The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2015-10-05 Committee of the Whole Agenda and Reports.pdf City of Maple Ridge Note: If required, there will be a 15-minute break at 3:00 p.m. Chair: Acting Mayor 1. DELEGATIONS/STAFF PRESENTATIONS – (10 minutes each) 1:00 p.m. 1.1 Maple Ridge Social Services Delivery Research Report • Scott Graham, Social Planning and Research Council of British Columbia 1.2 Port Metro Vancouver – Update on Port Activities • Sandi Case, Vice President, Human Resources and Labour Relations 2. PUBLIC WORKS AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Note: The following items have been numbered to correspond with the Council Agenda: 1101 2015-155-RZ, 23702 132 Avenue, RS-2 to R-1 Staff report dated October 5, 2015 recommending that Application 2015-155- RZ to rezone from RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to R-1 (Residential District) to create a 23 lot residential subdivision be denied. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA October 5, 2015 1:00 p.m. Council Chamber Committee of the Whole is the initial venue for review of issues. No voting takes place on bylaws or resolutions. A decision is made to send an item to Council for debate and vote or to send an item back to staff for more information or clarification before proceeding to Council. The meeting is live streamed and recorded by the City of Maple Ridge. Note: Owners and/or Agents of Development Applications may be permitted to speak to their applications with a time limit of 10 minutes. Committee of the Whole Agenda October 5, 2015 Page 2 of 4 1102 2011-137-RZ, 12257 227 Street, RS-1 to R-3 Staff report dated October 5, 2015 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7169-2015 to rezone from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) to permit future subdivision into 3 single family lots be given first reading and that the applicant provide further information as described on Schedule C of the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999 along with an Intensive Residential Development Permit and a Subdivision application. 1103 2013-107-RZ, 24009, 24005 and 24075 Fern Crescent, First Extension Staff report dated October 5, 2015 recommending that a first one year extension be granted for rezoning application 2013-107-RZ to permit a future subdivision of 34 single family lots 1104 2012-057-RZ, 12933 Mill Street, Final One Year Extension Staff report dated October 5, 2015 recommending that a final one year extension be granted for rezoning application 2012-057-RZ to allow for future subdivision into 17 single family residential lots. 1105 2012-048-DVP, 11291 243B Street and 11282 243 Street Staff report dated October 5, 2015 recommending that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2012-048-DVP to reduce the building envelope for specific lots, to increase the height for all proposed lots, to reduce front yard and side yard setbacks for specific lots, to reduce lot width for specific lots and to reduce the road carriageway on 243 Street. 1106 2014-037-DVP, 21447 121 Avenue Staff report dated October 5, 2015 recommending that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2014-037-DVP to increase building height and reduce the road right-of-way width for a collector street standard. 1107 2015-162-DVP, 24895 Smith Avenue Staff report dated October 5, 2015 recommending that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2015-162-DVP to reduce the road right-of-way width for a proposed cul-de-sac. Committee of the Whole Agenda October 5, 2015 Page 3 of 4 1108 2015-162-SD, 24895 Smith Avenue, 5% Money in Lieu of Parkland Dedication Staff report dated October 5, 2015 recommending that the owner of the subject property pay an amount that is not less than $37,500.00. 3. FINANCIAL AND CORPORATE SERVICES (including Fire and Police) 1131 Revitalization Tax Exemption Agreements Staff report dated October 5, 2015 recommending that the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute agreements with property owners qualifying for property tax exemptions. 1132 Adjustments to 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 Collector’s Rolls Staff report dated October 5, 2015 submitting information on changes to the 2015 Collector’s Roll through the issuance of Supplementary Rolls 4 through 6 and on changes to values on one folio for 2012 through to 2014. For information only 4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND RECREATION SERVICES 1151 Golden Ears Winter Club Funding Request Staff report dated October 5, 2015 recommending a request to add funding to the existing Golden Ears Winter Club operating agreement be referred to the 2016-2020 business planning process. 5. CORRESPONDENCE 1171 6. OTHER ISSUES 1181 Committee of the Whole Agenda October 5, 2015 Page 4 of 4 7. ADJOURNMENT 8. COMMUNITY FORUM Checked by:________________ Date: ________________ 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 minutes. If a question cannot be answered, the speaker will be advised when and how a response will be given. Other opportunities are available to address Council including public hearings and delegations. The public may also make their views known to Council by writing or via email and by attending open houses, workshops and information meetings. Serving on an Advisory Committee is an excellent way to have a voice in the future of this community. For more information on these opportunities contact: Clerk’s Department at 604-463-5221 or clerks@mapleridge.ca Mayor and Council at mayorandcouncil@mapleridge.ca City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: October 5, 2015 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2015-155-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: First Reading 23702 132nd Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The subject property is within the Silver Valley Plan Area. This application proposes to rezone the subject property from RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to R-1 (Residential District) to create a 23 lot residential subdivision. The land use designation for the property is Low Density Urban which aligns with larger urban single family properties, with lot areas of 668m2 (RS-1) or greater. The proposed R-1 (Residential District) Zone has a significantly smaller parcel size, at 371 m2 and does not align with the Low Density Urban land use designation. As this application is found to be not in compliance with the intent of the Silver Valley Area Plan, the recommendation is denial. RECOMMENDATION: That Application 2015-155-RZ be denied. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: Applicant: Don Bowins Owner: 0941119 BC Ltd. Legal Description: Lot: 4, Section: 28, Township: 12, Plan: NWP2637 OCP: Existing: Conservation, Low Density Residential, Med/High Density Residential, Open Space Proposed: Conservation, Low Density Residential, Med/High Density Residential, Open Space Zoning: Existing: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Proposed: R-1 (Residential District) 1101 - 2 - Surrounding Uses: North: Use: 2 properties, urban and rural residential Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) and RS-3 One Family Rural Residential Designation: Combination of Low Density Urban, Medium/High Density Residential, Conservation South: Use: 2 properties, suburban residential Zone: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Designation: Combination of Conservation, Eco Clusters, Medium/High Density Residential East: Use: Vacant Zone: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Designation: Conservation West: Use: 2 properties, 1 vacant, 1 suburban residential Zone: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Designation: Conservation, Medium/High Density Residential, Eco Clusters Existing Use of Property: Suburban Residential Proposed Use of Property: Urban Residential Access: 132 Avenue Servicing requirement: Urban Standard b) Site Characteristics: Located within the Silver Valley Area, the subject property is outside of the River Village location. A watercourse traverses the property near its south and east edges. A second watercourse meanders near the Northwest boundary of the property. Due to the combination of steep slopes and the presence of watercourses, the subject property is designated 58% conservation, although more detailed groundtruthing would be required to determine developable area. c) Project Description: The subject property is located within the Silver Valley Area Plan, and is sited outside of the periphery of River Village and Horse Hamlet. The applicant proposes to develop the property to an urban residential standard for R-1 Special Residential with a minimum lot size of 371m2 and 12 metre lot widths. In order to increase lot yield, the application proposes to relocate a portion of the watercourse. The applicant would be willing to provide riparian enhancement work in order to compensate for relocating the stream. A total of 23 fee simple lots are proposed with this development. 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. - 3 - d) Planning Analysis: Official Community Plan: The land use designations of the subject property are outlined in the Silver Valley Area Plan. For most of the developable portions of the site, the existing designation is Low Density Urban Residential, which typically aligns with larger lots (RS-1c, RS-1d, RS-1, ranging in parcel sizes from 668m2 to 2000m2). The applicant is proposing the R-1 Special Residential Zone be applied to allow for considerably smaller lots, at 371m2. An amendment to the Official Community Plan is required for the conservation boundary once it has been determined by a qualified environmental professional. An amendment to the Official Community Plan will also be required to amend the land use designation from Low Density Urban to Medium/ High Density Residential. Silver Valley Area Plan. Design features of the Silver Valley Area Plan included concentrating higher density residential development into the Hamlets and the River Village. These areas were planned to be within walking distance of commercial uses. Residential densities outside of these core areas were reduced overall, through clustering or retention of larger lots, to retain significant natural amenities and protect view corridors. The subject property is situated between, but outside of the peripheries of River Village and Horse Hamlet. It is therefore located in an area that is generally associated with lower density residential development, as reflected in its current designation. The applicant’s rationale for the OCP amendment appears to be that large RS-1 lots are not affordable for most buyers. In addition, the subject property is adjacent to a site that is designated Medium High Density (which would align with the R-1 Zone) and therefore this amendment would ensure consistency in lot patterns. This neighbouring development was originally also designated Low Density Residential but this designation was amended to Medium High Density Residential a few years ago in exchange for parkland dedication. This justification for an amendment to the Silver Valley Area Plan seems to be at odds with the Plan’s objective of maintaining diversity, distinct neighbourhoods, and clustered development as demonstrated by the key characteristics in Section 4.0, the Overview of the Plan: 4.1 Development is formed in compact neighbourhood clusters 4.2. Density is clustered in distinct walkable neighbourhoods 4.3 Diverse mix of housing types. Silver Valley Plan objectives are emphasized further in Section 5.3.4, Neighbourhoods, as follows: f) Neighbourhoods are based on the principle of housing clusters designed to allow children to safely play in the street or walk to the park, and to promote a sense of social cohesion among residents. g) Neighbourhoods should be ideally sized to promote neighbourliness among residents while still maintaining a sense of social independence. - 4 - Density Increases. Incremental density increases have been provided for in the Silver Valley Plan through secondary residential accommodation. The Silver Valley Area Plan was adopted prior to the Zoning Bylaw amendment for detached garden suites. Policy 5.2.6(c) and (d), Residential Areas states the following: All single family residential lots are permitted the development of an accessory building, separated from and to the rear of the principal building, subject to overall FSR and maximum site coverage. An accessory building may accommodate a residential use or a home-based business. d) the development of an accessory building on a single family residential lot is optional, and may be phased over time. Since adoption of the Area Plan, the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw has been amended to allow for detached garden suites as accessory buildings on larger single family lots. Smaller lots, such as the R-1 Residential District, do not have this option (although secondary suites would be allowed). There is considerable scope for these incremental increases in residential density, on larger single family lots. This type of detached housing also expands the rental housing stock in the community, and therefore meets an acute