Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for the geotechnical report, which addresses the
suitability of the subject property for the proposed development;
vi. Registration of a Statutory Right-of-Way plan and agreement for sanitary sewer;
vii. A disclosure statement must be submitted by a Professional Engineer advising whether
there is any evidence of underground fuel storage tanks on the subject property. If so, a
Stage 1 Site Investigation Report is required to ensure that the subject property is not a
contaminated site; and
viii. Registration of Archaeological Report, prepared by Antiquus Archaeological Consultants
Ltd., dated September 6, 2013, with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource
Operations, Archaeological Branch.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Applicant:
Owner:
Legal Description:
OCP:
Existing:
Proposed:
Zoning:
Existing:
Proposed:
Surrounding Uses:
North: Use:
Zone:
South
East:
West:
Designation
Use:
Zone:
Designation
Use:
Zone
Designation
Use:
Zone:
Designation
Existing Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Site Area:
Access:
Servicing:
Aplin & Martin Consultants Ltd.
Maridge Properties Ltd.
Lot 1 District Lots 263 and 246 Group 1 New
Westminster District Plan 21483
Agricultural
Urban Residential; Conservation
RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density)
Residential)
Single Family Residential
RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density)
Residential)
Urban Residential
Single Family Residential
RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density)
Residential)
Urban Residential, Neighbourhood Park, Conservation
Single Family Residential
RS-1(One Family Urban Residential)
Urban Residential
Golf Course (City of Pitt Meadows)
Unknown
Unknown
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential and Conservation
1.8 ha (4.6 acres)
Allison Street, 201 Street, Davenport Drive
Urban Standard
The following dates outline Council's consideration of the application and Bylaws 7121-2014 and
7022-2013:
• First reading for Zone Amending Bylaw No.7022-2013 was considered and granted on
September 24, 2013;
-2-
• Second reading for Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7022-2013 and first and second reading for
Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7121-2014 was considered and granted
November 25, 2014;
• Public Hearing was held December 9, 2014; and
• Third reading was considered and granted December 9, 2014.
Application Progress:
The applicant has completed most of the terms and conditions to be met prior to final reading of the
Zone Amending Bylaw. It was identified that relocation of the sanitary trunk sewer may be required
before moving forward with this application. The relocation is in the process of being resolved
through the Engineering Department and it is the applicant's intention to pursue final reading within
the one year extension period.
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 applicant has applied for a one year extension to the subject rezoning application in order to
provide an additional year to complete the project. The relocation of the sanitary trunk sewer is in
the process of being resolved; therefore, it is recommended that a one year extension be granted for
rezoning application 2013-039-RZ, and that the terms and conditions outlined in this report be
addressed prior to consideration of final reading.
"Original signed by Adam Rieu"
Prepared by: Adam Rieu
Planning Technician
"Original signed by Chuck Goddard" for
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
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A - Subject Map
Appendix B - Ortho Map
Appendix C- Second Reading Report
-3-
ND
N
�
District of
Langley
�
20208 MCIVOR AVENUE
0
.�
�
�
o � CORPORATION OF
�� � THE DISTRICT OF
�
� • � MAPLE RIDGE
- FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Scale: 1:2,000 � `� ��, _��� �—'° ��'� DATE: Aug 27, 2013 FILE: 2013-039-RZ BY: PC
APPENDIX B
';._' 't.; ,;� •�, '' ;� s'". �; , ��� �, - __ ti�i _ : �_ ,
� 4' � A: �
. .,�_ .j ." h �rr .
^-Y: r� �' 72 , �.,� y �m a. � � .s - �02�5
/ y . �A-
:t i� �F€ a,gp • .�R- Q�' , .r+ �� .. " . .� �
' z 7� �'� � - ', i \ �Q{ '� � �2 ' 3 . {. .�
�� +3 i i2d63 �C�C� /,� e:{r �?� � � 8S �.' � � �e ?s
. ��, .5 � ; i ` � . / : ', srd� . . . J y�p . :; '•k: . � �� . �� c-
� �F _.: �. c�. ' ...::+.� j ?9 e �.3 � �
r ; �at ,F �, � . .
:'f � ' � , �' �' y �� 9�• F � � � : .
:Y _" � rf � . � gi � '; 2as
- � r�. � � .�r :�� ��y �S �,;.. -
y. , 1 d5 , -. r; ,�5 h$h :,• - ..
� ja�Y M� ..��0 � � .. . �-
�.j.' �r ..\ \ ���-..
�. �• y i
t . 'l�441 i . r � , a?�� � �� �' • � . n�i t�.t�
� � , � /,i�u� �_
; ' � .., c -
' -; � � � T�9r�, ,�; , :�,2 ��c:i�C}RAVE.
i � �7��~ � _ w�= :'� � �
i � ;,. 12�3'; � r , i2 � j � �:
i� �d� '' �: � — � !j�.�� � :r ' P � � 12437 TP440r,.�
-t 42b -- f .... ���� � � � � .
�j124P 1'' � W � � `�� :. - '� � � _ _ � .
� = r �.. • g 12-?30 , _;.�' I � � '
- t,��., ,4'fG � j r� `�f2425" N 11�`26/28�
' � I � �' SUBJECT PROPERTY ; `�
� ��i'�; � s�r,r _ �
• �os ' �
�'• ' � : � �_. • ; -� r: . =.�z4 r.
�'� `� a �,� �� �i U. _i r��o:: e
�/ . _ •.� n-_ _. � _ • . .-� ` � ..+ Y
-- � �f• �. ��T � � �3'�. • :' �, . ���, .
i �, '"7'7�ir-�..•�",:�L� :�{' � , '�'ss.-"_ ��� �_ � _,.#� �""Y�.� . . 24? ' ��402
. �' - _ ,`��:.�r ,,�T'-.�Yw..,.;,,, � , � -.�.�.�x• �� .i .
_ y��� _ Y� , � _
!� . ��-.�,� j - .. �'{�? _. .
{ �..� P �1 '.� .�'•• - 4' T.. � � Fl. . �� .
.�. 11w: . ' .:6'• S . _ �. i.u. � .}�. � �' °� � 7' ��i�
. ' - :.�".:,� � -.1!K i�. , . _ .. .
;�� � �. :. ��.-��.� �=�� �� _ � � . r_ ,
,-� - ,- }.,. � - �,: , , � �
> ' >- � �. -
� . ;'�;�.;_.'�;s�,�f .�r�,; - '. zt. �12 9 392
� '-;j. - - - - � �' � � ..e� - -� ,
�i r iti.r?.. s. • " •: 7~ z r
���• � , *� � ..•��� 5, •.: • - � �
,�' , ... �'�f= _ +� � ., �'3& 382
+ S1 , `Y_ .. i�!Y-� . .� . . y�y .lA., rr`" �..��1.*-.
�I'�"� � r. �� k �,��r' • :�� �f � �i� . •'� �� �4 i rt., ��� .
� � f.� '�T�" � ti �Y��"~, '"fLL ' . ` f _� . •
'� .f.,� � " � :zx• �~ 375 � y
� s �!' ' s _ .��r - - � , . - -- � ` W�i
� r � I�*. , . � � . : . � �' � . �^ ���iT� . . ,
{ �. :;�R�, r. ,� h1 ,
,_ cr . , i��: ' " I �" ..} v �� �'� �' y
�' '�r .��„ -�.. � � i ,, • - - --.
° � .., . :.� �_ . l 5��,. �,. - - ,.� . F N ��,�
; r� `'" •.�'�"`--d°° -�. �: _ _ . . � � �' ,: �� a
. .E :.�:��c• � �'. ^ ti r ni sv
� � �� �r .�, ... �VE:;'F'�,' . ,-�_L`-����4�.^"k�` f`xr'a �.a•. -,_ _ .
. . R j •. �. � �� � Z �n�eig ^ ��; •� .
• k
� : � � �' �,_ � _ � � �g -��., ....�. . ' ..��' .��- -iT �
f � �,�, . � . .' � ' � �.�
� '� X� r . YP . � "1 " �
} s� �.-'
;•^ , .� z+`�� -�ji,, Y�.r` - ,� w. # , fi � _ Mt. . ,'•� �. _'. . t.l`': �. �� -
�� r - - � � w s., . '�4 � i�_.
iri -,� -�;
{ �� � : r; - �; _' . :, � ` �- ' .�� .W�
� . {� . r t• . T.: �� �+r,�` ,�L �� �, , w�y •. , JyY%�,�}';' .- .
�.i.,j � � _ ;- _ - . ` _ � � A'� iti �i � ,K ',%,,.'
F'+�;= "v' y�,
�, ; • - . � �a 2,� in .�r~i a � a ' j ' ..r;:,.� -"'.;''_ ,'�. .'
��f '��:�.p�� I �� .. �� � � . �-
y'iry•� n�:: ., , 4 _ �•� 1 � cw •. � `t• '��.� .
� � 1C � ^t,,:F. �: + . - '��,� 8 . � ,C..r ��
� . _ '�� �"`_"! 723 ' , .`
� �' 4:' •.' � "- � fi ��. '� "1228
,i �� ;�:. . � , � '
I' 1 a• ,�, � _"•, 8¢ ,�' ry � +�. •.
,•�' _ _ 4� ,F i_.. -�ti'. 'i:
� �a•:a��� � i:� a..r��.��
f Pi ; �
Me `�ows� "— r�� ��{'� ! 20208 MCIVOR AVENUE
� � io
�.
-- � ''�n
� c j�
� — �� _I p PLANNING DEPARTMENT
� � i ��
' I '
�r - ' { � •� * �
� --' � ' �
_ _ .� a . .
.��� �.� �
N ' . � - : .
District of � '� � �
Langley i mapleridge.Cc`�
1 , � o�r o FILE: 2013-039-RZ
Scale: 1:2,��� FRASER R. DATE: Nov 17, 2015 BY: PC
�
� f-
�
�
T0: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer
City of Maple Ridge
MEETING DATE:
FILE N0:
MEETING:
SUBJECT: First and Second Reading
Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7121-2014
Second Reading
Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7022-2013
20208 Mclvor Avenue
A) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
APPENDIX C
November 17, 2014
2013-039-RZ
C of W
An application has been received to rezone the subject property, located at 20208 Mclvor Avenue,
from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential),
to permit a future subdivision of approximately 13 single family lots. An Official Community Plan
(OCP) amendment is required to change the designation from Agricultural to Urban Residential and
Conservation; to include the subject property in the Urban Area Boundary on Schedule B; and to
amend Schedule C to designate lands around a tributary to Katzie Slough as Conservation. Council
granted first reading to Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7022-2013 and considered the early
consultation requirements for the OCP amendment on September 24, 2013.
B) RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. That Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7121-2014 be given first and second
readings 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. 7121-2014 on the municipal website and requiring that the applicant host a
Development Information Meeting (DIM), and Council considers it unnecessary to provide any
further consultation opportunities, except by way of holding a Public Hearing on the bylaw;
3. That Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7121-2014 be considered in conjunction
with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Waste Management Plan;
4. That it be confirmed that Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7121-2014 is
consistent with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Waste Management Plan;
5. That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7022-2013 be given second reading, and be forwarded to
Public Hearing;
6. That the following terms and conditions be met prior to final reading:
Registration of a Rezoning Servicing Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant and receipt of
the deposit of a security, as outlined in the Agreement;
Approval from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure;
Amendment to Official Community Plan Schedules "B" and "C";
Park dedication as required;
Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for the geotechnical report, which addresses the
suitability of the subject property for the proposed development;
vi. Registration of a Statutory Right-of-Way plan and agreement for sanitary sewer;
vii. A disclosure statement must be submitted by a Professional Engineer advising whether
there is any evidence of underground fuel storage tanks on the subject property. If so, a
Stage 1 Site Investigation Report is required to ensure that the subject property is not a
contaminated site; and
viii. Registration of Archaeological Report, prepared by Antiquus Archaeological Consultants
Ltd., dated September 6, 2013, with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource
Operations, Archaeological Branch.
C) DISCUSSION:
1) Background Context:
Applicant:
Owner:
Legal Description:
OCP:
Existing:
Proposed:
Zoning:
Existing:
Proposed:
DAMAX Consultants Ltd.
Ignacio Chua
Lot 1 District Lots 263 and 246 Group 1 New
Westminster District Plan 21483
Agricultural
Urban Residential; Conservation
RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density)
Residential)
-2-
Surrounding Uses:
North: Use:
Zone:
Designation
South: Use:
Zone:
Designation
East:
West:
Use:
Zone
Designation
Use:
Zone:
Designation
Existing Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Site Area:
Access:
Servicing:
2) Project Description:
Single Family Residential
RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density)
Residential
Urban Residential
Single Family Residential (recently approved 2013-
016-RZ)
RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density)
Residential)
Urban Residential, Neighborhood Park,
Conservation
Single Family Residential
RS-1(One Family Urban Residential)
Urban Residential
Golf Course (City of Pitt Meadows)
Unknown
Unknown
Single Family Residential
Single Family Residential and Conservation
1.865 ha (4.6 acres)
Allison Street, 201 Street, Davenport Drive
Urban Standard
The subject property (Appendix A) is located in west Maple Ridge, adjacent to Golden Ears Way on
the border of Pitt Meadows. The applicant proposes to rezone the subject property to allow for
future subdivision into 13 single family lots. The existing single family house on site will be retained
at this time, and may be the subject of a future subdivision application. The existing single family
house will continue to be accessed from a driveway off Mclvor Avenue. The new lots will be
accessed from extensions to Allison Street, 201 Street, and Davenport Drive. Allison Street will be
extended south to end in a cul-de-sac giving access to lots 10, 11 and 12 (Appendix C). Davenport
Drive and 201 Street are proposed to be extended south to loop and merge into one, giving access
to lots 1- 9(Appendix C).
The subject property is considered suitable for urban development, as the surrounding context of
the site is designated Urban Residential in the OCP. The property to the south is a single family
residential lot that was granted final reading on November 4, 2014, to be rezoned from RS-3 (One
Family Rural Residential) and RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to RS-1b (One Family Urban
(Medium Density) Residential) to permit future subdivision into 13 lots. A tributary to Katzie Slough
is located on the southern property boundary, running in an east-west direction, for which a 15
metre (50 feet) environmental dedication is recommended for conservation purposes.
-3-
Agricultural Land Reserve:
In April 2013, the property owner applied to exclude the subject property from the
Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR), as it was deemed not suitable for farming. The Agricultural
Land Commission had previously identified and recommended the subject property for
exclusion from the ALR.
3) Planning Analysis:
Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy:
During the Regional Growth Strategy review, the subject property was designated General
Urban and included within the Region's Urban Containment Boundary.
i) Official Community Plan:
The subject property is currently designated Agricultural. The proposed development will
require an OCP amendment to: (a) include the subject property within the Urban Area
Boundary, aligning Schedule "B" of the OCP with the Regional Urban Containment Boundary
identified on the Regional Context Statement Regional Land Use Development Map; (b)
change the designation from Agricultural to Urban Residential and Conservation allowing
the subject property to become consistent with the existing designations within the
neighbourhood and; (c) to amend Schedule "C" to designate conservation lands around a
tributary to Katzie Slough.
ii) Zoning Bylaw:
The current application proposes to rezone the subject property, located at 20208 Mclvor
Avenue, from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium
Density) Residential), to permit subdivision of approximately 13 lots. The proposed
development lots meet the minimum zoning provisions for the RS-1b (One Family Urban
(Medium Density) Residential) zone; however, the applicant is seeking a development
variance to the Zoning Bylaw for building height, as outlined in the subsequent section.
iii) Proposed Variances:
A Development Variance Permit application has been received for this project and involves
the following relaxations (see Appendix D):
• Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985, Part 6, Section 601, 11 (b) to
increase the maximum permitted height from 9.5 to 11 metres (31-36 feet).
The requested variances to the RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential)
zone will be the subject of a future Council report.
iv) Development Permits:
Pursuant to Section 8.9 of the OCP, 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.
v) Development Information Meetin�:
A Development Information Meeting was held at Laity View Elementary School on June 17,
2014. Approximately 12 people attended the meeting. A summary of the main comments
and discussions with the attendees was provided by the applicant and include the following
main points:
1. Concern for noise, dust and vibrations from placement and compaction of fill.
2. Concern regarding drainage problems after development.
3. Concern regarding an increase in traffic due to the proposal to connect 201 Street to
the south, as well as suggestions of traffic calming measures.
vi) Parkland Requirement:
As there are more than two additional lots proposed to be created, the developer will be
required to comply with the park dedication requirements of Section 941 of the Local
Government Act prior to subdivision approval.
For this project, there is sufficient land that is proposed to be dedicated as park on the
subject property and this land will be required to be dedicated as a condition of Final
Reading.
4) Environmental Implications:
The applicant has submitted an Environmental Assessment prepared by Letts Environmental
Consultants Ltd. The Environmental Assessment report explains that a tributary to Katzie Slough,
with an average width of 1-2 metres (3-6.5 feet), and is located on the southern property boundary
and flows west under Golden Ears Way. A 15 metre (50 feet) environmental dedication is
recommended for conservation purposes around the tributary. A Watercourse Protection
Development Permit is being processed in support of 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 the works and maintenance for 5 years
including a Storm Water Management Restrictive Covenant will be required prior to approval of the
Watercourse Protection Development Permit.
5) Traffic Impact:
As the subject property is located within 800 metres of the Lougheed Highway, a referral has been
sent to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.
Ministry approval of the Zone Amending Bylaw will be required as a condition of final reading. On
May 14, 2014 the Ministry granted preliminary approval of the development application.
-5-
6) Interdepartmental Implications:
i) Engineering Department:
The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal and confirms that all the deficient off-site
services, including the required road dedication, are being provided through the Subdivision
Servicing Agreement. The Engineering Department has no concerns with the proposed land use.
7) School District Comments:
Pursuant to Section 881 of the Local Government Act, consultation with School District No. 42 is
required at the time of preparing or amending the OCP. A referral was sent to School District No. 42
on May 5, 2014 and identified that the proposed development would affect the student population
for the catchment areas currently served by Fairview Elementary and Westview Secondary. The
2013-14 school year at Fairview Elementary had a student enrolment rate of 65% utilization;
Westview Secondary had a student enrolment rate of 75% utilization.
8) Intergovernmental Issues:
i) Local Government Act:
An amendment to the OCP requires the local government to consult with any affected
parties and to adopt related bylaws in compliance with the procedures outlined in Section
879 of the Local Government Act. The amendment required for this application, to change
the designation from Agricultural to Urban Residential and Conservation; to include the
subject property in the Urban Area Boundary (Schedule B); and to amend Schedule C to
designate conservation lands around the tributary of Katzie Slough, is considered to be
minor in nature as these amendments are to bring the OCP land uses into alignment with
the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy. 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
i m pact.
ii) Archaeologicallssues:
The subject property is located on a known archeological site (DhRp 52), as initially
identified with the recently approved development to the south, located at 20178 Chatwin
Avenue (2013-016-RZ). The applicant has hired Antiquus Archaeological Consultants Ltd.,
a professional archeological firm, to review the subject property. Site work was conducted
during the fall of 2012 and spring of 2013, under the Archaeological Branch Permit No.
2012-0305. As part of the archaeological fieldwork, the subject property was divided into
three management areas and classified based on the amount of artifacts recovered during
the initial assessment. One area in particular, zone B, was classified as having significant
heritage value, with recommendations made for each zone to be carried out prior to
development.
�
D) CONCLUSION:
The development proposal fits with the surrounding neighborhoods, designated Urban Residential,
to the north, east, and recently approved application (2013-016-RZ) to the south. An environmental
dedication of 15 metres (50 feet) and enhancement of a tributary to the Katzie Slough will be
included as conservation land on the southern boundary of the subject property. The site has an
identified archaeological sensitive area; therefore, a final archaeological report will be registered
with the Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural Resource Operations. Official Community Plan
amendments are required as described in this report and justification has been provided in support
of these amendments.
It is recommended that first and second reading be given to OCP Amending Bylaw No. 7121-2014,
that second reading be given to Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7021-2013, and that application 2013-
039-RZ be forwarded to Public Hearing.
"Original signed by Adam Rieu"
Prepared by: Adam Rieu
Planning 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
Appendix B- OCP Amending Bylaw No. 7121-2014
Appendix C- Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7022-2013
Appendix D - Subdivision Plan
-7-
T0:
FROM:
rr�aplerlc��e.�a
City of Maple Ridge
Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE:
and Members of Council FILE N0:
Chief Administrative Officer MEETING:
SUBJECT: Final One Year Extension Application
12018, 12038 Edge Street and 22554, 22566 Brown Avenue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
December 7, 2015
2012-115-RZ
C of W
Council granted a one year extension to the above noted application on March 10, 2015. The
applicant has now applied for a final one year extension under Maple Ridge Development
Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999. This application is to permit a three phased mixed use
development consisting of 240 apartment units in three towers (6, 13 to 19 storeys), 4,380m2
(47,144ft2) of commercial floor area, with 2 levels of underground parking and 2 levels of above
ground structured parking subject to the CD-1-13 (Comprehensive Development Zone) zone.
Pursuant with Council's resolution, this application is exempt from the CAC program, due to its
location in the Town Centre Area and because it received third reading on December 10, 2013.
RECOMMENDATION:
That pursuant to Maple Ridge Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999, a second and final
one year extension be granted for rezoning application 2012-115-RZ (property located at 12018,
12038 Edge Street and 22554, 22566 Brown Avenue) and that the following conditions be
addressed prior to consideration of Final Reading:
Registration of a Rezoning Servicing Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant and receipt
of the deposit of a security, as outlined in the Agreement;
Registration of a Development Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant for the proposed
bonus elements and receipt of deposits as securities, as outlined in the Agreement;
Receipt of a voluntary contribution of $100,000 for public art;
Amendment to Schedule "B" of the Official Community Plan;
Road dedication as required;
A portion of the municipal lane between the properties 12038 and 12018 Edge Street
be closed, purchased by the applicant and consolidated into the development site;
vii. Lot consolidation and re-subdivision of the development site to three lots consistent
with the phasing boundaries;
viii. Registration of a Statutory Right-of-Way plan and agreement for vehicular and
pedestrian purposes in place of the current municipal lane;
ix. Registration of a geotechnical report as a Restrictive Covenant which addresses the
suitability of the site for the proposed development;
x. Registration of an easement for public passage for the areas between Brown Avenue,
Edge Street and Dewdney Trunk Road rights-of-way and the buildings and to future
roof top open spaces;
xi. Registration of reciprocal access agreements for vehicle and pedestrian passage
through the parking structure between phases and between levels, as well as to the
future extension of the parking building to the east on Brown Avenue (2013-019-RZ);
xii. Registration of a restrictive covenant protecting required off-street parking spaces
located on separate lots of this development;
xiii. Registration of a Restrictive Covenant protecting the Visitor Parking;
xiv. Registration of a restrictive covenant and entering into a Housing Agreement
respecting adaptive housing and rental housing;
xv. Removal of all the existing buildings located at 12038 Edge Street, 22554 Brown
Avenue and 22566 Brown Avenue;
xvi. 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; and
xvii. Pursuant to the Contaminated Site Regulations of the Environmental Management
Act, the property owner will provide a Site Profile for the subject lands.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Applicant: Bissky Architecture and Urban Design Inc.
Wayne Bissky
Owner: Ascent One Properties Ltd. (Inc. No. BC0949104)
-2-
Legal Description: Lot: 303, Section: 20, Township: 12, Plan: NWP44882
Lot: 4, Section: 20, Township: 12, Plan: NWP8081
Lot: 5, Section: 20, Township: 12, Plan: NWP8081
Lot: 6, Section: 20, Township: 12, Plan: NWP8081
OCP:
Existing:
Proposed:
Zoning:
Existing:
Proposed:
Surrounding Uses:
North:
South:
East:
West:
Existing Use of Property:
Town Centre Commercial, Low-Rise Apartment
Town Centre Commercial
CS-1(Service Commercial), RS-1(One Family Urban Residential)
CD-1-13 (Comprehensive Development Zone)
Use: Duplex and Single Family Residential
Zone: RT-1 and RS-1
Designation: Medium and High-Rise Apartment
Use: Civic Complex and Commercial
Zone: P-1 and C-3
Designation: Institutional and Town Centre Commercial
Use: Municipal parking lot, Single Family Residential
and Commercial (under application 2013-019-RZ
for 4t" Tower by same developer)
Zone: CS-1 and C-3
Designation: Medium and High-Rise Apartment, and Town
Centre Commercial
Use: Apartment & recently completed apartment
development (RZ/078/09), Shopping center
Zone: RM-2, RM-3 and C-3
Designation: Town Centre Commercial and Low-Rise Apartment
Single Family Dwellings (3 lots along Brown Avenue); Commercial
Use (Lot at corner of Edge Street and Dewdney Trunk Road)
Proposed Use of Property: Commercial and Multi-Residential Mixed Use Phased Development
Site Area: 0.43 Ha. (1.06 acres) excluding lane proposed to be included as
part of the development site
Access: Dewdney Trunk Road, Edge Street, Brown Avenue and lane
Servicing requirement: Urban Standard
Companion Applications: 2012-115-DP
This application is to permit a three phased mixed use development consisting of 240 apartment
units in three towers (6, 13 to 19 storeys), 4,380m2 (47,144 ftz) of commercial floor area, with 2
levels of underground parking and 2 levels of above ground structured parking.
-3-
The following dates outline Council's consideration of the application and Bylaws 7019-2013 and
6966-2013:
• The First Reading Report (see attached) was considered on February 18, 2013.
• First Reading was granted February 26, 2013.
• The Second Reading Report (see attached) was considered on November 4, 2013.
• Second Reading was granted November 12, 2013.
• Public Hearing was held December 10, 2013.
• Third Reading was granted December 10, 2013.
• First Extension, applying retroactively, was granted on March 10, 2015.
Application Progress:
The applicant is currently working on all of the items to allow this application to proceed to Council
for Final Reading. The main emphasis has been on responding to the offsite Engineering and
service design changes and completing the purchase agreement for the lane between phases 2 and
3. It is anticipated that items will be completed in about 3 months.
Comment on Amenity Contribution:
On October 19, 2015, Council passed a number of resolutions pertaining to the establishment of a
City wide Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) program. Options were discussed about where the
CAC should or should not be applied. Council passed a resolution that trghe CA would not apply to
developments in the Town Centre Area. Therefore, this application will not be subject to the CAC
program.
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.
-4-
CONCLUSION:
The applicant has been actively pursuing the completion of this rezoning application and has applied
for a final one year extension.
"Original signed by Adrian Kopystynski"
Prepared by: Adrian Kopystynski, MCIP, RPP, MCAHP
Planner
"Original signed by Chuck Goddard" for
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
"Original signed by Frank Quinn"
Approved by: Frank Quinn
GM: Public Works & Development Services
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A - Subject Map
Appendix B - Ortho Map
Appendix C- Second Reading Report
-5-
P 7875
P $75
6 � 7 � 8 � � � 1Q
(V � ry " ry
12i AVE.
o � o �
� V u] �17 �
� [V N (V �7!�
N M N�� ry�0 N�� LV I
P 679 �zaa5 �
LMP 44378 '
12[38Q
P 867 BCP 48$55 �
i zasa � 15 A
g m �ao�s �
d �
�
N �
"_ _"�" "_"' �"_" '�
BROWN AVE. � �
W
C7
RP 79869 0
Rem. 302
P 45QQ4
0
N
[V
45fi99
A
N
Scale: 1:2,000
24
°' P 11 fi 1
m
47
N
N
2080 � �
47 � �
�a � �� � �w2 �
� �
d � $ $'� P
APPENDIX A
121 AVE.
� � o v
�17 lfl Cfl CD
� � � �
3 P 446
N � �
� � �
N N N
287 Z88 289
P 3724
P 8081 P$43 P 446 P 3724
4 6 5 4 296 295 294
�a SUBJECT PROPERTIES �
m
°� � o cv � co
� � in co co r.fl cp m
N �y N N N � N N C�L N N
RP
BROWN AVE.
r v co m ao co N p o 0 0
[Q u�n'� � r� m rn a ra en r�
� ry N ry N [�y N N N N N
� ry LOT A N ry ry ry N N N
4� 5 fi 5 7 8 9 297 298 299
2o3a � 48� * P9fi87) P 446 P 4 �4
L P'182'10
r� ���oy 20�$ MP 194fi0
�, �, P 968 P 446
� � � 303 A � 1 11
� � �o � P 44882 �
ry � � *PP094 ry � � �
N
❑EWDNEY TRUNK R�A�
�+ L ��., 1,� u�-� � rn � a
V
P V�4.]� � ry IN N CV N CV N
N N N N ry
Rem. �em. �Q Rem. �
Municipal Hall 11 S 117 CP �, � West Rem. �64
��ss� P 6�562 NWS 2403 � $� �5 4 �
N Feet �'
RCMP 2 � 0�0 4 a
��1tio ilssa � a P 8B3
1 '
P 68843 McINTOSH AVE.
Courthouse
119fi0
� �' P 60562
120
Arts Centre
11944
District of � �
Langley (�
�
f�
2
� v
N 1�
� � �
N q N
?
�
�
3 6.� �
P 8695 P 5'['[ 67 �
'PP093 LP 73289 �
LMP 15424 � I P 1�6�
n 1'1 G M 2 u7 1
i � 12018/38 EDGE STREET &
';�� 22554/66 BROWN AVENUE
i�
'; o � CORPORATION OF
��� �- THE DISTRICT OF
�o
i - � MAPLE RIDGE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
�a
DATE: Feb 14, 2013 FILE: 2012-115-RZ BY: PC
APPENDIX B
_ . _ . w, _
cv_ -.._.. :.�. _ _ _.. _. r ..
3 q� e�' �K0. . -. _' ' I �,�.� � • J': '
' n�#a� _.. �� I . � i � 2��0 _ � J� R� yl` r—. � I
� � � �� ,� �x �
� � :° . �� +' ! f�l^7 N N
N '� � � � � T � � �. " � � I d„�; � � .� ' L � `� "`"�
� i�o: �� ,..� . � � r -
.�� 18 ^ �#9 � ����. -� ' . � � . 7
I ».. . ., � CV: � -. � - •. - , , " G.�_i
' �! �� ���9� �.ki �zas�` ;.� _ �� �" ;,.�: '— �� S�� � . p 44fi ; ,
, �,
,i. �-�..� , _ � �: :��;� � �_ � _ .F.
zi- . �.: � :.a ..�..�'" �
- - . ... . .. .... , .. . . .. _. _. .
i y4Y
� ^ � . ' 'C.� � - ' `���. " ~~ � � - � � ^ '' - tl h ��I
BGP 4�855 `
�� . � ;�` :� � 8� P 44� � `� _.
�� a � ° ;: �� �. P �'181-`� T"�p . �
x �" ' ,�l9' _ �� d
�. �� �. �. ��" ' �,
� ,^`} ` �: - ���-,�" �r r�;� - ..��� .: '�` `�.;'z � _ - J�" 4 ,
oo •�k`� ; ' ��O,�,W �.. u? � I * _� a ' �o � .
�: � � �'
�::..,, _ ,..��..:- _: �`' f6^z�:�:, SUBJECT PROPERTIES � `..�,; � - `°,:.. . ��.
::
N _,
,� , ., „
,
. , t` �' -
_. . - . ; �. ,�"` . .., --
,.�.�� :,..-. . . .. __ ._�_....�.._ � • �R�� i
BR .�W.N AV.E... ,. �' '. '-, �. BRdV11N AVE.
E ,�c�.< ,,,_ � .� -, w _ . ..
- .. ...r•. ::. . _.. �
,
,� -�r' � .� . -:� � .. r n�'�s _
;y'_:. ._i[�.-.�.� .,w -�t � r I'f ' -::f.,. . �` w.._� ..N' . Jj+°yr ' ' • � _ .=I, .
- �I�P 798� �:" w �-'. -�. d � � � �
�': , ,y �. -,~�r�.,�.x�� � � i � .��� r "� 1
• � - � N� � ('� � N
_Y- � CY' - � N N� LVi I• N
- . �r� I� '., ���;,i � �- L��A �� � - � ��
-� �. [ '"�' - .i ��f`203Y _ .�' _ ���7� � �
� :��, �. , __ �-�� �2 � o A� _ R� ��� --
. .9 � r• �'., '
�
. Y .
,. ,.5
—_" _ - ... ..__ _- '^� � -Y�i" .a)::• _ ..
� ,. _ � �- - -- � � � Z -: _ � � +� ��' �,. ' _� ,.'-- Cr-) � V ��'I
,,� c� �: ��a� �.� r � ..�� P�4�' � 4� �
�, ; � =.�, c�== .�, _� :�
n
' � � 3�3 . �� �
���A��� � � 1 _ 11 �=-_�' ,
� r ;;�r � T . 4488� �— a � � � r -
rF�� �f: N �a oq� . �; *I�°P09�4 I �'"_ �` _ " `�• �-," , � N. 1
.N � 1! � .. ... f�Y-- — � �;� N J � N
.._� ti: � � •- .. -. • ._ _ � CV t - _.L'V� �t. �
— , , -- • �
'� r�',•> ve� �1 71�!a � �
�, ' ,� � DF�VDhIEY�RUI]l1C RDAD �
_. � r--, , ', —
�i' Q • L �
� , � � 3. � r ��; • _ �
j` ,
:'s ,w,. •� ��"' C11 . ,- �S7 _ � � �i .� ,FO�'�.� �. -E] . �. ,..
� `1',�04�1 � .� � :� � �:. -p � �: r : � - , �_
- � � i; - ` �� � c�v m� . � . �;= •I c� �, c-�'v ,�'�• y ,
. r � Rern. � . .. �t�:
� �, �e'f�. 7 �► CP � - a�Q � 1 ' �
' 7 � �SWe st • �n 64, �- 3.
cip�rf Hall �� $ ��- �� —� � Re
, i � 4n.
� s� i R.: �2 ��', :- , _ � W� 240�i � � �" 8� . 5 4 ;:.:. . .�
� � � oo � � 8695
: _ 3 � _ I � � . Feet `�'-� � :�
�' � ; �Q : � ,093
` �,' . ..�.f� y-`L ... � . — � . �' � I' '-' �..
r 6
i��4_ ��99�i � � P � 8�3 � �
� --- - - ' ,.'' � -
� °� � � - � �
:. , , . . .. �
b �_ �_�_�.4.�- - - �:
c�t f Pitt i 12018/38 EDGE STREET
Mea ws °
--- ! = 22554/66 BROWN AVENUE
-�_ J° -� ! �� (2011 photography image)
_ i�
� �`� ��;�_ �°�-� _ _ �, � � � � CORPORATION OF
� � � ��L THE DISTRICT OF
_� , F
�
N � MAPLE RIDGE
� �: � ; • �
District of � �� �i�,�
Langley II�" PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Scale: 1:1,500 ��� ��= J 4. DATE: Dec 3, 2012 FILE: 2012-115-RZ BY: PC
FRASER R.