housing need. The proposed R-1 Residential District Zone does not allow for detached garden suites; therefore, opportunities for this housing option would be lost if this development proposal was permitted to proceed. It should be noted that one of the outcomes of the Housing Action Plan is that staff will be exploring opportunities to create new rental in the community, including Detached Garden Suites. Meeting housing targets. There may have been some uncertainty at the outset about whether Silver Valley could accommodate the residential targets outlined in the Plan, based on its need for groundtruthing and incremental development. However, an overview of previous applications in the area indicates that there is sufficient residual capacity in the developable land base to realize the original objectives of the Plan. On this basis, redesignating properties for higher density is not necessary to meet population targets set out in the Area Plan. Zoning Bylaw: The current application proposes to rezone the property located at 23702 132 Avenue from RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to R-1 (Residential District) to permit a 23 lot subdivision. The site typically would be rezoned for RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) lots, which have a minimum parcel size of 668m2. The minimum lot size for the proposed R-1 Special Residential zone is 371m2. Any variations from the requirements of the proposed zone will require a Development Variance Permit application. Environmental Implications: Discussions are ongoing on the possible relocation of this creek provided adequate compensation and riparian enhancements are provided. The applicant is proposing to relocate an existing watercourse to increase lot yield. Should this application be approved by Council, more detailed groundtruthing by a qualified professional will be required to determine developable area. - 5 - Development Permits: Pursuant to Section 8.10 of the OCP, a Natural Features Development Permit application is required for all development and subdivision activity or building permits for:  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 %;  All floodplain areas and forest lands identified on Natural Features Schedule “C” To ensure the preservation, protection, restoration and enhancement of the natural environment and for development that is protected from hazardous conditions. The property is also within a watercourse protection area, and a development permit can be issued that combines watercourse and natural features protection. Pursuant to Section 8.12 of the OCP, a Wildfire Development Permit application is required for all development and subdivision activity identified in wildfire risk areas. The purpose of the W ildfire Development Permit is for the protection of life and property in designated areas that could be at risk for wildland fire; and where this risk may be reasonably abated through implementation of appropriate precautionary measures. The subject property is located within the Wildfire Development Permit Area, identified on Map 1 in Section 8.12 of the Official Community Plan. Prior to second reading a Registered Professional Forester’s Report will be required to determine wildfire mitigation requirements. Development Information Meeting: If approved by Council, a Development Information Meeting will be required for this application. Prior to Second Reading the applicant is required to host a Development Information Meeting in accordance with Council Policy 6.20. e) Interdepartmental Implications: 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) Fire Department; d) Parks Department; e) School District; f) Utility companies; g) Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure; h) Fisheries & Oceans Canada; i) Ministry of Environment; and j) 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. - 6 - 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) Development Applications: Should this application be approved for first reading, to proceed further, 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 B or Schedule C); 3. A Watercourse Protection Development Permit Application Schedule F) combined with a Natural Features Development Permit Application (Schedule G); 4. A Wildfire Development Permit Application (Schedule J); and 5. A Subdivision Application. The above list is intended to be indicative only, other applications may be necessary as the assessment of the proposal progresses. ALTERNATIVES: As this proposal is not in compliance with the Official Community Plan, the recommendation is denial. However, other options for Council consideration are as follows: Deferral: Council may wish to defer this application in order to explore the concept of increasing the permitted density of the subject property in exchange for amenity contributions for community benefit. These contributions would derive from the proposed density increase and from the proposed relocation of the existing watercourse. Proceed to First Reading: Should Council seek to give this application First Reading, bylaw preparation would be the next step. This option would direct staff to prepare bylaws for amendments to the Official Community Plan and Zoning Map. These amendments would be presented to Council at a later date. CONCLUSION: On the basis of the Silver Valley Area Plan policies, this application is found to be not supportable for the following reasons: 1. The proposal does not comply with its land use designation as set out in the Silver Valley Area Plan; 2. The proposal undermines the overall intent of the Silver Valley Area Plan to focus higher density residential development in core areas, such as the hamlets and River Village, and retain the peripheral areas for lower density development; 3. Allowing smaller single family lots at this location would eliminate the opportunity to develop detached garden suites on larger single family lots. Detached accessory residential uses were supported in the Silver Valley Area Plan and should be recognized as a means of increasing the stock of purpose built rental housing, thereby meeting an acute community need. - 7 - 4.There is sufficient residual capacity to meet population targets, and therefore, density increases in excess of those prescribed in the Plan are not needed for population serving components of the plan, such as schools or commercial development. Therefore, it is recommended that this Application 2015-155-RZ be denied. “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 “Original signed by Frank Quinn” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: Frank Quinn, MBA, P. Eng Acting Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Ortho Map Appendix C – Proposed Site Plan DATE: Jun 1, 2015 FILE: 2015-155-RZ BY: PC CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY 132 AVE ´ Scale: 1:2,500 23702 132 AVENUELegend \\Wetlands GPS Creek Centrelines Streams & Rivers (Topographic) Feature Type Indefinite Creek Centreline Ditch Centreline River Centreline Rivers & Lakes (Topographic) Feature Type Lake/Reservoir APPENDIX A City of PittMeadows District ofLangley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Jun 1, 2015 FILE: 2015-155-RZ BY: PC CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY 132 AVE City of Maple Ridge´ Scale: 1:2,500 23702 132 AVENUE(2011 photo image) APPENDIX B APPENDIX C City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: October 5, 2015 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2011-137-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: First Reading Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7169-2015 12257 227 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received to rezone the subject property, located at 12257 227 Street, from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) to permit future subdivision into 3 single family lots. To proceed further with this application additional information is required as outlined below. RECOMMENDATIONS: That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7169-2015 be given first reading; and That the applicant provide further information, as described on Schedule B of the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879–1999, along with the information required for an Intensive Residential Development Permit and a Subdivision application. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: Applicant: Randy Cowling Owners: Randy and Susan Cowling, and Shawna Beet Legal Description: Lot 224, Section 20, Township 12, NWD Plan 42134 OCP: Existing: Single-Family Residential Proposed: Single-Family Residential Zoning: Existing: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Proposed: R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Single Family Dwelling Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Designation: Single Family Residential South: Use: Single Family Dwelling Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Designation: Single Family Residential 1102 - 2 - East: Use: Single Family Dwelling Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Designation: Ground-Oriented Multi-Family West: Use: Single Family Dwelling Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Designation: Single Family Residential Existing Use of Property: Single Family Dwelling Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Dwelling Site Area: 947 m² Access: 122 Avenue and 227 Street Servicing requirement: Full Urban Servicing b)Site Characteristics: The subject property is located within the Town Centre Area Plan, on the northwest corner of 122 Avenue and 227 Street. The subject property is relatively flat, and is bounded by single family residential properties to the north, west, east and south (see Appendices A and B). c)Project Description: An application has been received to rezone the subject property from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) (see Appendix C), to permit future subdivision into three single family lots (see Appendix D). A new lane will be dedicated to access the lots from the rear. 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 subject property is designated as Single Family Residential in the North View Precinct of the Town Centre Area Plan, which provides options for increasing density and choice of housing form, while retaining the single family character in these established neighbourhood blocks. The R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) zone is compatible with the Zoning Matrix for the Single Family Residential designation within the Town Centre Area Plan. 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 3 single family lots. A Development Variance Permit will be required to vary the Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw No. 4800-1993, to reduce the road allowances along 227 Street, 122 Avenue, and the proposed lane. - 3 - 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. e) Interdepartmental Implications: 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) Licenses, Permits and Bylaws Department; d) Fire Department; e) School District; and f) 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) Development Applications: In order for this application to proceed the following information must be provided, as re quired by Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879–1999, as amended: 1. A complete Rezoning Application (Schedule B); 2. A Development Variance Permit (Schedule E); 3. An Intensive Residential Development Permit Application; 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 in compliance with the OCP, therefore, it is recommended that Council grant first reading subject to additional information being provided and assessed prior to second reading. - 4 - The proposed layout has not been reviewed in relation to the relevant bylaws and regulations governing subdivision applications. Any subdivision layout provided is strictly preliminary and must be approved by the City of Maple Ridge’s Approving Officer. “Original signed by Michelle Baski” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Michelle Baski, AScT, MA Planner 1 “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 Kelly Swift” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: Kelly Swift Acting Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – 2011 Ortho Map Appendix C – Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7169-2015 Appendix D – Proposed Subdivision Plan DATE: Sep 16, 2015 2011-137-RZ BY: JV PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY 227 St´ Scale: 1:2,000 12257-227 St 2011 Image Legend Canal Edge Ditch Centreline Edge of River Edge of Marsh Edge of Flooded Area Indefinite Creek River Centreline Canal Marsh River Major Rivers & Lakes APPENDIX A DATE: Sep 16, 2015 2011-137-RZ BY: JV PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY 227 StCity of Maple Ridge´ Scale: 1:2,000 12257-227 St 2011 Image Legend Canal Edge Ditch Centreline Edge of River Edge of Marsh Edge of Flooded Area Indefinite Creek River Centreline Canal Marsh River Major Rivers & Lakes APPENDIX B CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7169-2015 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. 7169-2015." 