�
�
District of Maple Ridge
T0: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer
MEETING DATE:
FILE N0:
MEETING:
APPENDIX C
November 4, 2013
2012-115-RZ
CofW
SUBJECT: First and Second Reading:
Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7019-2013; and
Second Reading:
Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6966-2013
12018 Edge Street, 12038 Edge Street, 22554 Brown Avenue and 22566
Brown Avenue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received to rezone the subject site from CS-1 (Service Commercial) and
RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to CD-1-13 (Comprehensive Development Zone), to permit a
phased three tower development of 240 apartment units and 4,380 m2 (47,144 ft2) of commercial
floor area, with 2 levels of underground parking and 2 levels of above ground structured parking.
The proposed Comprehensive Development Zone (CD-1-13 - Appendix C) has been crafted to
accommodate the proposal and complies with the Official Community Plan. An Official Community
Plan amendment, however, is required to extend the Town Centre Commercial designation to the
three lots fronting Brown Avenue.
This application received first reading for Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6966-2013 on
February 26, 2013. With the submission of detailed information, further discussions with the
applicant and the Municipal Solicitor, the CD Zone has been finalized.
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. 7019-2013 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;
2. That Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7019-2013 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. 7019-
2013 is consistent with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Waste Management Plan;
4. That Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7019-2013 be granted first
and second readings and be forwarded to Public Hearing;
5. That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6966-2013 as amended, be granted second reading and be
forwarded to Public Hearing;
6. That the following terms and conditions be met prior to Final Reading:
Registration of a Rezoning Servicing Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant and receipt
of the deposit of a security, as outlined in the Agreement;
ii. Registration of a Development Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant for the proposed
bonus elements and receipt of deposits as securities, as outlined in the Agreement;
iii. Receipt of a voluntary contribution of $100,000 for public art;
iv. Amendment to Schedule "B" of the Official Community Plan;
v. Road dedication as required;
vi. A portion of the municipal lane between the properties 12038 and 12018 Edge Street
be closed, purchased by the applicant and consolidated into the development site;
vii. Lot consolidation and re-subdivision of the development site to three lots consistent
with the phasing boundaries;
viii. Registration of a Statutory Right-of-Way plan and agreement for vehicular and
pedestrian purposes in place of the current municipal lane;
ix. Registration of a geotechnical report as a Restrictive Covenant which addresses the
suitability of the site for the proposed development;
x. Registration of an easement for public passage for the areas between Brown Avenue,
Edge Street and Dewdney Trunk Road rights-of-way and the buildings and to future
roof top open spaces;
xi. Registration of reciprocal access agreements for vehicle and pedestrian passage
through the parking structure between phases and between levels, as well as to the
future extension of the parking building to the east on Brown Avenue (2013-019-RZ);
xii. Registration of a restrictive covenant protecting required off-street parking spaces
located on separate lots of this development;
xiii. Registration of a Restrictive Covenant protecting the Visitor Parking;
-2-
XIV.
xv
Registration of a restrictive covenant and entering into a Housing Agreement
respecting adaptive housing and rental housing;
Removal of all the existing buildings located at 12038 Edge Street, 22554 Brown
Avenue and 22566 Brown Avenue;
xvi. 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; and
xvii. Pursuant to the Contaminated Site Regulations of the Environmental Management
Act, the property owner will provide a Site Profile for the subject lands.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Applicant: Bissky Architecture and Urban Design (Agent: Wayne Bissky)
Owner: Ascent One Properties Ltd (Inc. No. BC0949104)
Legal Description: Lot: 303, Section: 20, Township: 12, Plan: NWP44882
Lot: 4, Section: 20, Township: 12, Plan: NWP8081
Lot: 5, Section: 20, Township: 12, Plan: NWP8081
Lot: 6, Section: 20, Township: 12, Plan: NWP8081
OCP:
Existing:
Proposed:
Zoning:
Existing:
Proposed:
Surrounding Uses:
North:
South:
East:
Town Centre Commercial and Low-Rise Apartment
Town Centre Commercial
CS-1(Service Commercial) and RS-1(One Family Urban Residential)
CD-1-13 (Comprehensive Development Zone)
Use: Duplex and Single Family Residential
Zone: RT-1 and RS-1
Designation: Medium and High-Rise Apartment
Use: Civic Complex and Commercial
Zone: P-1 and C-3
Designation: Institutional and Town Centre Commercial
Use: Municipal parking lot, Single Family Residential
and Commercial
Zone: CS-1 and C-3
Designation: Medium and High-Rise Apartment, and Town
Centre Commercial
-3-
West:
Existing Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Site Area:
Access:
Servicing requirement:
Companion Applications
b) Background:
Use: Apartment & recently completed apartment
development (RZ/078/09), Shopping center.
Zone: RM-2, RM-3 and C-3
Designation: Town Centre Commercial and Low-Rise Apartment
Single Family Dwellings (3 lots along Brown Avenue)
Commercial Use (Lot at corner of Edge Street and Dewdney
Trunk Road)
Commercial and Multi-Residential Mixed Use Phased
Development
0.43 Ha. (1.06 acres) excluding lane proposed to be included
as part of the development site
Dewdney Trunk Road, Edge Street and Brown Avenue
Urban Standard
2012-115-DP
The applicant has submitted the necessary detailed information about the proposal to proceed to
second reading and public hearing. At the time of the first reading report (February 26, 2013), the
size, complexity, timing and servicing requirements associate with the project suggested the use of a
Phased Development Agreement. However, now that the project is fully understood, a traditional CD
Bylaw with restrictive covenants and securities is sufficient to regulate this development.
The terms and conditions of approval of the CD Bylaw are as follows:
• A rezoning servicing agreement (registered as a restrictive covenant) that will state the
services, utilities, etc. that are to be provided prior to each phase commencing;
• A development covenant that will state the bonus elements to be provided by the developer
to obtain the requested commercial and residential floor space (floor space ratio) stated in
the CD Bylaw in each of the three (3) phases, and required perFormance securities; and
• A housing agreement respecting the proposed adaptive housing and rental housing. This
requires an authorizing bylaw that is not subject to a public hearing.
These three documents are described in the Planning Analysis Section of this report.
The development site is flat and consists of four (4) lots. There are existing houses and accessory
buildings on the three (3) lots facing Brown Street to be demolished prior to final adoption. The
commercial building (Paliotti's Restaurant) on the lot at the corner of Edge Street and Dewdney
Trunk Road may be retained and will be demolished at a later date, prior to the third phase of
development.
c) Project Description:
The proposal is a commercial and multiple residential mixed-use development, having a total of 240
residential units and 4,380 m2 (47,144 ft2) of commercial floor area, with underground and
-4-
structured parking. It consists of commercial floor space and a parking podium, extending across
the entire site, with three (3) separate towers stepping up in height from 6, 13 to 19 storeys.
The western portion of the existing lane off of Edge Street north of Dewdney Trunk Road, is to be
incorporated into the project. It will remain open via a public access easement allowing for public
use, servicing and parking access. This will allow the above ground and underground parking levels
to be uninterrupted structures.
The podium structure will be 4-storeys along Edge Street, stepping down in Phase 1 to 2 storeys
along Brown Avenue. The podium structure will have commercial floor space on the ground level
along all three fronting streets and parking on the second level in all three phases. In phase 2 and
3, there will be an additional 3rd level of parking with the 4t" level of the podium containing
additional commercial floor space. Amenity and mechanical rooms may be situated on the above
ground parking levels.
Three towers are proposed atop the podium structure. The first phase tower is to be a 6-storey, 48
residential dwelling unit structure facing Brown Avenue. The second phase is to be a 13-storey, 72
residential dwelling unit towers at the corner of Brown Avenue and Edge Street, and the tallest
building is to be a 19-storey 120 residential dwelling unit tower at the corner of Edge Street and
Dewdney Trunk Road.
This development is to be built in three phases (See Schedule "A" in Appendix C) over a period
estimated to be 8 years. The floor space ratio (FSR) includes both the commercial and the
residential floor areas. By including both the commercial and residential floor areas together, the
FSR figures will increase slightly over the amounts stated in the first reading bylaw. A summary of
the phases is described in the table below (See Appendix D and Appendix E for site plans, elevations
and renderings):
• Phase 1: A 6 storey structure with a FSR of 2.937 and having 630.6 mz (6,788 ft2) of
commercial and 3,840.3 mz (37,462 ftz) of residential floor area. It would be located at the
eastern end of the site fronting on Brown Avenue. There would be 48 residential dwelling
units, and 104 underground or structured parking spaces, including visitor parking spaces;
• Phase 2: A 13 storey structure with a FSR of 5.28 and having 1,852.6 mz (19,941 ftz) of
commercial and 6,214.3 mz (66,890 ftz) of residential floor area. It would be located at the
corner of Brown Avenue and Edge Street, next to and adjacent to the first phase, having a
presence on both streets. There would be 72 residential dwelling units, and 105
underground or structured parking spaces, including visitor parking spaces; and
• Phase 3: A 19 storey structure with a FSR of 6.479 and having 1,896.6 m2 (20,415 ft2) of
commercial and 8,851.4 m2 (95,276 ft2) of residential floor area. It would be located at the
corner of Edge Street and Dewdney Trunk Road, south of and next to the second phase,
having a presence on both streets. There would be 120 residential dwelling units, and 133
underground or structured parking spaces, including visitor parking spaces;
-5-
The following table summarizes the proposal:
Gross Floor Area
Square Meters & (Square Feet)
Dwelling Building Total FRS Parking
Phase Commercial Residential units Height �Resid. FSR)
(Storeys)
Phase 1 630.6 m2 3,480.3 m2 48 6 2'937 104
(6,788 ft2) (37,462 ft2) (2.548)
Phase 2 1,852.6 m2 6,214.3 m2 72 13 5�28 105
(19,941 ft2) (66,890 ft2) (3.996)
Phase 3 1,896.6 m2 8,851.4 m2 120 19 6.470 133
(20,415 ft2) (95,276 ft2) (5.461)
TOTAL 4,379.8 m2 17,253.3 m2 240 323
(47,144 ft2) (185,713 ft2)
Using the C-3 (Town Centre Commercial) Zone as a guide, Phases 2 and 3 of this proposal will
exceed the permitted residential floor area of 2.3 times the lot area. The proposed densities are
noted in the above table. As this development is in keeping with the objectives of densification in
the Town Centre and is in the Town Centre Incentive Area, the creation of a CD (Comprehensive
Development Zone) with bonus provision (as described in the Planning Analysis section) allowing the
envisioned densities to be achieved is appropriate. The agent for the owners has reviewed the CD
Zone and is comfortable with the Bylaw as it reads.
The development site is located within Sub Area 1 of the Town Centre Area Incentive Program, and
meets the conditions to be included in the program. The proposal does not currently have
information about "green" or energy efficiency-related considerations; therefore the applicant has
been advised that a larger incentive benefit is available under the Incentive Program by
incorporating LEED/energy conservation measures into this project. Further information in this
regard is proposed to be provided as a component of the Town Centre Development Permit.
d) Planning Analysis:
Official Community Plan:
The development site is located within the Town Centre Area Plan. The one lot at the corner of
Dewdney Trunk Road and Edge Street is designated Town Centre Commercial. The remaining 3 lots
along the south side of Brown Avenue are designated Low-Rise Apartment. To accommodate this
proposal, the 3 lots on Brown Avenue will need to be redesignated to Town Centre Commercial to
match the designation of the corner lot on Dewdney Trunk Road.
This redesignation is supportable because:
• it will give a consistent designation for the entire site;
• it is more in keeping with the Medium and High-Rise Apartment designation of the other
properties along this stretch of Brown Avenue;
�
• the proposal will contribute in creating a compact and vibrant Central Business District with
mixed uses envisioned in the Town Centre Area Plan;
• the strategic location of the site being across from the Civic Core area; and
• will permit a consistent form and character of all the lands comprising the project.
The proposed CD Zone and the C-3 (Town Centre Commercial) Zone, upon which it was modeled, are
both permitted zones for the OCP Category of Town Centre Commercial Designation in the Zoning
Matrix.
The proposal will contribute to the OCP objective to create a compact and vibrant commercial area
that is pedestrian-oriented, including commercial, mixed-use, and multi-family residential uses.
Apart from the redesignation described above, the proposed development complies with the
following Land-Use Designation policies in the Town Centre Area Plan:
3-29 Building heights within the Town Centre Commercial will range from three (3) storeys in
height to over twenty (20) storeys. Generally, building heights should not be permitted
greater than twenty-five (25) storeys.
3-30 Multi-Family Residential use is permitted as a principle use in the Town Centre
Commercial designation, except where identified on Schedule "G" as "Ground Floor
Commercial Required" in the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw, where the ground floor use is to
be commercial.
3-31 Within a Mixed-Use development, retail, service, and entertainment uses shall be
encouraged at ground level with office and/or residential uses encouraged above-grade.
Appendix F contains an analysis of how this project complies with the applicable OCP Policies.
Zoning Bylaw:
Background:
The proposal is to rezone the 3 lots along Brown Avenue (i.e. 12038 Edge Street, 22554 Brown
Avenue and 22566 Brown Avenue ) from RS-1 (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) to
CD-1-13 (Comprehensive Development Zone), and the lot at the corner of Edge Street and Dewdney
Trunk Road (i.e. 12018 Edge Street) from CS-1 (Service Commercial) to CD-1-13 (Comprehensive
Development Zone).
A three-tower commercial and multiple residential mixed-use development is proposed to be built
over an eight (8) year period, having a total of 240 residential units and 4,380 mz (47,144 ft2) of
commercial floor area, with 2 levels of underground parking and 2 levels of above ground structured
parking. The proposal has continuous commercial floor area along each of the three street edges.
This adhers to the proposed CD Zone where ground floor commercial space is permitted by
proposed CD Zone in each phase of the three phases, and to Schedule G of the Zoning Bylaw where
street level commercial use is manditory for Phase 3.
-7-
Proposed CD Bylaw Changes:
Since first reading, the applicant has provided a full application submission. As a result, and it has
become necessary to make the following changes to CD-1-13 (Comprehensive Development Zone)
previously granted first reading:
• Interpretation: Terms used repeatedly in the CD Zone were defined in this section.
• Permitted Uses: Apartment Use was moved to the Accessory Use Section to align with the
proposed new zoning bylaw, and off-street parking (e.g. parking lots), outdoor display or sales
areas and rentals were deleted being inappropriate for a downtown setting.
• Density: The section governing density sets the maximum Floor Space Ratio (FSR) for each of the
three phases. The first reading left the bonus provision generally worded subject to more
information. Now that the final FSR's for the project are known, they can be set in the bylaw. The
permitted FSR for each phase is listed in the table below:
FSR Category Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3
Base Floor Space Ratio 1.0 1.0 1.0
(FSR)
Bonus FSR for
Underground or 0'3 0.3 0.3
concealed parking
Bonus FSR for Height 1.0 1.0 1.0
above second storey
Bonus FSR for bonus
elements specified in 0.637 2.98 4.179
Development Covenant
Total FSR 2.937 5.28 6.479
Note: For ease of calculating, the Phase 1 and Phase 3 FSR is rounded up to 2 places for
the bonus and the total FSR in the CD Zone for this project.
• Setback: The setback for the side lot line in Phase 3 has been increased from 0.0 meters to 3.9
meters to accommodate the green wall screen on the east elevation of the lower portion of the
building.
• Open Space: A minimum useable open space and indoor amenity space has been added.
• Housekeeping Changes: The format and wording has been edited to be consistent with the
future new Zoning Bylaw.
Development Agreement
The proposed densities on the site exceed what can normally be achieved through the highest
density zone currently allowed in the Town Centre. Through negotiations, the developer is to provide
a number of bonus elements to bridge the difference between what can be achieved currently and
the density being requested in the proposed CD Zone. This is a restrictive covenant similar in nature
to a rezoning serving agreement. Both instruments are registered on title and would have securities
held until the requirements of the covenants are satisfied.
�
The additional bridging FSR bonus elements will be specified in a development covenant for each
phase as described in the following table:
Development Agreement Development Agreement Development Agreement
Bonus Elements for Phase 1 Bonus Elements for Phase 2 Bonus Elements for Phase 3
• Public Art on Facade • Public Art on Facade • Public Art on Facade
• Adaptive Housing • Adaptive Housing • Adaptive Housing
• Rental Housing • Rental Housing • Rental Housing
• Green Screen • 2 Electric Vehicle Charging • Green Screen
• Electric Vehicle Charging Station Stations . 2 Electric Vehicle Charging
Stations
• Outdoor Community Space
• Indoor Community Space
• Community Digital
Information Board
These bonus elements are described more fully below:
• Public Art: Policies related to public art are included in the Town Centre Plan (Policy 3-14) and in
the District of Maple Ridge Public Art Steering Committee Policy. The Town Centre Plan
encourages incorporating public art into public outdoor meeting spaces.
For this project, this is being achieved as follows:
(1) Through a voluntary contribution of $100,000 from the developer to provide public art in the
Town Centre, to be collected at third reading; and
(2) Through a schedule of form and character guidelines including the proposed "Netting and
Fish Theme" along the exposed fa�ade of the parking structure to enhance the visual
appearance of this structure from the streets (See Appendix G for Art Concept). These
guidelines supplement those contained in Section 8.11 of the Official Community Plan Town
Centre Development Permit Area for the Civic Core Precinct, and will be achieved through the
development permit approval process for each phase in the development.
• Adaptive Housing: It is proposed that 11% of the units in each phase be Adaptive Housing.
Adaptable housing involves the design and construction of dwellings to meet occupants'
changing needs over time. When constructed, a number of features would be incorporated that
are more practical for people who are elderly or have a disability to live a normal life. These
standards are incorporated into BC Building Code Section BC Building Code Section 3.8.5
(Building Requirements for Persons with Disabilities), The Building Access Handbook 2007, and
the SAFERhome Standards Criteria (attached as Appendix H) would be attached to the
development covenant and achieved through the building permit approval process.
Adaptive housing strives to helps people stay in their own homes through illness, injury and aging
or who have disabilities, and by being in place, reducing the cost of future renovations to allow
people to function and stay in ones home as long as possible. The adaptive dwellings will include:
wider corridors and doorways, bathrooms and kitchens that facilitate more space to maneuver
with walkers or wheelchairs, construction features such as stronger materials under drywall to
�
support future installation of grab bars in the bathroom and purpose-built features such as
accessible positioning of electrical outlets higher up from the floor, switches placed lower on
walls, more toe space and lower counters, and easier to operate doors and faucet handles.
The adaptive housing units would also be subject to a housing agreement, described in more
detail in a following section.
• Rental Housing: It is proposed that 10% of the units in each phase be rental units. These will be
units in addition to and not the Adaptive Housing. Further discussions are necessary to
determine the mixture of unit types (e.g. 1 and 2 bedroom units), non-market housing (e.g.
social) and market housing (e.g. private rental and home ownership). As is the usual District
practice, these rental units will be secured through a Section 905 Housing Agreement.
A separate report will be sent to Council outlining the final terms and to obtain readings for
authorization bylaw necessary for the housing agreement. The authorization bylaw would be
considered for final reading together with the final adoption of the zone amending bylaw for the
proposed CD Zone to govern this development proposal.
The provision of this rental housing will support the OCP policies to accommodate a wide range of
housing needs in the District. Although the preference is for such units to be affordable rental, a
Housing Action Plan is not in place to help define what constitutes "affordability" and consistency
in implementing this OCP policy. However, as this is a large 240-unit housing development,
setting aside 10% or 24 units for market rental housing is a reasonable requirement, to give
future residents a choice in their housing options.
The applicant intends to insure the identified units remain rental for a minimum period of five (5)
years following the completion of Phase 3. Based on the proposed phasing, units in Phase 1
would be rented out for a minimum period of about 12 - 15 years, Phase 2 about 8- 10 years,
Phase 3 about 5 years.
To achieve this, the applicant intends to employ Section 139 and 143 of the Strata Property Act
and by the filing of a Form J Rental Disclosure Statement with the Superintended of Real Estate.
These provisions provide for the identification of these rental units and to insure the owner-
developer or a future strata council do not pass bylaws preventing owners from renting the
identified units. Coordination of this approach with the Housing Agreement would be necessary.
• Outdoor Community Space: The public space associated with this development will include: the
street edges, features at the two main corners, a pedestrianized former laneway having a porte-
cochere entrance to Edge Street and a semi-public open space in phase 3 of about 470 square
meters (about 4,000 square feet) space at the lower roof level. There is some flexibility to allow
the roof level space to be adapted to the needs of future residents, including areas for child play,
gardening, exercise, etc. Some of this space is to be situated in such a manner to be accessible
to any future daycare in the complex and is proposed to be available for a certain proportion of
time for community use in association with events, activities or programs. The development
permits will reflect the landscaping and design details.
-10-
• Indoor Community Space: The applicant is pursuing a number of options for the use of
approximately 2,040 square meters (about 22,000 square feet) of commercial space on the
Fourth Floor use as a college, community meeting room, community service organization offices,
day care or a combination thereof. The particulars, including ownership, lease or rental
arrangements will be reflected in a restrictive covenant or equivalent legal instrument registered
after third reading.
• Green Screen: Through the development permit process, the details of this feature will be
specified. In addition, there will be an agreement, insuring the long term maintenance of this
natural feature. Green screens are proposed in phase 1 for the lower building wall facing the lane
and in Phase 3 for the lower level wall that is setback and facing the lot to the east.
• Charging Stations: Each phase is to have installed an electric vehicle parking station for
residential use. In Phases 2 and 3, an additional electric vehicle parking station is to be provided
in a location accessible to the general public, either in the parking building or on the street.
• Community Digital Information Board: It is proposed to incorporate a digital electronic board as
part of phase 3 as a focal element. Strategically located in the Town Centre across from the Civic
Centre, this will support and promote a busy, vital and vibrant pedestrian area. The intent is to
sensitively integrate it into the landscaping or building fa�ade. This will be achieved through the
Phase 3 development permit review. Bylaw Enforcement has advised that changes are being
contemplated to the Sign Bylaw to allow this type of sign as a variance category in the bylaw. By
agreement to be reached as a third reading condition, a minimum proportion of time or content
will be established for civic and community information, news, digital art display and public
service announcements.
Proposed Variances:
This bylaw was specifically crafted as requested by the applicant to accommodate the development
project. Therefore, no variances have been requested. In the event departures will be necessary, a
development variance permit application will be submitted and forwarded after staff review for
Council to consider.
Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw:
Parking and loading is to be provided in compliance with Maple Ridge Town Centre Parking
Standards in Section 10 of Parking and Loading Bylaw.
Overall, there will be 33 more parking spaces than required currently by the bylaw. With the parking
being provided in an interconnected structure, there will be legal arrangements to shared
commercial parking spaces between phases. Based on the total parking required, the following is
the minimum number of disabled parking spaces required: one (1) space in Phase 1, two (2) in
Phase 2 and three (3) in Phase 3. The project complies.
-11-
The number of residential and non-residential (commercial) parking spaces, including visitor spaces,
are as follows:
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Total
Bylaw requirement 62 102 156 320
Provided 100 114 139 355
Difference +38 +12 -17 +33
In addition, the required one off-street loading space is provided in each phase.
For bicycle storage, the requirement is 153 spaces and a total of 154 are proposed. Long term and
short term bicycle parking requirement for residents and users of the commercial uses are as
follows:
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Total
Bylaw Requirement:
- Residential 26 40 66 132
- Commercial 3 9 9 21
Total Required: 29 49 75 153
Total Provided: 30 49 75 154
Development Permits:
Pursuant to Section 8.11 of the Official Community Plan, a Town Centre Development Permit
application is required for all multi-family residential, flexible mixed use and commercial
development located in the Town Centre.
Unlike most residential or commercial projects, this development is being staged over a period of up
to eight (8) years. This is also different from a phased strata development where a development
permit is issued for all the design of buildings in all phases, and timing for commencing and
completing each phase is governed through a phasing declaration form issued by the Approving
Officer under the Strata Property Act.
Therefore, a supplementary set of development permit guidelines (See Appendix J) will be included
as part of the development covenant. These guidelines have been reviewed by the Advisory Design
Panel. For each phase of this development, there would be a separate development permit
application submitted, referred to the Advisory Design Panel for review and evaluated on the
following basis:
• Compliance with the Town Centre Development Permit Area Guidelines;
• Having a consistent form and character over the 3 phases; and
• Being in compliance with the supplementary guidelines, such as provision of public art on
the fa�ade, pedestrian and public spaces, digital display screen, green walls, etc.
The development permit application for the first phase will be brought forward to Council for
issuance in conjunction with the adoption of the zone amending bylaw to create the CD Zone for this
-12-
development proposal. Applications for Phases 2 and 3 would be brought forward to Council in the
future as the developer and market dictate.
Advisory Design Panel:
Referral Summarv:
This project was brought before the Advisory Design Panel on June 11, 2013.
The entire project was also presented to provide context and to obtain general comments on the
entire design concept as well as specific comments for the first phase 6-storey building.
Development permit applications for the future phases will be referred to the panel for a detailed
review.
A description and revised plans addressing the following Panel comments will be included in a
future generalized and detailed development permit application report to Council.
• Confirm sidewalk alternative/s to obtain wider sidewalks with street trees.
• Consider location of the upper storey parking spaces and fa�ade openings.
• Consider connections for all podium levels.
• Confirm location of parking lot venting.
• Keep corner plazas as open as possible.
• Develop a more distinctive treatment for tower roofs.
• Look at providing a visual treatment for lower rooftops.
• Consider articulating a green screen wall along the lane.
• Consider opening up the entrances of the lane and driveways.
• Look at creating an inviting treatment in the laneway including lighting and wall treatment.
• Provide proper soil volumes for trees.
• Explore alternative landscape treatments on the upper levels.
• Show landscape elements on the elevation drawings.
• Include development design guidelines in the Phase Developments Agreement.
• Look at the architectural treatment of the separation between the podium and tower.
• Consider providing rooftop amenity area.
• Look at providing a cleaner treatment of areas between the buildings.
• Look at providing a better frontage treatment for commercial units along Brown Avenue.
• Consider reducing the amount of deck space on Building 2 adjacent to Building 1.
• Provide clearer phasing plans showing interim treatment of exposed wall/s.
• Confirm details, amounts and source of funding for proposed Public Art.
• Look at including parking level screens and guard rails as public art.
• Consider a child space amenity area.
• Provide a pedestrian treatment across the lane and underground parking entrances/access
area.
• Confirm the durability of inetal panels used at pedestrian levels.
• Create an entry feature in Building 1 similar to Buildings 2 and 3.
• Consider separate commercial and resident garbage area.
-13-
Staff Comments and Conclusion:
With the full application submission being made, staff has identified additional matters to be
addressed by the applicant respecting design. These include:
• Providing for architecturally integrated business and directional signage.
• Insuring adequate clearance for vehicle passing through the porte-cochere (former lane) to
Edge Street.
• Providing for appropriate screening and detailing of the knock out walls between phases of the
parking building before being interconnected with future phases.
Revised plans have been submitted by the project's Architect that address nearly all ADP and further
design concerns. The usual compliance analysis will be included at a later date in the Council report
for issuance of the Phase 1 development permit.
Development Information Meetin�:
The Development Information Meeting for this proposal was held on the evening of Wednesday, May
15, 2013. Materials made available to the public included: the site plan, elevations, landscaping
plans and shadow analysis. A total of two people attended with one signing the attendance sheet.
The applicant advised that no written comments were left and the only question was about building
shadows for a property across the street.
e) Interdepartmentallmplications:
Engineering Department:
A rezoning servicing agreement forming part of a restrictive covenant to be registered on title is
required to upgrade municipal services to accommodate the proposed density of this project.
Where appropriate the construction of these municipal services to the final design standard may be
staged with each of the 3 development phases. The details for the timing of the necessary servicing
works, relocation of existing services, the provision of any temporary facilities and processing of
security releases will be reflected in the rezoning servicing agreement, the development covenant
and other associated documents or agreements. The staging of the services in conjunction with
each project phase is not to result in the long term closures to pedestrian facilities or road right of
ways or lane access.
Details, legal instruments, including the rezoning servicing agreement and any security would be
finalized between third and final reading.
Parks & Leisure Services Department:
The proposed provision of amenities, including public art, community-accessible open space, floor
area for community or educational-related uses, and gardening space for the project's residents, are
in accordance with a number of objectives and practices to build a vibrant Town Centre. The
provision of adaptive housing will give Maple Ridge residents the opportunity of aging in place, a key
-14-
element in achieving a healthy community. Provision of rental housing achieves the goal of having a
range of housing choices in the community, however the final agreement needs to insure that these
dwelling units are affordable rental housing that is owned and managed in a manner that is in
favour of the District, its housing policies and a benefit to the community.
The District will be responsible for maintaining the street trees to be planted along the three
frontages. The Manager of Parks & Open Space has advised that the maintenance requirement will
be $25.00 per new tree and will be included in the securities associated with future development
permits.
Fire Department:
A number of comments were provided by the Fire Department. Comments included: having an
adequate fires safety plan, relocation of overhead wires to improve ladder access and dealing with
hazardous debris from buildings to be demolished. More detailed comments will be requested as
part of finalizing the development permit plans.
f) School District Comments:
A referral dated March 25, 2013 was made in accordance with Sections 879 and 881 of the Local
Government Act to the Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows School District No. 42 concerning this project.
No response from the School Board has been received.
g) Intergovernmentallssues:
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 to extend the Town Centre Commercial
designation, is in alignment with the goals, objectives and policies of the Town Centre Area Plan; and
as such 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.
-15-
CONCLUSION:
This 3-tower three-phased mixed use commercial/residential development is one of the most
significant development projects and private capital works projects ever proposed in the Town
Centre. When completed, it will make a major contribution to the emerging urban character in terms
of its architecture, creating a sense of place, providing for business growth, increasing density,
creating an animated pedestrian environment and adding to the Town Centre's skyline.
It is recommended that first and second reading be given to Maple Ridge Official Community Plan
Amending Bylaw No. 7019-2013, that second reading be given to Maple Ridge Zone Amending
Bylaw No. 6966-2013 as amended, and that application 2012-115-RZ be forwarded to Public
Hearing.
"Original signed by Adrian Kopystynski"
Prepared by: Adrian Kopystynski, MCIP, RPP, MCAHP
Planner
"Original signed by Christine Carter"
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
"Original signed by Frank Ouinn"
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- OCP Amending Bylaw
Appendix C- Zone Amending Bylaw (CD-1-13 Zone)
Appendix D- Site Plan and Landscape Plans
Appendix E- Building Elevations, Sections and Renderings
Appendix F- OCP Policy Compliance Analysis
Appendix G- Art Concept for Building Fa�ade
Appendix H- SAFERhome Standards Criteria
Appendix I- Supplementary Development Permit Guidelines
-16-
rr�ap�erl���.�a
T0:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
City of Maple Ridge
Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read
and Members of Council
Chief Administrative Officer
Multi-Family Development Permit
22355 Mcintosh Avenue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
MEETING DATE: December 7, 2015
FILE N0: 2014-065-DP
MEETING: C of W
A Multi-Family Development Permit application has been received for the above-noted property to
permit the renovation of a podium style three storey wood frame apartment, with 21 one-bedroom
units over a first storey concrete building. The development contains one commercial unit for a
proposed restaurant, and enclosed parking at ground level accessible from the lane. The property is
zoned C-3 (Town Centre Commercial) and is designated Flexible Mixed Use in the Downtown West
Precinct of the Town Centre Area Plan of the Official Community Plan (OCP). This is an existing
building that had previous fire damage to the top floor and extensive water and smoke damage to
the rest of the structure in 2012.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2014-065-DP respecting property located
at 22355 Mcintosh Avenue.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Applicant:
Owner:
Legal Description:
OCP:
Existing:
Zoning:
Existing:
Surrounding Uses
North
South
Use:
Zone:
Designation
Use:
Zone:
Designation
Scott Gordon Architect
Cameron Court Apartments Ltd.
Lot "C" (N117936E) District Lot 398, Group 1, New
Westminster District Plan 3206
Flexible Mixed Use
G3 (Town Centre Commercial)
Commercial
G3 (Town Centre Commercial)
Town Centre Commercial
Apartment, Commercial
C-3 (Town Centre Commercial)
Flexible Mixed-Use
1109
East: Use:
Zone:
Designation:
West: Use:
Zone:
Designation:
Existing Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Site Area:
Access:
Servicing:
b) Background:
Vacant Lot
C-3 (Town Centre Commercial)
Flexible Mixed-Use
Single Family Residential Dwelling
C-3 (Town Centre Commercial)
Flexible Mixed-Use
Apartment, Commercial
Apartment, Commercial
1266 m2 (0.3 acres)
Mclntosh Avenue and rear lane
Urban Standard
The building incurred fire damage in December 2012 to the top floor, as well as smoke and water
damage to the rest of the structure. A building permit application was received in May 2013 to
repair the roof, with the intention of getting residents back to their units. A second building permit
application was received in September 2013 for interior renovations. As restoration work
proceeded, the owner decided to use the vacancy of the building as an opportunity to also complete
an extensive renovation of the building exterior and landscaped deck.
In July 2014, this Multi-Family Development Permit application was received for renovations to the
exterior of the building and landscaping. The application was forwarded to the Advisory Design Panel
(ADP) meeting on May 16, 2015. The ADP provided a resolution and recommendations for revisions
to the plans; however, revised plans from the architect and landscape architect were not submitted
by the applicant. At the same time, renovations continued on the building, including several changes
to the exterior design and landscaping, as described in section c) below. The exterior renovations
are now complete and the landscaping will be in the Spring of 2016.
c) Project Description:
The renovation has replaced all the exterior material, previously stucco, with grey and white
hardiboard siding. The concrete railings across the front of the podium level roof deck and all the
suite balconies have been replaced with glass railings. A portion of the concrete overhang above the
front entrance was removed and replaced with a raised steel and glass canopy to open up and add
more light to the entry. All windows have been replaced with double glazed windows and vinyl
frames, and all exterior doors have been replaced. Textured decorative stone has been added to the
front of the building at ground-level. The floor plan for Unit 107 has been altered from the original
design by incorporating a portion of an amenity room into a bedroom (studio unit to a one bedroom
unit), and therefore providing better access to the exterior deck on the east side of the building. The
floor area of the commercial unit on the ground floor has been expanded into the parking area to
accommodate a restaurant use.
At the rear of the building, the chain link fence has been replaced with a metal picket security fence.
The existing garbage and recycling enclosure located within the parking garage is now relocated to
the rear of the building and improved with a new gate. The podium level roof deck has been
renovated and all the planters and landscaping will be replaced and enhanced. Much of the
landscaping on the south side, along Mclntosh Avenue, will be visible from street level through the
glass railing.