2.That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: Lot 224 Section 20 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 42134 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1644 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby rezoned to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District). 3.Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 as amended and Map "A" attached thereto are hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the day of , 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 APPENDIX C 225972262022610226172264212187 12308 12271 22612226342265212263 12214 12230 12284 12311 12203 12253 227302260812250 1226022641 2266612192 12208 2270412193 1229022596 22587122702264212221 12302 225922260712195 12257 12264 12231 12218 1224022587 22582225802258922622226192263112211 12219 12281 12244 12261 12321 12243 12194 12208 12228225692260912239 12293 12311 12272 12298 1231622702 12275 2257022579225772259022611226322266312254 12297 12314 12216 12222 12230 245 7 246 227 3 P 19921P 7236591 130 254 229 19 20 P 21417223 131 P 56893P 39649122 P 42134 251 2 A P 29696 B P 28939P 2555589 123 P 42134 16 231 260 230 252 248 4 3 P 42134224 66 1 2 90 P 44381198 12187 P 42134 228 3 4 BCP 12842 4 197P 284972 221 84 PARK P 42134 261 247 5 18 2 Rem. A 226 225Rem. 127 219P 40438 1 330 2 1 P 21837265 86 P 25555232 P 19358 P 7219 2 1 P 14396P 3991888 259 P 19358 253 6 17 250 249 21 RP 84324 218 331 P 70504220 264 P 2857985 RW 41758 EP 44389 HINCH CRES. 123 AVE. 122 AVE.227 ST.122 AVE.FLETCHER ST.´ SCALE 1:1 ,5 00 MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDINGBylaw No. Map No. From: To: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) 7169-20151644 APPENDIX D - 1 - City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: October 5, 2015 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2013-107-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: Rezoning – First Extension Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7088-2014 Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7053-2014 24009, 24005 and 24075 Fern Crescent EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The applicant for the above noted file, which is currently at third reading, has applied for an extension to this rezoning application under Maple Ridge Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879- 1999. The proposal is to rezone the subject properties (Appendix A) from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) and RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential), RS-1b (One Family Urban-Medium Density Residential) and R-2 (Urban Residential District). On April 8, 2014 Council considered and granted first reading for Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7053-2014. On July 22 2014 Council granted second reading for Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7053- 2014, and granted first and second readings for Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7088-2014. This application was presented at Public Hearing on September 16, 2014. On September 30, 2014 Council granted third reading for Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7088-2014, and deferred third reading for Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7053-2014 to October 14, 2014 to allow staff and the applicant time to discuss the feasibiblity of having 128 Avenue go through. On October 14, 2014 Council reconsidered and granted third reading for Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7053-2014 with the addition of a further condition that the Rezoning Servicing Agreement include the construction of 128th Avenue from Fern Crescent west to Fern Crescent east, including intersections and additional security in the amount of $370,000.00 for the construction of 128th Avenue. There is not sufficient suitable land for park dedication on the subject site and it is recommended that Council require the developer to to pay to the City an amount that equals 5% of the market value of the land required for parkland purposes, as determined by an independent appraisal. 1103 - 2 - RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) That a one year extension be granted for rezoning application 2013-107-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; ii. Amendment to Official Community Plan Schedule “A”, Chapter 10.3, Part VI, A – Silver Valley, Figure 2 - Land Use Plan, and Figure 3D - Horse Hamlet; iii. Road dedication as required; iv. Consolidation of the development site; v. Registration of a Geotechnical Report as a Restrictive Covenant at the Land Title Office which addresses the suitability of the site for the proposed development; vi. Removal of the existing buildings; vii. An Engineer’s certification that adequate water quantity for domestic and fire protection purposes can be provided; viii. 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 ix. Pursuant to the Contaminated Site Regulations of the Environmental Management Act, the property owner will provide a Site Profile for the subject lands. x. That the Rezoning Servicing Agreement include the construction of 128 th Avenue from Fern Crescent west to Fern Crescent east, including intersections and addi tional security in the amount of $370,000.00 for the construction of 128th Avenue. 2) That Council require, as a condition of subdivision approval, the developer to pay to the City 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. - 3 - DISCUSSION: 1) Background Context: Applicant: CIPE Homes Inc. Owner: 0733497 BC Ltd. Legal Description: North 126 Feet parcel “A” (Reference Plan 13772); Lot 15, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 9364; Parcel “A” (Reference Plan 13772); Lot 15 Except North 126 feet; Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 9364; and Lot 30, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 24120. OCP: Existing: Low Density Residential; Low-Medium Density Residential and Medium Density Residential Proposed: Low Density Residential; Low-Medium Density Residential and Medium Density Residential Zoning: Existing: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential), and RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Proposed: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential), RS-1b (One Family Urban- Medium Density Residential) and R-2 (Urban Residential District) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Single Family Residential and vacant lots Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential), and RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Designation: Neighbourhood Park and Medium-High Density Residential South: Use: Single Family Residential and Fern Crescent Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Low Density Residential, Low-Medium Density Residential and Estate Suburban Residential East: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Low Density Residential; Low-Medium Density Residential and Medium Density Residential West: Use: Single Family Residential and Fern Crescent/240th Street Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential), and RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Designation: Low Density Residential, Low-Medium Density Residential and Estate Suburban Residential Existing Use of Properties: Rural Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential Consolidated Site Area: 2.34 Hectares (5.78 acres) Access: Fern Crescent and 240 Street Servicing requirement: Urban Standard Companion Applications: 2013-107-SD This application is to permit a proposed subdivision of 34 lots: 14 zoned R-2 (Urban Residential District), 17 zoned RS-1b (One Family Urban-Medium Density Residential), and zoned RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) - 4 - 2)Application Progress: The applicant is actively pursuing completion of the final reading requirements, but has been delayed by the road upgrade requirements for 128 Avenue. The road design requires the applicant to obtain road right-of-ways on two properties. These negotiations are ongoing but when completed will allow the applicant to apply to Council for final approval. 3)Parkland Requirement: For this project, there is no suitable land for park dedication on the subject properties and it is therefore recommended that Council require the developer to to pay to the City an amount that equals the market value of 5% of the land required for parkland purposes. The amount payable to the City 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. 4)Alternatives: Council may choose to deny this extension request and thereby end the application. CONCLUSION: The applicant has been actively pursuing the completion of this rezoning application and has applied for a one year extension. It is anticipated that within the next few months final consideration will be applied for. “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 Director of Planning “Original signed by Frank Quinn” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services “Original signed by Frank Quinn” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng Acting Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Ortho Map Appendix C – Second Reading Report DATE: Sep 23, 2015FILE: 2013-107-RZ BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTIES ´ Scale: 1:2,500 24005/09/75 FERN CRESCENT 128 AVE Legend Stream Ditch Centreline Edge of River Indefinite Creek River Centreline Lake or Reservoir River Major Rivers & Lakes APPENDIX A City of PittMeadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Sep 23, 2015 FILE: 2013-107-RZ BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTIES City of Maple Ridge´ Scale: 1:2,500 24005/09/75 FERN CRESCENT (2011 IMAGERY) 128 AVE APPENDIX B District of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: July 21, 2014 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2013-107-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: First and Second Reading Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7088-2014 and Second Reading Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7053-2014 24009, 24005 and 24075 Fern Crescent EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On April 8, 2014, Council granted first reading to Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7053-2014. The proposal is to rezone the subject properties (Appendix A) from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) and RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential), RS-1b (One Family Urban-Medium Density Residential) and R-2 (Urban Residential District). The three properties under consideration are located in the Horse Hamlet of the Silver Valley Area Plan, and have a combination of three OCP designations (i.e. Low Density; Low-Medium Density; and Medium Density Residential), as identified in this report. The proposal meets the permitted maximum density in the Silver Valley Area Plan; however an OCP amendment is required to adjust the designation boundaries to achieve an efficient road pattern and the proposed lot layout (Appendix D). 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. 7088-2014 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. 7088-2014 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.7088- 2014 is consistent with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Waste Management Plan; APPENDIX C - 2 - 4.That Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7088-2014 be given first and second readings and be forwarded to Public Hearing; 5.That Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7053-2014 be given second reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing ; and 6.That the following terms and conditions be met prior to Final Reading: i.Registration of a Rezoning Servicing Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant and receipt of the deposit of a security, as outlined in the Agreement; ii.Amendment to Official Community Plan Schedule “A”, Chapter 10.3, Part VI, A – Silver Valley, Figure 2 - Land Use Plan, and Figure 3D - Horse Hamlet; iii.Road dedication as required; iv. Consolidation of the development site; v.Registration of a Geotechnical Report as a Restrictive Covenant at the Land Title Office which addresses the suitability of the site for the proposed development; vi. Removal of the existing buildings; vii.An Engineer’s certification that adequate water quantity for domestic and f ire protection purposes can be provided; viii. 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 ix.