-2-
The revised parking plan provides a total of 24 parking spaces; of which 19 are designated for
residents, 2 parking spaces are allocated for the commercial use and 1 parking space for visitor
parking. The plan also indicates 2 spaces designated for accessible parking, with one located in the
secure area under the building and the other at the rear of the building adjacent to the lane. An
accessible ramp has been provided from the rear parking area, which replaces the previous ramp
that was located at the front of the building (see Appendix C). On-street parking is available in front
of the building on Mclntosh Avenue. A new and secure long-term bicycle storage room is located in
the secure parking area near the lobby entry, along with an outdoor short-term bicycle rack located
at the front of the building.
d) Planning Analysis:
In accordance with the Official Community Plan (OCP) Section 8.11, a Town Centre, Downtown West
Precinct Development Permit is required for this application. The key development permit guidelines
for the Downtown West Precinct of the Town Centre are listed below, with rationale from the
Developer describing how the guidelines are being met:
1. Provide a gateway to the Town Centre.
This guideline is not applicable to the development application, as it applies to locations on
Lougheed Highway and Dewdney Trunk Road.
2. Create a pedestrian-oriented, boutique style shopping district.
The proposed development, with its new design elements, including glass and steel canopies
at the entrance, provides the building with a mix of natural light and welcoming entry way.
The mixed use component, in the form of a restaurant at ground level, has the ability to
generate foot traffic from the surrounding Town Centre, as well as employment opportunities.
3. Enhance the quality, character and vibrancy of the Town Centre.
The existing stucco cladding and heavy concrete railings were replaced with grey and white
hardiboard siding of various profiles, glass railings for balconies, new double glazed windows
and a decorative stone finish at ground level. The renovated building, consisting of new
design elements, will enhance the surrounding area.
4. Reference traditional architectural styles.
The building has taken on a more contemporary style with design features including glass
and steel canopies, glass railings for decks, hardiboard siding, new windows, updated
colours and textured decorative stone finish.
5. Capitalize on important views
Looking north-east the units have a view of the local mountain range, including the Golden
Ea rs.
6. Provide public outdoor space.
This is an existing building, and due to the size of the footprint this guideline is not reflected
in the development application.
-3-
7. Provide climate appropriate landscaping and green features.
The podium will provide landscape features consisting of various trees, shrubs and ground-
cover. The clear glass railings surrounding the podium will provide views of the landscaping
from street level.
8. Maintain street interconnectivity.
The building's main entry has been altered by removing a portion of the concrete overhang,
and replaced with a glass and steel canopy and wall sconces to allow more light into the
space. The security bars that were on the previous commercial space have been removed
creating a more attractive and friendly street-scape. The result is a more defined and
welcoming entrance to the development. Access to the secure residential and commercial
parking is located at the rear of the building, with some on-street parking located on
Mclntosh Avenue.
e) Advisory Design Panel:
This application was presented to the Advisory Design Panel on March 16, 2015 and the Panel
resolved that the applicant address the following concerns and that revised drawings be provided for
staff to review. The Architect's responses are italicized below each point:
• Provide renderings to better ascertain the changes to the existing building elements,
particularly at the front of the building.
o Photos submitted in lieu of renderings.
• Add canopies to the exposed balconies on the east units.
o Canopies were not added to the east units as overhangs exist.
• Provide further details on the options to clad or remove the staircase block at the front
elevation.
o Staircase block was not removed, and instead painted to match and covered with
black metal slats. A new decorative stone was also added as a new design element
to the front fa�ade.
• Ensure the garbage and recycling area is more functional.
o The garbage and recycling location has been relocated from the underground
parking area to the outside rear area of the building. The new space has been
modified from the original to increase its function and accessibility.
• Strengthen the separation between patios for the individual ground level units.
o Separation fencing with gates will be installed and landscaping used to define the
space.
'�
• Describe more fully how the underground parking areas will function, including additional
information on access to the commercial space from the parking and visitors access to
parking given that all parking spaces are behind a security gate.
o Access to the commercial space from the outside rear parking will be provided,
including a ramp, through a separate enclosed walkway along the western portion of
the building. Residential parking is in the secured area, while visitor and commercial
spaces are provided off the rear lane.
• Though not required, as least one accessible parking space should be provided given the
zone permits commercial uses.
o Parking has been modified to provide one accessible space in the secure lot and one
at the rear of the building adjacent to the lane.
f) Financiallmplications:
In accordance with Council's Landscape Security Policy, a refundable security equivalent to 100% of
the estimated landscape cost will be provided to ensure satisfactory provision of landscaping in
accordance with the terms and conditions of the Development Permit. Based on an estimated
landscape cost of $44,829.13 the security will be $44,829.13.
CONCLUSION:
This development application is for the renovation of a four storey building in the Downtown West
Precinct of the Town Centre. Several alterations have been made to the exterior of the building,
giving it a more contemporary appearance, as well as landscaping improvements on the podium
level. Staff has reviewed the proposal's compliance with the Town Centre Development Permit
Guidelines of the OCP for form and character, and it is recommended that the Corporate Officer be
authorized to sign and seal Development Permit 2014-065-DP respecting property located at 22355
Mclntosh Avenue.
"Original signed by Adam Rieu"
Prepared by: Adam Rieu
Planning Technician
"Original signed by Christine Carter"
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
"Original signed by Frank Quinn"
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
GM: Public Works & Development Services
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A - Subject Map
Appendix B - Ortho Map
Appendix C- Site Plan and Building Elevations
Appendix D -Landscape Plans
-5-
�
s
2002112
m �
�
c�v �
� N
CI]
Cr7
N
N
19 963
1'1957
'11933
'11925
��so�
N
Scale: 1:1,500
�2034
12032 � 202 �P
12026
�n �-
� v' I �
� � � �
� I
�
� � � I N � N
DEWDNEY TRUNK RD
o v er v
�
a� r.
� � SUBJECT PROPERTY �� �
N N n�i �
9'f 9fi8 �
�1950 � � � � �
� � � � �
�"� in r� o'] o'] �'7
�1 � ry N N N
McINTDSH AVE.
�1969
� 1965/67
11955
1924 o v a m c�'v �n �� 0 19 939
��2 �a N� ry� N NC �JF'�
CV CV CV N N
� � � 11915119
t- � �n r_, � i �- i C 11909
� cv c,� � v r� co r�
�
N � N c�V � [�til Cv c�V
N � N cV � nl N �V
0
�
District of � �
Langley � _
119 AVE.
APPENDIX A
� 91998 ry
�� ry
� 1r so�szrs¢
N
N
71982/86
McINT05H .
119G81�0 w
2
�
�195215415$
�
O
N
Mcl hITO
�
N
a 179��
N
N
0 22355 MCINTOSH AVENUE
.�
�
�
o �
�� �= CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE
�
Q PLANNING DEPARTMENT
,
�
DATE: Feb 24, 2015 FILE: 2014-065-DP BY: PC
APPENDIX B
� �' � �" , ��
� � � �� _ -r .w �:: �Q �� .. _
�?:- � , F ^ �2 .:. ��• -M ,w• . `,i��. _ �
x��'. ^ d �'�
� � >� Y ��r.....: - .�
�'- �.� "''�� :F � �' .�-1�� �•'� ,
,ax.' .r .,..� - 1 � * • f . _ �� ! . � � � 1: �,
� F y
r'� 'T� � M1 ' ti ^ �f .
- -�� - • - --.� � 1
. _._ .. ry ,� . � � r, ` �„ .
p�j ,f,� �`� . "�. • � � f � ' �I S �o � i-' q� ' ' �
� � ('v � , pP' — � � �:� � i �9] '' ' _ _ _ _ ' �
�r L11 W t"] '"
ry � � - � '�, .;, � �- '� � .. � ry N � �a � . .�� _ � � , ,
� �:_ _ -- • ,i
,� 1� �r �� _.. 14 � _ � � = i -- � .
-�s— �� - DEWDN�TRUNK RD
�-- '; �. __ t r- r-r c� : ,�
�"s'�` ��='�:' _ — - - • .�' _ - _ w..��; .
— =. - �:" '
. - � �� J . � c� �^ �: � � �
- r i r::r� �Y � � Ll7 -'. i � . I - . � ' ��Y r� ^ - - i ---.
V
I � � ry � rv .�! � � � � SUBJECT PROPERTY : �� � ° � � �- �.�
N �.,: �,�� •:;�:::: ' `� �' �' � . ; h� � � --�.:� .
� � cv :,6' � � � r N � � � , ry N '' � ': � 1 � 4 � 9d/92194 � �
^ � �,� �, t = nt ct� �y � � •. . ,�
• - . � � � � � � I' N
- �ry � - � \ 7 - �' • ty :
, c,� =F • ., �, � � - . A �r . ' i� `' 9198�s Y+
� � � --- . :
' , � "� .Mcl NTDSH .
� �. � � "^. _ _I � i `t"' _� r rn j��g �� ` 7�9� .
�- ► . _ �"� u�
_ _ � _' � � _ z
� '1�368 . . �F - � . 65/�7 j - � !
-�� �� � -
1 � ? 1.8a0 �� �"� �' i'' � L''` � - � � � A i f 91952�5��$ �
--�- � M,
� ? ' , E � � �� ri � � � `�' c��j �. � _. r��, - J � ' � '�,
"a"-. '� , C � v �. .� � hr�.�w . �� ��' N -- `� 11955 � .� '� �'` ' Y� .
�-_ � r � ,, ,. �►: � : ,� �
' c. � '°. ', � � � �-i,\ � , . . : � i
�J .��' ' McINT�SH AVE. ��t#"�'c111T�
�.� �
���5 � �' � _
� . ' � - � � r�; - r` � . f
' �1 ? 9�� a.a a� t�.c� �; �` '� u� -ca o 9 9 939 ��' I�'' .
�.� {/4� � ry�; `�'. �_ � � �,��.,,C � /51 I _
i � �
�. n� �v �� � � _-. _ cv . n, , ._ .. � . -;
x _ ' � � ,� I , _ a.� Y z ' � �',s � ��' " A ��
� � � ,.�� ;�-� . �t7►: ..:.���y --- ,
� . �. �., � 7� --- r�r s
� - - • � � ;.� � ,� �:-``_'� - �' �fi �„ r h .+�' �� �
� �` • -� ��'-� F �F�Q �'�.� � �
� _ ,.�
�
.�� 11 �'. �., e � �► � r ,r� .r. � R�
� -__ I � � � r�l ! Y - ,-
r ' . r� -ti
� � ' � :�
` �� :�< � � �` •
�_ � !'�, r� ':, - � �f 1�9�5/99 � ,w ,
I{ �� � �_ _ � .r� � � � � ?7909- �' � �
f ,
" ,�' � � � � � I ,�,r' ���f` —� � 797�
�v — - �'� �, rv i :
�,. - ' �1 [V � ry . �; C�!
� �.� �1� ���.-
" .� � � �' � ��., �� �¢ r,�� -3 �rra+ -�* � - -
119 AVE. = � " .�.
i: _ °� � .
' A.:'.�dfc�-�� -: - ' .. � � -.. _
..� ... ' � i Q � .. T � tV. ._�O :'_ i:ta�i R7 � .t .-• � C1��� �^i'
i ��� , .�: • .- p ^ cp � �, c� � i�. � � �� �{ D�strict�o.f Maple�RiRge�
c�+:� „f p�++ � I�c , � Jr' .
N
Scale: 1:1,500
District of
Langley
0 22355 MCINTOSH AVENUE
.�
�
�
o �
�� �= CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE
�
Q PLANNING DEPARTMENT
,
�
� DATE: Feb 24, 2015 FILE: 2014-065-DP BY: PC
��_ __ r��
�ot �..,.,�, A.. Bo� �, � .��
v�xoe.
)!w FNmaNm aAaYn hssm 6 /ar
yurpo� omy me b ror x�. a�ww� �. w ms
dNne fir .nan n.w peyaad me ane�or
arcrp6 m reryma6Hty ar flaDHty kr my
dmagea Mat y bs a/bM by o MM puly
a o rowAt o/ mY �uva modl af acEiMe
Mm Eand m M& dannnnt IMs dx�ms�t
ahan tlro iw'aNe hrnthv M a6ucM1xea oW
�on.� .rm rsq�e ro nb .eqvr..a ao�,a�tn
in
a�,� �a������o��
,� ,��a����.�r
�,.a�� ,�,�,m,�.,.a
� v� �r �nx nw�a vmam2 aRes
dsbAut4 a+k+e cryfn a{ M6 dx�rmnt h
Mds d h puf �r7Mwt tlro prb Mffn amssrt
oI tl�a wJaagied
(c� r a� w�e s..m+ro �ea am4
Ci�c Address.•
aD
FouMctkn
Po�kade BdoW
FM Sfary ResMwntH
�%�9
anc,a m c��ra aam,y
aM�ee �r awmmy
fi6 6 csfiRsd carxt md b w'H wMy NM napxt to Ms
os Mo�n hrem md beatW m Me Oay a1
BCLS
fi6 Dacvmenf h Nof Yo'f0 UMm QYyPaYy SYynM ME Sso's0
Terra Pacif ic
� „ �. � ��,�
APPENDIX C
.,,��o. � �
a�o���,� ,����.
�ab a P..a .e 0 e
.,a. n .n� a ...,.�.s.0
b �. „w�, �,m � „a,m �„m �
aa� AMa �� � o�, . ..Fa,��9.m P,�. ��m ���, �a�
� ��orv�.m � �,�, , P,�
a, am, ,o , ,
, -- -- --
__ __ -- -- — � ��_
ao�o.�, �abP..e
..m ,o.
,. ..,..a� � � �
o.��, O �,�a .� n..m �, d
o���, �
n,�,���� � , . �, , , d
.K,� .�m
,��o �,� �ae=� ����
-- — ,,w.o��
.�,� � n,�„o,r �bF�. o A� a-0,a a�.
� a���,��ue���os�� � � �
— ---b
, , ra� .e�—� �
--- -- --- -- --- ---- _ �
-- �,,.�. �9.
---__--- .,G,��.._ ,P — wo�,a��a„P I,�
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
-- -- -- O ,,,F, — ,o
9 O � � '° _—
_„> -----
-- — —
-- -- -- -- - �.aee io oe r �
-- -- -- - ,o
— --- — � SCOTT �
.. ��e o.�y, �k� °w y'"P s���a�,�a�o� ,��w�.� s,ao.o� a� ,� N ao. ,.�,�. � GORDON �
C�_ z � � ARCHITECT �
EAST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION
� MAIBC AIA �
� �
�aa�owes�aamn�e��a �
I vao�owe�. e.c. I
a _�, ,..,,,. Exterior Materials � veN eKa �
ITel. (604�263-0410 I
OHartlia Panel wiN exhuded reveal/Inm system O6 Insula�ed Metel Door I Fu (604) 263-0108 I
mnn .i.i..so�m
� � d:.bo aoarvu
Q � deletetl C�J e ou a`°P,a wF�Eureg I I
,,. I ❑ O onie. c area w�aowsiparo aoo�s � v��ame ya. Oa aeieiee � �
a qO a�e-rmsnaa roieok• m.�-wau Fiesm�g � aal�cea concre�aiswc�oieioou I I
,EVINCFtlT AoakoM1eP.nP INCFTw'R' oo.eo � qluminumsmre-FrontWlndowsBDoors�Brigntalum.) f� Cuuurees�one L____—J
� Q ,...� e� � ��
_ ry. —_
—Fa.�.s_,,« — — — — �abP,.e—
a�,�a.m , �.,�wn�. „a.�,_
e,. 0 � an��,.
R
9.a�
� ,.���o,..� e n �\
---o���s,W���«��,�o��e�«„a��o.�,P-- -- -- — -- -- �� --->���.�,.w.�.d�w.�,P
�
NORTH ELEVATION Seee �
N
>aO�
WESTELEVATION Z�
��
�— — � s z�
R
9.a�rvii
�,���� /za�ao
/�
22355 Mclntosh Ave.,
Maple Ridge, B.C.
Alterations
�� Building
Elevations
��..n,.. A6
�.,,. r�e.o«,�.,o„
II � Electrical
I� � 2�9��x5�2„
�"'°°� � 002
3-0 door ano�
� Handicap� 001 �' '' —
�i�i
Access corridor —
`----_ __r�
fireplace
� Rear Entrance Detail Plan
s��e:-,ra.=,�_o.
Front Entrance Detail Plan
soa�e�-,�a.=,�-o.
� Entrance Section Detail
Us�aie:-,ia.=„o.
�
Rear Entrance Ramp Section
4 soeia>va._�._o..
� Entrance Detail (east elevation/section)
U s��a: ,�a._,.-0�.
� Security Fence Detail
�J saaie.,a.=v-o,
� Security Fence Detail
Us�a�e-,�z.=,-o.
� Entrance Detail (west elevation/section)
s�a�e ,�a�=,-o�
picl<et
Maintain Existing Concrete parapet at west perimeter --
insure 42" height is achieved by use of ex. wall and
guard.ng
Maintain Existing Concrete parapet at west perimeter -
insure 42" height is achieved by use of ex. wall and
guard.
Irrigation
Stub-out
located here
Typ.
Planter Drain -
See Detail
1/L-2
12" wide gravel strip between building and planter wall.
Area Drain -
See Detail
3/L-2
Maintain Existing Concrete parapet at west perimeter -
insure 42" height is achieved by use of ex. wall and �
guard. ��
�
Irr
��
�
AD
PD
PD
AD
AD
��
AD
AD
vv � W4
Living Room
157"x10'8"
W4a
SUITE
103
W4a
�
Bedroom
11'9"x10'11"
W2
O
�� .
� W4
..�..�..�..�..�..�.
4 ft. high black aluminum picket-style fence
c/w 3 ft. gates, typ.
�
Irr
PD
iving Roor
s�, ����,
Dinin oom �� r� ` � � ��)
�����X�� � �� � � � _
W4
W 2 �� � � �
��� � �
��, �
_� C � � �
�_
Living Room 'I
14'3"xl l'8" Dining Room I - W 2
S'3"x7'3" � � �W ��
SUITE p� �-' F' STAIR 7
104 � � � z 101
��°°� � 1 08 I O I a
�� �
�
1 x _ .,
M . Stn�aae 9 8 x6 9 � �
� � �i?
O � x �
D � � �_
_ d �
� � ' i�
O
/ � � �
--- - �
s �
ao,�.,,,,�» /� O � �I . `J C (TV^
O
'=i�. i� , ...,, �
_ � �
� �� ,,iiii//// ��
. /� �
_ � � ID1 �W.� �
� �
� ° � I n, -� �
"� 1 CORRIDOR 100�
�� �� �� �A�� � �
PD
AD
1 2'3��,
D11 (TYPICtr.�
m
AD
� � � � � � � a� �� �� �� _�� °����
, � � . / . Kitrhen _
� � ` , - � I<i .hen Dining Room 7'6'x6'6' � �W � �--�
� ��S��X6�4�� 7'S"x7'4" l )�1
D� �� U �� � ��
0 0 0 �� `�� � , �
� � >
� �, � � - � `� SUITE Screens between units - typical �
— C��, � � � 10 6
� JUI I � �
Bedroom � �
117"x9' � 1 07 Livinc� Room
�
1
Bedroom ..... �
11'3"x9'4"
AD
AD �I SKYL HT �I
� II
..�..--•�------ '�..
��C�� canopy � � Cut Slab tor
frame � opening,
� IIeW 42 ht. Structural eng. to
„ fiP.tP.YY1lIY1P. Yl"1AX_ S17e
plexiglass
guardrail at
lowered parapet
from here East.
PD �
Irr
AD
AD
♦
Irr
PD
AD
AD
I...........�-.........,
I■■■■■■■■■■,,:�■■■■■■■■■■1
�����������%������������1
Unit Pavers 24"x24" exposed aggregate
paver - slope to drain
PD
PD
AD
AD
J I�/�Ikl �C
AD
Thin-set concrete slab. Ensure positive
drainage to drain, flush with adjacent
surfaces.
Private patios with concrete unit pavers.
Precast stacking Concrete Masonry wall
retaining walls, 15" high maximum height.
Trees and shrubs on slab. See planting plan.
Maximum soil depth 15" including drain
gravel.
Existing parapet wall with new waterproof
membrane.
Slab drain (Bi-level) in hard surface areas.
__ Planter drain with upstand for visual access
and maintenance access to slab drain.
42" perimeter guardrail.
Unit Pavers on Slab - 16"x16" precast conc.
pavers with stone pattern. Pavers set on
levelling bed of clear birdseye gravel gravel
on drainage composite mat on protection
board on water proof inembrane on
structural slab. Open joints between pavers
allow vertical drainage. This is a porous
paving system.
Planter drain in planted area.
4 ft. high black aluminum picket-style fence
c/w 3 ft. gates, typ.
Thin-set concrete slab. Ensure positive
drainage to drain, flush with adjacent
surfaces.
Steel support blocl<s at high
end
i
I /' ������� �♦
I
1
i,
��i
�--L--.�,', )
iiiiiiiii iii ii • iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii �� �
� "'� ��i � z z = �f!( f(( Sii = _ � �
� Retaining Wall on Slab
�_2 Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0"
Planter drain as specified with 8" dia. vertical perf pipe c/w cap for
drain inspection, wrapped in filter cloth.
Growing Medium as specified..
Jilex 4545 filter fabric.
Coping stone secured with butyl tape or approved adhesive.
imil poly sheet continuous behind retaining wall.
Allan Block AB Classic retaining wall on levelling bed on
composite dimple boardldrainage mat. Rocky Mountain
Blend color-typical walls and caps.
3/4 - 1" dia. washed round drain rock behind wall, wrapped in
filter fabric.
Backfill gap between back of curb and face of wall with
3l8" clear crush gravel
Paving or planting as per layout plan.
3l8" minus compacted levelling bed on 3' wide strip of
dimple board drainage mat - NuDrain WD15WP or equivalent.
Protection board on root barrier.
Waterproof inembrane on slab over parking garage.
RETAINING WALL NOTES:
Do not allow for a depth of soil mix, gravel, and mulch to
exceed 15". If depths are required to exceed 15" install
polystyrene voiding such as Korodrain by Mansonville
Plastics in lieu of drain rock.
Height of wall is maximum 15" above top of slab.
Top dress with SOmm (2") approved compost mulch following planting.
Install Fraser River pump sand - max. 2% fines (sand &
�clay) with 60-70 % medium sieve sand and 15-20 % coarse
sand, 15-20 % fine sand content, free of soluble salts.
� Topdress with 6" of commercial grade compost and till
,!� into top 8" of sand. Rake smooth and plant. Topdress
with 2" compost mulch following planting.
� � ' , � Nilex 4545 filter fabric.
£
in � w � 75-80mm (3") washed round drain rock 20-25mm (3/4-7")
� in diameter.
' Em
—Protection board on root barrier. See Arch.
Waterproof inembrane on slab over parking garage.
See Arch.
� � � � � � � � � � � � � Dn not allow for a depth of gravel, soil mix and
- � � • � -0 � � � � � - mulch to exceed 15"
. n. If depths are required to exceed 15" install
approved polystyrene voiding such as Korodrain by
Mansonville Plastics in lieu of drain rock.
2 Soil installation on slab
L_2 Scale: 1/2" = 1'-0"
Bi-level drain - see mech. Ensure square
grate - wrap vertical drain pipe with filter
fabric to prevent fines entering drain
system
Concrete unit pavers. See Layout Plan for
type and colour.
�1" minimum 1/8 clear crush levelling bed.
: lope to drain
3 Unit Paver on Slab
L2 NTS
— k - .'--'� `
_.— _ --- —` �_—� � �
� T} � I . _ ��I .. . •--f. <...r. S
�'� �-..,..�¢......�
w� �� � 4i
� �
�. � .__. -. � .. —��� � J� ��
16"x16" Conc. pavers with stone pattern
open joints with birds eye gravel swept
between joints to provide vertical
drainage
�
Prefabricated drainage mat (Nilex NuDrein
WD15, or equivalent) on protection board
on waterproof inembrane on structural
slab over parking garege.
� . . . �-}`-""'� e,"_,_,�- - `f
. _, ''��.!_:�."�'�'
= :,:�, '�
�- - w
�.. � .. f -.� R .
�,; r �r .�� " � �k -,-..;
. � '�
.� . ,� �-� ,' �-
� � � ��
rX ,'. � . � .�-
M1-J'� � ' t � � - ;
.,+ -_.
t � �� ��... � .H.
� . � f�
� *' �` , r� r,.
"'" : r' � ��
� '� ;-� s ,ka� ,_s
s , , �a
3ri'�'� � �,1 , S st:,r , -. �
1 � F
J' C % 1
� �, �3 �, �F �s�" ; Sp.,?
� s._� lr � rv �� . . ' ���,, g:�
S.� ih C ��1� f ./� � �- § � ,�-� _. -�
xr �
4 l �� �, i- ya .-� r°� :
¢ � t � . v P ' -"� � � Y _ :'j
z ,�., �$� t : ��.-
' {y & "�'�'� ,� �'K �-> ,'�
' � '� ; r � ,�� } ,�- � � _��.
'�i:� '4. �,�' .� ,"' .� f .4r � . � .-`�'`�.��5�,-��
24" x 24" concrete pavers
with exposed aggregate
finish - tight joints
0mpacted soil mound
� Large Caliper tree planting on slab
L3 NTS
a �q�l'�lA� �
1
>. 4 per tree, protect trunk with burlap
�hall be planted on top of rootball
� with turnbuckle
vith 50mm (2") mulch following planting.
and/soil mixture
ete paver with G.I. Eye-bolt
ilter fabric.
t-4") washed round drain rock 20-25mm
ameter.
�oard on root barrier. See Arch.
membrane on slab over parking garage.
Shrubs shall be planted slightly higher in relation to
finished grade to allow for mulch
2" mulch from manufactured compost
Soil mixture as per Detail - river pumped sand and compost
Pay careful attention when planting to avoid the roof
assembly
NOTES:
1. Min. container size and root spread to aVfA
landscape standards for PLrsery Stock.
2. Prune only damaged, diseased, or weak limbs
and roots.
3. Do not allow roots to dry out during installation
process, water plant roots well pror to planting and
water immediately following planting.
4. Ensure rootball is loosened before planting
shrubs.
2 Shrub planting on slab
L3 NTS
. , .._..-..-..-..-.._.
.
a-SjR
,. � .
4-CcV
23-Bc
5-Hb
13-Rh
4-Txm
5-CxSP
5-H b
11-RhF
7-Ap
1-Ap-CB
steel canopy J � Cut Slab for
frame opening, Steel support blocl<s at high
Structural eng. to end
determine max. size
LAI�D604PE NOTES
1. Sizes on the planting plan shall be considered minimum sizes.
2. All landscape construction to meet the current edition of the British Columbia Landscape
Standards as a minimal acceptable standard. Plant material to the satisfaction of the
Landscape Standards for nursery stock. Extend search for plant material to Washington,
Oregon, California, and B.C.
3. Root balls to be free of pernicious weeds.
4. Top soil mixtures for the project shall be tested for particle size, Ph, and Nutrient levels, and
recommendations provided and amendments made to bring the soil up to acceptable
horticultural quality for the desired plant material, trees, or turf planting. See details for
maximum soil depths on structural slab. Install 2 inches of composted organic mulch on all
shrub beds after planting and rake smooth.
5. Provide positive grades away from buildings and toward lawn drains and catch basins.
Slope away from building at a minimum of 2%. The prepared sub-grade shall be approved by
the Consultant prior to application of top soil mixtures and finish grading. Slope towards lawn
basins at min. 4%.
6. Landscape Contractor is to provide 55 days of maintenance after the date of Substantial
Completion. Maintain to level 2`Groomed' as per British Columbia Landsape Standards.
Contractor to provide a one year guarantee for all plant material. Plants installed prior to June
(Between Jan 1 and June1) shall be under extended warranty until the June 1 of the following
year.
7. All landscaping to be irrigated system.
PLANT LIST - Podium Level
ID Latin Name Common Name uantit Scheduled Size Notes
TREES
A Acer almatum 'Blood ood' Ja anese Ma le 7 1.25m #20 ot Cont.
A-CB Acer almatum 'Coral Bark' Coral Bark Ja anese Ma le 1 1.25m #20 ot Cont.
CcV Cornus controversa Varie ata Varie ated Do wood 4 1.5m #20 ot Cont.
CxSP Cornus x'Stellar Pink' Stellar Pink Do wood 5 1.5m #20 ot Cont.
SHRUBS
Arb Arbutus unedo 'Com acta' Strawberr Tree 17 #2 ot Cont.
Bc Ber enia cordifolia Heartleaf Ber enia 36 #1 ot Cont.
EcSP-1 Erica carnea 'S rin wood Pink' Winter heath 10 #1 ot Cont.
Hes Helictotrichon sem ervirens Blue Oat Grass 32 #1 ot Cont.
H Hosta x'Gold Standard' Gold Standard Plantain Lil 19 #1 ot Cont.
Hb H dran ea serrata 'Bluebird' Bluebird H dran ea 10 #5 ot Cont.
Ov Ori anum vul are 'Gold Ti ' Ornamental ore ano 15 #1 ot Cont.
Pm Pol stichum munitum Sword Fern 6 #3 ot Cont.
RhF Rhododendron 'Florence Parks' Rhododendron 'Florence Parks' 1 1 #5 ot Cont.
Rh Rhododendron hotei Rhododendron 13 #5 ot Cont.
S�R Skimmia �a onica 'Rubinetta' Rubinetta Skimmia 124 #3 ot Cont. Male & Female
SG S iraea 'Goldmound' Goldmound S irea 3 #2 ot Cont.
Sm P S rin a me eri 'Palibin' Dwarf Korean lilac 9 #2 ot Cont.
Txm Taxus x media 'Hillsii' Hills Yew 65 1.5m ht B&B, Full
GROUNDCOVER
Assorted perennials selected by Landscape Architect 100 #1 ot Cont.
Nov 27, 2015 Issued for aty Review
Nov 23, 2015 Issued for aty Review
Nov 23, 2015 Issued for aty Review
Oct. 23, 2015 Issued for aty Review
Oct. 22, 2015 Issued for mnstruction
Mar. 9, 2015 Add bike racks, revise podium areas
Dec. 11, 2014 Revised hardscape layout
I�bv. 18 2014 Revised hardscape layout
Oct. 18 2014 issued for ADP
Oct. 6 2014 For Review
Sep 17, 2014 For DEC
Revisions :
� Jonathan Losee Ltd.
Landscape Architecture
�
#102 - 1661 W. 2nd Ave.
Vancouver, B.C. V6J 1H3
Ph: 604-669-1003 Fax: 604-669-0402
E-mail: info@jonathanlosee.com
Project:
Cameron Court
Maple Ridge, BC
Sheet Title:
Planting Plan -
Podium Level
Scale:
1/8"=1'-0"
Date: September 2014
Project No.
2014-31
L-3
rn��l�rld��,��
T0:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
City of Maple Ridge
Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read
and Members of Council
Chief Administrative Officer
Development Permit
25467 Bosonworth Avenue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
MEETING DATE: December 7, 2015
FILE N0: 2015-300-DP
MEETING: C of W
Staff have reviewed and recommend the issuance of Wildfire Protection Development Permit 2015-
300-DP respecting property located at 25467 Bosonworth Avenue(Appendix A& B) in support of a
development plan for a four (4) lot subdivision application (2014 - 086 - SD) under RS-2 (One Family
Suburban Residential) Zoning.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2015-300-DP respecting property located
at 25467 Bosonworth Avenue.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Applicant:
Owner:
Legal Description:
OCP:
Zoning:
Surrounding Uses
North:
South
East:
West:
Use:
Zone:
Designation
Use:
Zone:
Designation
Use:
Zone:
Designation
Use:
Zone:
Designation
Paul Hayes Ltd.
lan A. Speckman and 0943838 B.C. Ltd.
Lot 6 except part dedicated road on Plan
EPP32627 Section 14 Township 12 New
Westminster District Plan 17359
Suburban Residential
RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential)
Residential
RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
AGR (Agricultural)
Residential
RG-2 (Suburban Residential Strata Zone)
SUBRES (Suburban Residential)
Residential
RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
SUBRES (Suburban Residential)
Residential
RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
SUBRES (Suburban Residential)
1110
Existing Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Site Area:
Access:
Servicing:
Previous Applications:
b) Project Description:
Residential
Residential
1.982 HA
Bosonworth Avenue
City water and on-site septic
2015-086-SD, RZ/024/09 & DP/024/09
This RS-2 zoned parcel is subject to a four (4) lot subdivision proposal. Being in the Wildfire
Protection Development Permit Area, a Wildlife Development Permit must be issued by Council
before the final subdivision plan may be signed by the Approving Officer. The applicant is also
completing requirements for a Natural Features Development Permit for the northeast portion of
the site effecting proposed Lot 4 of the subdivision.
c) Planning Analysis:
A Wildfire Protection Report (Appendix C) was submitted by Diamond Head Consulting Ltd. That
report reviewed and established measures with respect to landscaping, building siting and
building finishes, to comply with the following Key Objectives ensuring that the development
within this wildfire hazard risk area is property managed:
1
2.
3.
Q
Locate development on individual sites so that when integrated with the use of mitigating
construction techniques the risk of wildfire impacts is reduced.
Consultant's Comment: Structures have been located in the middle of the lots. This
provides a large fuel free buffer between the structures and the forest area to the north.
Mitigate wildfire impacts while respecting environmental conservation objectives and
other hazards in the area;
Consultant's Comment Most trees growing on the lots will be removed, mitigating most of
the on-site fire risk. There is an environmentally sensitive steep slope to the north east.
Trees on this site will be treated strategically to retain forest cover while reducing fire
behavior potential. A professional forester together with an environmental professional
will develop the detailed treatment prescription for this area.
Ensure identified wildfire interFace risks are recognized and addressed within each stage
of the land development process; and
Consultant's Comment The wildfire plan identifies a moderate risk from the forests to the
north, east and west. Construction materials, landscaping and fuel treatments are
specified to be followed through all stages of the development permit process. A detailed
treatment prescription for the forest area to the north east will be developed by a
professional forester together with an environmental professional.
Proactively manage potential fire behavior, thereby increasing the probability of successful
fire suppression and containment and minimizing adverse impacts.
Consultant's Comment Most trees on the remaining lot areas are proposed to be removed
from the site mitigating fire risk immediately adjacent to the structures.
-2-
As part of the subdivision approval process, this report will be registered on title as a restrictive
covenant to be implemented through the building permit approval process. The covenant will
indicate the requirements that will apply and require that a professional sign off that plans being
submitted for building permit approval comply with the Wildfire Protection Development Permit.
d) Environmentallmplications:
The northeastern portion of proposed Lot 4 will be subject to a steep slope covenant and a natural
features development permit. The requirements of the wild fire protection and the natural features
development permits will be coordinated to balance the intent of both designations. For example,
lower branches of trees will be pruned, any dead, dying or hazard trees will be removed and ground
disturbances will be limited to minimize tree root disturbed . Suitable replanting will be coordinated,
CONCLUSION:
That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2015-300-DP respecting property located
at 25467 Bosonworth Avenue.
"Original signed by Adrian Kopystynski"
Prepared by: Adrian Kopystynski, MCIP, RPP, MCAHP
Planner
"Original signed by Michael Van Dop"
Approved by: Michael Van Dop
Assistant Chief, Planning & Prevention
"Original signed by Chuck Goddard" for
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
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A - Subject Map
Appendix B - Aerial Map
Appendix C - Consultant's Report
-3-
APPENDIX A
SCALE 1:2,500
District of
Langley
� 25467 BOSONWORTH AVENUE
0
.�
�
�
o �t CORPORATION OF
L � THE DISTRICT OF
�
� - � MAPLE RIDGE
0
a`
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: May 31, 2012 FILE: RZ/024/09 BY: PC
APPENDIX B
- � .i �i= i� � 4T..RR r 1
� - �.�• . � _ .�. ���.,� - . � • 1�
'�'1 ?! . ` ' '--� i
� t- ,,, 112 AVE. �
.!•, _':�Ny�},� �,' .
'-i. �� � .. � ' � � � .. � � - k 1,
-�. � e Y � •�' • .s+ . J � ri._ N ' N S rL _ p�j. . _ J.y
u� N � �ir�= � 1' " � .� '4
�"� � �'�' _ � - "� - �� � � I .. , "'��''�
;�..� 4 � �. �'' � �� � �' - " � , . . �. N
�� -� �i . ;� .�'��. r O - . ',:. .. ��-'7e`"+�JG_fy w
� ,I �w F'� ' r� r.w� ' a� � ��. �i� :.� �'y.
�� P341(�0' :� �.1 �59 � ; ':. � _.�� � r,. �. - ,, .`
'• � � , . ' _�' _ „�. �r ,
�..a� "•... �'_' . l�
.�, � � � r � � - t�= �.�i ?F .. K _ ,..' ' � � � i+ � , ��
y `� v� #�'$ ��+ �* ,n '�. ��;.. � :iy.
��� � . / s�li,. �;� r� , - �y.:c' '��'' �h' _ ..
`r � _ ''"T � ..��r ° � � ..2.:�: t' } = "' �, . , . `. �.' 'Y '..�.
��" � -.h7F �` y� i�': � j .�;i b' '.
'��_. r ,:. � - , 7 � $ �S � ,.9 -` �': �h..� - 11M1 y� '� -�
+ '�+': �.,� �'; �� " •'�r ' � ' .
�M�' ' � �� � � ��' _ � '# .�.'Yr,� � �.�
�,' . • �- °y+..s �y.��.,." ' 'W .. ---- „v;��� 4=' h^, ' ��.i.
, �3 . �i ��.� � ^ . . r • . ° ^ � * . . y � l •
,�, • 'f �'�.i::....' ��y; �_.. y
�� . , r ` �' � '� � {� � ��-�.g ' ,ti s i
� ;': - , -��,.��.:.. � �1�►��'���.
Gi,► ..'� � - .,�' '�` � ,�:�. �r.
' •, _ ; � . _ , .. . • "� � � : �ti; :; ..;� �` . P �F; i • - : , .�ri
. � ... �`' • s
.�'' Y
'� rfi; • , x�_ - . ..1F.:�,; �• -;�^.•h ��,... ';:�-. - , • ' i• � �� -• �.
�'. ` � � = ��:: ' `� �� � �� .
r, � ,� �y y�� �. d� � . � A��� �- - .
::^: , �� �... � 1 . �} � V.. ..' ; ' . � � ,h
F,;�.. .. � s � �� . .i � ... - ` o-?�;' .�+ '.-�, '*� � . . �� . 1t'S 's � . r • , �r� y��. �. � �
��• ��`�' � . • . . � g�tr'__ - � _ -� �'R, - � �� -
+�r. •.� � � ' �. .. �'y� . ` ± ti . . � � � . : . . • . . . � . # :: . �� ' ;-: : �, -
"+ ' `�+ r - � yM1 � :. ' +x.;: - a � ... � � � - .
� ?� Ns`� '� � - � � - •I,;: •��. •r:"�;' .w ' . �
��f �� y _ • � •r � j k.�; :��iii�. {,�� � _ sl.���,f-' � ' F' ��. � ,' �. �,.ti.:.
� ��' ' �'�� f� ��` . SUBJECT PROPERTY `� 'r�� "� �� �'-.
i . .�. � r` •. _ � : �. �': �,�,I � �. ,i• ... "`° - �'�.A�?'�
� ^y t � ,r�'� � ... . � � - - ��„ _ . ,w?.. _ � �*• _ .ti � � . •� y`' .:� .
�. .. . , �r .� ,,� ;� . _ � � � ,, - � s �� , • ,;�' �-�
.. �.�� �L . f:.' �:�`r. . � � k`- -.p . J.Y . ���, f� �� .
^t� �. � 3 '1Y �„ .
}�`r .� .�,�.. ;�a.,::= -�y�. . e - � Yr�
�T� . #i'r A�,�; ... :9�Jk',Yy'• ��,+� �f . "� . • .
_f, �" . Pr32801 . ��.�' � � . -
F'� . �'�' �r �y. �:
6-� • p. . :r r► . ��t � r: '�n.•' �' . A'.:.; ' J ' � � . -
�'" �'�f`: .. � t �,,,: q�. • r ��, � ,� �
' '25 . �• r �`.a��r�! � { r.
:.41 � '. � �. � � ' '� •l J - _ �� � ��" ', "�7*�
r:ti �` � . ;
_� ' % � • � � � "� • �'- �
�y •.�.� Yr . (c �
.��,l�'�+m'f� '. , '� �� ' � n 'r � al . o.�..*!,� � ' .. . . •s . •.� r � I� � ' :�'+J#} 9'�
F."�a s' ,M � � `�n . '�4•. , : N •�� ' �. •y } y �,
}; " • • ' F' - c� - �y , N . . _ . . , V
� . . . � - � � BOSONWORTH AV E. . ".'F
�+'��.y � � N � . P� coo � � � - ' .-�o - � `° . r�°i v�i : tiw:. �- . .. �
� . __ �
� . � ' N . . . W� � ' � " N N N N � N N n1 N
N SL68 N SL67 - ���� = •.SL65 SL64 SL63 SL62 _ SL61 SL60 SL59 SL58 9L57
, EPS 234 EPS'.234 -
h SL75 �` SL74 SL56 SL55 ' SL54 SL53 ��,SL52 SL51 SL50 SL49 SL48 SL47
� � N.:
� . M � � N � W � N N . � � ...�w+-�- N .
� c0 . N V CO V � N .
- N � LL� N N N N N� N�' v
N N N
� N N N (V �"'' � •
�..�;,r � GODWIN DRIVE � .
N m O � � N W W m
.- � p N N O. . CO CO V � � � �' . � � � �
V � (D V � . N � In � �
� M M V'"� � � � N N _ � � N . N N N N
N g��gN SL80 . SL34 Sk35 � N SL45 �
SL39- SL40 SL41 SL42 SL43 SL44 __ SL46
� 34 SL36 SL37 SL38 ,�-- ;.Y•
. �.
� ..
11130 � �
L82 SL81 SL33 _ ..,�— .. _ • h �
� - �.
� 11120 � ¢' '+ �G � �� �
:F- r �y�, - � � ! . �`_
�y � ciz�. .:-1�- � '�"�._ �.. �:', . � ` - 'f� r. ;�� �
N
SCALE 1:2,500
P
District of � �
Langley (�
I
� � 25467 BOSONWORTH AVENUE
i �° (2011 photography image)
;�
i�
� o � CORPORATION OF
��L �` THE DISTRICT OF
�� MAPLE RIDGE
; -,
� o � - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: May 31, 2012 FILE: RZ/024/09 BY: PC
��������� ���� ������al�i��� ���a
�i��ii�� ������������ P����•�
�s��������
���:
��4�� 8���nw�rtH A��nu�
�istri��� �tiG �I���� �id��, ��
Au� 3�, ���5
Subi�ifted tfl:
���ul �I�y��
Pthayes8�@gmail.cnm
5ul�rr�itr�d by:
,Y{�>
�\=.:• �,�
�,:
' J .��.f�ka���i.�i� ����,;L�i .
�.�_� -- _ _ -
. c'o���]��'z�iy �.'x'�
�a5:�. ��mni�i•�,i�l ��r�c�c
`i�117��11l1�'!', �i�
V�N ����
APPENDIX C
,; �-r.':.:�;..- �. -
� . J r'ti .
i .
�
� . �
�
�� .
_ �'�1��; �3�• � � - , `- - � ;
The following Diamond Nead Consulting staff performed the site visit and prepared the report. All
general and professional liability insurance and individual accreditations have been provided below for
reference.
Supervisor:
Mike Coulthard, R.P.Bio., R.P.F.
Senior Forester, Biologist
Certified Tree RiskAssessor (46)
Project Staff:
�j,//
���
David Lishman BNRS, P.Ag, FIT
ISA Certified Arborist (PN7535A)
Certified Risk Assessor (SS67)
Contact Information
Phone: 604-733-4886
Fax: 604-733-4879
Email: mike@dianu�ndiieadconsultinR.comordavid@diamondheadconsuftinp.c�om
Website: www.dianbondheadconsultin .K com
Insurance Information
WCB:
General Liability:
Errors & Omissions:
# 657906 AQ (003)
Northbridge General Insurance Corporation - Policy #CBC1935506, $5,000,000
(Mar 2015 to Mar 2016)
Lloyds Underwriters— Policy #1010615D, $1,000,000 (June 2015 to June 2017)
Wiid�r� Deveio;�meni Pem�r,t-25467 �<_�s�n�.�.rorcl�� A��e., Disirici oFA�1aple P,id��
iA�L� �� COIVYENi'S .............................................................................................................................1
2. I�1TldO�UCTION ........................................................................................................................:L
� nnc-�rio�o�,ocv ........................................................................................................................ i
3 SI'P� D�SCRIf�iION ..................................................................................................................... 2
8 FUElDESCRIPi1�IVSANDWILDFIREYHFt�A"i .............................................................................6
Fuel Type C3 (Plot 6) — Coniferous dominated stand ..............................................................................................10
Fuel Type Dl (Plots O5, OS) — Deciduous Dominated Stands ..................................................................................11
Fuel Type M2 (Plot Ol, 09) — Mixed stand of coniferous and deciduous species ...................................................12
Fuel type CS — Mature Conifer pominated Stands (Plots 8, 9 and 10J ....................................................................13
Fueltype 01—Grass fuel Type .................................................................................................................................14
Fuel type C7 (Plot #2) - Open Conifer Fuel Types ....................................................................................................15
5 FIRESMAR`i FUEL PdEMOVh1L,4ND �U�! t3EDUCYION 20NES ..................................................... 17
SteepSlope Covenant Area .....................................................................................................................................19
6 FIZ�SMARiL1dN6SCFI�INGldNDMb11N`Y�N�NC� .....................................................................22
Priority Zone 1(within 10 meters from structures) ................................................................................................21
Priority Zones 2(10-30 meters fram structures} .....................................................................................................22
Priority Zones 3(30-100 meters from structures) ..................................................................................................22
"I FlR�SMARY COMMUNIiY D�SIGN �ECOMMENDl1ilON� ........................................................ �2
Buildingsand Construction .....................................................................................................................................22
AccessManagement ...............................................................................................................................................24
WaterSupply ...........................................................................................................................................................24
Utilities-Electric and Gas .........................................................................................................................................24
H FINAL R�M�1f�ICS ...................................................................................................................... �G
9 RESOURCES AND LINI[5 ........................................................................................................... ^�7
10 APPENDI)t A� DESC�IPYION OF TERMINOLOGY ...................................................................... 23
7� tat�l'EP1DD(�--FICLDAS5C55MENi'C�1k�S ...............................................................................35
Wildland Urban Interface Plots ...............................................................................................................................31
fieldAssessment Cards ...........................................................................................................................................35
6.0 LIMIY1dYlONS ..........................................................................................................................37
Figure 1. Photos of the subject site ...............................................................................................................................3
Figure 2. Location oF proposed development (25467 Bosonworth Avenue) . ...............................................................4
Figure 3. Proposed development plan ...........................................................................................................................5
Figure4. Fuel type map .................................................................................................................................................7
b�liic Gevelapment P�rrnit— 7_5467 BosomvarFh Ave, DiscricC ni Piiaple Ridg2
Figure5. Wildfire Threat mapping .................................................................................................................................9
Figure 6. Photo of an example of a C3 fuel type (Background) ...................................................................................11
Figure 7. Photos from the deciduous dominated stands (D1j .....................................................................................12
Figure 8. Photos from the mixed stands (M2) .............................................................................................................13
Figure 9. Photos of the CS dominated stand ...............................................................................................................14
Figure 10. Photos of the 01 fuel types ........................................................................................................................15
Figure 11. Photos of examples of the C7 fuei types ....................................................................................................16
Figure 12. Approximate park boundaries and fuel types ............................................................................................18
Figure 14. An example of the M2 stand found in Park C .............................................................................................20
Figure 15. Example of fuel treatment within the Environmental retention area ........................................................20
Figure16. Plot locations ..............................................................................................................................................34
Table 1. Component weighting of the Wildland Urban Interface ranking system .........................
Table 2. C3 fuel type characteristics ...............................................................................................
Table 3. D1 general stand characteristics .......................................................................................
Table 4. Generel stand characteristics of an MZ stand ..................................................................
Table 5. CS general stand characteristics .......................................................................................
Table 6. General vegetation characteristics of an 01 fuel type ......................................................
Table 7. C7 general stand characteristics .......................................................................................
Table S. Outline of area deficient of bylaws ...................................................................................
, � i _ , � _ � ii
Diamond Head Consulting Ltd. (DHC) was retained to prepare an assessment of fire interface risks and
mitigation measures for the following proposed development.
Civic address:
Project No.:
Client name:
Date of site visit:
Weather during visit;
25467 Bosonworth Avenue, Maple Ridge, BC
unknown
PaulHayes
June 11, 2015
The overall objective of this report is to assess the potential wildfire threat and provide
recommendations and tools to reduce this threat to the development site. This report is meant to be
submitted as a part of the Wildfire Development Permit application. Specific goals for this project are:
• To assess interface fuels using a standardized fuels hazard assessment procedure;
• To recommend site-specific fuel treatments for adjacent high fuel hazards that will reduce the
risk to structures, human lives, and critical natural features;
• To make recommendations for improving suppression capabilities in and around the proposed
development, and;
• To make recommendations for access, building and landscape materials that will minimize
wildfire threat.
Diamond Nead Consulting Ltd. completed a field assessment of the natural areas around the
development site, and ecology/fuel plots were established. A detailed description of the ecology and the
fuel characteristics was collected for each polygon. This data can be found in Appendix B. Data collected
at each fuel plot included:
o Biogeoclimatic ciassification;
• Soil and humus characteristics;
• Siope, aspect and terrain classification;
• Forest stand composition by layer (species, density, age, diameter, height, etc.);
o Vertical and horizontal stand structure;
o Quantity and distribution of ladder fuels;
• Composition and coverage of understory brush, herbs and grasses, and;
• Quantity and distribution of ground fuels by size class.
The Wildfire Development Permit application for the District of Maple Ridge requires that the risk from
wildfire to the development be assessed following the standards in the NFPA 1144 manual. The
assessment procedures for this risk assessment were not available at the time of the field assessment.
For other similar assessments, DHC has been assessing wildfire risk following the assessment procedures
in the Rating Interface Wildfire Threats in British Columbia manual (2008, updated in 2013). This system
is scientifically justifiable with proven wildland fire behaviour principles and has close ties with the
Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating System (DFFDRS). The fire behaviour triangle is the main focus of
this system. The triangle consists of fuel, weather, and topography. Positions and types of structure are
also taken into account. Table 1 indicates how each component is weighted.
Table 1_. Component weighting of the Wildland Urban Interface ranking system.
� Component � Percent Weight
Fuel – ----� 52 % - — -
Weather 10 %
Topography I 18 %
Structural(other) 20 %
The following documents were referenced in the completion of this report:
• A proposed lot detail package completed hy D.K. Bowins & Associates Inc. (dated March 23,
2015)
• Agricultural Impact Assessment Report by Letts Environmental Consultants (Dated September 4,
2011).
• Replanting criteria in the ALR by Letts Environmental Consultants
Any changes to these reports should be provided to Diamond Head Consulting so that this wildfire
report can be updated accordingly.
The subject site consists of one large property, approximately 2 hectares in size, located in Maple Ridge.
The current zoning is RS-3, but the proposal is to rezone the property from RS-3 to RS-2 and divide the
property into four lots. A large portion of the subject site has already been cleared. The development
site is predominately located on a north facing slope and there is a proposed restrictive covenant area
for the steep slope in the northeast corner of the lot. The subject site also has a 15 metre restrictive
covenant to tlie Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) to the north. The site will be accessed from eosonworth
Avenue. A large portion of the area to the south of the property has been recently developed. Figure 1
illustrates the location of the subject property and Figure 2 shows the most recent lot layout of the
proposed development.
. . . , . . . . -. , . . . . . i �.. . , . � i -. .. �� 2
t� �_�.�. . .i
i .
ri • �
-.;�: = 7:-i
a
�'a �i
�3� ' i
� �:�%.• . . �' . . _ � i
Figure 1. Photos of the subject site.
1
'v_
� �
� .: .�-�y��
1 t �' #i�
�
� ,??�'
j;'?�:iy.:
.:Y`:,
��
' � i yti
rt ! �
iK
!�
. .. ;i� .,. � . . � � .;I � ��. ��-: � _� �� . 3
Legend
�q - i�<i:�..���:i
e•ez::
,
,�� � ��� �� �� � ,� � , � i, ; —, ; � ;: a
� ' ' , r; I �i���1 , 1i I I
li , � '�i I �I i �. ,� � I ll�
' '�' ��� " ��
I ��` � 1i � I� ';
, � � 1�
i� �� � �, - ��� � � � �1�� �' � �'=
,
i ! I,; � �� --I� � I.',�� I� �l I
? il .! i � -I �I --�,I I` - � i II �- \\ - - - - - _ -- �;
il � � \ �� jj �� �; lI� I�i
� J � � �; - i� II �� � I� ���;'Iii ��; `' I� i'�
� � � � � '_ �,
�::. � ,�� �! � , �� �.; ' I
� �'� I �� 1 � ' ' `
� �I �� � '��,_ �{ -- �� ���� �; I� _ E�i_ _ il
i� _ i
�i �� - � �� �� {� �� � �.. �� -
1' Ii, I I:' I i � ',.. ,'� I i I
I'` I` - � lii' I �III}� �. ��� I� �11 �II ���� �L (
I ! ` �I I
� ���� �������l�����,� I�' ; �� � � ��� - -
� � ; �,
� � :�,,��_ =��i ��� � � I, ;�
- ' �� __!_- ��--���� -
��� , � ;. �� � �� - - - - �
'� ;' � �� � � --,���1��►� i' — �I 'f ii —�
��__
� �� ,_. c...�..
� �.-. - ' - i-��„ �ii . � iii �i�
, . � ,. � i i i, i. i i i�
(F�Li1a � � � � , � i �. : .
� . .. 0 :5;0 ICU 'IS`.0 12}) � Y-�
_. , lii;�: ,...,,.rs
Figure 2. Locaiion oi proposed developmeni (Z5467 Bosonworfh Avenue).
, � . , . . . � � . . ... ' '. 1 . . . . . . . .i . . � �
�� z a � i i � �� �. '��
I j I:6 ,i' �' i-
I,.. � _ . . � ','I —
..
� _ --- — ��� � ��•— s_�
I', ,. — — — — � — � \ �
_ �.
a ) ( � [:� 1 �'`
;
,
. ,
= � .� � ; ,
z� . :
r_ , ' - - . ...
.. - -. � � _ � _
� '� ` iriF4 i
�� � �' � I ' -,1 i t � -s
� � i_ i lutit > .._��
.
-;..—�-. . i :::. i� � . . '� . . � - � . ` I iF H � f - -_
�i -„� ,� I .' � -;
�,: -.� . , ,.. --
:. . . .. � , — — �
'. F K � - -� � �.� _ � � .
: . � . ., _. � : �.:;.- - . � -
_, � . . . i . -_ I , . _ \\ '
i _ �' ' ,� ,,,<_ % . ; ` , \
i.,. �, , '<� � asr�
,, !' .>. ,,,o �
��
�,, �
�� �' �I . `'��sc�wt <<Tii:m•,...-
i `'
i . , x� ' . � _ _ _
a � �- \ � � � ��� L .
" ,i i� �• >�- "� ,e -- 1 . �;..: _ � - . ,
. ' � ... . ':��' .�- - _ ' ... - :. �- -' .. .._.... . __-.
Figure 3. Proposed developmeni plan.
5
Forested areas within 100m of the proposed development site were classified into the fuel types
mapped in Figure 4. DHC did not have permission to access private property adjacent to the
development site; therefore, these stands were assessed visually from the project property. The fuels
have been divided into c�assifications based on the sixteen national benchmark fuel types that are used
by the Canadian Fire Behaviour Prediction System. Six fuel types were identified, and are described
below.
� , . 6
,�ti . c i
� '+� �"
`_ j ' � , l,
�:nn '
�'
<� ,
�
Each fuel type and distinct stand was also assessed for wildfire threat using the Wildfire Urban Interface
worksheet. Based on this ranking system, the majority of the surrounding fuel types pose a moderate
wildfire threat to the subject site. Figure 5 outlines the wildfire threat and plot locations within 100m of
the subject property. The Wildfire Urban Interface (WUI) ratings and plot characteristics are summarized
in Appendix B.
on
c
�
�
�
2
f0
�
�
f�
3
v
�
a
0
J
rl
,�. ��I i'I' �
ji I
� � ' .-4lli o
i ,I
1 ' �ii
� I I'; II ','�
i �l�
1 '�_I� �� I
,,\ Z — -..; si�a H��uav��'��i
`{ '` �III{ � �' �
II ��; � �I I I I I
� I , i , ��� �.�..;
� \ �i
�� ;,3��''�
_
i L c
��I E\6ij1�,'!�dl
;II i }
� � _ � � � � ��f�ZEa�l
'ri n��
� I �'I �m%iG .
i:
.1 �I ! ,
t�m o '���' '� _�'
. , � �', ; i : I11
I I ,
o li _�I'-_._
N
N
�
N
0 0
v N
F�.i;�i T,�ia� �:�t — Cc�i�i�iLro�.is rat�ro5in�rt��t1 s��ns�l �
One mature and dense conifer dominate stand exists about 150m south west of the site. This stand is
classified as C3 and has greater than 80% coniferous tree composition. The main canopy lay consists of
Western Redcedar (Thuja plicatn), Western Hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla), and Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga
menziesii). Both of these stands are small in size (<0.5 ha), but are connected to forested stands. These
stands are separated from the subject site by recent developments, roads, and deciduous dominated
stands. These buffers reduce the wildfire risk to the site, but these stands stiil pose a moderate risk to
the subject site. This is due to the potenEial for a fire to move into the crowns of the trees and transport
embers (spot) into the development. A high intensity crown fire in this stand would be difficult to
suppress and would cause significant spotting. Table 3 outlines general stand characteristics as defined
bythe Wildland Urban Interface WildfireThreatAssessment Worksheet.
Table 2. C3 fuel type characteristics.
Characteristic Level Descriptian
Surface fuel continuity (% cover) Low 20-40 % cover
Vegetation fuel composition Low Nerbs and deciduous shrubs
Fine woody debris continuity (<=7cm) (% Low Scattered, <10% coverage
cover)
Large woody debris Continuity (>=7cm) (%
Low Scattered, <10% coverage
cover)
Live conifer canopy closure (%) Med 41-60%
Live deciduous closure (%) Very High QO% crown closure
Live and dead conifer crown height (m) High 1-<2m
Live and dead suppressed and understory
conifer (stems/ha) Very Low 0-500 stems/ha
10
�I . i -:
�, :'
Figure 6. Photo of an example oi a C3 fuel iype (Bacl<ground).
fu�l `I'yp� �'i -� �eci�luous DorninaC��cl 5tands
Large areas of deciduous dominated stands classified as a D1 fuel type are found within the assessment
area. These stands are mainly located next to M2 stands and break up the connectivity of the more
conifer dominated stands. Dl stands generally have less than 20% coniferous component and are
dominated by even aged native deciduous trees such as Red Alder (Alnus rubra), Bigleaf Maple (Acer
mocrophyllum), and/or Black Cottonwood (Populus bolsamifero ssp. Balsamifera). A large area south of
Godwin Drive has recently been cleared for development. The area has been naturally revegetated by
Red Alder. This are has 2-3 year old Red Alder trees at over 3000 stems per hectare.
Residential lots with manicured lawns and ornamental tree species have also been classified as a Dl fuel
type. These areas do not have a dense canopy cover and grasses are maintained below 10cm in height
and watered regularly throughout the summer months. Conifer trees in these areas are usually isolated
and surrounded by none flammable fuel types, reducing the wildfire risk to the area.
D1 fuel types have a low flammability and would not support a fast spreading, high intensity wildfire. D1
stands pose a low wildfire risk and are expected to act as fuel breaks decreasing the overall wildfire
threat to the site. Table 3 outlines the general stand characteristics of D1 stands.
Table 3. D7. general stand characterisiics.
11
Live conifer canopy closure (%) Very low < 20% crown closure
Live deciduous closure (%) Very low
>80% or <40% coniferous crown
closure
Live and dead conifer crown height (m) Very low Sm+or <20% conifer crown closure
Live and dead suppressed and understory conifer Very Low 0-500 stems/ha
(stems/ha)
�" �
Figwe 7. Photos from the deciduous dorninaied sfands (D1) adjacent co the site.
f���:l'I y�e IVIti � IViix�d sianci �f eoni��i��i.is �nel rlscicli.�o��s sp�ci��
The subject site is surrounded (immediately north, west and east of the site) by a number of forested
stands consisting of 6oth conifer and deciduous tree species. These stands are classified as a M2 fuel
type. A portion of the subject site is classified as a M2 site. Some of this area is to be retained in the
covenant restriction in the north east corner of the property. M2 stands consists mainly of Bigleaf
maple, Red alder, Western redcedar and Western hemlock. Stand density is variable ranging from 600 to
more than 1,000 stems per hectare.
A large portion of the area surrounding the development site is intermixed forest and residential
structures with landscape trees. These areas differ from the D1 residential fuel type in having a lower
density of driveways, irrigated lawns and structures to break up the forest fuel continuity. This fuel type
is composed of mostly natural areas with the odd residence intermixed throughout the stand. The
relatively open canopy and deciduous and conifer species coverage percentages allows the M2 fuel type
to be applied to these areas.
The fire behavior potential in these stands varies depending on the percentage content of coniferous
species. Most of the stands adjacent to the site have a coniferous component of approximately 60% and
pose a moderate risk to the site. There are isolated groups of conifers that pose a moderate risk. The soi
12
moisture regime in these areas is wet with low ground fuel accumulations. These conditions are poor for
supporting a wildfire ignition. If a surface fire did start it would be unlikely to become a crown fire. Table
4 outlines general stand characteristics.
Table 4. General stand characterisYics of an M2 stand.
Characteristic Level Description
Surface fuel continuity (% cover) Low 20-40 % cover
Vegetation fuel composition Low Herbs and deciduous shrubs
Fine woody debris continuity (<=7cm) (% cover) Low Scattered, <10% coverage
Large woody debris Continuity (>=7cm) (% cover) Low-Med 10-25% coverage
Live conifer canopy closure (%) Low 20-40% crown closure
Live deciduous closure (%) High 20-40% crown closure
Live and dead conifer crown height (m) Med 2-<3 m
Live and dead suppressed and understory conifer Very Low 0-500 stems/ha
(stems/ha)
tti
Figw e 8. Photos from ihe mixed stands (M2).
P�u�l iyp� C� � hiin��s:sn•� Cor�if�r C)ominai:�[I :;Yarnis
One small (^'0.20 ha) stand consisting of immature Western Redcedar is located directly west of the
subject site. This stand consists of mainly of an overgrown imrnature cedar hedge. The stand has crowns
that extend to the ground and trees are planted approximately 2 metres apart. This fuel type potentially
poses a moderate wildfire threat; however, in this case the stand is small, surrounded by M2 and D1
stands, limiting the threat to the site. The burn difficulty of these stands is moderate to high and if fire is
wind driven then there is a high potential for an active crown fire. Table 5 outlines the general stand
characteristics of a C4 stand.
13
Table 5. C4 general stand characteristics.
Characteristic Level Description
Surface fuel continuity (% cover) Low 20-40 % cover
Vegetation fuel composition Low Herbs and deciduous shrubs
Fine woody debris continuity (<=7cm) (% Low Scattered, <10% coverage
cover)
Large woody debris Continuity (>=7cm) (% Low <10% coverage
cover)
Live conifer canopy closure (%) High 61-80% crown closure
Live deciduous closure (%) Very High <20% crown closure
Live and dead conifer crown height (m) Very High <1 m
Live and dead suppressed and understory VeryLow 0-SOOstems/ha
conifer (stems/ha)
Figure 9. Photos of ihe C4 dorninated stand.
i�u�l iy�5c> 0'I =- �;i�ass fuc I'I�Yl��
�' � �,,:� , i4
�'�' � r
I � '•' �. �, + ���� �',
a� '
� :'Y�` N� j �% :'
l . ar^.:!¢k5�-;:.�•��-wt.'.r r+.? : :7acrf
1 ' j
r Si
- i
There are a number of smaller grass dominated fuel types located throughout approximately 200
metres northeast of the site. These areas consist native and non-native grass species that are not
maintained or watered throughout the dry summer months. These areas cure in the summer months,
providing the conditions for high rates of spread of wildfire.
The 01 fuel type has two subtype designations; 01a for matted grass conditions that have a higher
moisture content, reducing the flammability of the grass. The other is Olb, which describes standing
dead grass that has cured. The 01b fuel type has a much high rate of spread and can easily ignite. The
14
rate of spread and fire intensity are greatly influenced by the proportion of cured or dead material in the
grassland. Table 6 outlines the general stand characteristics of an 01 stand.
Table 6. General vegetaiion characteristics of an 01 fuel type.
Characteristic Level Description
Surface fuel continuity (% cover) High 61-80% cover
Vegetation fuel composition (% cover) High Pinegrass, Juniper
Fine woody debris continuity (<=7cm) (%
Mod 10-25% coverage
cover)
Large woody debris Continuity (>=7cm) (% Low <10% coverage
cover)
Live conifer canopy closure (%) Very Low QO% crown closure
Live deciduous closure (%) Very High QO% crown closure
Live and dead conifer crown height (m) Very Low 5+ m or <20% conifer crown closure
Live and dead suppressed and understory Very Low 0-500 stems/ha
conifer (stems/ha)
"rF � �
i',
Figure 10. Photas of the 01 fuel Yypes.
i�i_a�l iypca C7 �• f���en Conii�r Fi�E�I 7y���s
One small stand approximately 200 metres north east of the site is classified a C7 fuel type. This stands
consists of conifer trees that are sparsely spaced (>600 stems per ha) and have an understory consisting
of grasses and deciduous shrubs. The tree species in these areas are dominated by Western Redcedar,
Douglas fir, and western hemlock that are growing in isolated islands. These stands pose a moderate risk
to the su6ject site. There is a moderate potential for an active crown fire, but it must be wind driven.
These stands are connected to denser and more flammable areas increasing the wildfire threat. A high
15
intensity crown fire in this stand would be difficult to suppress and would cause significant spotting.
Table 7 outlines the general stand characteristics of a C7 stand.
Table 7. C7 general stand characteristics.
Characteristic Level Description
Surface fuel continuity (% cover): Med 41-60 % cover
Vegetation fuel cornposition (% cover) Low Herbs and deciduous shrubs
Fine woody debris continuity (<=7cm) (% Low Scattered, <10% coverage
cover)
Large woody debris Continuity (>=7cm) (% Low <10% coverage
cover)
Live conifer canopy closure (%) Low 21-40% crown closure
Live deciduous closure (%) Very High <20% crown closure
Live and dead conifer crown height (m) High 1-<2m
Live and dead suppressed and understory Very Low 0-500 stems/ha
conifer (stems/ha)
�.:. /�
� 'Y �r ,
- f?r',�.�.r
i:;. ': � � ..�:
L� �_ ._ _. � � '_
. � �. _ f
�� � ��� � �.�
, r ( �p
,� !
, .�
�� -
i .,� a � �
. . �i f �' r i � .
`, !, � 1 y :. �3�"f;
�
� i � � t�i ��w�
,i1 � �ii'' � ���,
� � '���' r�j,.
� � � I� � ��.; • f � J ",
,q ���.� k
.G
F ' �' �+I K �' `l.
� t � � � � �� � ��� :
r } r �
w� y�. y a
S�� � �N C 1:. + # � ^
_ �tr.:� + b ? � � (:��• ,
f-igure :L1. Photos of examples of the C7 fuel types.
1�
The FireSmart Program outlines three priority areas:
s Priority Zone 1(0-10m from the structure);
• Priority Zone 2(10-30m from the structure); and
• Priority Zone 3(30m-100m from the structure)
Treatments in FireSmart Zones 1 and 2 involve fuel removal, fuel reduction, and fuel conversion with the
objective of creating a'defensible' space around homes from which to suppress a wildfire. Fuel
management in Priority Zone 3 is only needed in specific cases when there is high hazard levels resulting
from heavy continuous forest vegetation and steep topography are not reduced enough by fuel
management in Priority Zone 2. No work is recommended to be completed on adjacent properties.
The proposed lots will encompass all three of the Priority Zones. There are two restrictive covenants
proposed on the subject site; one for the protection of the ALR to the north and one for the steep slopes
in the northeast corner of the property. The majority of the vegetation along the ALR covenant
boundary has already been removed. The ALR legislation requires this area to be replanted. Landscape
and planting criteria outlined in Section 6 should be followed. The steep slope covenant area has not
been cleared of vegetation. This area is approximately 20m from the proposed structure to be built on
the eastern lot. The rest of the lot has been cleared for the development.
The steep slope covenant is composed of an M2 fuel type and is located downhill from the proposed
developments. Due to the proximity to the proposed houses, minor FireSmart fuel treatments are
recommended to reduce wildfire threat to the proposed development.
All trees on the remaining lot areas are proposed to be removed from the site. During the removal of
trees for the development, all debris must be removed from site or chipped and spread onsite so that
the accumulation does not exceed a depth of 20 cm in any location. Debris should not be allowed to
accumulate onsite during the summer months and should not be left within 10 m of public roads. Figure
12 outlines the approximate park boundaries (ALR and steep slope areas) for the development.
17
�
.�, > �'� ..-s: c , y.
r . �
) � �. `.��*� �x'. � � � ��� . ��, ' yA �� SE� ' ��
�t�':3�l+.��� . I � J .