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: CIPE Homes Inc. Owner: 0733497 BC Ltd. Legal Description: North 126 Feet parcel “A” (Reference Plan 13772); Lot 15, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 9364; Parcel “A” (Reference Plan 13772); Lot 15 Except North 126 feet; Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 9364; and Lot 30, Section 22, Township 12, NWD Plan 24120. - 3 - OCP: Existing: Low Density Residential; Low-Medium Density Residential and Medium Density Residential Proposed:Low Density Residential; Low-Medium Density Residential and Medium Density Residential Zoning: Existing: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential), and RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Proposed: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential), RS-1b (One Family Urban-Medium Density Residential) and R-2 (Urban Residential District) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Single Family Residential and vacant lots Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential), and RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Designation: Neighbourhood Park and Medium-High Density Residential South: Use: Single Family Residential and Fern Crescent Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Low Density Residential, Low-Medium Density Residential and Estate Suburban Residential East: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Low Density Residential; Low-Medium Density Residential and Medium Density Residential West: Use: Single Family Residential and Fern Crescent/240th Street Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential), and RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Designation: Low Density Residential, Low-Medium Density Residential and Estate Suburban Residential Existing Use of Properties: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential Consolidated Site Area: 2.34 Hectares (5.78 acres) Access: Fern Crescent/240th Street Servicing requirement: Urban Standard Companion Applications:2013-107-SD - 4 - b)Site and Project Description: The three properties (Appendix A), in the Horse Hamlet of the Silver Valley Area Plan, are located south of 128th Avenue and east of Fern Crescent, within the 200 metres (2 minute walking) radius of the Horse Hamlet centre. The topography around the subject sites is fairly flat with a gradual slope down from the north-east to the south-west corner. The properties under consideration are in the Fraser Sewer Area. The portion of 128th Avenue, inside the Horse Hamlet, is currently identified as a local road. In future, the subject portion of 128th Avenue is anticipated to be an arterial road providing the main access to Golden Ears Provincial Park. All the standard off-site road and servicing upgrades abutting the development site will be required as a condition of final reading. To the north of subject sites are two parcels designated “Neighbourhood Park” which are both owned by the District of Maple Ridge. The timeline on the actual building of this neighbourhood park is unknown at this point. However, future and existing residents will be able to participate in the public consultation process conducted by the Parks and Leisure Services Department. The subject sites are not located in or near a known archeological resource according to Provincial or local records. The proposed subdivision sketch (Appendix D) shows a total of 34 single family lots serviced by a looping road. Of the proposed 34 lots; 14 are proposed to be rezoned to R-2 (Urban Residential District), 17 are proposed to be rezoned to RS-1b (One Family Urban-Medium Density Residential), and 3 are proposed to be rezoned to RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential). Access to the proposed subdivision is from Fern Crescent via a new 18.0 metre wide road right-of-way that can accommodate sidewalks and parking on both sides. Except for the three lots facing the southern dip of Fern Crescent, all the proposed lots will face a new looping municipal road right-of-way built and serviced to urban standards. A narrower 15.0 metre wide road right-of-way will also be built south of the “Neighbourhood Park” along the northern boundary of the subject site. The proposed road pattern could be replicated on the east of subject sites when they develop in the future. The proposed road pattern generally follows the Silver Valley, Horse Hamlet road plan with some minor changes to provide efficient access to surrounding lands. c)Planning Analysis: Official Community Plan - Silver Valley Area Plan: The Horse Hamlet within the Silver Valley Area Plan is anticipated to contain a total of 240 dwelling units in a tightly compacted, neighbourhood scale residential area. In October 2013, Council gave third reading to a development proposal on Mill Street (north of subject sites) for 16 single family lots to be rezoned from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) and RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to R-2 (Urban Residential District). Since the adoption of the Silver Valley Area Plan, this proposal is the second development application in the Horse Hamlet area. This will add up to a total of 50 units in the Horse Hamlet area, if final approval is granted. - 5 - The development proposal is subject to Silver Valley Area Plan policies and densities permitted within the Horse Hamlet. It is important to note that the subject sites are not impacted by any watercourses or steep slopes. The three subject properties (Appendix A), are a combination of Low Density Residential; Low-Medium Density Residential; and Medium Density Residential designations as shown in the table below: Address OCP designation Proportion 1 24005 Fern Crescent Low Density Residential 0% Low-Medium Density Residential 92% Medium Density Residential 8% 2 24009 Fern Crescent Low Density Residential 19% Low-Medium Density Residential 76% Medium Density Residential 5% 3 24075 Fern Crescent Low Density Residential 8% Low-Medium Density Residential 60% Medium Density Residential 32% Policy 5.3.9 specifies maximum densities associated with the above mentioned OCP designations in terms of units per net hectare permitted, as stated below: (a) Medium to medium-low densities, ranging from 15 to 40 units per hectare, will be located adjacent to schools, commercial uses and civic uses. (b) Low densities, ranging from 8 to 18 units per hectare, are located at the fringes of the 5 minute walking distance from the centre. The subject parcels comply with Policy 5.3.4 that envisions creating neighbourhoods within a 200 metre (2 minute walking) radius of the Horse Hamlet centre. Based on the location of the subject sites and the policies above, the densities are required to step down from medium to low between 128th Avenue and Fern Crescent (north to south). The proposed subdivision sketch (Appendix D) demonstrates a stepping down of densities being achieved through the proposed R-2 (lot size 315 m2), RS-1b (lot size 557m2) and RS-1 (lot size 668 m2) zones, between 128th Avenue and the Fern Crescent dip. As mentioned earlier in this report, the developer is proposing a total of 34 single family residential lots (14 R-2; 17 RS-1b and 3 RS-1). The resulting total lot yield of 34 lots aligns with the maximum number of units permitted in the existing designations of the Silver Valley Plan. The proposed RS-1 zone correlates with the “Low Density Residential” designation; the proposed RS-1b zone correlates with the “Low-Medium Density Residential” designation and the proposed R-2 zone correlates with the “Medium Density Residential” designation of the Silver Valley Area Plan. The OCP amendment reflects some minor adjustments or ground-thruthing to the existing designations in order to achieve a safe and efficient road pattern. This is reflected in the OCP amending bylaw and map attached as Appendix B. - 6 - Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No 3510 -1985: The current application proposes to rezone the subject properties (Appendix A) from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential), and RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential), RS-1b (One Family Urban-Medium Density Residential) and R-2 (Urban Residential District). All the proposed lots meet the minimum lot area, lot width and lot depth specified in the respective zones. d)Environmental Implications: A three-tier storm water management system designed in accordance with the District's Watercourse Protection Bylaw 6410-2006 and incorporating rainfall capture, runoff control and flood risk management is required. A Storm Water Management Plan is being reviewed for the proposed subdivision and will be required to be finalized prior to the final subdivision approval. Based on the recommendations in the Arborist Report by Mike Fadem and Associates Ltd dated April 23, 2014, some tree retention opportunities along the northern and southern boundaries of the subject site will be considered prior to the final approval of the proposed subdivision. Where possible a best level of effort will be made to save mature trees and to protect their root zones within the backyards of the future lots, through a Tree Protection Restrictive Covenant. To compensate for tree loss due to roads and building envelopes within the subdivision new trees in strategic areas will be added as a replacement strategy. This will be assessed in detail and required as a condition of final subdivision approval. e)Development Information Meeting: On May 22, 2014 the developer and his team of consultants held a “Development Information Meeting” at Yennadon Elementary School at 23347 128th Avenue from 5:30 to 7:30 pm. As per Council Policy 6.20, invitations were mailed to qualifying property owners, advertisements were placed in the local paper and a notice was attached to the development sign on site. All the proposed drawings and information showing development concept, proposed road pattern, servicing concept, tree retention and information on possible building floor plans and elevations was displayed at this meeting. The development team of four members including the engineer of record from Hunter Laird Engineering consultants provided clarification and answered questions. This meeting was attended by approximately 26 people, while 12 of them provided written comments. The concerns expressed at the meeting and through the comments are summarized below: Concerns were expressed over pre-existing traffic volumes on Fern Crescent and the additional impact on traffic due to the proposed development; Concerns about existing problems around lack of respect for the environment and private properties due to use of the horse trail to access the South Alouette River; Some would like to see more diversity in housing type and design in the Horse Hamlet area; Concerns with the existing water table after trees are removed; Would like to see 128th street arterial route built as a priority; Concerns about lack of schools in the Silver Valley Area to support development in general; - 7 - Concerns that access off of Fern Crescent is unsafe in conjunction with excess traffic o n Fern Crescent; Some had positive support for the proposed home designs; Maximum retention of trees and protecting wildlife (bears and deer) corridors should be encouraged; Concerns around lot sizes proposed; would prefer ranch style homes with more greenery (trees, shrubs, more planting); Road widths could be narrower as per the Silver Valley Area Plan and bio-swales added to improve drainage and storm/rain water management; At the meeting, the developer and their consultant team provided answers to most of the concerns expressed, except the concern about lack of schools and pre-existing traffic on Fern Crescent. f)Traffic Considerations: The current road pattern identified in the Silver Valley Area Plan is conceptual and will need to be revisited as development occurs. The Area Plan envisions that 128th Avenue will be upgraded to an arterial road and the area referred to as the Fern Crescent dip will evolve into a local street with substantially less traffic. Once 128th Avenue becomes a functional arterial road, the traffic on Fern Crescent is anticipated to be reduced (i.e. the regional traffic will be divided between 128th Avenue and Fern Crescent for access to the Golden Ears Provincial Park). The Silver Valley Area Plan also identifies a road on either side of the “Neighbourhood Park” lots connecting 128 th Avenue to Fern Crescent to the south, as well as lanes connecting to Fern Crescent which are eliminated in the proposed subdivision. It is noted that the road network identified in the Silver Valley Area Plan is conceptual in nature, and is refined as a result of ground-truthing at the subdivision approval stage. Once the Hamlet road patterns are confirmed, a future OCP Housekeeping package will be prepared to reflect the emerging road pattern in the Area. The applicants preliminary Traffic Analysis prepared by Hunter Laird Engineering suggests that avoiding access off of 128th Avenue into the development site is appropriate as it eliminates potential conflicts with local streets and with regional traffic. It is also noted that eliminating the two roads adjacent to the future park may protect existing trees. The applicants have since provided a detailed Traffic Impact Assessment, prepared by BWW Consulting (July 7, 2014). This report gives consideration to existing conditions, project traffic, intersection analysis, and Fern Crescent. The consultant has concluded that the traffic volumes generated by this subdivision will be low and that the analysis indicates a good operational Level of Service. The consultant has concluded the inclusion of advisory signage, coupled with the low volumes and adequate sight distances on Fern Crescent should provide satisfactory operating conditions. Further, it is suggested that when 128th Avenue is extended as the major route, appropriate signage and road design