,�li � ;, ' �� . i � _ � � _ -
i �. , _ _ f , .'��� ,I
! �I �'
I�I�, ! ��
�•1I�'�I ��V ',,
����
,li 1
Ir -i�
' i� 1 �: ��,
,, ��.�I.
. . � . y ���'�i �� �
_ a�
� n 1 j:
� ' I;
'%._. , i j �I
li II ^ i
�'. ' � � ..;:c•,.
i _
; .
' , '
1 ,
nN
I� ° a 1 - � _ _---
NI� . �
� I
W : ,_ � . ,. `' �� ,
� �� ����� � � �
�� �� ' - = ''� - _ �,
� j . ' � , . �1 ,' �_ - -
��; ` . 1 , , , '��
���" .•
� ���� = �, ���
�� - � � i
i=us:! i:sszr'r,rii�n'i ¢a�y'i:i�e �i:2�=�� hl���a�= C�>v�narii: tlrc,a
The steep slope restricted covenant areas is proposed to have the existing vegetation and trees
retained. This area is dominated by a mixed conifer and deciduous tree (M2 fuel type). This areas pose a
moderate risk to the subject site, therefore, fuel treatments are recommended. The majority of
covenant area is found within FiresmarYs Priority Zone 2 area (10-30m from structures). Some of the
steep slope covenant area is further than 30m but is recommended to be treated together.
Recommended treatments to the covenant areas include removal of select trees to break up horizontal
canopy continuity and remove ladder fuels from the lower canopy. The following fuel reduction
activities are recommended:
• Thinning should remove the majority of smaller conifer tree ingrowth, including all understory
trees (<8m tall);
o Remove all trees growing under the canopy of a taller tree;
o All dead and dying trees should be removed;
• The lower branches of all retained trees should be pruned to a minimum height of four meters;
• Woody debris and downed trees should be removed. Low densities of woody debris should be
retained at greater than 0.5 kg/mZ and less than 3 kg/m2;
• Larger decayed logs do not pose a significant wildfire risk and should be retained for ecological
value;
o No roots are to be disturbed and tree removal should be done in a way that minimizes ground
disturbance;
• DHC recommends that alI fuel treatment areas be delineated and prescribed by a Professional
Forester in the field. Figure 14 illustrates pre and post treatment examples.
Possible methods for abating the residual treatment materiai inlcude removal or chipping and scattering
the material. Small and large woody debris can be left on site at low densities (<0.5 kgJmZ and <3 kg/m2
respectively), as long as no piles or accumulations remain. These treatments should occur within three
months of development permit issuance, or immediately if treatments take place during the high fire
risk season.
19
� !' I P4
11 �.�,Y E� Y � � i
� �� �'j
�
��i(���” ?���>�'-�
I.�i,l. �
+
l
. �,1�A�T. ,
{� �i, �J
�' � •:� �g �:lI
` i
�j ;�'Y
i'� M t � ,
1 � 'j
�' ,� � �{��1..' � 1��tC :.�
Lx� 1 .T _
t�� y: t .�
f �-' ' 4c��
.. .. , . �;:�j
n �'
Figure 13. Phot of the M2 siand found in Paii< C.
Fuel Type-Pre 7reatment
i
Fuel Type-Pos[ Treatment
�� �
r_
- M1. v: �:
_ - � � �
ie;iw'�,�;� �=- `a _-
'' � . � �� � �� ��
I I
Figure 14. Example of fuel treatment within the EnvironmenYal retention area.
20
. . � . .. . : . ,. _ . � :i , n. . .:-•,i . . ,-. . �
An Environmental Assessment of 25467 Bosonworth Avenue completed by Letts Environmental
Consultants Itd. indicates that the ALR Covenant area requires a replanting plan. Letts Environmental
Consultants Itd. recommends that:
"A 15m vegetative screen with a double row of coniferous trees, followed by a triple row of trespass
inhibiting shrubs, followed by a double row of screening shrubs and a fence along the 15.0 m boundary
will be required."
The proposed plantings will be approximately 40 metres from the proposed structures, therefore
planting coniferous trees in this area is acceptable, but DHC recommends that deciduous trees are
planted and promoted in this area. Deciduous trees could be planted between conifers in order to
reduce the conifer crown continuality.
There are currently no detailed landscape or development plans, therefore general recommendations
are provided for the priority areas. No work is recommended to be completed on adjacent properties.
Landscaping and maintenance for the site should follow FireSmart principals (Ministry of Forests
Wildfire Management Branch, Firesmart Program -http://bcwildfire.ca/Prevention/firesmart.htm).
These recommendationsinclude strategic selection of fire resistant replacement trees as well as
landscaping and maintenance standards. A list of fire resistant plants and trees can be found at the fire
smart eanada website (httns://www.firesmcuicanndn.ccrJimclges/up(oads/resources/FrreSmart-Guide-to-
Lm�scaping. pdFl
F'riori'ry 7on� "� (wiChin 2p m�i:crs fi�orn si:ruskur�s)
The initial fuel treatment should be addressed by the developer before the lots are sold. The following
maintenance recommendations should be completed by the homeowner. The goal in this zone is to
remove hazardous fuels and convert vegetation to fire resistance species to produce an environment
that does not support combustion. The following is recommended within Priority Zone 1:
• There should be a lOm defensible space to protect structures from an approaching wildfire and
to reduce the potential for a structural fire spreading to the wildland;
• Vegetation within this zone should be of a fire-resistant species;
• All conifer trees should be removed within this area;
• Trees within this zone should be pruned to a height of 4 meters and not overhang the house or
porch;
• Annual grasses within 10 meters of buildings should be kept mowed to 10 centimeters or less
and watered regularly during the summer months;
o DHC recognizes that District watering bylaws may not allow for watering during the
summer months.
• Ground litter and downed trees should be removed regularly and prior to the fire season;
• Dead and dying trees should be removed before they become a fuel/safety hazard;
• Remove all piled debris (firewood, building materials, and other combustible material) to
outside of the fuel free zone during summer rnonths;
• Defensible space should be provided by the developer and maintained by the individual
property owner, and;
21
• Any work in riparian areas is to be supervised by a Professional Biologist.
F�rlc�ri9:y ��i1�s 2{:s0-:t�1 ��rs�=rr rs ����•Ei s'tiruri:i�r�es)
This zone is found within each proposed lot and also within the two covenant areas. The following
recommendations should be followed for future maintenance of the area. The goal in this zone is to
reduce flammable vegetation through thinning and pruning to produce an environment that will only
support Iow-intensity surface fires. Recommendations for this area include:
e Deciduous composition in the overstory should be promoted;
• Conifer trees regenerated after the initial treatment area within the sub-canopy layer and
understory (generally shorter than ^'10m) should be removed. These are conifers that have
lower branches to the ground and would act as ladder fuels to overhead conifer trees;
o Canopy heights of conifers should be kept to a height of 4 meters;
o Remove all dead and dying trees;
• Dispose of alI slash created by treatments off site or chipped and retain onsite. Chips should not
be a left onsite at a depth of greater than 10cm. Low densities of woody debris should he
retained at greater than 0.5 kg/mZ and less than 3 kg/mZ;
e No debris should be left in the riparian areas except under the direction of a Professional
Biologist;
• Any local accumulations of woody material should be removed from the site or scattered so that
they are discontinuous.
o This zone should be constructed by the developer and maintained by the individual property
owner.
o All work in riparian areas to be supervised by a Professional Biologist.
�i'li7Yli:�v �UY1�?5 :i �iO�:l I�C] f(1�'i:tYS'iP4111 5C'r 41s;i:U1'c'S�
Oue to the moderate wildfire risk to the site, there are no recommended treatments in this area.
Wildfire fuel mitigation can be successfully completed using mitigation techniques in priority zones 1
and 2.
�a�ii�iii�;�:,nr,i Car�s�:r�.�c;:ior�
Generally, during a wildfire, homes are ignited as a resuit of embers landing and accumulating on
vulnerable surfaces such as roofs, verandas, eaves and openings. Embers can also land on or in nearby
flammable materials such as bushes, trees or woodpiles and, if the resulting fire is near the home, create
enough radiant heat to ignite the walls of the home. Small fires in the yard can also spread towards the
structures, beneath porches or under homes. Therefore, the building material and construction
techniques are a paramount concern for homes in the interface.
Construction standards outlined by NFPA 1144 (Standard for Reducing Structure Ignition Hazards from
Wildland Fire) for roofs, chimneys, balconies, decks and porches apply to all new houses within the
development and in future developments within the area. NFPA 1141(Standard for Fire Protection
Infrastructure for Land Development in Wildland, Rural, and Suburban area) ouflines requirements to be
followed for the development of fire protection and emergency services infrastructure to aid in the
protection of people and property from fire dangers and allows emergency services to access the site.
22
,,. _ . ` _,. .,i . .�,. � ,. ..
The best management building and construction guidelines for this construction are summarized as
fol lows:
Building Iocations
• The best management practices would be a setback of a minimum of lOm between the building
envelope and the forest edge. This 10m zone must not support combustible fuels.
o Lot 1 is approximately 5 metres from the offsite stand located west of the site. If
possible, the house should be moved further east.
• Buildings must be separated from other buildings by at least 9.144 m.
e 10 metre fire breaks may incorporate cleared parks, roads, or trails.
Building Design
NFPA 1144 (Standard for Reducing Structure Ignition Hazards from Wildland Fire) building
guidelines are to he used for all new development.
Fire resistant building materials and methods:
o Class A or B rated roofing material on new roofs and >50% roof replacements;
o All vents are screened with metal screens;
o Non-combustible soffits;
o Overhanging projections protected;
o Overhanging buildings protected;
o Exterior vertical wall clad with ignition resistive material with a minimum 20-minute fire
rated assembly where walls are potentially exposed to a wildland fire;
o Non-combustible window screens;
o Non-combustible 20 minute rated exterior doors;
o Spark arrestors on aIl wood burning appliances (securely attached and made of 12-.
gauge welded or woven wire mess screen with mesh opening of less than 12 mm);
o Laminated or muiti-paned windows.
o All accessory buildings located 10 meters or less from the house shall meet the same building
standards required of the house.
Windows and Door Glazing, Eaves, Vents and Openings
• Remove vegetation from within 10 meters of glazed openings unless there are solid shutters to
cover the glazing;
e All eaves, attics, and underfloor openings need solid, non-flammable protective covers;
• Laminated glass and 20 minute rated door assembles should be used on building surfaces facing
theforestinterface.
Balcony, Decks and Porches
Deck surface material should be made of predominantly non-combustible or fire-resistant
materials such as wood composite products;
Slotted deck surface allow needle litter to accumulate beneath the deck. Provide access to this
space to allow for removal of this debris.
23
� � , . , , _� � ., o
Guidelines during Construction
• During construction of houses, all waste construction materials including brush and land clearing
debris needs to be cleaned up on a regular basis to minimize the potential risk;
• No combustible materials should be left at the completion of construction;
• Prior to construction of any wood frame buildings, there must be fire hydrants within operating
range.
l�ccess NlanaS�rn�nC
The road network into and within a community serves several needs:
• Access for emergency vehicles;
• Escape routes for residents; and
• Fuel breaks.
Communities with cul-de-sacs, narrow driveways and dead-end streets impede fire suppression efforts.
Wildfire risk can be reduced by careful planning of access systems (road and trails) within and adjacent
to the development. Two means of access are preferred for the subdivision. If two access points are not
possible, then the single access must have the capability of accommodating two fire trucks— each with a
width of 2.9m- safely passing each other.
Access roads can act as fuel breaks for surface and crown fires, and can also provide control lines for
suppression efforts. This should be considered when planning new road systems for recreation or future
developments. Trails are generally not as effective for fuel breaks or access when compared to roads.
However, they do facilitate access for fire crews and act as fuel breaks for surface fires. The trail system
should be capable of emergency vehicle access with a 1.5 metre trail base and minimum of 2 metres
cleared vegetation and pullouts for passing and turn around every 500 metres. No trails are proposed
for this development.
The proposed development is not a subdivision and each lot individually accesses Bosonworth Avenue
from the north. From Bosonworth Avenue, there are multiple routes out of the area.
Wai�r Supp�V
Water is the most effective fire suppression tool: Fire suppression requires large quantities of water to
be successful and ensuring an adequate supply for fire suppression may make the difference to saving a
community. It is assumed that the proposed development will be serviced by a hydrant system designed
and installed consistent with the District of Maple Ridge Fire Hydrant Standards. The hydrant system
should be adequate as a water supply based upon the level of wildfire risk.
l��ilieies-lil�riric. �r�d Gas
Overhead transmission or distribution Iines are a major ignition hazard. Falling trees or branches can
knock a powerline to the ground where it can remain charged and potentially start a fire. Developments
near transmission lines should refer to the following document.
htfps://www.bch dro.corn content/dam/f3CFiVdro custoro�er-portal/documentslcorqorate/safetv/bc-
hydi�o-ri�hts-of-waV_ ��������es-comnatible-uses-devefoument-near-power-lines.pdf
24
Transmission Iines have the highest ignition potential because of the high voltage and their often
remote and difficult to access locations. When trees or vegetation are in close proximity to transmission
lines electricity can arc and ignite a wildfire. Primary and secondary lines are lower voltage but have
narrower clearances and are more susceptible to being overgrown by vegetation, which can lead to
arcing and ignition. Underground lines are the safest in terms of minimizing the risk of ignition. Where
such a system is not feasible, overhead utility lines should have a clearance of at least 3 meters from
vegetation. Inspections of these utility lines for hazard trees should occur annually.
25
Planners, engineers, and landscape architects should refer to this report, NFPA1141, and the FireSmart
manual during the design phase of this development. The District of Maple Ridge requires that the
proposed development is consistent with the applicable Development Pennit Guidelines as provided by
the District, and NFPA 1144-Standard for Reducing Structure Ignition Hazards from Wildland Fire (latest
edition) and NFPA 1141-Standard for Fire Protection Infrastructure for Land Developments in Suburban
and Rural Areas (latest edition).
Diamond Head Consulting was given limited information on specific building materials and landscaping
plans. Therefore, general recommendations were made in order to reduce wildfire risk to the proposed
development. DHC was provided with a basic lot layout. If the lot layout is to be changed in the future,
DHC should be notified. Based on this material, the deficiencies described in Table 7 were identified.
Table 8. Oufline of area deficient of bylaws.
Deficient Area Solution
Building setback- The recommended setback If possible, move the proposed development
from all fuels is 10m. Lot 1 is approximately east so that it is 10m from the lot boundary.
Sm from the adjacent forest.
All construction operations should be conducted according to the Wildfire Act and the regulations.
Following these regulations will help reduce liability and protect the development as an investment.
Contractors should have certified 5-100 workers on-site. Periodic inspections should be conducted
during the fire season to ensure that the Act and associated regulations are being adhered to.
If the recommendations made within this report and the requirements outlined by the District of Maple
Ridge are complied with, the risk of wildfire to this project site will be significantly reduced. If there are
any questions or concerns as to the contents of this report, please contact us at any time.
Sincerely,
Project Staff:
�%, �
��/
_��
David Lishman, FIT, P. Ag
ISA Certified Arborist (PN-7535A)
ISA Certified Tree Risk Assessor (1867)
Certified Wildand Fire Practitioner
Supervisor:
Mike Coulthard, R.P.Bio., R.P.F.
Senior Forester, Biologist
Certified Tree Risk Assessor (46)
26
� _ , 1 � , �
Agee, James K. 1993. Fire EcolosV of the Pacific Northwest. Island Press. Covelo, California.
Agee,1.K. 1996. The influence of forest structure on fire behavior. Presented at the 17`n Annual Forest
Vegetation Management Conference, Redding CA, January 16-18, 1996.
Agee, J.K., G. Bahro, M.A Finney, P.N. Omin, D.B. Sapsis, C.N. Skinner, J.W. van Wagtendonk, and C.P.
Weatherspoon. 2000. The use of shaded fuelbreaks in landscape fire manaRement. Forest Ecology and
Management 127 (2000):55-66
Agee,1.K. and M.H. Huff. 1986. Structure and orocess aoals for ve�etation in wilderness areas. Pages
17-25 in Lucas, R.C. compiler. Proceedings-National wilderness research conference: current research,
23-26 July 1985, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report INT-Z12.
Arno, S.F., 1980. Forest fire history in the northern Rockies. Journal of Forestry. 78: 460-465.
Brown, R. 2000. Thinning, Fire and Forest Restoration: A science-based approach for national forests in
the interior northwest. for Defenders of Wildlife. West Linn, Oregon.
Graham, Russel T., Dr. Sarah McCaffrey, and Dr. Theresa B. Jain. 2004. Science Basis for Changing Forest
Structure to Modify Wildfire Behavior and Severity. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service.
RMRS-GTR-120.
Graham, Russel T., A. Harvey, T.B. Jain and J.R. Tonn. 1999. The Effects of Thinnin� and Similar Stand
Treatments on Fire Behavior in Western Forests. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report PNW-
GTR-463.
Ingalsbee, Timothy. 2004. American Lands proposal for fuels reduction and restoration.
URL• hitp //ww�v.l<eCtleranpe.orK/salva�efo[,�in�/In�alsbee-restoration.ntrnl.
Meidinger, D. Pojar, J.1991. Ecosystems of British Columbia. BC Ministry of Forests, Research Branch.
Victoria, BC.
URL• httu;[/wevw.for.Kov.hc.ca/hfdluubs Qocs Srs Siiseries:htin
National Fire Protection Association. 2013. NFPA 1144. Standard for Reducing Structure Ignition Hazards
from Wildland Fire.
National Fire Protection Association. 2013. NFPA 1141. Standard for Fire Protection Infrastructure for
Land Developments in Suburban and Rural Areas.
Pacific Northwest Research Station. Science Update. Issue 7. June 2004. Retrieved Nov. 2004.
URL httn://W W W.fs.fed.us/pnw/pubs/science-update-7.udf
Partners In Protection, Firesmart Manual.
URL: http://www.partnersinprotection.ab.ca/downloads/
27
Co-dominantTrees
Defines trees with crowns forming the general Ievel of the main canopy in even-aged groups of trees,
receiving full light from above and partia� light from the sides.
Coarse fuels (coarse woody debris)
Combusti6le material over 7cm in diameter.
Crown base height
The height, above ground, where the live crown of coniferous trees begins. Measured in meters (m).
Crown Closure
An assessment of the degree to which the crowns of trees are nearing general contact with one another.
The percentage of the ground surface that would be considered by a downward vertical projection of
foliage in the crowns of trees.
Diameter at Breast Height
The diameter of a tree measured at 1.3m above the point of germination.
Dominant Trees
Defines trees with crowns extending above the general level of the main canopy of even-aged groups of
trees, receiving full light from above and comparatively little from the sides.
FuelBreak
An area of non-combustible materials that inhibits the continuous burning of fuels.
FuelLoad
The mass of combustible materials expressed as a weight of fuel per unit area.
Fuel Moisture
Percent water content of vegetation. This is an important factor in rate of spread.
FuelTypes
Classification of forested stands as described 6y Canadian Forest Fire Behavior Prediction (FBP) System.
There are currently no fuel type classifications specific to coastal fuels.
Fine fuels (fine woody debris)
Combustible woody debris under 7cm in diameter.
Fire Behaviour
The manner In which a fire reacts to the influences of fuel, weather, and topography.
28
Intermediate Trees
Defines trees with crowns extending into the lower portion of the main canopy of even-aged groups of
trees, but shorter in height than the co-dominants. These receive Iittle direct light from above and none
from the sides, and usually have small crowns that are crowded on the sides.
Ladder Fuels
Live or dead vegetation that allows a fire to burn into the canopy (crown) of a forested stand.
Lift Pruned
The removal of ladder fuels to increase the crown base height.
Litter Layer
Surface buildup of leaves and woody material.
Live Crown Ratio
Is the percentage of the total stem length covered with living branches. It provides a rough but
convenient index of the ability of a tree's crown to nourish the remaining part of the tree. Trees with
Iess than 30 percent live crown ratio are typically weak, lack vigor, and have low diameter growth,
although this depends very much on the tree's age and species.
Open Grown
Defines trees with crowns receiving full light from all sides due to the openness of the canopy.
Spotting
Fire producing sparks or embers that are carried by the wind and start new fires.
Stems Per Hectare
The number or size of a population (trees) in relation to some unit of space (one hectare). It is measured
as the amount of tree biomass per unit area of land.
Wildfire
An unplanned, unwanted wildland fire, including unauthorized human-caused fires, escaped wildland
fire use events, escaped prescribed fire projects, lightning strikes, downed power Iines, and all other
wildland fires where the objective is to put the fire out.
Suppressed Trees
Defines trees with entirely below the general level of the canopy of even-aged groups of trees, receiving
no direct light either from above or from the sides.
29
Tree Species Codes
Fd — Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii)
Hw— Western hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla)
Cw— Western redcedar (Thuja plicata)
Dr — Alder (Alnus rubra)
Ac — Black cottonwood (Populus balsamifera ssp. trichocarpa)
Ep — Paper birch (Betula papyrifera)
Pw — Western white pine (Pinus monticola)
Pr - Bitter cherry (Prunus emarginata)
30
�r��u0o?9aeaa Mo�(�auo Do�i�eo�fra�e u����s
Plot 1 2 6 9
Duff depth and 3 3 3
moisture regime 3
Surface Fuels
Continuity Z 2 z 2
Vegetation Fuel 2 Z z
Composition 2
Fine Woody
Debris Continuity 5 1 5 5
(<7cm)
Large Woody
Debris Continuity 2 1 2 z
(>7cm)
Conifer Crown
Closures 5 10 10 5
Deciduous Crown
Closure 4 5 5 3
Conifer Crown
Base Height (m) � � � �
Suppressed
Understory Z 2 5 2
Conifers
(Stems/ha)
Continuous Forest 5 0 5 5
(ha)
Coniferous Forest 5 5 7 7
Health
BEC Zone 3 3 3 3
31
Plot 1 2 6 9
History 8 g g g
Aspect 0 0 0 0
Slope 1 1 1 5
Terrain 3 1 3 5
Landscape/topo
limitationsto 5 S 5 5
wildfire spread
Wildfire Behaviour 6Z 56 73 69
threatscore*
Wildfire Behaviour Mod Mod Mod Mod
Threat Class
Position of
Structure n/a n/a n/a n/a
Type of n/a n/a n/a n/a
Development
Position of
Assessment Area n/a n/a n/a n/a
relative to values
Wildland Urban
Interface Wildfire n/a n/a n/a n/a
ThreatScore
Wildland Urban
Interface Threat n/a n/a n/a n/a
Class
M2 stand C3 stand located Large M2 stand
located east of � stand on adjacent located south of
the subject site. located private the subjed site.
Comments This fuel type is northeast of pro e Buffered by
also found onsite the subject qsses�s e t numerous roads
in the steep site. Small in made from the and buildings.
covenant area. size. road. Still an ember
risk.
32
Wildfire Behaviour W�Idland Urban
Threat Class Interface Threat
Class
Low 0-40 Low 0-13
Moderate 41-95 Moderate 14-26
High 949 High 27-39
Extreme >149 Extreme >39
33
Legend
an rca (.�oPro. mscl m . � ..� � . '--..
Suultt o a c. - �a
� (�. � Plo,. .�,.i.anre i re�.
..laacra etu oAro inrc 4-. .. � � \..: .
�
Figure 15. Plot locaiions
� rm: wianeam;
P '� . 1596/Ba:on�totF
Nwplc H dEe BC
Salc. t G 000
Oalc: 31,2a15
0 20 aOAus 30 120 �60
-�� �jMeters
34
t�i�itl 11ss��$srnnnt: Cs�r�ls
Plnt 1-M7 Stand
STAND CHARACTERISTICS
Dominant Co-Dominant intermediate Suppressed
Trees Trees Trees Trees Regeneration
Species' Cw2Hw2Mb2 Fd2Hw2Mb2 Dr3Cw1Mb3
(% byvolume) C24Hw4Fd2 Dr2Fd2 Dr2Cw2 Hw3 Hw5Cw5
Density (stems/ha) 50 1000 500 300 200
Tree Diameterat g0-100 40-60 20-40 20 -
Breast Height (cm)
Tree Height (m) 35 28 20 12 2
Crown Height (m) 6 4 2 1 0.5
Crown closure (%) 70 - - - -
Plot 2-C7 Stand
STAND CHARACTERISTICS
Dominant Co-Dominant Intermediate Suppressed
Trees Trees Trees Trees Regeneration
Species' Fd Fd4Cw3Hw3 Fd2Cw4Hw4 Hw -
(% byvolume)
Density (stems/ha) 25 500 200 100 -
TreeDiameterat 90 60-80 40-60 20
Breast Height (cm)
Tree Height (m) 35 30 25 18 -
Crown Height (m) 10 2 1 1 -
Crown closure (%) 45 - - - -
Plot 3-D1 Pasture Area.
Pastures with horses grazing. Area looks to be watered and kept at a reasonable length. There is the odd
conifer and deciduous patch of trees throughout the site, but they do not add to the wildfire risk.
Plot 4-01 Pasture Area.
Old pasture land that looks unkept and not watered. It is suspected that the grass will grow
unmaintained and will cure throughout the summer. Islands of conifer and deciduous trees throughout
the site.
Plot 5-D1 Stand
An even aged Red Alder stand with approximately 2000 stems/ha. Trees are �20m tall and 1535cm in
diameter. Low risk to the site.
35
� ,.... . „ . .,.-.., � ,��s' • ,.�;�I '-,;: , , ,,.�,:� , ;,;
Plot 6-C3 Stand-Assessment done from offsite
STAND CHARACTERISTICS
Dominant Co-Dominant Intermediate Suppressed
Trees Trees Trees Trees Regeneration
Species' _ Cw4Hw4Fd2 Cw5Hw5 Cw5Hw5 Cw5Hw5
(% by volume)
Density (stems/ha) 1000 500 300 200
Tree Diameter at
Breast Height (cm) 50-70 20-50 12 -
Tree Height (m) - 30 25 2.5 2
Crown Height (m) - 3 2 1 0.5
Crown closure (%) 65 - - - _
Plot 7-C4 Hedge
Cw hedgerow that is approximately 6m tall with full crowns. It is narrow, only 1 tree wide. Classified as a
C4 fuel type.
Plot 8-D1 Stand
Recently disturbed land for the development south of the project site. Area has regenerated with a
dense (>2000 stems/ha) layer of Red alder that are approximately 2m tall. There are some areas that
have been replanted with Douglas fir and Western Redcedar, but these areas are small and overgrown
with Red Alder.
Plot 9-M2
STAND CHARACTERISTICS
Dominant Co-Dominant Intermediate Suppressed
Trees Trees Trees Trees Regeneration
Species' Fd10 Mb5Fd1Hw2 Hw3M64Cw3 Hw4Cw3Mb3 Hw5Cw5
(% by volume) Cw2
Density (stems/ha) 50 1200 800 500 200
Tree Diameter at
Breast Height (cm) 80 40-60 20-40 20 -
Tree Height (m) 35 28 22 10 -
Crown Height (m) 15 4 3 2 1
Crown closure (%� 70 - - -
36
1. Except as expressly set out in this report and in these Assumptions and Limiting Conditions,
Diamond Head Consulting Ltd. ("Diamond liead") makes no guarantee, representation or
warranty (express or implied) with regard to: this report; the findings, conclusions and
recommendations contained herein; or the work referred to herein.
2. This report has been prepared, and the work undertaken in connection herewith has been
conducted, by Diamond Head for the "ClienY' as stated in the report above. It is intended
for the sole and exclusive use by the Client for the purpose(s) set out in this report. Any use
of, reliance on or decisions made based on this report by any person other than the Client,
or by the Client for any purpose other than the purpose(s) set out in this report, is the sole
responsibility of, and at the sole risk of, such other person or the Client, as the case may be.
Diamond Head accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for any losses, expenses,
damages, fines, penalties or other harm (including without limitation financial or
consequential effects on transactions or property values, and economic loss) that may be
suffered or incurred by any person as a result of the use of or reliance on this report or the
work referred to herein. The eopying, distribution or publication of this report (except for
the internal use of the Client) without the express written permission of Diamond Head
(which consent may be withheld in Diamond Head's sole discretion) is prohibited. Diamond
Head retains ownership of this report and all documents related thereto both generally and
as instruments of professional service.
3. The £ndings, conclusions and recommendations made in this report reflect Diamond Head's
best professional judgment in light of the information available at the time of preparation.
This report has been prepared in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill
normally exercised by arborists currently practicing under similar conditions in a similar
geographic area and for specific application to the trees subject to this report as at the date
of this report. Except as expressly stated in this report, the findings, conclusions and
recommendations set out in this report are valid for the day on which the assessment
leading to such findings, conclusions and recommendations was conducted. If generaily
accepted assessment techniques or prevailing professional standards and best practices
change at a future date, modifications to the findings, conclusions, and recommendations in
this report may be necessary. Diamond Head expressly excludes any duty to provide any
such modification if generally accepted assessment techniques and prevailing professional
standards and best practices change.
4. Conditions affecting the trees subject to this report (the "Conditions", including without
limitation structural defects, scars, decay, fungal fruiting bodies, evidence of insect attack,
discoloured foliage, condition of root structures, the degree and direction of lean, the
general condition of the tree(s) and the surrounding site, and the proximity of property and
people) other than those expressly addressed in this report may exist. Unless otherwise
stated: information contained in this report covers only those Conditions and trees at the
time of inspection; and the inspection is limited to visual examination of such Conditions
and trees without dissection, excavation, probing or coring. While every effort has been
made to ensure that the trees recommended for retention are both healthy and safe, no
37
guarantees, representations or warranties are made (express or implied) that those trees
will remain standing or will not fail. The Client acknowledges that it is both professionally
and practically impossible to predict with absolute certainty the behaviour of any single
tree, or groups of trees, in all given circumstances. Inevitably, a standing tree will a�ways
pose some risk. Most trees have the potential for failure and this risk can only be eliminated
if the risk is removed. If Conditions change or if additional information becomes availabie at
a future date, modifications to the findings, conclusions, and recommendations in this
report may be necessary. Diamond Head expressly excludes any duty to provide any such
modification of Conditions change or additional information becomes availabie.
5. Nothing in this report is intended to constitute or provide a legal opinion, and Diamond
Head expressly disclaims any responsibility for matters legal in nature (including, without
limitation, matters relating to title and ownership of real or personal property and matters
relating to cultural and heritage values). Diamond Head makes no guarantee, representation
or warranty (express or implied) as to the requirements of or compliance with applicable
laws, rules, regulations, or policies established by federal, provincial, local government or
First Nations bodies (collectively, "Government Bodies") or as to the availability of licenses,
permits or authorizations of any Government Body. Revisions to any regulatory standards
(including bylaws, policies, guidelines an any similar directions of a Government Bodies in
effect from time to time) referred to in this report may be expected over time. As a result,
modifications to the findings, conclusions and recommendations in this report may be
necessary. Diamond Head expressly excludes any duty to provide any such modification if
any such regulatory standard is revised.
6. Diamond Head shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this
report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an
additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule and contract of
engagement.
In preparing this report, Diamond Head has relied in good faith on information provided by
certain persons, Government Bodies, government registries and agents and representatives
of each of the foregoing, and Diamond Head assumes that such information is true, correct
and accurate in all material respects. Diamond Head accepts no responsibility for any
deficiency, misinterpretations or fraudulent acts of or information provided by such
persons, bodies, registries, agents and representatives.
8. Sketches, diagrams, graphs, and photographs in this report, being intended as visual aids,
are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural
reports or surveys.
9. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report.
38
. . . _. _ ....,. ..�. .._ , ! .. ....
�
�
rnapl�rld��,ca
City of Maple Ridge
T0: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE:
and Members of Council FILE N0:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING:
SUBJECT: 5°/o Money in Lieu Of Parkland Dedication
25467 Bosonworth Avenue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
December 7, 2015
2014-086-S D
CofW
The above noted subdivision is subject to the provisions of the Local Government Act regarding
parkland dedication or payment in lieu of dedication. It is recommended that Council require
payment in lieu of parkland dedication for the property located at 25467 Bosonworth Avenue.
RECOMMENDATION:
That pursuant to the Local Government Act. Section 941, regarding 5% Parkland Dedication or
payment in lieu, be it resolved that the owner of land proposed for subdivision at 25467
Bosonworth Avenue, under application 2014-086-SD, shall pay to the City of Maple Ridge an
amount that is not less than $47,650.00.
DISCUSSION:
Section 941 of the Local Government Act requires the provision of parkland, without compensation,
as a condition of subdivision, subject to some exceptions. The land, not to exceed 5% of the area
proposed for subdivision, may be acquired in a location acceptable to the City, or a payment equal to
5% of the market value of the area proposed for subdivision is required.
Section 8.9, Watercourse Protection Development Permit Area, of the Official Community Plan states
that where watercourse protection areas are identified on the lands, the area is to be dedicated into
public ownership as Park, where possible, for the preservation, protection, restoration and
enhancement of watercourses and riparian areas. These areas also provide large vegetated areas
in urban neighbourhoods that provide corridors for wildlife and passive park areas for residents.
Where there are either no watercourse protection areas, or no suitable lands are identified for park
dedication, then 5% of the market value of the land is paid to the City. These funds are placed into
a special Parkland Acquisition Reserve Fund, for the purpose of acquiring parkland, and is typically
used where the ability to achieve parkland through development is limited.
In this particular instance there are no watercourses present and it is, therefore, recommended that
money in lieu of parkland dedication be provided.
In keeping with past practice, the City has requested that an appraisal be provided for the 5%
market value of the development site. This appraisal is based on zoned but not serviced land.
A report from a qualified real estate appraiser has determined that the market value of the land is
$953,000.00, which indicates that the 5% value of this property is $47,650.00.
CONCLUSION:
As there are no watercourse protection areas and no suitable lands on the property for parkland
dedication, it is recommended that Council require payment in lieu of parkland dedication as
prescribed in the appraisal.
"Original signed by Adrian Kopystynski"
Prepared by: Adrian Kopystynski, MCIP, RPP, MCAHP
Planner
"Original signed by Christine Carter"
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PI, MCIP
Director of Planning
"Original signed by Frank Quinn"
Approved by: Frank Quinn MBA, P.Eng
GM: Public Works & Development Services
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A- Subject Property Map
Appendix B - Ortho Map
Appendix B - Subdivision Plan
-2-
I_ . . ► I �71:I_1
SCALE 1:2,500
District of
Langley
� 25467 BOSONWORTH AVENUE
0
.�
�
�
o �t CORPORATION OF
L � THE DISTRICT OF
�
� - � MAPLE RIDGE
0
a`
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: May 31, 2012 FILE: RZ/024/09 BY: PC
APPENDIX B
�� . - �
..�
• - �►:�. - - _ .-. ..__.._ - - �. � .. . • � ,
�* � ` ' _ ---�,
� t- ,,, 112 AVE. �
.!•, _':�Ny�},� �,' .