elements could be incorporated to reinforce the route change and de-emphasize Fern Crescent’s use by through traffic. - 8 - g)Interdepartmental Implications: Engineering Department: The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposal and confirms that all the deficient services, including the required road dedication, are being provided through the Subdivision Servicing Agreement. Some off-site servicing upgrades such as new sanitary and storm sewer connection to the subject site will be secured through the Rezoning Servicing Agreement, as a condition of final reading. A 3.0 metre dedicated walkway and a right-of-way on proposed lots 33 and 34 will be required for a municipal storm sewer that will service some of the lots (Appendix D). The proposed road layout and road right-of-way standards within the proposed subdivision have been reviewed. It was confirmed that a 18.0 metre road right-of-way (Local Residential 2 road standard in the Silver Valley Area Plan) will accommodate two travel lanes (8.0 metre each), street trees, street lights, sidewalk and parking on both sides, while the 15.0 metre road right-of-way along the northern edge of the subject site (south of the future neighbourhood park) will be adequate to accommodate sidewalk and parking on one side. The Engineering Department has reviewed the above noted detailed Traffic Impact Assessment report (July 7, 2014) by BWW Consulting and has found it to be largely acceptable, noting that further details will be resolved at the subdivision stage of the project. Parks & Leisure Services Department: A referral was sent to the Parks and Leisure Services Department. The District now owns both the lots north of the subject sites, designated “Neighbourhood Park”. Before the neighbourhood park is built, the District will engage in a public consultation process which will include the existing and future residents of the area. Fire Department: The Fire Department has reviewed the proposal and comments have been provided to the applicant. The proposed subdivision sketch has been revised to include a hammerhead turn around near proposed lots 20 and 21 as shown in Appendix D attached to this report. The Fire Department has no concerns with the proposed land use and subdivision. Building Department: The Building Department has reviewed the proposal and comments have been provided to the applicant. The applicant must ensure that all these will be addressed through the final Subdivision Servicing Plans at a later date. h)School District Comments: A referral was sent to the School District office and comments were received on May 6, 2014. The School District has reiterated that developments in the Silver Valley Area would affect the projected student population for the catchment area currently served by Yennadon Elementary and Garibaldi - 9 - Secondary schools. The enrollment at the Yennadon Elementary School is at 104.4% utilization (569 students, including 140 out of catchment students, for 2013-14 school year). The students from this area will need to be bussed to Harry Hooge and Alouette Elementary schools, which are beyond the established walking limits of the School Board. The current walking limit for Grades K-3 is 4 kilometres and for Grades 4-12 is 4.8 kilometres. Enrollment at Garibaldi Secondary school is at 74.67% utilization (784 students, including 362 out of catchment students, for 2013-2014). i)Intergovernmental Issues: Local Government Act: An amendment to the Official Community Plan requires the local government to consult with any affected parties and to adopt related bylaws in compliance with the procedures outlined in Section 882 of the Act. The amendment required for this application, (adjust the existing OCP designation boundaries to achieve a feasible road pattern and lot layout) 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 is determined to have no impact. j)Citizen/Customer Implications: A Development Information Meeting was conducted on May 22, 2014 where the neighbours had an opportunity to express their concerns. This along with a future Public Hearing is considered adequate opportunities for citizens to voice their concerns regarding the proposed development. CONCLUSION: The proposal meets the maximum density permitted by the existing designations for the subject sites, identified in the Silver Valley Area Plan. However, an OCP amendment is required to re- distribute the existing OCP designations to achieve an efficient road pattern and lot layout (Appendix D). The Engineering Department is in support of the proposed road layout. The applicant submitted a preliminary Traffic Analysis and a follow-up detailed Traffic Impact Assessment report which concludes the development will generate low traffic volumes and the operating Level of Service is good. Some signage and possible future road improvements could be considered when 128th Avenue is extended that could de-emphasis the use of Fern Crescent to through traffic. - 10 - Therefore, it is recommended that first and second reading be given to Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7088-2014, that second reading be given to Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7053-2014, and that application 2013-107-RZ be forwarded to Public Hearing. “Original signed by Christine Carter” for _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Rasika Acharya, B-Arch, M-Tech, UD, LEED® AP, MCIP, RPP Planner “Original signed by Christine Carter” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning “Original signed by Frank Quinn” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services “Original signed by Paul Gill” for _______________________________________________ Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7088-2014 Appendix C – Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7053-2014 Appendix D – Proposed preliminary subdivision sketch City of PittMeadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Nov 8, 2013 FILE: 2013-107-RZ BY: PC CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE FINANCE DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTIES ´ Scale: 1:2,500 24005/09/75 FERN CRESCENT 128 AVE APPENDIX A CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7088-2014 A Bylaw to amend the 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 desirable to amend Figure 2 (Land Use Plan) and Figure 3D (Horse Hamlet) of the Silver Valley Area Plan; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, enacts as follows: 1.This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7088-2014." 2. Amendment to Official Community Plan Schedule “A”, Chapter 10.3, Part VI, A – Silver Valley, Figure 2 - Land Use Plan, and Figure 3D - Horse Hamlet for that parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: North 126 Feet Parcel “A” (Reference Plan 13772) Lot 15 Section 22 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9364; Parcel “A” (Reference Plan 13772) Lot 15 Except: North 126 Feet; Section 22 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9364; Lot 30 Section 22 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 24120 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 883, a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby re-designated to Low Density Urban; Low/Medium Density Residential and Medium Density Residential. 3.Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 is hereby amended accordingly. READ A FIRST TIME the day of , 2014. READ A SECOND TIME the day of , 2014. PUBLIC HEARING HELD the day of , 2014. READ A THIRD TIME the day of , 2014. ADOPTED, the day of , 20 . _____________________________ ______________________________ PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER APPENDIX B 239962398712729 24017240262405524 1 6 22419724013 12848 240332407224075241242 4 1 5 024000 240352404024001 2407024005 24003 2404312795 24009 241102414524195 (FERN CRES.)2401524090240692 4 1 3 8 24169 240242402524026240522405024115240 ST.FERN CRES.Rem B 27 29 RP 1377231 *PP135 6 Rem 18 P 9364 P 9912 1 P 9364 3 25 P 18012 26 32 PARK P 2719628 P 9364 1 42 Rem A P 1 8 0 1 2 30 P 24120 1 P 39367 41 N 126' A P 21921 P 11363 2 5 4 P 7656 2 BCP 50115 85 8 1 23 P 10713 P 9364 19 EP 22444 *PP129 24 P 26177 4 5 7 LMP 4 0 3 1 5 A 22 P 4707086 LMP 2855LMP 30056 ´ Bylaw No. Map No. Purpose: From: To: Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, andLow/Medium Density ResidentialLow Density Residential Medium Density ResidentialLow/Medium Density Residential 7088-2014883To Amend Figure 2 (Land Use Plan) and 3D (Horse Hamlet)of the Silver Valley Area Plan 1:2,500 Urban Area Boundary MAPLE RIDGE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDING Urban Area Boundary CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7053-2014 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 Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, enacts as follows: 1.This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7053-2014." 2.Those parcels or tracts of land and premises known and described as: North 126 Feet Parcel “A” (Reference Plan 13772) Section 22 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9364; Parcel “A” (Reference Plan 13772) Lot 15 Except: North 126 Feet, Section 22 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9364 Lot 30 Section 22 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 24120 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1606 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, are hereby rezoned to RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential), RS-1b (One Family Urban-Medium Density Residential), and R-2 (Urban Residential District). 3.Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended and Map "A" attached thereto are hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the 8th day of April, 2014 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 APPENDIX C 239962398712729 24017240262405524 1 6 22419724013 12848 240332407224075241242 4 1 5 024000 240352404024001 2407024005 24003 2404312795 24009 241102414524195 (FERN CRES.)2401524090240692 4 1 3 8 24169 240242402524026240522405024115240 ST.FERN CRES.Rem B 27 29 RP 1377231 *PP135 6 Rem 18 PL. 3041P 9364 P 9912 1 P 9364 3 25 P 18012 26 32 PARK P 9912P 2719628 P 9364 1 42 Rem A P 1 8 0 1 2 30 P 24120 1 P 39367 41 N 126' A P 21921 P 11363 2 5 4 P 7656 2 BCP 50115 85 8 1 23 P 10713 P 9364 19 EP 22444 *PP129 EP 13720 24 P 26177 4 5 Rem part (1.502 Acres) 7 LMP 4 0 3 1 5 P 10558 A 22 P 4707086 LMP 2855LMP 3 9 8 9 8 LMP 30056 ´ SCALE 1:2,500 MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDINGBylaw No. Map No. From: To: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) 7053-20141606 R-2 (Urban Residential District)RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential)RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Urban Area Boundary Urban Area Boundary APPENDIX D - 1 - City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: October 5, 2015 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2012-057-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: Final One Year Extension Application Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7020-2013 and Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6939-2012 12933 Mill Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Council granted a one year extension to the above noted application on October 14, 2014. The applicant has now applied for a final one year extension under Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999. The purpose of this application is to rezone the subject property, located at 12933 Mill Street (see Appendix A & B), from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) and RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to R-2 (Urban Residential District) to allow for future subdivision into 17 single family residential lots (see Appendix C). RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999, a final one year extension be granted for rezoning application 2012-057-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; ii.Amendments to Part VI Figure 2 - Land Use Plan; Figure 3D - Horse Hamlet; and Figure 4 -Trails/Open Space of the Silver Valley Area Plan of the Official Community Plan; iii.Road dedication as required; iv. Registration of a geotechnical report as a Restrictive Covenant at the Land Title Office which addresses the suitability of the site for the proposed development; v.Registration of a Habitat Protection and Stormwater Management Covenant at the Land Title Office; 1104 - 2 - vi.Removal of the existing buildings; and vii.A disclosure statement must be submitted by a Professional Engineer advising whether there is any evidence of underground fuel storage tanks. If there is evidence, a site profile pursuant to the Waste Management Act must be provided in accordance with the regulations. DISCUSSION: Background Context: Applicant: Don Bowins Owner: 0996886 B.C. Ltd. Legal Description: Lot 1 Section 27 Township 12 NWD Plan 11128 OCP: Existing: Medium Density Residential and Conservation Proposed: Medium Density Residential Zoning: Existing: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) and RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Proposed: R-2 (Urban Residential District) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) and RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Designation: Conservation, Medium Density Residential and Low Density Urban South: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) and RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) under application 2014-108-RZ, proposed R-1 (Residential District) Designation: Conservation and Medium Density Residential East: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Civic and Conservation - 3 - West: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Designation: Conservation, Medium Density Residential and Low Density Urban Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential Site Area: 0.916 ha (2.26 acres) Access: Mill Street Servicing requirement: Urban Standard The following dates outline Council’s consideration of the application and Zone Amending Bylaw No. 6939-2012 and Official Community Plan No. 7020-2013: First reading was granted on July 24, 2012; Second reading was granted on September 24, 2013 ; Public Hearing was held on October 15, 2013; Third reading was granted on October 22, 2013; and First extension was granted on October 14, 2014. Application Progress: Since the first extension was granted, the subject property was sold with the intent to develop in coordination with the adjacent property, located at 12874 Mill Street, under application 2014-108- RZ at first reading. Due to changes in the subdivision layout, which includes the conversion of some lots from R-2 (Urban Residential District) to R-1 (Residential District) sizes, the application will need to be brought back to second reading and a new Public Hearing will be required. However, this extension is necessary to keep the application active in order to obtain supporting information for the revised second reading. It is anticipated that the applicant will seek final approval once all of the conditions are satisfied and at the same time as the companion application for 12874 Mill Street are completed. Alternatives: Council may choose not to grant the extension and thus the project would fail and be closed. - 4 - CONCLUSION: The applicant has applied for a final one year extension in order to keep the application active while the new applicant obtains updated information for the revised subdivision layout. It is recommended that a final one year extension be granted for rezoning application 2012-057-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 Christine Carter” _______________________________________________ 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 “Original signed by Frank Quinn” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: Frank Quinn Acting Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Ortho Map Appendix C – Proposed Subdivision Plan DATE: Sep 21, 2015 FILE: 2012-057-RZ BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:2,000 12933 MILL STREETLegend Stream Ditch Centreline Indefinite Creek Lake or Reservoir APPENDIX A City of PittMeadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Sep 21, 2015 FILE: 2012-057-RZ BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY City of Maple Ridge´ Scale: 1:2,000 12933 MILL STREET (2011 IMAGERY) APPENDIX B Application 2014-108-RZ (5 R-1 lots)APPENDIX C City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: October 5, 2015 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2012-048-DVP FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: CoW SUBJECT: Development Variance Permit 11291 243B Street and 11282 243 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Development Variance Permit application 2012-048-DVP has been received in conjunction with rezoning and subdivision applications for approximatly 47 single family lots. The requested variances are to: 1.Reduce the required minimum building envelope from 12m (39 ft.) by 12m (39 ft.) to 8m (26 ft.) by 12m (39 ft.) for proposed Lots 36, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, and 47; 2.Increase the maximum height from 9.5m (31 ft.) to 11m (36 ft.) for all the proposed Lots; 3.Reduce the required minimum front yard setback from 6m (20 ft.) to 5.5m (18 ft.) for proposed Lots 36, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, and 47; 4.Reduce the required minimum side yard setback from 1.5m (5 ft.) to 0.61m (2 ft.) for the garage wall and to 0.46m (1.5 ft.) for the garage roof overhang, for proposed Lots 1, 5, 6, 10, 15, 19, 20, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 46, and 47; 5.Reduce the required minimum lot width from 15m (49 ft.) to 12m (39 ft.) for proposed Lots 36, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, and 47; and 6.Reduce the required minimum road carriageway on 243 Street from 8.6m (28 ft.) to 7.6m (25 ft.). Council will be considering final reading for rezoning application 2012-048-RZ on October 13, 2015. It is recommended that Development Variance Permit 2012-048-DVP be approved. RECOMMENDATION: That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2012-048-DVP respecting properties located at 11291 243B Street and 11282 243 Street. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context Applicant: Cole Lambert, Cipe Homes Inc. Owner: Cipe Homes Inc. Legal Descriptions: Lot 3, Section 15, Township 12, NWD Plan 77744 Lot 3, Section 15, Township 12, NWD Plan 68166 1105 - 2 - OCP: Existing: Residential Low Density, Residential Low-Medium Density, and Conservation Proposed: Residential Low-Medium Density and Conservation Zoning: Existing: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) and RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Proposed: RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential), with a Density Bonus through the Community Amenity Program Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Agricultural South: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Designation: Residential Low-Medium Density East: Use: Single Family Residential and Park Zone: R-1 (Residential District) and RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) Designation: Residential Low-Medium Density and Conservation West: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Residential Low-Medium Density, Residential Low Density, and Conservation Existing Use of Properties: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Properties: Single Family Residential Site Area: 5.48 ha (13.5 acres) Access: 243B St., 243A St. (new), 112B Ave. (new), and 113 Ave. (new) Servicing requirement: Urban Standard Companion Applications: 2012-048-RZ/SD/DP b) Project Description: The subject properties are approximately 5.48 ha (13.5 acres) in size and are bound by 243 Street to the west; single family residential lots and 243B Street to the south; single family residential and parkland to the east; and agricultural land to the north (see Appendices A and B). Access will be provided by extending 113 Avenue and 112B Avenue from the eastern development, extending 243B Street, and constructing a new 243A Street. The applicant has requested to rezone the subject properties from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) and RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential), with a Density Bonus, in accordance with the Community Amenity Program, specific to the Albion Area Plan. The proposed development consists of approximately 40 R-1 (Residential District) sized lots, amounting to an Amenity Contribution of approximately $124,000.00. Seven of the lots are greater than 557 m² in area, and are therefore not subject to the Amenity Contribution. The final number of lots and Amenity Contributions will be determined at the time of approval of the subdivision. - 3 - c) Variance Analysis: Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 establishes general minimum and maximum regulations for single family development. Subdivision and Development Services Bylaw No. 4800-1993 regulates the subdivision and development servicing of land. A Development Variance Permit allows Council some flexibility in the approval process. The requested variances and rationale for support are described below (see Appendices C, D, and E): 1. Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985, Part 4, Section 406(1)(a)(ii): To reduce the minimum building area from 12m (39 ft.) by 12m (39 ft.), as required for the RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) zone, to 8m (26 ft.) by 12m (39 ft.), as required for the R-1 (Residential District) zone, for proposed Lots 36, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, and 47. 2. Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985, Part 6, Section 601C(9)(b): To increase the maximum height from 9.5m (31 ft.) to 11m (36 ft.) for all the proposed Lots. 3. Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985, Part 6, Section 601C(9)(c)(i): To reduce the minimum front yard setback from 6m (20 ft.) to 5.5m (18 ft.) for proposed Lots 36, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, and 47. 4. Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985, Part 6, Section 601C(9)(c)(ii): To reduce the minimum side yard setback from 1.5m (5 ft.) to 0.61m (2 ft.) for the garage wall and 0.46m (1.5 ft.) for the garage roof overhang for proposed Lots 1, 5, 6, 10, 15, 19, 20, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 46, and 47, with no further siting exceptions allowed. 5. Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985, Schedule D: To reduce the minimum lot width for an RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) lot from 15m (49 ft.) to 12m (39 ft.). 6. Subdivision and Development Services Bylaw No. 4800-1993, Schedule C – Standard Drawings and Specifications: To reduce the urban local road carriageway width from 8.6m (28 ft.) to 7.6m (25 ft.). The proposed lots greater than 557m² (5,995 ft²) in area are subject to the RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) zone requirements. In order to maintain consistency for the overall development, similar building envelopes, setbacks and lot widths are being requested to appear similar to the R-1 (Residential District) zone, which apply to the remaining 40 lots in this development which are less than 557m² (5,995 ft²). The increase in height is supportable, as it is consistent with the proposed changes to the RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) and R-1 (Residential District) zones in the draft Zoning Bylaw, and the variance is consistent with similar houses located within Albion Area Plan, which have a maximum building height variance to 11.0m (36 ft.). A text amendment to Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 is underway to effect this change. The reduced carriageway width is supportable as it will reduce the disturbance to Seigle Creek. Should Council not grant approval for the requested variances, the proposed subdivision would not be able to proceed in its current form (with RS-1b sized lots designed to R-1 zoning requirements), resulting in a minor loss in density. A change in streetscape from the north side of 113 Avenue to - 4 - the south side of 113 Avenue would also be apparent, as well as a change in setback from lots 41 to 42 and lots 35 to 36. d) Citizen/Customer Implications: In accordance with the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999, notice of Council consideration of a resolution to issue a Development Variance Permit was mailed to all owners or tenants in occupation of all parcels, any parts of which are adjacent to the properties that are subject to the permit. CONCLUSION: The proposed variances are supported because they are consistent with similar variances previously supported for the area, and will allow development in the area to occur in a consistent manner. It is therefore recommended that this application be favourably considered and the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal Development Variance Permit 2012-048-DVP. “Original signed by Michelle Baski” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Michelle Baski, AScT, MA Planner 1 “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 Kelly Swift” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: Kelly Swift Acting Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – 2011 Orthophotograph of the Subject Property Appendix C – Site Plan Showing Requested Variances Appendix D – Elevation Showing Requested Height Variance Appendix E – Streetscape Showing Offset Garage Siting Variance City of PittMeadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: May 1, 2014 FILE: 2012-048-RZ BY: PC CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTIES ´ Scale: 1:3,000 12282 243 STREET & 11291 243B STREET 112 AVE APPENDIX A City of PittMeadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: May 1, 2014 FILE: 2012-048-RZ BY: PC CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTIES District of Maple Ridge´ Scale: 1:3,000 12282 243 STREET & 11291 243B STREET 112 AVE (2011 photography image) APPENDIX B APPENDIX C APPENDIX D APPENDIX E City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: October 5, 2015 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2014-037-DVP FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: CoW SUBJECT: Development Variance Permit 21447 121 Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Development Variance Permit application 2014-037-DVP has been received in conjunction with rezoning and subdivision applications to rezone the subject property, located at 21447 121 Avenue, from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to R-1 (Residential District). The requested variances are to: 1.Increase the maximum building height from 9 m (30 ft.) to 11 m (36 ft.); and 2.Reduce the road right-of-way width for a collector street standard from 20 m (66 ft.) to 18 m (59 ft.). Council will be considering final reading for rezoning application 2014-037-RZ on October 13, 2015. It is recommended that Development Variance Permit 2014-037-DVP be approved. RECOMMENDATION: That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2014-037-DVP respecting property located at 21447 121 Avenue. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context Applicant: Derek Bakstad Owner: Derek Bakstad Legal Description: Lot “D” District Lot 245 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 19628 OCP : Existing: Urban Residential Proposed: Urban Residential Zoning: Existing: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Proposed: R-1 (Residential District) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Single Family Residential 1106 - 2 - Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Designation: Urban Residential South: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) and R-1 (Residential District) Designation: Urban Residential East: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Designation: Urban Residential West: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Designation: Urban Residential Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential Site Area: 987 m² (0.24 acres) Access: 121 Avenue Servicing requirement: Urban Standard Companion Applications: 2014-037-RZ/SD b) Project Description The subject property is located on the north side of 121 Avenue, and is approximately 987 m² (0.24 acres) in size (see Appendices A and B). The subject property is currently vacant and is bound by single family residential properties to the north, west, east and south . The subject property is flat with some vegetation around the perimeter of the rear yard. The applicant proposes to rezone the subject property from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to R-1 (Residential District) to permit future subdivision into two single family residential lots (see Appendix C). c) Planning Analysis The Zoning Bylaw establishes general minimum and maximum regulations for single family development. A Development Variance Permit allows Council some flexibility in the approval process. The requested variances and rationale for support are described below: 1. Zoning Bylaw No 3510-1985, Part 6, Section 601 C, 11. (b):  To increase the maximum building height from 9 m (30 ft.) to 11 m (36 ft.). The increase in height is supportable, as it is consistent with the proposed changes to the R-1 (Residential District) zone in the draft Zoning Bylaw. The requested height increase will not result in additional storeys (see Appendix D). 2. Subdivision and Development Services Bylaw No. 4800-1993, Schedule A – Services and Utilities:  To reduce the road right-of-way width for a collector street standard from 20 m (66 ft.) to 18 m (59 ft.). The reduction in road right-of-way width is supportable, as all the necessary services can be accommodated within the proposed 18 m (59 ft.) road right-of-way. - 3 - d) Citizen Implications: In accordance with the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999, notice of Council consideration of a resolution to issue a Development Variance Permit was mailed to all owners or tenants in occupation of all parcels, any parts of which are adjacent to the property that is subject to the permit. CONCLUSION: The proposed variances are supported because they are consistent with similar variances previously supported for the area, and will allow development in the area to occur in a consistent manner. It is therefore recommended that this application be favourably considered and the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal Development Variance Permit 2014-037-DVP. “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 Frank Quinn” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng Acting Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Ortho Map Appendix C – Subdivision Plan Appendix D – Elevation Plan City of PittMeadows District ofLangley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Jan 13, 2015 2014-037-VP BY: JV CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE P LA N NIN G DE P A R T M E N T21449214531218821460 21483214052150021481214512146312189 21429214722148721447214912147721454214102141621406214522143221486214822141121444214712140521480213822143021488214492142021434214742148421395121 AVE. CAMPBELL AVE. SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:1,000 21447-121 Avenue APPENDIX A City of PittMeadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Sep 25, 2015 FILE: 2014-037-RZ BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY City of Maple Ridge´ Scale: 1:1,500 21447 121 AVENUE (2011 IMAGERY) APPENDIX B APPENDIX C Increase in maximum building height from 9 m to 11 m.Increase in maximum building heightfrom9mto11m.APPENDIX D City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: October 5, 2015 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2015-162-DVP FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: CoW SUBJECT: Development Variance Permit 24895 Smith Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Development Variance Permit application 2015-162-DVP has been received in conjunction with a subdivision application for six single family residential lots for the subject property, located at 24895 Smith Avenue. The requested variance is to: 1.Reduce the minimum road right-of-way width from an urban cul-de-sac from 15m (49 ft.) to 11.5m (38 ft.) for the proposed cul-de-sac. The variance can be supported as the required servicing can be provided within the reduced right-of- way, and future redevelopment of the neighbouring property to the west will provide the remaining required right-of-way. RECOMMENDATION: That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2015-162-DVP respecting property located at 24895 Smith Avenue. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context Applicant: R. Di Giovanni Owner: 0981077 BC Ltd. Legal Description: Lot 2, Section 23, Township 12, NWD Plan 71554 OCP : Existing: Estate Suburban Residential Proposed: Estate Suburban Residential Zoning: Existing: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Proposed: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Designation: Estate Suburban Residential South: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Designation: Estate Suburban Residential 1107 - 2 - East: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Designation: Estate Suburban Residential West: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Designation: Estate Suburban Residential Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential Site Area: 0.58 ha (1.4 acres) Access: Smith Avenue Servicing: Urban Standard Concurrent Applications: 2015-162-SD b) Project Description: The subject property, located at 24895 Smith Avenue (see Appendices A and B) is currently zoned RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) and is proposed to be subdivided into 6 single family residential lots under the same zone. The subject property is relatively flat and surrounded by other single family residential lots. c) Variance Analysis: The Zoning Bylaw and Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw establish general minimum and maximum regulations for single family development. A Development Variance Permit allows Council some flexibility in the approval process. The requested variance and rationale for support are described below (see Appendix C): 1. Subdivision and Development Services Bylaw No. 4800-1993, Schedule B – Minimum Width for an urban standard cul-de-sac: To reduce the minimum right-of-way width from 15m (49 ft.) to 11.5m (38 ft.) for the proposed cul-de-sac. The reduced right-of-way width can be supported as the required servicing can be provided within the reduced right-of-way and vehicular access can be easily achieved. When the neighbouring property to the west develops, provision of the remaining right-of-way dedication will be required, resulting in a 15m (49 ft.) right-or-way, that is compliant with the bylaw. Temporary no parking on the western side of the right-of-way is required until the neighbouring property develops and the road can be completed as designed. Signage to indicate no parking is to be in place prior to occupancy of the new homes. d) Citizen/Customer Implications: In accordance with the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999, notice of Council consideration of a resolution to issue a Development Variance Permit was mailed to all owners or tenants in occupation of all parcels, any parts of which are adjacent to the property that is subject to the permit. - 3 - CONCLUSION: The proposed variance to reduce the minimum right-of-way width for the proposed cul-de-sac from 15m (49 ft.) to 11.5m (38 ft.) can be supported for the reasons described above. It is therefore recommended that this application be favourably considered and the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal Development Variance Permit 2015-162-DVP. “Original signed by Michelle Baski” _______________________________________ Prepared by: Michelle Baski, AScT, MA Planner 1 “Original signed by Christine Carter” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning “Original signed by Christine Carter” for _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services “Original signed by Kelly Swift” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: Kelly Swift, Acting Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Ortho Map Appendix C – Plan Showing Proposed Variance City of PittMeadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Aug 31, 2015 FILE: 2015-162-VP BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENT 24 8 A S T . 121 AVE.LILLIAN ST.SMITH AVE. 122 AVE.249A ST.120B AVE.24836249712488812169 248272383412071 2497024943224985120252495824866 248652492795412095 119552489511 9 4 2492112067 249842497024873248972493212098 2496224915249202488324909249832495312104 2495024814249221207024834 2498312082 2481524978 249912490712083 12139 12071248241207924887 249752497424947248982490224865/38 24878120821202124850249902496524993249322498 5 249602490724910248212493112061 24978249772494224982 1209924971 24930248982499724988248352485112157 248931207324805 24888248522483524888248402497624876249802482624968224944248701 2 0 7 5 12069 249732492512076 12072 12040 248372491212136 2481424910249692486324902248772492212 0 6 8 2486024912248192496112129 12062 224883249402489612023249601217824992249262494424877248541 2 0 8 5 2484624916SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:2,000 24895 SMITH AVENUE DEWDNEY TRUNK RD APPENDIX A City of PittMeadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Aug 31, 2015 FILE: 2015-162-VP BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENT 24 8 A S T . 121 AVE.LILLIAN ST.SMITH AVE. 122 AVE.249A ST.120B AVE.248362497112169 23834248882482712071 249702495822486524985249431202524866 249272498411955248732489595412095 11 9 4 249212491512067 24970249322489712098 24962249832492024950248832490912104 24922249832483412070 12082 248152499124978 12071 120832482412079 2497524887249472497424898249022486524878249531202124850248142498 5 249602490724993249072496512139 2493224978249102497712061 2497124942/38 12099 12082249302489824990248512499712157 248932498824805248882482124852249311207324826 248352498224888 2484024876249802497624968248351206921 2 0 7 5 24944248702497312072 12076 249122492512136 2491012040 248372487724922248142496924912120232481924863249021206224992120682 24940248602489624877249602496112129 24926248542494424883248462491612178 1 2 0 8 5 SUBJECT PROPERTY City of Maple Ridge´ Scale: 1:2,000 24895 SMITH AVENUE (2011 IMAGERY) DEWDNEY TRUNK RD APPENDIX B VARIANCE REQUIRED FOR ROAD WIDTH FOR PHASE 1 REM LOT 44 PLAN 15267 APPENDIX C - 1 - City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: October 5, 2015 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2015-162-SD FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: 5% Money in Lieu Of Parkland Dedication 24895 Smith Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The subject property, located at 24895 Smith Avenue (see Appendices A and B), is proposed to be subdivided into 6 single family lots (see Appendix C). This 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 24895 Smith Avenue. RECOMMENDATION: That pursuant to 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 24895 Smith Avenue, under application 2015-162-SD, shall pay to the City of Maple Ridge an amount that is not less than $37,500.00. 