'-i. �� � .. � ' � � � .. � � - k 1,
-�. � e Y � •�' • .s+ . J � ri._ N ' N S ,�r�({�,L _ W. . -�"~ ..
u� N N �w~= Y� 1' " � 'ti
�"� � �'�' _ � - "` - �� �` � I .. , �'��"'�
;�..� 4 � �. �'' � �� � �' - " � , . . �. N
�� -� �i . ;� .�'��. r O - . ',:. .. ��-'7e`"+�JG_fy w
� ,I �w F'� ' r� r.w� ' a� � ��. �i� :.� �'y.
�� P341(�0' :� �.1 �59 � ; ':. � _.�� � r,. �. - ,, .`
'• � � , . ' _�' _ „�. �r ,
�..a� "•... �'_' . l�
.�, � � � r � � - t�= �.�i ?F .. K _ ,..' ' � � � i+ � , ��
y `� v� #�'$ ��+ �* ,n '�. ��;.. � :iy.
��� � . / s�li,. �;� r� , - �y.:c' '��'' �h' _ ..
`r � _ ''"T � ..��r ° � � ..2.:�: t' } = "' �, . , . `. �.' 'Y '..�.
� -.h7F �` y� i�': � j .�;i b' '.
'��_. r ,:. � - , 7 � $ �S � ,.9 -` �': �h..� -� 11M1 y� '� -�
+ '�+': �.,� �'; �� " •'�r ' $ � ' .
� . � y,.� � � ��' _ � ,� .�.�r'� r � � .
�' . • � �1 .s ��"S�-.. � , x .. "'_ i� � Y Nr � � ,�.1 A. .
- , - -'�ti? .'� . _ ! _.�n- . .. /� f �!F`T' :,:,. �� T .
,�, 'f �'�.i::.... �.; �_.. i .
�� . . . ' � . � . .� � { . �'��& . _ .ti + ti
i, � ,. ;_ �.�`� �� �� �' .. � _ �,� ��;�' .
Gi,► ..'� � - .,���y '�` � ,�: �r.
' •, _ ; j�;4 . _ , .. . • '7� � � : �Y;� :; ..;�r !�'` . P+�F; i , i �r
. � ... �`' • s
,�. •-
�'�'� rx; • , x _ .�.:�; � , ;�' • � c,... :� , " ' t • ' ' -' i •
. ' � „� . = •�:: ' `� !�� .�� .
r, � ,� �y y�� �. d� � . � A��� �- - .
::^: , �� �... � 1 . �} � V.. ..' ; ' . � � ,h
F,;�.. .. � s � �� . .i � ... - ` o-?�;' .�+ '.-�, '*� � . . �� . 1t'S 's , . r • , �� y�.. �.
� ,� `' g� +r _ _ x.�... �.'n ". �' `'
�. •.� � .' - � : :ry� . ` � ti � . • . : � . # :: . ' ' ,: �`�
"+ ' `�+ r — � yM1 � :. ' +x.;: - a � ... � � � �. - .
, ?� Ns`� ��� � - ..- •I,;: •��.•r.":+:' �w ' �
��f �� y _ • � •r � j k.�; :��iii�. {,�� � _ sl.���,f-' � ' F' ��. � ,' �. �,.ti.:.
� ���W' ' �'�� f� ��` . SUBJECT PROPERTY `� 'r�� "� �� �'-.
i . .�. � r` •. _ � : �. �': �,�,'� �. ,i• ... "w . ��.A�?'.
� ^y t �� �.y�, I• ... . � � — - �'� � _ � A?• . - � � __ .\ . �'^ .'�'• 4`' '.1 . ..
�..:.;., `, .��-��� ;� ;�. . �r� � � ,, - �� -t ��- . : '-�
.. •�,,� •" ' . � • _ Y Y. � , _. ' . .�. I . . �'.
'"- .iw �L F.- �y,. � `�-' � -.7� � J.Y . ''i�:,�3.` �,w �� .
�,+�►� ..��. . . .f-.•• - _ �..
.�.. ��a..::= ! y�� ♦ Y.�
�r ,� .. . k� ,Yy'• ��, �:� "�
� _f, r-,, . Pr32801��- �. ���. �°` :a�`,j �• ,• �,_ �
6-� • p. . :rr► �'.�i!' � r:'�n•'��-"'. � A'.:�;' J ' \�. -
�'" �'�f`: .. � t �,,,: q�. • r ��, � ,�
�• r f�"� �� •'h' �
.� '25 . �. . �r , . •+�'
r:L `.41 � �,,� � � . �,�' .' _ _ �r'�' , �,,�,. , �'�
�• � • � � ' � �- . �..
�y r lr.
- f � � +6�f` ' *��� � � • � n �r a� . o. � :.,�, �� � Ys � _ � r . -. ��J#�
. � � m t� � . � • : � � , � �!� . . Y.. .. . . ' � � �� S� � �
f."ry+ 4' ,M - . .. � . in - _ . .. , : N . x� , r . �� r , ��,,
}X � � ' f� " N . � . N . . .. . . . , r V
� . . . � - � � BOSONWORTH AV E. . ".'F
�+'��.y � � N � . P� coo � � � - ' .-�o - � `° . r�°i v�i : tiw:. �- . .. �
� . __ �
� . � ' N . . . W� � ' � " N N N N � N N n1 N
N SL68 N SL67 - ���� = •.SL65 SL64 SL63 SL62 _ SL61 SL60 SL59 SL58 9L57
, EPS 234 EPS'.234 -
h SL75 �` SL74 SL56 SL55 ' SL54 SL53 ��,SL52 SL51 SL50 SL49 SL48 SL47
� � N.:
� . M � � N � W � N N . � � ...�w+-�- N .
� c0 . N V CO V � N .
- N � LL� N N N N N� N�' v
N N N
� N N N (V �"'' � .
�..�;,r � GODWIN DRIVE � .
N m O � � N W W m
.- � p N N O. . CO CO V � � � �' . � � In . .
� M M V'"� � � � N N _ [V ' � N . N N N N
N g��gN SL80 . SL34 Sk35 � N SL45 �
SL39- SL40 SL41 SL42 SL43 SL44 __ SL46
� 34 SL36 SL37 SL38 ,�-- ;.Y•
. �.
� ..
11130 � �
L82 SL81 SL33 _ ..,�— .. _ ' �
� - �.
� 11120 � _ ¢• '+ �G � �.� �.
-:E- o- �' � � �?_ - i _� � . . . � �"' . . .
�y � . CI '27.� .:`� � � ���._ �.- ��:', . v � - ��%� r. i� � ,a
N
SCALE 1:2,500
P
District of � �
Langley (�
I
� � 25467 BOSONWORTH AVENUE
i �° (2011 photography image)
;�
i�
� o � CORPORATION OF
��L �` THE DISTRICT OF
�� MAPLE RIDGE
; -,
� o � - PLANNING DEPARTMENT
DATE: May 31, 2012 FILE: RZ/024/09 BY: PC
PROPOSED SUBDMS/ON OF LOT 6
SEC f4 TP.12 N.W.D. PLAN 17459
B.C.G.S 92G.028
This plan lies within fhe
Greafer l/ancouver Regional District
Municipalify of Maple Ridge
Scale 1:f000
Na���n���o��
to a o � �
� ww���w�v w
Nrr���v�n a.
Septamber 11.2014
�` ' ' - ' City of Maple Ridge
�
mapleridge.ca
T0: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE:
and Members of Council FILE N0:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING:
SUBJECT: Latecomer Policy
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
December 7, 2015
01-0340-50
CofW
Municipalities in Canada use a common approach when it comes to the building and construction of
infrastructure for new urban development. This common approach recognizes that those investing in
a proposed development include the capital cost of providing the required infrastructure as part of
that investment. The majority of infrastructure associated with urban development in Canada has
been built and/or funded by the development community. A municipality "inherits" this infrastructure
and is subsequently responsible for the operation, maintenance and ultimate replacement of the
asset. In other words, the up-front infrastructure capital costs are borne by developers whereas the
ongoing operating, maintenance and replacement costs are borne by local governments.
Where these upfront construction costs for infrastructure provide a benefit to multiple properties, the
Local Government Act (LGA) identifies that the costs be shared across all those that benefit. Further,
it requires that the municipality that required the installation of the services collect the benefitting
costs from the benefitting lands when they develop and pay them back to the original developer.
The City historically met this requirement using a Latecomer practice from 1987 which addressed
the direct benefit to properties frontage but did not transfer costs for indirect benefits to developing
areas. While the City had not considered indirect (or area) benefits in the Latecomer practice before,
the rezoning servicing requirements for a subdivision at 24371 112 Avenue (RZ/091/10) were used
as test case to examine how these construction costs could be captured into a Latecomer Policy.
The test case was adopted by Council on September 14, 2015 and included a motion that staff bring
back a Policy for adoption by Council. This report identifies the new Policy which is consistent with
the test case and legislation and addresses the cost recovery to developers for both the direct
benefit from subdivision requirements as well as the indirect benefits from rezoning requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT the Latecomer Policy attached to the staff report dated December 7, 2015 be adopted.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
The Local Government Act (LGA) provides municipalities with the authority to require
developers to provide works and services to service developing land. However, when these
works and services provide a benefit to lands other than the land being developed the works
and services are considered to be "excess or extended services". Section 939 of the LGA
requires that the portion of the upfront construction cost for "excess or extended services"
which benefit others be collected and payed back to the original developer.
1112
To date, the City has followed a practice set out in a Memorandum to Council prepared in
1987 for the provision of Latecomer Agreements to recover construction costs for services
that provide a direct benefit to lands beyond the developing land. This practice included the
recovery of costs for works and services installed at the subdivision and development permit
stages but does not allow for the recovery of rezoning works and services. Rezoning works
and services typically provide an indirect benefit to a much broader area and the City's legal
counsel has advised staff that Latecomer provisions may be extended to the rezoning stage
of development.
As a rezoning condition for the recent development of 24371 112 Avenue (RZ/091/10), a
significant extension to the sanitary sewer system and upgrade to the watermain were
required These servicing requirements benefitted other properties and were used as the test
case to examine the dynamics of incorporating rezoning works and services into a new
Latecomer Policy. To ensure that the proposed Latecomer Policy is repeatable, defendable
and equitable the following two principles were used for the preparation of the test case
Latecomer Agreement (LC 157/14) which was adopted on September 14, 2015:
1. Any property fronting the extension to a municipal service which can make a direct
connection to the extended services is responsible for the percentage of the upfront
construction costs equivalent to the potential number of equivalent development
units that front the extension.
2. Any property that receives an indirect benefit from the construction of excess
services is responsible for the percentage of the upfront construction costs
equivalent to the properties total number of equivalent development units.
The Local Government Act defines "excess or extended services" as a portion of a highway
system, water, sewage or drainage system that will provides service to land other than the
land being subdivided or developed. The proposed Policy further identifies excess or
extended services as providing either a direct or an indirect benefit.
a) Direct benefit is the ability to develop land which directly fronts extended services
and can be attributed to all linear facilities, such as highways, water mains, sanitary
and storm sewers.
b) Indirect benefit is the ability for a property to extend a municipal system in order to
develop land which is not fronting the excess service and can be attributed to non-
linear infrastructure such as reservoirs, detention ponds, pump stations.
The Policy also allows for special consideration to be given to share costs for linear
infrastructure extended through "non-developable" land or where proposed development is
discontinuous due to a regional condition or environmental feature.
Implementing the proposed Latecomer Policy has the potential to increase the complexity of
the allocation of the benefit and the preparation of the Latecomer Agreement will require
developers to submit schedules identifying the excess or extended service, benefitting
properties and the construction costs. These schedules will be reviewed by staff for accuracy
and fairness prior to the preparation of the Latecomer Agreement and Payment Schedules.
The attached Policy, which has been reviewed by legal counsel, is consistent with the
approach taken for LC 157/14 and is being brought forward as per the motion by Council
dated September 14, 2015.
b) Desired Outcome:
As previously noted, the current City practice does not provide Latecomer Agreements for
rezoning works and services. This limits the opportunity for developers to recover the full
value of construction costs which benefit other lands. The Local Government Act identifies
that excess or extended services are works and services which support the subdivision or
development of land and are not related to a specific development process. As such a
Latecomer Policy may incorporate rezoning requirements where they provide both a benefit
to future subdivisions or developments.
Adopting the proposed Policy as attached incorporates the necessary changes to include
rezoning works and services for the sharing of construction costs which provide direct and
indirect benefits to future developments and allow the City to identify, collect and process the
benefit as outlined in the Local Government Act.
c) Strategic Alignment:
The proposed Latecomer Policy distributes the cost for providing excess or extended
municipal services to the benefitting lands in order to achieve the land use identified in the
City's Official Community Plan.
d) Citizen/Customer Implications:
The proposed Latecomer Policy provides a clear process for the extension of services and
cost recovery methods for developers. The Policy requires that the coordinating professional
to complete a comprehensive review of the catchment areas to determine the development
potential in order to complete the Latecomer Agreement.
e) Interdepartmentallmplications:
With the inclusion or rezoning works which provide direct and indirect benefits the proposed
Latecomer Policy may increase the number and complexity of Latecomer Agreements that
the City will be required to complete and administer. The impact to the level of service being
provided will need to be monitored and additional fees considered.
f) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
The proposed Policy is within the scope of work already performed as part of the Business
plan, however with the increased number or complexity of agreements there may be
increased administration cost borne by the City. The Local Government Act allows for the
recovery of administration fees which the City could apply on a case by case basis.
g) Policy Implications:
The adoption of a Latecomer Policy would provide a consistent framework to replace current
practices.
CONCLUSIONS:
This Policy expands on the principal of Latecomer Agreements to include both direct and indirect
benefits provided by the installation of works and services that are considered by legislation to be
excess or extended by the City. The proposed Policy provides an outline on how the benefit will be
calculated and construction costs distributed across the benefitting lands.
"Original signed by Stephen Judd"
Prepared by: Stephen Judd, PEng.
Manager of Infrastructure Development
"Original signed by David Pollock"
Reviewed by: David Pollock, PEng.
Municipal Engineer
"Original signed by Frank Quinn"
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, PEng.
General Manager: Public Works & Development Services
MAPLE RIDGE
British Columhia
r 1 1 •
POLICY MANUAL
Policy No :
Title: Excess or Extended Services and Latecomer Payments Supersedes:
Authority: � Legislative ❑ Operational Effective Date:
Approval: � Council ❑ CMT
Review Date:
❑ General Manager
Policy Statement:
Where the City of Maple Ridge (City) requires a Developer, pursuant to section 939 of the Local
Government Act, to provide Excess or Extended Services, a portion of the Developers upfront
Construction Costs shall be recovered from Benefitting Lands based upon the following two
principles:
1. Where the Excess or Extended Services consist of works to which additional direct connections
are possible (such as a water line to which an adjacent property may be connected), Latecomer
charges shall be allocated amongst each property lying adjacent to the works in proportion to the
Equivalent Development Units (EDU's) that will be directly connected to the works; and
2. Where the Excess or Extended Services consist of works to which additional direct connections
are not possible (such as a reservoir or a portion of a water line adjacent to property that will not
be directly connected to it), Latecomer charges shall be allocated amongst each property that is
indirectly connected to the works in proportion to the EDU's that will be indirectly connected to the
works.
Pu rpose:
To outline the procedures for calculating and recovering the upfront Construction Costs where the
City has required a Developer to provide Excess or Extended Services.
1.0 Definitions:
Benefitting Lands means lands benefited by the provision of Excess or Extended Services.
Completion means the date identified by the City that the Excess or Extended Services have been
substantially complete and permits direct or indirect use by Benefitting Lands.
Construction Costs means the actual cost of constructing Excess or Extended Services.
Page 1 of 5 Policy
Designated Land Use means the use permitted under the current zoning of a property or the use
contemplated for the property under the current Official Community Plan, whichever use results in
the highest number of estimated EDU's.
Developer means the party who pays for the construction of Excess or Extended Services.
Direct Benefit means the benefit to a property that is adjacent to Excess or Extended Services
arising from the ability to directly connect the works.
Equivalent Development Units (EDU's) means, in respect of single or multi-family family
development, one self contained dwelling unit and, in respect of non-residential development, a
unit of development that the City considers will result in use of the Excess or Extended Services
that is equivalent to the use of such services by one self-contained dwelling unit.
Excess or E�ended Services means a portion of a highway system that will provide access to land
other than the land being subdivided or developed, and a portion of a water, sewage or drainage
system that will serve land other than the land being subdivided or developed.
Indirect Benefit means the benefit to property arising from being served by Excess or Extended
Services to which the property is not directly connected.
Latecomer Agreement means an agreement between the City and a Developer regarding the
imposition of Latecomer Charges.
Servicing Agreement means an agreement pursuant to a City bylaw for the installation of works
and services by a Developer.
Term of the Agreement means the period, not exceeding 15 years from the date the Excess or
Extended Services are completed, during which Latecomer Charges will be collected.
Waived Lands are properties that are identified as Benefitting Lands in respect of which the
Developer has chosen to waive Latecomer Charges.
Page 2 of 5 Policy
Key Areas of Responsibility
Action to Take
Responsibility
1.0 Eligibility
During the development referral stage the City will identify if the required works Engineering
and services are considered to be Excess or Extended Services and will
reference the eligibility for a Latecomer Agreement in the referral comments.
2.0 Design Submission
At a predevelopment meeting the City will identify to the Developer the Engineering
expectations around what are eligible Construction Costs and the overarching
approach to the distribution to Benefitting Lands.
The Developer in consideration of the City's identified approach will submit for Developer
approval along with the civil design drawing any documentation required by the
City to clearly identify the following Latecomer requirements:
• Developer `s full name, address and telephone number
• Professional certification
• City project number
• Legend, scale and date
• Plan view of Excess or Extended Services and Benefitting Lands at 1:2500
scale
• Type, size and material of Excess or Extended Services
• Estimated cost of the Excess or Extended Services
• Location of existing municipal services
• Location of all lands that will receive a Direct Benefit from the Excess or
Extended Services
• Location of all lands that will receive a Indirect Benefit from the Excess or
Extended Services
• Location of non-developable areas identified in the OCP
• Designated land use for all Benefitting Lands
• The number of Equivalent Development Units (EDU) for all Benefitting ands
and
• All Waived Lands
Design costs may be included up to a maximum of 10% of the Construction Cost
and certified with a seal by a professional engineer to be eligible for inclusion
into the Latecomer cost.
3.0 ServicingAgreement Engineering
The Servicing Agreement will reference the requirement to prepare a Latecomer
Agreement for Council approval.
Where a Developer does not wish to participate in the Latecomer process a
waiver clause will be included in the relevant Servicing Agreement.
The City shall identify all Benefitting Lands as Latecomer Pending when the Engineering
Servicing Agreement is entered into.
Page 3 of 5 Policy
4.0 Construction
The Developer will pay all Construction Costs for the Excess or Extended Developer
Services as required. All Construction Costs must be certified with a seal by a
professional engineer to be eligible for inclusion.
Where a property is connected to an existing municipal service it will be
reconnected without charge at the Developer's expense.
Upon notification of completion a Construction Cost Summary showing the Developer
actual cost of the Excess or Extended Services and the estimated cost of the
works yet to be completed (such as final lift of asphalt) must be submitted to
the City under seal by a professional engineer.
Maintenance work which arises after completion of Excess or Extended Services
shall not be included as Construction Costs.
If the applicant has registered status and will be completing GST self- Developer
assessment Latecomer Charges are not subject to Goods and Services Tax
(GST). Written confirmation of non-registered status must be received by the City
prior to determination of the Latecomer Charge.
5.0 Benefit Calculation
The Developer will prepare a Payment Schedule based upon the approved Developer
assessment of the Benefitting Lands and Construction Costs.
The payment schedule will identify the proportion of cost for each of the
Benefitting Lands based upon the following two principles:
Direct Benefit
Indirect Benefit
(Total Direct Cost = Total number of Direct Benefit EDU)
x Direct Benefit EDU for the Benefitting Land
(Total Indirect Cost = Total number of Benefit EDU)
x Total EDU for the Benefitting Land
For phased developments, the City will determine if the proposed phasing will
prompt the need for a secondary Latecomer Agreement for each phase.
The Developer may choose to waive Latecomer Charges for certain properties.
Waived properties are included in the total number of potential direct or indirect
EDU for the Benefitting Lands, but will be identified as having a zero payment in
the payment schedule.
6.0 Latecomer Agreement
The City will prepare a Latecomer Agreement for Council adoption in accordance Engineering
with the accepted Payment Schedule. The adopted Latecomer Agreement will
then be circulated to the developer for execution. A Certificate of Acceptance
shall not be issued until a signed Latecomer Agreement is returned to the City.
Page 4 of 5 Policy
7.0 Benefit Charges
Under the Latecomer Agreement the City will impose Latecomer charges on Planning
subsequent owners at the time of a servicing or development approval.
Where Latecomer Charges are based upon Direct Benefit payments will be
provided to the Developer based upon the number of actual service connections
achieved by the Benefitting Land.
Where Latecomer Charges are based upon Indirect Benefit payments will be
provided to the Developer based upon the number of actual units achieved by
the Benefitting Land.
For phased developments Latecomer Charges will be pro-rated to reflect only
the area being developed in each phase.
Interest on Latecomer Charges shall be calculated annually at a rate City
established by bylaw, payable for the period beginning when the excess or
extended services were completed, up to the date that the connection is made
or the use begins, and shall be paid to the Developer with each Latecomer
Charge collected.
Payment will be made to the Developer by mail to the last known address. The City
Developer is responsible for notifying the City of any changes to address or
name. Any payments returned to the City due to a failure to notify, will be held
for 12 months beyond the Term of the Agreement and any unclaimed value will
be forfeited to the City.
The Term of the Agreement shall not exceed 15 years from the time of
Completion and not from when the Latecomer Agreement is signed by the
Developer.
Total payment to the Developer shall not exceed the original upfront
Construction Costs plus accumulated interest.
In the event that the Excess or Extended Service is made use of by a property
identified as a Benefitting Land prior to completion of the Latecomer Agreement
an appropriate charge will be collected by the City and held until the Latecomer
Agreement is completed.
8.0 Fees
Any fees for the provision of Latecomer Agreements will be included in a fee City
bylaw and collected at the time of application.
Page 5 of 5 Policy
� ! ,
mapleridge.ca City of Maple Ridge
T0: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE:
and Members of Council FILE N0:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING:
December 7, 2015
11-5320-20-40-145
CofW
SUBJECT: Local Area Service - Hampton Street Extension Bylaw No. 7178-2015
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Port Hammond area was subdivided in 1882 including the road dedications, however, the
infrastructure for the 20100 Block of Hampton Street between Kingston Street and Hazelwood
Street was never constructed, and the properties remained vacant. In 2012, the property owners
along the 20100 block petitioned the City and requested that a Local Area Service (LAS) process be
undertaken. Through this process, the City finances the works up-front and completes the work. All
the costs associated with the works are then paid 100% by the property owners.
The works were completed in 2014 and the one year maintenance period required of the contractor
has now passed. The final step in the process is to adopt the Local Area Service Bylaw to have the
actual cost assigned to the property owners.
At the time of the original petition, the estimated cost of the work to the property owners was
$807,190.34. The actual costs are now determined as $514,016.90 and these costs will be
assigned 100% to the owners through the Local Area Service Bylaw.
The Local Area Service process was as follows:
2012: Informal Petition from property owners
Formal LAS Petition authorized by Council and circulated to property owners
Formal Petition accepted and returned and determined sufficient and valid
2013: Design completed
Contract awarded
2014: Construction complete
2015: One year maintenance period
This report seeks Council's adoption of the attached LAS bylaw to apply the costs to the properties.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Maple Ridge Hampton Street Extension Bylaw No. 7178-2015 be given first, second and third
readings.
1113
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
The Port Hammond area was subdivided in 1882 including the road dedications, however,
the infrastructure for the 20100 Block of Hampton Street between Kingston Street and
Hazelwood Street was never constructed, and the properties remained vacant.
The construction of the Hampton Street extension is now complete and the one year
maintenance period has now expired. The costs associated with the Local Area Service will
be borne 100°/a by property owners.
b) Desired Outcome:
The desired outcome of this report is to obtain Council's approval and adoption of a LAS
bylaw for the City to start billing the property owners of Hampton Street.
c) Strategic Alignment:
The Corporate Strategic Plan directs staff to provide high quality municipal services to our
customers in a cost effective and efficient manner and to continue to use a user-pay
philosophy. Utilizing the LAS legislation and process is one method that the City can use to
partner and provide services with neighborhoods in alignment with the Corporate Strategic
Plan.
d) Citizen/Customer Implications:
The final cost of the Hampton Street extension LAS has now been determined to be
$514,016.90 and is less than what was estimated in 2012 of $807,190.34. The final
individual commuted cost for each of the 9 benefiting property owners is now $55,791.90.
As per agreement among the 10 property owners, since Lot 247 already has road access
and a water service connection from Hazelwood Street, Lot 247 will not pay for water and
road construction costs. The cost to Lot 247 is therefore $11,889.80.
The property owners may elect to pay the entire amount of their share of the final costs in
full, without interest, by doing so before May 02, 2016 or pay by 15 annual installments,
amortized at an interest rate of 4.25% with an option of paying off the balance plus
applicable interest at any time during the term without incurring a penalty. This long-term
interest rate is based on prevailing market borrowing rates that are available to the City.
e) Interdepartmentallmplications:
Following adoption of the bylaw by Council, Engineering Department staff will send a letter to
the property owners providing details of the payment options.
Subsequently, Finance Department staff will receive and process the commuted payment, or
add the 15 installments to the property owners' annual taxes (should the property owner
choose to make annual payments).
CONCLUSIONS:
The LAS project approved by Council for the extension of Hampton Street is now complete. The final
cost of the works has been determined. Accordingly, Hampton Street Extension Bylaw No. 7178-
2015 establishes the LAS charges and is submitted to Council for adoption.
"Original signed by Stephen Judd" "Original signed by Trevor Thompson"
Submitted by: Stephen Judd, PEng. Financial Trevor Thompson, CPA, CGA
Manager of Infrastructure Development Concurrence: Manager of Financial Planning
"Original signed by David Pollock"
Reviewed by: David Pollock, PEng.
Municipal Engineer
"Original signed by Frank Quinn"
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, PEng.
General Manager: Public Works & Development Services
SJ/
CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW N0. 7178-2015
A Bylaw to establish a Local Area Service for Hampton Street Extension
WHEREAS Council has been petitioned to provide a municipal service pursuant to Section 210,
Division 5 of the Community Charter S.B.C. 2003, c.26 (the "Community Charter");
AND WHEREAS The Corporate Officer has certified that the petition received for the municipal
service does constitute a sufficient petition signed by majority of the property owners,
representing at least half of the value of the parcels that are liable to be specially charged;
AND WHEREAS Council has deemed it expedient to proceed with the works;
AND WHEREAS the `Maple Ridge Local Area Service Policy', as amended, provides that the cost
of providing a municipal service shall be recoverable from each of the existing parcels of land
that will benefit from the service.
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the City of Maple Ridge enacts as
follows:
1. This Bylaw shall be cited for all purposes as "Hampton Street Extension Bylaw No. 7178-
2015".
2. The Local Area Service is described as an extension of Hampton Street from Kingston
Street to Hazelwood Street (as outlined in Schedule `A' attached) complete with 105m of
200mm of watermain, 100m of 300mm storm main, 110m of 200mm sanitary main, 9
water service connections, and 10 sanitary and storm service connections.
3
�
The Local Area Service has been completed and the final cost of the Works is contained
in Schedule `B' attached.
Costs for the Local Area Service will be recovered according to the cost distribution shown
on Schedule `C' attached.
READ a first time the
READ a second time the
READ a third time the
day of
day of
day of
RECONSIDERED AND ADOPTED the
PRESIDING MEMBER
Attachments Schedules A, B, & C
, 2015.
, 2015.
, 2015.
day of , 2015.
CORPORATE OFFICER
� � ��
��� ��� ��
ls �
� ��j oi,� ' P�• N
%
C
�
N -� CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE
_ �
� ':
` `� - ENGINEERING
� DEPARTMENT
HAMPTON STREET EXTENSION LOCAL Af2EA
SERVICES BY-LAW 7178 - 2015
SCHEDULE "A"
SCALE:
N.T.S, pATE: 9/15/2015 FILE/DWG No SK0384
; MAPLE RIOGE '
'i HritishBoWm6ia
.� ,�•- .
Date: December 7, 2015
Schedule "B"
Bylaw No. 7178-2015
Fi l e: 11-5320-20-40-145
This is to certify that the Works authorized under the `Maple Ridge
Local Area Service for Hampton Street Extension from Kingston
Street to Hazelwood Street is complete.
David Pollock, PEng.
Municipal Engineer
As required under the 'Maple Ridge Local Area Service for Hampton
Street Extension from Kingston Street to Hazelwood Street, I hereby
certify that the final cost of the Works has amounted to
$514,016.90.
�
�
Paul Gill, BBA, CGA
General Manager: Corporate & Financial Services
cc Corporate Officer
Manager, Revenue & Collections
� MAPLE.RID�GE �-
" British��Calum6ia
a � � 1 '
x.
Pursuant to Section
Kingston Street to
thereof.
Schedule "C'
Bylaw No. 7178-2015
Final Costs & Apportionment
Hampton Street Extension Local Area Service
by Formal Petition
10 of the 'Maple Ridge Local Area Service for Hampton Street Extension from
Hazelwood Street, the following provides the final costs and apportionment
Hampton Street Extension Local Area Service
Location: Hampton Street from Kingston Street to Hazelwood Street
Total cost of the Works
Municipal contribution (0%)
Cost apportioned to existing 9 parcels (10 lots)
Cost Distribution
Number of existing lots
Individual Owner's share (Cost per lot for the 9 lots)
Individual Owner's share (Cost for lot 247 as per agreement)
Per annum individuai Owner's share (9.lots)
(Amortized over 15 years at 4.25 % per annum)
Per annum individuai Owner's share Lot 247
(Amortized over 15 years at 4.25 % per annum)
Life of the Works
$514,016.90
Nil
$514,016.90
10
$55,791.90
$11,889.80
$4,897.94
$1,043.80
40 Years
All costs a:refinal - --
Circulated separately
� �
�
mapleridge.ca City of Maple Ridge
T0: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: December 7, 2015
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Committee of the Whole
SUBJECT: 2016-2020 Financial Plan Bylaw
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The 2016-2020 Business and Financial Plans were presented to Council at public meetings held on
December 1, 2 and 3. The Financial Plan overview was presented followed by a public Question and
Answer period on December 3, which was streamed live over the internet. On December 4, after
considering the presentations, business plans, incremental adjustments and citizen feedback,
Council directed that a Financial Plan Bylaw, incorporating the recommendations in the Financial
Overview Report be brought forward for first and second reading.
The bylaw will be considered for Third Reading at a subsequent meeting to incorporate any changes
that Council may wish to make based on feedback from the public. Following this, the Final Reading
will occur at a separate meeting. Approval will take place over 3 meetings, rather than the historic
practice of 2 meetings, to allow for additional time for public input.
The Financial Plan Bylaw is a consolidated plan that includes the general revenue fund, the sewer
and water utility funds and the capital program. It is in a format that follows the legislated
requirements. This includes revenue and tax policy disclosure: the objectives and policies regarding
the proportions of revenue proposed to come from various funding sources, the distribution of
property taxes among property classes, and the use of permissive tax exemptions.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
That Maple Ridge 2016-2020 Financial Plan Bylaw No. 7194 - 2015 be given first and second
readings.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
The 2016-2020 Financial Plan was presented to Council at public meetings along with the
Business Plans from all areas. The Financial Plan Bylaw incorporates the following direction
from Council:
• property tax increase for General Purposes of 2.1% in 2016, 1.9°/o per year for 2017
and 2018 and 2.0°/o per year for 2019 and 2020
• property tax increase for Infrastructure Sustainability of 0.50% in 2016 and 0.70%
per year for 2017 through 2020
• property tax increase for Parks & Recreation Improvements of 0.25% each year
• property tax increase for Drainage Improvements of 0.30°/o each year
• growth in property tax revenue (from new construction) of 2% each year
• Water Utility levy increase of 4.5% per year
1131
• Sewer Utility levy increase of 3.6% per year
• recycling levy increase of 0% in 2016 and 2.75% per year for 2017 through 2020
• growth costs as detailed on page 10 of the Financial Overview Report
• incremental adjustments as outlined on page 12 of the Financial Overview Report
• Capital Works Program totaling $30.7 million in 2016, $27.5 million in 2017, $23.7
million 2018, $29.5 million in 2019 and $26.3 million in 2020
• cost and revenue adjustments from pages 27 and 28 of the Financial Overview
Report, which reconciles the 2015-2019 Financial Plan with the 2016-2020
Financial Plan
In last year's financial plan, Council adopted an aggressive capital program and this plan
builds on that direction. The 2016-2020 Financial Plan includes a capital program of about
$138 million.
We have about $1.4 billion invested in our infrastructure and it is important that we protect
this investment. This financial plan continues the dedicated funding strategy for sustaining
our infrastructure. As well, we are a growing community and along with that growth comes
pressure on our existing services. This financial plan provides funding to help meet growth
related demands. The funding for growth and for infrastructure sustainability are in line with
Council's Financial Sustainability Policies.
The amount of incremental property tax revenue from new construction will not be known
until property assessments are finalized. The growth assumption built into the financial plan
for 2016 is 2.0%.
Future budget amendments will include the actual growth revenue as well as projects that
were approved in 2015 and are still in progress. The previously approved funding sources
will also be included in the plan, placing no burden on 2016 propertytaxes.
b) Desired Outcome:
A financial plan that accurately reflects the planned expenditures and methods of funding
that is consistent with corporate strategic plans, policies and Council direction.
c) Strategic Alignment:
All departments submitted Business Plans which were prepared considering relevant
strategic and master plans. The Financial Plan reflects Council's Strategic Financial
Sustainability Policies and Infrastructure Funding Strategy.
d) Citizen/Customer Implications:
The business plans have far-reaching citizen and customer implications. The Financial Plan
reflects the financial impact of the business plans. Property tax revenue and user fees are
planned to increase as described in the above discussion.
After considering the presentations, business plans, incremental adjustments and citizen
feedback, Council directed that a Financial Plan Bylaw, incorporating the recommendations
outlined in the Financial Overview Report, be brought forward for First and Second readings.
The bylaw will be considered for Third Reading at a subsequent meeting to incorporate any
changes that Council may wish to make based on feedback from the public. Following this,
the Final Reading will occur at a separate meeting. Approval will take place over 3 meetings,
rather than 2, to allow for additional time for public input.
e) Statutory Requirements and Policy Implications:
The financial plan has been prepared in accordance with statutory requirements and
Municipal financial policies. There are several requirements in the Community Charter for
the Financial Plan Bylaw, including: disclosure of the proportions of revenue proposed to
come from various funding sources, the distribution of property taxes among property
classes, and the use of permissive tax exemptions. Explicit policies and objectives in each of
these areas are also required. Maple Ridge's approach to business planning, property
taxation policies and other financial policies have addressed all these reporting
requirements. The attached bylaw includes this information.
Public consultation is an important and legislated component of financial plan preparation.
Regular feedback and interaction with the public is also considered when business plans are
developed. The business planning presentations were open to the public; there was also a
live question and answer period where comments and questions were accepted in person as
well as over the phone, email and social media like Facebook and Twitter.
f) Alternatives:
In the event that this bylaw is not adopted, the City is not authorized to make any
expenditure other than those identified in the existing 2015-2019 Financial Plan Bylaw. This
will require departments to curtail or delay expenditures and only proceed with capital
projects that were identified in the previous financial plan.
CONCLUSIONS:
The Financial Plan is a multi-year planning, reviewing and reporting tool that represents Council's
priorities and commitment to providing quality services to the residents of Maple Ridge. The
Financial Plan provides a forecast of the financial resources that are available to fund operations,
programs and infrastructure for the five year period.
The Financial Plan Bylaw is routinely amended in late April or early May to include the projects that
were approved but not completed in the prior year. The change also includes an update to reflect
the actual property tax revenue due to the amount of real growth.
"Original signed by Trevor Thompson"
Prepared by: Trevor Thompson, CPA, CGA
Manager of Financial Planning
"Original signed bv Paul Gill"
Approved by: Paul Gill, BBA, CPA, CGA
GM Corporate & Financial Services
"Ori inal signed by Ted Swabey"
Concurrence: Ted Swabey
Chief Administrative Officer
CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW N0. 7194-2015
A bylaw to establish the five year financial plan for the years 2016 through 2020
WHEREAS, through a public process in an open meeting the business and financial plans were
presented;
AND WHEREAS, the public will have the opportunity to provide comments or suggestions with respect
to the financial plan;
AND WHEREAS, Council deems this to a process of public consultation under Section 166 of the
Community Charter;
NOW THEREFORE, the Council for the City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows:
1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge 2016-2020 Financial Plan Bylaw No. 7194-2015".
2. Statement 1 attached to and forming part of this bylaw is hereby declared to be the Consolidated
Financial Plan of the City of Maple Ridge for the years 2016 through 2020.
3. Statement 2 attached to and forming part of the bylaw is hereby declared to be the Revenue and
Property Tax Policy Disclosure for the City of Maple Ridge.
4. Statement 3 attached to and forming part of the bylaw is hereby declared to be the Capital
Expenditure Disclosure for the City of Maple Ridge.
READ a first time the
READ a second time the
READ a third time the
day of , 20
day of , 20
day of , 20
PUBLIC CONSULTATION completed on the day of , 20
ADOPTED the
PRESIDING MEMBER
day of , 20
ATTACHMENT: Statement 1, Statement 2 and Statement 3
CORPORATE OFFICER
Attachmentto Maple Ridge 2016-2020 Financial Plan Bylaw 7194-2015
Statement 1
Consolidated Financial Plan 2016-2020 (in $ thousands)
REVENUES
Revenues
Development Fees
Developer Contributed Assets
Developer Cost Charges
Parkland Acquisition
Contributions from Others
Development Fees Total
Property Taxes
Parcel Charges
Fees & Charges
Interest
Grants (Other Govts)
Property Sales
Total Revenues
EXPENDITURES
Operating Expenditures
Interest Payments on Debt
Amortization Expense
Other Expenditures
Total Expenditures
ANNUALSURPLUS
Add Back: Amortization Expense (Surplus)
Less: Capital Expenditures
Less: Developer Contributed Capital
CHANGE IN FINANCIAL POSITION
OTHER REVENUES
Add: Borrowing Proceeds
OTHER EXPENDITURES
Less: Principal Payments on Debt
TOTAL REVENUES LESS EXPENSES
INTERNALTRANSFERS
Transfer from Reserve Funds
Capital Works Reserve
Equipment Replacement Reserve
Fire Department Capital Reserve
Land Reserve
Local Improvement Reserve
Sanitary Sewer Reserve
Transfer from Reserve Fund Total
Less :Transfer to Reserve Funds
Capital Works Reserve
Equipment Replacement Reserve
Fire Dept. Capital Acquisition
Land Reserve
Local Improvement Reserve
Sanitary Sewer Reserve
Total Transfer to Reserve Funds
Transfer from (to) Own Reserves
Transfer from (to) Surplus
Transfer from (to) Surplus & own Reserves
TOTALINTERNALTRANSFERS
BALANCED BUDGEf
2016
16,500
12,359
200
1,451
30,510
74,844
2,906
40, 793
1,883
3,991
1,500
156,427
2017
16,500
8,531
200
1,242
26,473
78,953
2,997
42,327
1,898
4,829
1,500
158,977
2018
16,500
9,071
200
1,276
27,047
83,049
3,091
43,926
1,913
3,691
1,500
164,217
2019
16,500
13,255
200
1,238
31,193
87,298
3,188
45,627
1,928
4,855
1,500
175,589
2020
16,500
9,846
200
1,282
27,828
91,748
3,288
47,277
1,943
4,531
1,000
177,615
2,273 2,133 2,043 1,920 1,801
20,929 20,929 20,929 20,929 20,929
100,455 103,587 107,112 110,668 114,373
123,657 126,649 130,084 133,517 137,103
32,770 32,328 34,133 42,072 40,512
20,929 20,929 20,929 20,929 20,929
30,712 27,518 23,701 29,515 26,302
16, 500 16, 500 16, 500 16, 500 16, 500
6,487 9,239 14,861 16,986 18,639
4,047 4,144 3,641
2,440 5,095 11,220
3,720 3,801
13,266 14,838
3,149 3,549 - - -
3,540 1,813 3,245 2,311 1,857
356 - - - 250
7,045 5,362 3,245 2,311 2,107
3,886
2,449
712
5
30
7,082
(501)
2,904
2,403
2,440
2,862
2,615
791
5
30
6,303
1,029
3,125
4,154
5,095
4,334
2,744
869
5
30
7,982
916
5,567
6,483
11,220
4,139
2,876
999
5
30
8,049
891
6,637
7,528
13,266
3,336
2,977
1,136
5
30
7,484
1,576
7,885
9,461
14,838
Attachmentto Maple Ridge 2016-2020 Financial Plan Bylaw 7194-2015
Statement 2
Revenue and Property Tax Policy Disclosure
REVENUE DISCLOSURE
Revenue Proportions 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
$ ('OOOs) % $ ('OOOs) % $ ('OOOs) % $ ('OOOs) % $ ('OOOs) %
Revenues
PropertyTaxes 74,844 47.8 78,953 49.7 83,049 50.6 87,298 49.7 91,748 51.6
Parcel Charges 2,906 1.9 2,997 1.9 3,091 1.9 3,188 1.8 3,288 1.9
Fees & Charges 40,793 26.1 42,327 26.6 43,926 26.7 45,627 26.0 47,277 26.6
Borrowing Proceeds 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Other Sources 37,884 24.2 34,700 21.8 34,151 20.8 39,476 22.5 35,302 19.9
Total Revenues 156,427 100.0 158,977 100.0 164,217 100.0 175,589 100.0 177,615 100.0
Other Sources include:
Development Fees Total
Interest
Grants (Other Govts)
Property Sales
OBJECTIVES & POLICIES
30,510 19.5 26,473 16.7 27,047 16.5
1, 883 1.2 1, 898 1.2 1, 913 1.2
3,991 2.6 4,829 3.0 3,691 2.2
1,500 1.0 1,500 0.9 1,500 0.9
37,884 24.2 34,700 21.8 34,151 20.8
31,193 17.8
1,928 1.1
4,855 2.8
1,500 0.9
39,476 22.5
27,828 15.7
1,943 1.1
4,531 2.6
1,000 0.6
35,302 19.9
Propertv Tax Revenue
Property tax revenue is the City's primary revenue source, and one which is heavily reliant on the
residential class. Diversification of the tax base and generation of non-tax revenue are ongoing
objectives, outlined in Financial Sustainability Policy 5.52 section 6.
The Financial Plan includes property tax increases that are as listed below:
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
General Purpose 2.10% 1.90% 1.90% 2.00% 2.00%
Infrastructure Replacement 0.50% 0.70% 0.70% 0.70% 0.70%
Parks & Recreation 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25%
Drainage 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30%
Total Property Tax Increase 3.15% 3.15% 3.15% 3.25% 3.25%
Additional information on the tax increases and the cost drivers can be found in the most recent
Financial Plan Overview Report. Specific policies discussing the tax increases are included in the
Financial Sustainability Plan and related policies which were adopted in 2004.
Property tax revenue includes property taxes as well as grants in lieu of property taxes.
Parcel Charges
Parcel charges comprise of a recycling charge, a sewer charge and on some properties, a local area
service or improvement charge. Parcel charges are a useful tool to charge all or a subset of
properties for a fixed or variable amount to support services. Unlike property taxation the variable
amount does not need to be related to property assessment value, but can be something that more
accurately reflects the cost of the service.
Attachmentto Maple Ridge 2016-2020 Financial Plan Bylaw 7194-2015
Statement 2 �cont.�
Revenue and Property Tax Policy Disclosure
Fees & Charges
The Business Planning Guidelines call for an increase of 5°/o in fees as a guideline. Actual fee
increases vary depending on the individual circumstances, the type of fee and how it is calculated.
Fees should be reviewed annually and updated if needed. Recent fee amendments include
recreation fees, development application fees, business license fees and cemetery fees. A major
amendment to the Development Costs Charges (DCC), recommended no more frequently than every
five years, was completed in 2008. Minor DCC amendments are done more frequently. Some fees
are used to offset the costs of providing specific services. The utility fees are reviewed annually with
a view towards using rate stabilization practices to smooth out large fluctuations in rates, as set out
in the Business Planning Guidelines.
Borrowing Proceeds
Debt is used where it makes sense. Caution is used when considering debt as it commits future
cash flows to debt payments restricting the ability to use these funds to provide other services. The
source of the debt payments needs to be considered as does the justification for advancing the
project. More information on borrowing previously approved can be found in the most recent
Financial Plan Overview report.
Other Sources
This will vary greatly year to year as it includes:
• Development fees which fund capital projects from the DCC Reserve
• Contribution from others in relation to capital
• Grants which are sought from various agencies and may be leveraged with City funds
PROPERTY TAX DISCLOSURE
The 2016 property tax revenue and updated rates will be included in a Financial Plan Amending
Bylaw that proceeds the Property Tax Rate Bylaw, as the 2016 property assessed values are not yet
finalized. For information purposes the 2015 distribution is included.
Propertv Tax Revenue Distribution
Property Class
1 Residential
2 Utility
4 Major Industry
5 Light Industry
6 Business/Other
8 Rec./ Non-Profit
9 Farm
Tota I
Taxation Revenue
('OOOs)
53,677
540
573
2,808
11,082
38
157
68,875
77.9%
0.8%
0.8%
4.1%
16.1%
0.1%
0.2%
100%
Assessed Value
('OOOs)
12,004,518 91.1%
13,495 0.1%
17,230 0.1%
228,203 1.7%
900,715 6.8%
2,901 0.0%
4,905 0.0%
13,171,968 100%
Tax Rate
($/1000)
4.4713
40.0000
33.2682
12.3038
12.3038
13.1537
31.9560
Multiple
(Rate/Res.Rate)
1.0
8.9
7.4
2.8
2.8
2.9
7.1
Attachmentto Maple Ridge 2016-2020 Financial Plan Bylaw 7194-2015
Statement 2 �cont.�
Revenue and Property Tax Policy Disclosure
PROPERTY TAX DISCLOSURE
Obiectives & Policies
Property taxes are the City's largest source of revenue and are contained by efficient business
practices. Annual business planning practices are the mechanism for resource allocation decisions.
The City's Financial Sustainability Policy section 6 discusses the necessity of diversifying the tax
base. Development of employment related properties is one method of diversification; therefore a
key performance measurement in Strategic Economic Initiatives tracks the increased investment
and development of non-residential properties.
A policy in the Financial Sustainability Plan that calls for stable tax increases and the adoption of the
annual increase early in the prior year in the Business Planning Guidelines provides citizens with a
more stable and predictable set of cost increases. In some cases costs are phased in over multiple
years to stay within the set tax increases.
Property Tax Rates
It is policy to adjust property tax rates annually to negate the impact of fluctuations in the market
values of properties. Tax rates are reduced to negate the market increases. Property tax increases
are then applied at the same relative increase for all classes, unless legislation restricts the rates, as
with Class 2, Utility.
The Business Class and Light Industry Class properties have the same tax rate and are treated as a
composite class when setting the tax rates, as the types of businesses in each class are similar.
A review was done on the Major Industry Class rates and the recommendation from the Audit and
Finance Committee and Council was a 5°/o property tax reduction in both 2009 and 2010 to support
additional investments in the subject property and to keep rates competitive. As part of the Financial
Planning discussions in December, 2013 Council authorized $70,000 each year for five years, 2014-
2018, to reduce the Major Industrial Class property tax rate. Council's direction for the 2016-2020
Financial Plan was to discontinue further reduction in property taxes as Council revisits priorities.
In reviewing the tax rates to ensure competitiveness, absolute rates, tax multiples and overall tax
burden are considered. The impact that assessed values have when comparing other geographical
areas must be considered in a comparison of tax rates.
Permissive Tax Exemptions
Council has set policies around the use of permissive tax exemptions. These are Council Policies
5.19 through 5.24. These policies discuss Churches, Community Halls, Heritage Sites, Homes for
the Care of Children and the Relief of the Aged, the Poor, the Disabled and the Infirm, Municipal
Recreational Services, Private Hospitals and Daycares, Private School and Youth Recreation Groups.
Revitalization Tax Exemption Pro ram
The Employment Land Investment Incentive Program is designed to encourage job creation by
supporting private investment in buildings and infrastructure on identified "employment lands".
More information on this tax exemption can be found on our website.
Attachmentto Maple Ridge 2016-2020 Financial Plan Bylaw 7194-2015
Statement 3
Capital Expenditure Disclosure
The sole purpose of this statement is to meet legislative requirements and highlight the value of the
DCC program; no other conclusions should be drawn from the figures as the information could be
misleading. This disclosure is required under the Local Government Act s. 937(2); Capital costs
attributable to projects to be partially funded by Development Cost Charges (DCC) must be included
in the financial plan. The DCC program includes projects as far out as 2035 so the capital
expenditures must be extended to match. Certain types of projects are not planned past the five
year time horizon of the financial plan. Much less scrutiny is given to projects that are planned in
years 2021 through 2035. Projects in these years typically exceed likely funding available.
Capital Works Program for 2021- 2035
(in $ thousands)
Capital Works Program
Source of Funding
Development Fees
Development Cost Charges
Parkland Acquisition Reserve
Contribution from Others
Borrowing Proceeds
G ra nts
Transfer from Reserve Funds
Capital Works Reserve
Cemetery Reserve
Equipment Replacement Reserve
Fire Department Capital Reserve
Recycling Reserve
Transfer from Reserve Funds
Revenue Funds
Source of Funding
303,585
120,537
6,635
127,173
2,091
41,229
13,163
115
2,486
15,764
117,328
303,585
� ,
, City �f Maple Ridge
mapleridge.ca
T0: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE:
and Members of Council FILE N0:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING:
SUBJECT: Festivals and Special Events Review Process
December 7, 2015
COW
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In the Council Work Plan, the broad topic of festivals and special events was highlighted for discussion.
The intention of this report is to provide Council with information on the current structure of special
events/festivals and a proposed outline of the review process. The experiences and benefits derived
from festivals and events have significant value to citizens and visitors and are a vital ingredient in
Maple Ridge's on-going development as an active and vibrant city. It is timely to assess the merits, gaps
and shortfalls of the current approach and structure and to identify recommendations for future strategic
development. The recommendations developed will shape a new special event strategy that contributes
to meeting future growth, fostering creativity and celebrating the unique character of the community.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Festival and Special Event review process outlined in the report dated December 7, 2015 be
approved.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Maple Ridge is home to a diverse range of special events year round, many of which have
matured and new ones have been added, reflecting the growth of the city and demand for
celebrations that generate civic pride and community engagement. Some of the city's larger
events such as Country Fest, Canada Day, Caribbean Festival, Santa Parade and Children's
Festival attract not only local residents but also visitors from other communities. To sustain
continued success and a healthy community, individual volunteers, businesses and the
municipality all have a role to play.
The types of special events range from small grassroots to mid-sized and large events that focus
on arts and culture, popular active events, and seasonal celebrations. The events take place in
Memorial Peace Park, Albion Fairgrounds and throughout city streets as well as park and trail
networks for active events such as runs and bike-a-thons. In 2015, an estimated sixty-two
special events will have taken place in Maple Ridge with an estimated total of 175,000 people
attending these events. The chart of statistics provides details and the current listing of both
active and festival events that were received and processed this year (attached).
In addition Maple Ridge special events were awarded approximately $35,631 in festival financial
grant funding. The reported total special events budget (cash) from applicants is estimated at
$600,000 which excludes the many in-kind contributions for their events such as volunteer
hours and services from business/groups. A typical event can take hundreds of hours to plan,
promote and execute, and for larger events, as many as hundreds of volunteers may be required
to host the celebration. Site safety and security regulations, risk assessments, insurance and
ancillary costs continue to escalate with more and more demands placed on the volunteer event
orga n izers.
1151
Festivals/special events involve a number of civic programs and services that are inter-related
and inter-dependent, identified, contracted and carried out through the CDPR Division
agreement or by various departments, i.e. RCMP, Fire, Communications, Engineering,
Operations, Bylaws.
The Division policies provide direction for the development, management and resource
allocations of financial grants and in-kind municipal services for special events and festivals.
The relevant policies include the Festival Support Policy P100, the Volunteer Policy P127, and
the Asset-Based Community Development (ABCD) Policy P092 (see attached for details). The
objectives and goals in each policy supports the City's Official Community Plan 2014 and the
Parks and Leisure Master Plan 2010 arm to build a unique community character, encourage
strong community engagement and participation and develops a vibrant and healthy community.
Generally, city support for special events falls into two categories:
• Supporting or background role - City staff assist a community group or non-profit who will
take the lead in planning and running the festival (most of the current special events fall into
this category) or,
• Direct service delivery role - City staff play a key role in the planning and direct execution of
the event (example is the protocol events such as Canada Day and Remembrance Day and
the City's anniversary celebration).
Further detail about the current structure is outlined in the attached overview document.
Proposed Review Process
The proposed review process of special events/festivals will be inclusive and engaging to assess
the merits, gaps and shortfalls of the current approach and structure and identify
recommendations for future development to ensure that resources and investments are
appropriate to maximize the benefit to the community and its growth. Some of the work that is
proposed includes the following as part of the business plan:
• Workshop with Council to develop review criteria.
• Gather community stakeholder feedback.
• Consultation and workshops to be conducted with the wider community from event
organizers to Tourism, Economic Development, Business Improvement Association,
businesses and event participants through focus groups, surveys and opportunities that may
be presented at the Events Expo in January 2016. Recommendations to be implemented in
Quarter 12016.
• Research and comparative analysis of other festival delivery models and best practices in
similar sized municipalities across Canada (sampling of 6 to 8) which is currently in progress.
• Findings and recommendations reportto Council.
Through the review process, recommendations will emerge that will help better define and shape
special event policies and procedures and develop an events strategy that nurtures "Celebrate
Maple Ridge," capitalizes on opportunities and encourages a more coordinated approach to
events.
b) Desired Outcome:
That these special events/festivals will continue to be accessible and diverse and be coordinated to
supporttourism and economic development opportunities which can develop a unique "Celebrate
Maple Ridge" approach.
2
c) Strategic Alignment:
In alignment with the Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan 2010, special events and festivals
contribute towards recognizing Maple Ridge as having a rich arts and culture scene and building a
healthy, vibrant and engaged community. Special events are opportunities for citizens to be actively
engaged and to contribute to quality of life and attracting new residents and visitors.
d) Citizen/Customer Implications:
Supporting event organizers and groups in the provision of special events/festivals provides
opportunities for the building of both individual and community capacity. The experiences and
benefits derived from festivals and events have significant value to citizens and visitors - promotes
citizen engagement, strengthens sense of community and increases social capital.
e) Interdepartmentallmplications:
Special events are handled across many civic departments and the work to support the success of
special events will be shared collaboratively through the IMEC Committee which has representatives
from relevant departments including Economic Development.
f) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
The recommendations that are formulated through this process review may have financial and
procedural implications that will be presented for Council's consideration at the completion of the
review in the spring of 2016.
CONCLUSIONS:
City supported special events have evolved over time; some are stronger and more relevant then others
and some are reinventing themselves. A strategy and plan to grow events that are uniquely Maple
Ridge, to coordinate marketing and messaging and to capitalize on opportunities is needed. A critical
analysis of festivals and events provides this opportunity for improvement and strengthens the quality of
events and experiences.
"Original signed by David Boag" for
Prepared by: Yvonne Chui, Manager Arts and Community Connections
"Original signed by Wendy McCormick"
Reviewed by: Wendy McCormick, Director of Recreation
"Original signed by Kelly Swift"
Approved by: Kelly Swift, General Manager,
Community Development Parks & Recreation Services
"Original signed by Ted Swabey"
Concurrence by: Ted Swabey
Chief Administrative Officer
yc:wmc
Attac h me nts:
Special Events Statistics 2015
Overview of Current Structure in Festivals & Events
Commission Policies P100, P127 and P092
3
Maple Ridge Festival and Volunteer Statistics 2015
Number of Festivals/Special Events in Maple Ridge
(including active events) 62
Represents 62% of total estimated events in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows
Special Event Volunteering & Attendance Statistics
Number of Volunteers for Festivals/Events (reported) 1,250 volunteers
Number of Volunteer Hours on Event Days in 2015 * 25,000 hours
*estimate and excludes pre-event planning and prep work
Estimated Total Attendance Number in 2015 175,000 people
City Festivals Grant Allocations:
Caribbean Festival $5,000
Country Fest $5,000
Maple Ridge Children's Festival $2,000
Adstock $700
Haney Farmer's Market $1,500
River's Day $1,500
GETlfest $500
Canada Day $4,300
Remembrance Day $1,500
Christmas Haven $1,000
Christmas Parade & Festival $5,000
Earth Day $1,500
Bard in Spirit Square $3,000
Grassroots and new events $4,880
Total MR Allocation at 76% of Festivals Grant Budget $37,380
$ Reported Festivals & Special Events Budgets from Applicants (cash) $600,000
(festivals approx. $370,000 and active events approx. $230,000)
Other Support Services to Festivals & Special Events (Cash and In-Kind)
Volunteer Recognition and Training Opportunities $10,000
PLS staff and in-kind support of special events in 2015** $250,000
**(This is an informed estimate based on feedback from staff to support
meetings and prep, day of event site work, applications process, PLS
promotion services, operating hours etc.). Staff time is not tracked for
individual events.
NOTE: estimates to year end based on historical information and information submitted
Overview of Current Structure:
Sqecial Events. Festivals and Volunteers Section of Parks and Leisure Services
Festivals/Special Events and Volunteer Office:
The PLS Festival/Special Event and Volunteer staff (2.5 FTE) support the full range of special
events and community building initiatives using an asset-based community development
approach for Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. Working in partnership with the Community
Festival Network (CFN) and the Intra- Municipal Events Committee, the Festival/Special
Event and Volunteer staff provide support to volunteer-driven organizations and groups with
the following services:
• Facilitating committee and volunteer program development as liaisons.
• Creating event, site and safety plans and providing technical and logistical expertise.
• Overseeing facility bookings, park rentals for special events, equipment delivery and
event set up & tear down.
• Promoting events by collecting and coordinating relevant details and posting to the City's
website, social media and readerboards. Includes work on marketing campaigns linked
to key seasonal times for special events/festivals (eg. summer, Christmas, Easter).
• Connecting and developing resources including guide manuals and sponsorship lists.
• Researching and facilitating educational workshops on leadership, fund development,
and other trending topics.
• Facilitating Commission's semi-annual review and making recommendations for the
Festival Support Grant program.
• Coordinating the Intra-Municipal Events Committee (IMEC) team to support an efficient
event approval process and facilitate effective communications.
• Managing volunteer program for PLS and community partners including volunteer
recognition, registration, orientation, training and support.
Groups and organizations go through many life cycle stages of being grassroots, start up,
growth, maturity, decline and renewal. Festivals and Volunteers staff support ensures
continuity and a sliding scale of support based on the group's needs and the complexity of
the proposed special event.
Community Festival Network (CFN) Partnership:
The CFN is a leadership committee of volunteer event organizers in both communities that is
committed to "encouraging sharing, communication, collaboration and cooperation between
groups hosting local events." Festivals/Special Events and Volunteer staff provide facilitative
support with meetings, training and planning and implementation of projects identified that
may have a collective impact or problem solving exercise for the coalition to achieve
successful events, e.g. workshops on safe route mapping and food vendor safety
requirements.
Intra- Municipal Events Committee (IMEC):
The IMEC consists of municipal staff in each community that represents
departments/services involved in special events including RCMP, Fire, Engineering,
Communications, Bookings, Risk Management, Economic Development and Parks. The
committee meets quarterly (or more as needed) to discuss event safety and the approval
process for event road closures, safety plans and resources. This committee is committed to
ensuring the approval process for events is as smooth and streamlined as possible, while
ensuring safety and other logistics and legal obligations/responsibilities are met.
Festival/Special Event and Volunteer staff are responsible for supporting, collecting and
[ 1]
coordinating the event applications and approvals process on an on-going basis throughout
the year. Collectively, they have developed a streamlined and coordinated process and
procedures to vet all applications under IMEC which is similar to the concept of a"one stop
shop" rather than going through many applications and processes for different departments
which used to be past practise. It supports the goal to provide efficient and effective
customer service and to minimize municipal risks.
Festival Support Grant Program:
The Commission has established a policy on festival support (P100). Financial and in-kind
municipal support is provided to qualified special event groups in accordance with guidelines
established through a festivals support grant program. Through this policy and program, a
number of objectives are met including:
• A vibrant and diverse range of festivals and events.
• Opportunities to celebrate history, living heritage and diverse cultural character.
• Growth of volunteerism and citizen engagement.
• Growth of tourism and attracting businesses and people interested in active and vibrant
communities.
• Safe communities.
The intention of the grant is to recognize the value annual events have in building community
and lasting legacies and to act as an incentive for event organizers to grow, enhance and
improve their event. The grant places the City in a strong facilitative role, encouraging
organizers to work with staff in the development of their event. Financial grants are available
on an annual basis pending available resources and Commission approval of budget to
small, mid-sized and large recurring festivals which have submitted an application request
(exception is the protocol events such as Canada Day and Remembrance Day). Below is a
brief list of some typical events in a calendar year based on size and complexity:
Small - estimated attendance under 300, simple site requirements, single day event and no
road closures. Examples are the grassroots and new events including Summer Serenade,
Pianos on the Street, Adstock and GetiFest.
Medium - estimated attendance under 2,000, moderate site requirements, road closures
requested with some impact on residents or traffic flow, full or partial park closure, single day
event, special occasion licensed area, and traffic management plan required. Examples
include Haney Farmers Market, Bard in the Park and Earth Day.
Large - estimated attendance over 2,000 and up to 20,000, complex site requirements,
multiple days, road closure with impact to traffic flow and residents, full or partial park
closure, special occasion license associated with event, traffic management plan to be
implemented. Examples are Country Fest, Caribbean Festival and Christmas Parade.
In 2015, Maple Ridge special events were awarded an estimated amount of $35,631 in
festival financial grant funding. Applicants indicated using the grants largely towards the
costs for insurance and safety obligations and additional municipal services not covered
under the program such as additional booking of facilities prior to or post event or electrical
requirements. Municipal grant support in the medium and large categories typically
contributes approximately 5 to 10% to their overall event budget (cash) and for the smaller
events up to 30%. At the same time they have reported improving, enhancing and growing
their events. The reported total special events budget (cash) from applicants is estimated at
[2]
$600,000 which excludes the many in-kind contributions for their events such as volunteer
hours and services from business/groups.
Aside from municipal government, event organizers seek additional funding for the majority of their
expenses from corporations/businesses, private individuals, foundations and other levels of
government. They have reported that support from municipal government through in-kind and
financial grants are essential to their success in meeting fundraising targets as the support provides
credibility with other funders and sponsors. Maple Ridge has a long tradition of providing family
friendly community events that are at no or low cost and the event organizers work hard to continue
this tradition.
Volunteer Program:
The goal of the city's volunteer program is to foster, inspire and celebrate individual, group and
business participation in volunteerism that strengthens and builds a healthy, resilient and vibrant
community and contributes to the health and well-being of citizens using the ABCD approach.
Festival/Special Event and Volunteer staff are responsible to support volunteer program
development, training, evaluation and recognition activities related to the City. In addition staff
works with community partners on volunteer development for their special events and community
wide goals on volunteerism.
[3]
Maple R�dge
Pitt Mead�ws
PARKS & EEISURE SERVICE5
Title: POLICY: FESTIVAL SUPPORT
Auth ority: Operationa I
Approval: PLS Commission
Policy Statement:
Policy No
Supercedes:
Effective Date:
Review Date
POLICY MANUAL
P100
2010-09-09
2014-02-13
2014-02-13
Parks and Leisure Services will support the growth and development of festivals and events by
utilizing the community development approach to build community capacity and vibrancy. Financial
and in-kind support will be provided to qualified festival groups in accordance with guidelines
established by the Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Parks and Leisure Services.
PURPOSE:
Festivals and events enhance citizen's quality of life and are an essential element in creating complete
communities. The experiences and benefits derived from festivals and events have significant value by
citizens and visitors and are a vital ingredient in the municipality's on-going development as an active and
vibrant City.
Applications for festivals support will be assessed based on benefits criteria to the community that
includes:
• Encouraging community identity and spirit
• Providing opportunities for economic development
• Building community involvement
• Demonstrating a sense of responsibility to the community
Events will encourage community development that builds the capacity of local residents and the power of
local associations and institutions which contributes to a stronger, more sustainable community for the
future.
The policy will contribute to developing increased vibrancy and community sustainability in Maple Ridge
and Pitt Meadows. Through this policy, Commission is committed to supporting:
• A vibrant and diverse range of festivals and events
• Opportunities to celebrate history, living heritage and diverse cultural character
• Growth of volunteerism
• Growth of tourism and attracting businesses and people interested in active and vibrant
communities
• Safe communities
P100_Festival_Support_Policy_2014-02-13_7263853 1
This policy provides a foundation for the development, management and resource allocation of grants and
services through Parks and Leisure Services by:
• Articulating a clear definition of festivals supported by the Commission.
Establishing guidelines that ensure consistent implementation of the policy when reviewing
requests for financial and in-kind support from qualified festival groups through the Festivals Sub-
Committee and Inter-Municipal Events Committee. All requests will be considered within the context
of available resources and benefits to the community.
• Commission annually appointing a Festivals Sub-Committee (3 members of Parks and Leisure
Services Commission) to work with staff and review applications and make recommendations for
Festival Support Funding allocation to be considered by Commission.
DEFINITIONS:
Definitions:
Festiva I:
A free or low-cost volunteer-driven celebration, entertainment or activity that is accessible, promotes
community spirit, identity and responsibility and is promoted to the general public including Maple Ridge
and Pitt Meadows residents and tourists. For the purpose of clarity and this policy, the term "festival" does
not include sporting events, tournaments, artistic competitions or exhibits, religious causes or commercial
events.
Qualified festival group:
A Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows based festival group or a group in the region with a Maple Ridge and/or
Pitt Meadows partner, registered as a non-profit society, or similar group with the potential to become a
non-profit society, that has made application and agrees to enter into a grant agreement for activities that
take place in Maple Ridge and/or Pitt Meadows.
Available resources:
The budget established through the Parks and Leisure Services Commission to support qualified Maple
Ridge and Pitt Meadows festival groups, plus in-kind allocations including parks, facility and equipment use
or staff time provided by the Commission, the Parks and Leisure Services Festival and Volunteer Office, or
other Municipal Departments
Base level of support:
The level of support available to any and all qualified festival groups in accordance with available
resources, the fees and charges policy and operational procedures. It is the responsibility of festival
organizers to develop, plan, manage, fund and implement their festival.
Benefits Criteria Definitions:
Encourages community identity and spirit:
Involves citizens in planning creatively for the community. Enhances the image and reputation of the
community by contributing to a vibrant and creative environment that attracts citizens, visitors and
business.
Grows economic opportunities:
Draws a critical mass opportunity, attracting a large number of attendees including tourists. Provides
opportunities for business to network with or promote their services to the community in a positive
environment.
P100_Festiva I_Su pport_Pol icy_2014-02-13_7263853
Builds community involvement:
Increases the range of experiences available to residents and visitors through cultural, recreational and
educational components. Provides an environment for public gathering, mingling and safe celebration and
increases residents' sense of belonging and comfort in participating in their community that includes
access to these activities through inclusive practices and low-cost opportunities.
Demonstrates a sense of responsibility to the community:
Uses sound financial practices and has sources of revenue other than from the Commission.
Demonstrates environmental stewardship. Supports local business and community projects. Ensures
safety is a primary consideration when planning and staging festivals. Incorporates a range of quality
opportunities for volunteer engagement, training and leadership development that helps to fulfill the
group's mission and vision.
REFERENCE:
Fees and Charges Policy
Community Development Policy
P100_Festival_Support_Policy_2014-02-13_7263853 3
Maple Ridge
Pitt Meadows
PARKS & LEISURE SERVICES
Title: VOLUNTEER POLICY
Authority: Operational
Approval: PLS Commission
Policy Statement:
POLICY MANUAL
Policy No. P127
Supercedes:
Effective Date:
Review Date
2003-04
2014-09-11
2014-09-11
The Commission values volunteers and believes: that volunteerism promotes citizen
engagement, social and civic responsibility and civic pride; contributes to healthy, vibrant and
caring communities; and, improves quality of life as there are benefits at individual and
community levels.
Therefore, the Commission will support volunteers and volunteerism in Maple Ridge and Pitt
Meadows; provide positive, meaningful volunteer experiences; encourage the support of
volunteerism and diverse volunteer opportunities in both communities and work with volunteer
community groups to strengthen and recognize volunteerism.
VOLUNTEER POLICY
Purpose and Guiding Principles
1.1. Purpose
The purpose of the volunteer policy for the Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows Parks and Leisure
Services Commission (Commission) is to recognize the essential role that volunteers and
volunteerism plays in building a healthy, caring and vibrant community and contributes to the
health and well-being of citizens. The policy recognizes:
• The role that volunteers and volunteerism contributes in making Maple Ridge and Pitt
Meadows a community of choice for individuals and businesses.
• The importance of strengthening volunteerism in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows.
• That volunteerism contributes to community capacity building and as such aligns with the
Asset Based Community Development policy (P092).
• The importance of providing quality, meaningful and rewarding experiences for
individuals who volunteer with the municipality.
This policy is subject to any specific provisions of the Municipal Act, or other relevant legislation or
Union Agreement.
P127_Volunteer_Policy_2014-09-11_7264954 1
That developing systems and processes that support municipal volunteers and
volunteerism by implementing best practices is essential for effective and consistent
management of volunteers.
The importance of strengthening relationships and supporting connections through the
development of networks among volunteer community groups and individuals.
Providing a framework for municipal volunteers to complement and/or enhance
municipal services and fulfill work plan goals through the sharing of skills, ideas,
connections, energy and time.
1.2. Guiding Principles
Promoting volunteer involvement and contribution to community has powerful potential to
positively impact society, communities, organizations and individuals. Meaningful, abundant,
and accessible volunteer opportunities are vital to a healthy, inclusive, resilient and
democratic community.
The following principles reflect the input from local community volunteers and organizations,
as well as align with the principles and standards outlined in the Canadian Code for
Volunteer Involvement (2012). The application of the following Guiding Principles will assist
in developing volunteer opportunities that support the development of a healthy community:
Asset-Based
We believe that promoting volunteerism is critical to identifying and connecting local
strengths and assets, skills, talents, and perspectives that are essential to responding to
community challenges while strengthening the social fabric that contributes to a healthy,
vibrant and sustainable community.
Relationships
We believe that volunteerism promotes strong relationships, both individual and community,
that contribute to building a healthy connected and engaged community.
Engaged
We believe that volunteerism promotes a sense of belonging and has a positive impact on a
person's social, physical and emotional well-being. Community engagement through
volunteerism provides opportunities for citizens to "make a difference" which ultimately
contributes to their personal well-being.
Inclusive
We value the contribution of all citizens and are committed to ensuring that everyone has a
voice and space to contribute to community quality of life. We recognize and promote the
richness achieved through meaningful and diverse participation and we take responsibility
for recognizing and diminishing the barriers that prevent citizens from contributing.
Collective Community Building
We believe that volunteerism promotes civic engagement and active participation in shaping
our community. We believe that connecting volunteers and volunteer community groups
increases the capacity to accomplish collective goals that are responsive and reflective of
community needs and interests.
This policy is subject to any specific provisions of the Municipal Act, or other relevant legislation or
Union Agreement.
P127_Volunteer_Policy_2014-09-11_7264954 2
Responsibility
We believe that volunteerism is an avenue for connecting people to the causes they care
about and that through community participation citizens are encouraged and supported to
take responsibility and contribute to the health and wellness of the community.
Standards of Volunteer Involvement:
Parks and Leisure Services is committed to ensuring that volunteer involvement supported
by the department adheres to the following standards. In addition, Parks and Leisure
Services is committed to encouraging and supporting partner organizations and community
groups and organizations to achieve such standards:
• Volunteers are recognized as a vital human resource in achieving civic mission and
community vision.
• Appropriate infrastructure and organizational practices are adopted to support
volunteers and volunteerism.
• A safe and supportive environment is available to all volunteers.
• That committed volunteers are accountable to the organization(s) or groups that they are
involved in.
• Policies and procedures are in place to provide a framework that defines and supports
the involvement of volunteers within the organization including risk management and
operating procedures.
• Qualified staff are designated to be responsible for the overall volunteer program and the
supervision of specific volunteer programs and volunteers within the organization.
• A registration and screening process is clearly communicated and consistently delivered.
• Volunteer assignments are meaningful and rewarding, reflecting the various abilities,
needs and backgrounds of volunteers and the mission and vision of the
organization/group.
• Volunteer recruitment and selection reaches out to diverse sources of volunteers through
the local Volunteer Centre and other resources.
• Volunteer opportunities, branding and messaging are developed in collaboration with
voluntary community groups to create an integrated system that supports great volunteer
experiences, connections and capacity building.
• Volunteers receive appropriate orientation, its policies and procedures, and receive
training for their volunteer assignment(s) and to build their leadership and skills.
• Volunteers receive appropriate levels of supervision according to their task and are given
regular opportunities to receive and give feedback.
• Volunteers are welcomed and treated as valuable and integral members of the
broader municipal team.
• The contributions of volunteers are regularly acknowledged with formal and
informal recognition methods.
This policy is subject to any specific provisions of the Municipal Act, or other relevant legislation or
Union Agreement.
P127_Volunteer_Policy_2014-09-11_7264954 3
2.0 Definitions
Asset-Based Community Development: this approach considers local assets as the primary
building blocks of sustainable community development. Building on the skills of local
residents, the strengthening of local associations, and the supportive functions of local
institutions, asset-based community development draws upon existing community strengths
to build stronger, more sustainable communities for the future.
The principles of ABCD approach include:
• Asset-Based - build on positives, strengths, and opportunities.
• Relationship-Driven - centered on the people in the community working together.
• Locally-Focused - place-based.
ABCD recognizes that, in order to be truly effective, citizens must join the effort as co-
creators and co-producers of their own, and their community's, well-being. The essence of
ABCD is Discover, Ask and Connect:
• Discover the skills (gifts) and passions of the participants; often it is assisting them in
discovering their own gifts;
• Ask them to share those gifts, and
• Encourage them to Connect with other people with the same passions and to work
collectively for the common good.
Canadian Code for Volunteer Involvement: developed during the International Year of the
Volunteer in 2001, is a framework for decision making. The Code is based on values, guiding
principles, and organization standards. It was updated in 2012 to reflect changing landscape
of volunteerism.
Voluntary Community Groups: are non-profit groups or organizations that exist to serve the
public benefit, are typically governed by a voluntary board of directors, and depend on
volunteers to carry out essential parts of the groups' or organizations' work.
Volunteer: anyone who offers time, energy, and skills of his or her own free will for the
mutual benefit of the volunteer and the organization or group. Volunteers work without
financial compensation, or the expectation of financial compensation beyond an agreed-
upon reimbursement for expenses.
Volunteering or voluntary action: refers to activities carried out by individuals, of their own
free will, to shape and/or enhance their communities. Volunteer includes people assisting
others, both formally and informally.
This policy is subject to any specific provisions of the Municipal Act, or other relevant legislation or
Union Agreement.
P127_Volunteer_Policy_2014-09-11_7264954 4
Maple Ridge
Pitt Meadvws
PARKS & LEISURE SERVECES
POLICY MANUAL
Title: ASSET BASED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT POLICY Policy No.
Supercedes:
Authority: Operational Effective Date
Approval: PLS Commission Review Date:
Policy Statement:
P092
1998-06
2014-04-10
2014-04-10
Parks and Leisure Services will utilize an Asset-Based Community Development approach in the
provision of leisure services to inspire, encourage, and support citizens, community organizations,
and networks to work collectively to build individual and community capacity to enhance the quality
of I ife.
PURPOSE:
The Parks and Leisure Services' community development approach considers local assets as the
primary building blocks of sustainable community development. The principles of ABCD are rooted in
the assumption that communities have strengths rather than deficiencies, assets rather than needs,
and possibilities rather than problems. Building on the skills of local residents, the power of local
associations, and the supportive functions of local institutions, ABCD draws upon existing community
strengths to build stronger, more sustainable communities for the future.
This approach values the engagement and participation of all citizens and recognizes the richness
achieved through diversity of perspectives. Careful attention is taken to remove the barriers that
prevent people from participating in the issues that affect their lives. The focus is on building
leadership capacity in order to support and encourage community groups and organizations to work
collectively to:
identify their own strengths, assets, passions, rights, and responsibilities;
connect with others' assets by building relationships which support, sustain, encourage, and
value each participant;
learn, plan, organize, make decisions and take action with others collectively, in relation to the
things that concern or interest them;
and together, assess the effect of any actions taken.
GUIDING PRINCIPLES:
Asset-Based:
We believe that all citizens have "gifts", talents and skills and that people can and want to contribute
and that they are healthier when they contribute. We believe in providing opportunities that
encourage both individual and community capacity building.
P092_Asset_Based_Comty_Dev_2014-04-10_7266EBE 1
Relationships:
We believe that strong relationships are at the core of a healthy community. We believe in investing
in building and nurturing strong mutually respectful relationships.
Inclusive:
We value the engagement and participation by all citizens and recognize the richness achieved
through diversity of perspectives. We take responsibility for recognizing and removing the barriers
that prevent people from participating in the issues that affect their lives.
Connections:
We believe in the "giving of gifts". We believe that the gifts, talents and skills in the community are
boundless and that supporting processes that promote sharing of assets it critical.
Grassroots:
We value, respect, nurture and encourage the community to identify their own priorities, to learn
together and collectively play a leadership role in its own development.
Collective:
We believe in the "power of association". We believe that when community assets are connected
they become amplified, magnified, productive and celebrated. The connection of assets is essential
to community health, wellness, and resiliency.
BENEFITS:
Utilizing the Asset-Based Community Development approach enables Parks and Leisure Services to
create opportunities for connections that build on existing strengths and assets and contributes to
building citizen, community organizations, networks, and associations' capacity.
Investing in Individual Capacity Building:
Investing time and attention to individual citizens' development of their personal skills, knowledge
and abilities is vital to the health of the community and the successful development of leaders in
community processes. The personal development of individuals `gifts' and talents and can be
nurtured through the creation of opportunities that contribute to building:
• Sense of Self ( self esteem)
• Sense of Competence
• Sense of Belonging
• Sense of Purpose
• Sense of Power (empowerment)
• Sense of Empathy (opportunity to practice compassion)
P092_Asset_Based_Comty_Dev_2014-04-10_7266EBE 2
Investing in Community Capacity Building:
Community capacity building ensures that communities take control of their own learning in a way
that enables them to effectively address the needs and issues that are on their own agendas.
Supporting capacity building of community organizations, networks and associations contributes to:
• increased knowledge, skills and confidence through either/both informal and formal learning
and training opportunities and citizens are validated as worthwhile, capable people.
• the community feeling more confident and powerful and embracing a more positive self-image;
• the community displaying a"can do" attitude, seeing possibilities and notjust problems;
• citizens see themselves as the potential producers of their own well being;
• through participation and networking, citizens seeing that they are not alone, that there are
partners for them in community work;
• and the development of structures, systems, and mechanisms to support ongoing collective
approaches to enable community to address issues and/or capitalize on opportunities.
Supporting Opportunities for Individual and Community Benefits to Develop:
This policy recognizes that in order to achieve the benefits of collective impact, the support of a
backbone organization is critical. Parks and Leisure Services serves this role by taking responsibility
to connect and support coordination of the structures, systems, and mechanisms related to services
it provides in the community.
DEFINITIONS:
Community Development:
Broadly, community development is a collective approach by a group of people to undertake projects
of their choice that will bring about positive change. This activity is informed by a set of values that
underpin the approach to the work. These values are: equality, self-determination, working and
learning together, sustainable communities, participation, and reflective practice.
Asset-Based Community Development:
This approach considers local assets as the primary building blocks of sustainable community
development. Building on the skills of local residents, the strengthening, of local associations, and
the supportive functions of local institutions, asset-based community development draws upon
existing community strengths to build stronger, more sustainable communities for the future.
The principles of ABCD approach include:
• Asset-Based - build on positives, strengths, and opportunities.
• Relationship-Driven - centered on the people in the community working together.
• Locally-Focused - place-based.
ABCD recognizes that, in order to be truly effective, citizens mustjoin the effort as co-creators and
co-producers of their own, and their community's, well-being. The essence of ABCD is Discover, Ask
and Connect:
• Discover the skills (gifts) and passions of the participants; often it is assisting them in
discovering their own gifts;
P092_Asset_Based_Comty_Dev_2014-04-10_7266EBE 3
• Ask them to share those gifts, and
• Encourage them to connect with other people with the same passions and to work collectively for
the common good.
Backbone Organization:
Creating and managing collective impact requires a separate organization(s) with staff and a specific
set of skills to serve as the backbone for the entire initiative to coordinate participating organizations
and agencies
Collective Impact:
Collective impact is achieved through the commitment of community groups from different sectors to
a common agenda that is intended to create positive impacts for community. There are five
conditions that, together, lead to meaningful results from Collective Impact: common agenda,
shared measurement, mutually reinforcing activities, continuous communication, and the support of
a backbone organization that serves to connect and coordinate participating groups and
organizations.
Results Based Accountability (RBA):
RBA provides a framework that encourages long-term thinking to support community change by
providing a method of developing and tracking performance measures that will support engaging
community in setting community-wide collective strategies.
Capacity Building:
Community capacity building describes the process of developing skills, knowledge, confidence and
structures that ensure that projects will succeed. Community capacity is the combined influence of a
community's commitment, resources, and skills that can be deployed to build on community
strengths and address community problems and opportunities. Community capacity building
focuses on enhancing the assets and abilities of the community through a process of identification,
strengthening and linking of a community's tangible resources (i.e. charitable service clubs) and
intangible resources (i.e. community spirit).
Social Capital:
Social Capital is the value generated by various forms of civic engagement, trust, norms of
reciprocity, networks, associations, and information sharing within a community. Social Capital:
• helps information flow through the community;
• encourages norms of reciprocity that compel people to help others for mutual benefit;
• increases participation in democratic institutions, thereby improving their accountability;
• and helps the community become resilient to economic, social and environmental changes.
Resilient Communities:
Resilient communities are healthy communities capable of "bouncing back" from adverse situations
by actively influencing and preparing for economic, social and environmental change. Building
resilient communities relies on building social capital because:
• in times of need, a resilient community will draw upon all of the resources that make it a healthy
community;
P092_Asset_Based_Comty_Dev_2014-04-10_7266EBE 4
during times of crisis, social capital provides a community with an informed communications
network and access to a wide range of resources, beyond the traditional labour market.
Community Engagement:
Authentic community engagement requires significant numbers of community members and
happens when:
• people in communities create structures and processes that are empowering for themselves
and others;
• and people in public agencies create structures and processes that are empowering for all
citizens.
Conscious consideration must be given to removal of barriers to ensure that citizens can participate.
Community Empowerment:
Authentic community empowerment provides opportunities and processes that enable all citizens to
play an active role in the decisions that affect their communities. Assisting individuals and groups to
recognize their own `gifts' and connecting them to community assets, is critical for effective
community empowerment.
P092_Asset_Based_Comty_Dev_2014-04-10_7266EBE 'rJ
� ,
mapleridge.ca City of Maple Ridge
T0: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE:
and Members of Council FILE N0:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING:
SUBJECT: Subsidized Ice Allocation - Minor Sports
December 7, 2015
CK��
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In 2009, the Commission directed staff to investigate the amount of subsidized ice time available to
minor sport groups in Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge. Based on this research it was determined
that minor sport groups received less than half the amount of subsidized ice time, averaging 0.05 hours
per player per week compared to other lower mainland communities' at 0.11 hours per player per week.
The Commission then directed staff to prepare an incremental budget package for consideration during
the 2010 business planning cycle to address the identified gap. The incremental request
recommended a 10% per annum increase in subsidized ice allocated to minor sport groups over the
following five years. The Commission agreed to do a review on completion of the five-year incremental
period.
The recent review indicated that the allocation target of 0.11 hours per player per week was almost
achieved. However, the regional average has since increased from 0.11 to 0.16 hours per player per
week. An analysis of the data indicates that there is no immediate need for an increase in the amount
of subsidized ice allocated at this time. However, the larger than average ice user associations
indicates there is a need to monitor our facility inventory going forward to plan to meet future demand.
For further statistics and details see the Commission report attached.
RECOMMENDATION:
No resolution required.
"Original signed by Wendy McCormick"
Prepared by: Wendy McCormick, Director of Recreation
"Original signed by Kelly Swift"
Approved by: Kelly Swift, General Manager,
Community Development, Parks & Recreation Services
"Original signed by Ted Swabey"
Concurrence by: Ted Swabey
Chief Administrative Officer
:wmc
Attachment: PLS Commission Report - November 12, 2015
1152
� ��
� =.
Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows
Maple Ridge Parks & Leisure Services Commission Report
Pitt Meadaws REGULAR MEETING
PARKS & LE15l1RE SERVICES November 12, 2015
SUBJECT: Subsidized Ice Allocation to Minor Sports
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In 2009, the Commission directed staff to investigate the amount of subsidized ice time available to
minor sport groups in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. Based on this research it was determined
that minor sport groups received less than half the amount of subsidized ice time, averaging .05
hours per player per week compared to other lower mainland communities' at.11 hours per player
per week. The Commission then directed staff to prepare an incremental budget package for
consideration during the 2010 business planning cycle to address the identified gap. The
incremental request recommended a 10% per annum increase in subsidized ice allocated to minor
sport groups over the following five years.
This increased allocation was fully achieved in 2014 and brought Commission's subsidized ice
allocation to .10 hours per player per week. However, the regional average has since increased from
.11 to .16 hours per player per week. In addition, staff have compared the subsidized rate per hour
and noted that Commission's purchase price for subsidized ice is currently $3.90 per hour below the
average purchase rate. Commission provides 188 more hours of subsidized ice per season to minor
sport organizations and Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows have larger than average ice user
associations.
All the data indicates that there is no immediate need for an increase in the amount of subsidized
ice allocated by Commission at this time. However, the larger than average ice users associations
indicates that there will be a need to monitor our facility inventory going forward.
RECOMMENDATION:
No resolution required.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Minor sport groups in all communities rely on municipal ice allocations to access ice time in
order to provide recreation and sport opportunities to the community and to minor sports in
particular. At the May 2009 Commission meeting, the Ridge Meadows Minor Hockey
Association made a presentation and requested the following:
1. To protect ice time for minor sports to reduce the risk that ice time for minor sports was not
sold to other users.
2. To provide more hours at Commission's subsidized rate.
C:\Users\i ngrid k\AppData\Loca I\Tem p\32\Fra mework\PLSC_2015-11-
12_Subsidized_Ice_Allocation_Minor_Sports_Attach_7381347.docx 1
Staff did the research and determined that Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows minor sport ice users
were well below the average per player for subsidized ice. As demonstrated in the table below
Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows minor sport ice users received less than 50% of the subsidized,
ice as compared to neighbouring communities.
Municipality 2009
Port Moody 0.11
Port Coquitlam n/a
Coquitlam 0.14
Abbotsford 0.10
New Westminster n/a
Mission 0.11
Burnaby 0.11
Average 0.11
Maple Ridge & Pitt Meadows 0.05
Variance 0.06
In June of 2009, the Commission directed staff to prepare an incremental budget package for
consideration during the 2010 business planning cycle. The incremental request recommended a
10% per annum increase in subsidized ice allocated to minor sports over five years:
Year Sub. Hrs. Per Year Net Subsidy Budget Increase
2009 2,226 $333,900 0
2010 2,450 $367,500 $33,600
2011 2,694 $404,100 $36,600
2012 2,962 $444,300 $40,200
2013 3,259 $488,880 $44,580
2014 3,584 $537,600 $48,720
If minor sport membership remained static, the amount of time that Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows
allocates would have increased from 0.05 hours per player per week to 0.09, which would be
significantly closer to the average of 0.11.
The incremental package was implemented and staff have completed a review of the current status.
The assumptions identified in the 2010 incremental package and the 2009 staff report have been
realized and the amount of subsidized time that Commission allocates has increased from 0.05
hours per player per week in 2009 to 0.10 hours per player per week in 2014 however, as
demonstrated below, the regional average has increased to 0.16 hours per player per week.
C:\Users\i ngridk\AppData\Local\Tem p\32\Framework\PLSC_2015-11-
12_Subsidized_Ice_Allocation_Minor_Sports_Attach_7381347.docx 2
Municipality Average Time Allocated Per Player
Per Week
2009 2015
Port Moody 0.11 0.22
Port Coquitlam n/a 0.11
Coquitlam 0.14 0.17
Abbotsford 0.10 0.11
New Westminster n/a n/a
Mission 0.11 0.18
Burnaby 0.11 0.14
Average 0.11 0.16
Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows 0.05 0.10
Variance 0.06 0.05
Staff also looked at the subsidized ice rate offered by these communities and found that the
Commission's subsidized rate is $3.90 per hour below the average and that Commission provides
188 more hours of subsidized ice per year than our neighbours. The following graph also
demonstrates that our minor sport organizations are much larger than the average associations
which accounts for the discrepancy in number of hours per player per week. The numbers below
seem to demonstrate that more Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows players would be on the ice at a time
than in other communities.
It will be important to monitor these numbers going forward as the continued growth of these
organizations will result in a deficit in our ice inventory.
Hours per # of Players in
Municipality Rates 2015 season 2015 2015
Port Moody $121.25 2,604 420
Port Coquitlam $110.00 1,806 575
Coquitlam $121.62 4,179 900
Abbotsford $116.00 2,764 875
New Westminster n/a n/a
Mission $112.90 1,834 369
Burnaby $103.66 3,199 794
Average of other Communities $114.24 2,731 655.5
Maple Ridge & Pitt Meadows $110.34 2,919 1035
Variance $3.90 -188 379.5
b) Desired Outcome:
To regularly review the amount of subsidized ice available and maintain a balance between rates
and the amount of subsidized ice available to local minor user groups, when compared to the
current regional market. To protect access to an adequate amount of ice time to serve the needs
of minor sport groups that use arenas in Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows.
C:\Users\i ngridk\AppData\Local\Tem p\32\Framework\PLSC_2015-11-
12_Subsidized_Ice_Allocation_Minor_Sports_Attach_7381347.docx 3
c) Strategic Alignment:
Provide high quality municipal services to our citizens and customers in a cost effective and
efficient manner. Access to ice time at a reasonable cost provides a range of recreation and
sport opportunities to local citizens and particularly to children and youth. This reflects the intent
to create a safe and livable community.
d) Citizen/Customer Implications:
Minor sport groups in all communities rely on municipal subsidies to access ice time in arenas in
order to provide recreation and sport opportunities to the community. Currently, Maple Ridge
and Pitt Meadows provide slightly lower access when compared to other communities.
e) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
The Commission's practice is to review PLS fees and subsidies on a regular basis and to plan
regular, modest increases that reflect average market comparisons to avoid any significant
impact to patrons and user groups.
CONCLUSIONS:
Minor sport groups in all communities rely on municipal subsidies to access ice time in arenas in
order to provide recreation and sport opportunities to the community. Currently, Commission
provides slightly lower access per player per hour when compared to other communities. Although
we do not need to increase our ice subsidy at this time, it will be important to continue to monitor the
growth of our associations to ensure that our inventory is in line with the demand.
"Original signed by Danielle Pope for"
Prepared By: Don Cramb
Sr. Recreation Manager
"Original signed by Wendy McCormick
Reviewed By: Wendy McCormick
Director Recreation
"Original signed by Kelly Swift"
Approved By: Kelly Swift
General Manager, Community Development
Parks & Recreation Services
dc:wmc
C:\Users\i ngridk\AppData\Local\Tem p\32\Framework\PLSC_2015-11-
12_Subsidized_Ice_Allocation_Minor_Sports_Attach_7381347.docx 4
MAPLE Rli]6E
8riHrh Cdumbia
•
.�
City of Maple Ridge
Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE:
and Members of Council FILE N0:
Chief Administrative Officer MEETING:
SUBJECT: Leisure Centre Pool Renovations Contract Award
December 7, 2015
C.O. W.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Bid submissions for the proposed Maple Ridge Leisure Centre Pool Improvements (ITT-PL15-67)
were received October 28, 2015. Three contractors were previously pre-qualified for a project of this
scope and all were in compliance with the requirements of the tender documents. Staff have
evaluated each of the submissions and are recommending that the renovation contract be awarded
to the lowest compliant bidder, Mierau Contractors Limited for Option 1 for the sum $4,811,062.00.
This option will necessitate the aquatic area of the Leisure Centre being closed for one year. Option
2, to phase the construction work was also considered, however it is not recommended as it and
would cost an additional $124,487.00 and would result in a longer closure. In addition the Fraser
Health Department has advised that they would not support the pool being kept open while the
construction hoarding is in place.
RECOMMENDATION:
(a) That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and execute the Construction Contract (ITT-
PL15-67) with Mierau Contractors Limited for the construction of the Maple Ridge Leisure Centre
Pool, mechanical and filtration systems for a total of $4,811,062.00, excluding GST; AND,
(b) That a contingency of 10% be established for the Construction Contract (ITT-PL15-67) in the
amount of $481,000.00 which will increase the previously proposed project budget by an
additional $271,834.00.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
On February 16, 2015, Council awarded Architectural Design Services for the Maple Ridge
Leisure Centre pool improvement project to SHAPE Architecture Inc. for a contract price of
$399,891.00 plus an $80,000.00 (20%) contingency for a total budget of $479,772 for the
detailed design phase of this project.
On May 15, 2015, staff issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ-PL15-44) for Construction
Contractors. Each bidder was asked to provide a list of comparable work experiences with
projects similar in scope and scale of the Maple Ridge Leisure Centre Pool Upgrades, including
references, subcontractors, bonding and listing key team members with mechanical pool
experience. In addition, the bidders were asked to provide two options; one that would involve
the aquatic facility being closed for the duration of construction and a second option that
attempted to keep one or more pools up and running for a portion of the construction project.
115�
On October 28, 2015, staff received compliant bids from the Pre-Qualified contractors as follows:
Option #1 - Complete closure of
Fi rm
Heatherbrae Builders ComK
Mierau Contractors Limited
KDS Construction
Oation #2 - Phased aaaroach:
Fi rm
Heatherbrae Builders ComK
Mierau Contractors Limited
KDS Construction
c facility for the construction period:
Cost Estimated Construction Schedule
$5,490,000.00
$4,811,062.00
$5,397,000.00
Cost
$6,090,000.00
$4,935,549.00
$5,647,000.00
56 weeks
52 weeks
52 weeks
Estimated Construction Schedule
78 weeks
65 weeks
70 weeks
b) Desired Outcome:
To ensure this facility will continue to serve the community in the future. Staff has identified a
variety of electrical, mechanical, filtration and chlorination equipment that should be replaced,
preferably prior to a failure of any of these systems that could result in an extended closure of
the pools. If the City wishes to continue to use this facility, it will be necessary to have a plan in
place to address the replacement of these major components that are approaching or have
exceeded their forecasted useful life expectancy, thereby ensuring the effective circulation of
clean, treated water in this public facility.
One of the initial drivers of this project was the desire to convert the chlorine gas system to liquid
chlorine and ultra violet system to reduce the risk level associated with the original system. In
the interim, facility safety is ensured through multiple chlorine gas sensors throughout the pool
deck and mechanical room areas. These sensors are capable of detecting very low levels of
chlorine gas and will activate an alarm in the event of a leak, thereby allowing for safety
protocols such as evacuation and quick response to contain and resolve leak issues, should they
occur. The installation of a liquid chlorine and ultra violet system will eliminate the risk that can
result from a chlorine gas leak.
Additionally, the aquatic facility is not adequately meeting the needs of an important segment of
our community that requires assistance in accessing the aquatic pools. In July of 2015 staff
applied for and received a$50,000 federal grant to enhance accessibility for children and youth
with varying abilities to the leisure (therapeutic) pool through the redesign of the entry/access
points into the pool. Consequently, the aquatic upgrades encompass a wide, gradual walkway
from the pool deck into the leisure pool and hot tub which will enable wheelchair access thereby
eliminating the need for portable lifting devices and transfer lifts. Accessibility features such as
this will ensure the aquatic facility is welcoming to all of our citizens.
c) Strategic Alignment:
This project aligns with the City's strategic objective to manage existing municipal infrastructure
through the preparation of appropriate plans to ensure development, maintenance and renewal
of community assets, including the Maple Ridge Leisure Centre.
d) Citizen/Customer Implications:
The renovation project is quite significant and will have a substantial impact on public access to
aquatic services. While citizens and customers will retain access to the remainder of the
2
building, such as the gymnasium, weight room and racquet ball courts, the aquatic area will be
closed for an estimated 52 week period.
The recommended contractor has provided staff with a detailed plan of the hoarding
(construction wall painted on both sides) that would be required if the project was to be phased.
Unfortunately the proximity of the hoarding wall to the competition and teach pools would
eliminate aquatic staff's ability to effectively guard the pool. The contractor has advised that it is
not possible to reduce the construction zone further to accommodate guarding. (Option 2
hoarding diagram is attached).
Staff also consulted with the Fraser Health Authority (FHA) regarding any rules or regulations that
may apply if this project was phased as outlined in Option 2. FHA has advised that they do not
support the phased approach as a minimum width of 1.2 m must be maintained around the
perimeter of the pool in order to maintain patron safety. Therefore a permit to operate would not
be provided during construction should Option 2 be considered.
Although all users of the Maple Ridge Leisure Centre pool will be affected by this closure, groups
such as the Haney Seahorses and the Haney Neptunes Swim Club will be highly impacted. The
following table outlines a tentative plan to accommodate these clubs during an extended
closu re:
Swim Club Accommodation Plan
The Haney Neptunes offer competitive The Haney Neptunes summer program can be
swimming from May 1 to mid-August, plus a accommodated at Hammond Pool from May 1,
maintenance program of 2 hours per week for 2016.
the remaining months
The Haney Seahorses operate year round with The Seahorses can be provided with the option
a break in July and August. to move their practices to Walnut Grove
Aquatic Centre, which is about a 20 minute
drive from the Maple Ridge Leisure Centre.
Parks and Leisure Services Staff have connected with neighbouring pool facility operators and
determined that it is likely that our swim club programs could be accommodated at the Walnut Grove
pool in Langley. The staff at that location have advised that they would offer the Maple Ridge Swim
Clubs the same "not for profit rate" that they provide their own swim clubs. However, the Langley
rate is higher than the City of Maple Ridge Fees and Charges Bylaw.
If this location is utilized Council could consider providing the clubs with a grant that off-sets the
difference in the hourly rates provided by each community. If all time available was book by the two
clubs, it would cost approximately $100,000. In 2014 the Seahorses paid $22,208.43 and the
Neptunes $36,488.72 for pool time, a difference of approximately $42,000.
Cate ories Maple Rid e Rate Lan ley Rate
Non Profit - 25m lane - Prime Hourly Rate $10.82
Non Profit - 25m lane - Non-Prime Hourly Rate $5.41
Non Profit - 50m lane - Prime Hourly Rate $21.64
Non Profit - 50m lane - Non-Prime Hourly Rate $10.82
Competition Pool - 25m lane $5.96
Teach Pool - 25m lane $5.07
3
e) Interdepartmentallmplications:
The closure of the pool for an extended period of time will result in a number of aquatic staff
being laid off for the duration of the project as there would be no shifts available for them. This
project will have an impact on a number of part time employees. It also has the potential to
affect other areas of Parks and Leisure Services as a result of seniority rights being implemented
for those employees affected by the pool closure.
f) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
The Finance Department worked with Parks and Leisure Services staff to develop a financial
strategy to advance the project funding utilizing dedicated lifecycle funds. This funding strategy
is employed with the understanding that other non-urgent infrastructure projects in other
municipal buildings may need to be delayed to accommodate this priority project.
As of January 2016, the City will have accumulated approximately $2,000,000.00 in the City's
Infrastructure budget to help fund this project. The balance of the funding required for this
project, including the additional contingency, will be borrowed internally from the capital works
reserve and repaid to the reserve by allocating a portion of the annual infrastructure budget over
the next five years. This funding strategy was discussed with Council in an earlier report on this
topic.
Budget Breakdown
Shape Architecture (design)
Design contingency
Mierau Contractors (Construction)
Proposed Construction contingency
Sub Total
Previously proposed budget
Additional contingency funds requested
Revised Budget
$ 399,810 (399,810 is already spent)
$ 79,962 ($35,000 is already spent)
$ 4,811,062
$ 481,000
$ 5.771.834
$ 5,500,000
$ 271,834
5.771.834
g) Alternatives
Staff had previously indicated to Council that a full closure of the aquatics area was a
possibility; however the requirement of a one year closure is longer than was anticipated when
the project went to tender. Staff had expected that a phased approach would have enabled
some of the pool areas to remain open while other mechanical or construction work was being
performed.
As a result of this new closure period information, Council could consider an option of not
approving the award of this construction contract, or delaying the project until such time as a
second pool has been built in Maple Ridge, which would eliminate or reduce the impact on our
citizens and swim clubs who use the facility, and the need for aquatic staff layoffs (at least at
this time).
However, there are some risks associated with a deferral of a project of this magnitude. For
instance, a failure of any of the major pool operating components could result in the closure of
the pool until replacements can be found. It is important to note that some of the equipment in
the Leisure Centre is original equipment and replacement parts are no longer available.
Sourcing or manufacturing replacement parts for unanticipated repairs may also have a real
impact on citizen access to the aquatics area. It is anticipated that the planning process
through to the opening of new pool facility could take as long as 5 years.
4
As a result of this risk, staff is hesitant to suggest the deferral of this project. The most
significant concern is the substantial loss of water that is occurring from two of the pool tanks.
Unfortunately it is not possible to definitively determine if this water loss is from the pool tanks
directly, from the supply and return pipes or from the surge tanks. Investigating this properly
would necessitate the removal of the pool deck to inspect the water lines supplying the pools.
The pool renovation project would have addressed all of our concerns in this regard.
CONCLUSIONS:
The detailed design phase has been completed, and the estimates for construction that were
received are within the anticipated estimated budget. Therefore, staff recommends that the contract
for the Maple Ridge Leisure Centre Renovations be awarded to Mierau Contractors Limited. An
additional funding allotment of $271,834.00 is also recommended as a contingency fund in the
event of any unforeseen issues that may arise once demolition of the old pool commences.
"Original signed by David Boag"
Approved by: David Boag, Director
Parks & Facilities
"Original signed by Trevor Thompson"
Approved by: Trevor Thompson
Manager, Financial Planning
"Original signed by Kelly Swift"
Approved by: Kelly Swift
General Manager Community Development,
Parks and Recreation
"Original signed by Ted Swabey"
Concurrence: Ted Swabey
Chief Administrative Officer
:db
5
� _
i-
JEW CHEMICAL BUILDING
fRAVEL DISTANCE TO MEET AN
_XIT: 16.5M (MAX. 45M)
EXIT
� 1 ( IR! IIIF� II II ., /
EXISTING
ouT�ooR P�av Exir ��- EXISTING CORRIDOR �
AREA �� �
EXISTING �
CONCESSIO
- -=��nr�-=�-= ..�: � �
:::/� ' � . � .,;'
�
�
�
O
/_�
�_,—\•� V :
�: . : PHASE ONE
� ' ___
�
�.
— NO CHANGE TO TRAVEL: '
, '� : DISTPcNCES ,4T fVATATOFiIUM
'` � �,-::
■
MPETITI N
P L
OO
�y
EXIT
�❑
EXISTING LOBBY
� V
_ FRONT DESK
EXISTING
C�UARI�
ROOM
E I:
� M �
C F
, m m n n R�
,��,��,��,�,��
, ... , ; � .
.............
�,
<