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 is either no watercourse protection areas nor suitable lands 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, such as the Blaney Bog. 1108 - 2 - In this particular instance there is no watercourse protection area nor suitable lands 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 $750,000.00, which indicates that the 5% value of this property is $37,500.00. 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 Michelle Baski” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Michelle Baski, AScT, MA Planner 1 “Original signed by Christine Carter” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Christine Carter, M.Pl, MCIP Director of Planning “Original signed by Frank Quinn” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn MBA, P.Eng GM: Public Works & Development Services “Original signed by Kelly Swift” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: Kelly Swift Acting Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Property Map Appendix B – Ortho Map Appendix C – Subdivision Plan City of PittMeadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Aug 31, 2015 FILE: 2015-162-VP BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENT 24 8 A S T . 121 AVE.LILLIAN ST.SMITH AVE. 122 AVE.249A ST.120B AVE.24836249712488812169 248272383412071 2497024943224985120252495824866 248652492795412095 119552489511 9 4 2492112067 249842497024873248972493212098 2496224915249202488324909249832495312104 2495024814249221207024834 2498312082 2481524978 249912490712083 12139 12071248241207924887 249752497424947248982490224865/38 24878120821202124850249902496524993249322498 5 249602490724910248212493112061 24978249772494224982 1209924971 24930248982499724988248352485112157 248931207324805 24888248522483524888248402497624876249802482624968224944248701 2 0 7 5 12069 249732492512076 12072 12040 248372491212136 2481424910249692486324902248772492212 0 6 8 2486024912248192496112129 12062 224883249402489612023249601217824992249262494424877248541 2 0 8 5 2484624916SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:2,000 24895 SMITH AVENUE DEWDNEY TRUNK RD APPENDIX A City of PittMeadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Aug 31, 2015 FILE: 2015-162-VP BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENT 24 8 A S T . 121 AVE.LILLIAN ST.SMITH AVE. 122 AVE.249A ST.120B AVE.248362497112169 23834248882482712071 249702495822486524985249431202524866 249272498411955248732489595412095 11 9 4 249212491512067 24970249322489712098 24962249832492024950248832490912104 24922249832483412070 12082 248152499124978 12071 120832482412079 2497524887249472497424898249022486524878249531202124850248142498 5 249602490724993249072496512139 2493224978249102497712061 2497124942/38 12099 12082249302489824990248512499712157 248932498824805248882482124852249311207324826 248352498224888 2484024876249802497624968248351206921 2 0 7 5 24944248702497312072 12076 249122492512136 2491012040 248372487724922248142496924912120232481924863249021206224992120682 24940248602489624877249602496112129 24926248542494424883248462491612178 1 2 0 8 5 SUBJECT PROPERTY City of Maple Ridge´ Scale: 1:2,000 24895 SMITH AVENUE (2011 IMAGERY) DEWDNEY TRUNK RD APPENDIX B APPENDIX C City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: October 5, 2015 and Members of Council FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Committee of the Whole SUBJECT: Revitalization Tax Exemption Agreements EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City of Maple Ridge offers property tax exemptions to eligible development projects. The Community Charter requires the City to enter into formal agreements with property owners in order to enable the exemptions. This report is to authorize the execution of those agreements for development projects qualifying for exemptions. RECOMMENDATION: That the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute agreements with the qualified property owners listed in Schedule A, as attached to the staff report “Revitalization Tax Exemption Agreements” dated October 5, 2015. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: The City of Maple Ridge began offering financial incentives to encourage development in 2011, when the 3-year Town Centre Investment Incentive Program was first implemented. The program focused on encouraging development and density in the Town Centre area. The commercial component was extended through to 2016. The Employment Lands Investment Incentive Program was implemented in 2015, shortly after the Commercial and Industrial Strategy was endorsed. The ELIIP program targets development on specified lands designated for industrial use to encourage the addition of high-value jobs in the community. An important element of both incentive programs is a Revitalization Tax Exemption (RTE) component, offering municipal property tax exemptions for the increase is property assessment value as a result of eligible projects. Currently, 7 projects are eligible to apply for exemptions. Due to legislated timing we do not know in advance of executing the agreements which projects will generate a value that can be exempted. Therefore, it is requested that Council authorize agreements with all the property owners, knowing that some may not be executed. The option rests with the property owners, and projects must meet all other requirements of the bylaw. Schedule A provides a summary of “fast facts” about the results of the programs. Schedule B lists all of the eligible projects, along with the property owners. Schedule C illustrates the agreement template. 1131 b) Desired Outcome: That property tax exemptions are provided for projects meeting the requirements of the Revitalization Tax Exemption Programs as adopted by Council. c) Strategic Alignment: Intended outcomes of the incentive programs include increasing density in the Town Centre and encouraging the addition of high-value jobs in the community. The Town Centre program supports the Town Centre Area Plan, while the Employment incentive program supports Council’s Commercial and Industrial Strategy. d) Financial Implications: The five-year financial plan includes revenue projections due to growth in the tax base. Tax exemptions will require the City to forgo revenue for a period of time, with the intent that future revenues, as a result of stimulated growth and density, will provide a net financial benefit. Should all eligible properties included in “Schedule A” experience non-market change equivalent to the estimated construction value, exempted tax revenues would be approximately $210,000 in 2016 and $650,000 over the full exemption period. CONCLUSIONS: A component of both the Town Centre and Employment Lands Investment Incentive Programs is the Revitalization Tax Exemption. Council has adopted bylaws to establish the programs including eligibility requirements. The Community Charter requires the City to enter into formal agreements with property owners in order to enable the exemptions. This report is to authorize the execution of those agreements for development projects that qualify for exemptions. “original signed by Catherine Nolan” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Catherine Nolan, CPA, CGA Manager of Accounting “original signed by Laura Benson” _______________________________________________ Reviewed by: Laura Benson, CPA, CMA Manager of Sustainability and Corporate Planning “original signed by Paul Gill” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Paul Gill, BBA, CPA, CGA General Manager, Corporate and Financial Services “original signed by Kelly Swift” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: Kelly Swift Acting Chief Administrative Officer Schedule A: Development Incentive Programs – Fast Facts Schedule B: List of potential Revitalization Tax Exemption Agreement Signatories Schedule C: Revitalization Tax Exemption Agreement (TCIIP Program) Schedule A: Development Incentive Programs – Fast Facts Program name Town Centre Investment Incentive Program Employment Land Investment Incentive Program Program acronym TCIIP-2011 TCIIP-2014 ELIIP Time period 2011-2013 2014-2016 2015-2018 Scope Residential and commercial development, commercial renovations and façade improvements in the Town Centre Commercial development, renovations and façade improvements in the Town Centre New construction and renovations on industrial lands, except for uses that were identified as providing low-value and/or low- density employment. Program status Closed Open Open Number of projects supported 64 projects 37 projects to date 3 projects to date Estimated construction value of projects supported $90 million (mostly residential) $27 million to date $4.7 million to date Projects receiving revitalization tax exemptions to date 14 projects; assessed value = $97 million; est. value of tax exemptions = $1.7 million. 0 projects Combined impact to date Over 100 projects with an estimated construction value of over $120 million. Schedule B: List of potential Revitalization Tax Exemption Agreement signatories TCIIP Program – 2011 Mainstay Holdings Ltd., Stacks & Decker Developments Ltd., Falcon Homes Ltd. 752 Capital Court Port Coquitlam, BC V3C 6E4 Lands: 11862-226 Street Legal Description: Lot B District Lot 401 New Westminster District Plan EPP12098 Group 1 PID #: 028-685-253 Folio Number: 31872-0002-0 Building Permit # 11-124862 Project: 4 storey, apartment over commercial Term of Tax Exemption: Three years Falcon Homes Ltd. 752 Capital Court Port Coquitlam, BC V3C 6E4 Lands: 22327 River Road Legal Description: Lot A Block 1 District Lot 398 New Westminster District Plan NWP155 Group 1, Portion (N23985E) PID #: 029-084-172 Folio Number: 31398-0110-0 Building Permit # 13-121189 Project: 4 storey apartment building Term of Tax Exemption: Three years TCIIP Program – 2014 Meridian Acquisitions Ltd. 2-22621 Lougheed Hwy Maple Ridge, BC V2X 2V4 Lands: 11980 227 Street Legal Description: Lot A District Lot 401 New Westminster District Plan NWP9541 Group 1, Except Plan BCP13823 PID #: 003-204-952 Folio Number: 31930-0000-0 Building Permit # 15-107398 Project: New construction – Meridian Meats & Seafood Term of Tax Exemption: Three years Fraser Street Holdings Ltd. 1501-1166 Alberni St Vancouver, BC V6E 3Z3 Lands: 203-22420 Dewdney Trunk Rd Legal Description: Lot 103 District Lot 398 New Westminster District Plan NWP49778 Group 1 PID #: 001-022-954 Folio Number: 31701-0100-6 Building Permit # 15-120001 Project Tenant improvement Term of Tax Exemption Three years ELIIP Program Big Trucks CA Inc. 20230 113B Avenue Maple Ridge, BC V2X 0Y9 Lands: 12845-261A Street Legal Description: Lot 3 Section 25 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan BCP42202 Group 1 PID #: 028-047-605 Folio Number: 73617-0003-0 Building Permit #: 14-125174 Project New Construction Term of Tax Exemption: Five years – declining balance Schedule B: List of potential Revitalization Tax Exemption Agreement signatories Big Trucks CA Inc. 20230 113B Avenue Maple Ridge, BC V2X 0Y9 Lands: 12875-261A Street Legal Description: Lot 4 Section 25 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan BCP42202 Group 1 PID #: 028-047-613 Folio Number: 73617-0004-0 Building Permit #: 14-125187 Project New Construction Term of Tax Exemption: Five years – declining balance Anmore Holdings Inc. 20198 113B Avenue Maple Ridge, BC V2X 0Y9 Lands: 20210-113B Avenue Legal Description: Lot A District Lot 280 New Westminster District Plan LMP52360 Group 1 PID #: 025-215-337 Folio Number: 21342-0159-0 Building Permit #: 15-111021 Project New Construction Term of Tax Exemption: Five years – declining balance Schedule C: Revitalization Tax Exemption Agreement (TCIIP Program) City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-463-5221 Fax: 604-467-7329 enquiries@mapleridge.ca www.mapleridge.ca Form RTE2015B-TCIIP Revitalization Tax Exemption Agreement Town Centre Investment Incentive Program THIS AGREEMENT dated for reference _________________________________. BETWEEN: CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE, a municipal corporation under the laws of British Columbia and having its offices at 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia V2X 6A9 (“City”) AND: OWNER NAME/ADDRESS (“Owner”) A. Under the Maple Ridge Revitalization Tax Exemption Bylaw No. 7010-2013 (the “Bylaw”), the City of Maple Ridge established a revitalization tax exemption program for the purpose of encouraging revitalization of the Town Centre Investment Incentive Areas identified in the Bylaw. B. The Lands subject to this Agreement are located within the Town Centre Investment Incentive Areas. C. The Owner proposes to construct an improvement(s) or to carry out an alteration(s) to an existing improvement(s) on the Lands. D. This Agreement contains terms and conditions governing the provision of a general municipal property tax exemption under the Bylaw. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained in this Agreement and the payment by the Owner to the City of $1.00, the receipt and sufficiency of which are acknowledged by the City, the parties agree as follows: 1. Definitions 1.1. In this Agreement the following words have the following meanings: “Lands” means those lands and premises located at: Legally described as: Parcel Identifier (PID): Page 2 of 5 Form RTE2015B-TCIIP Folio Number: “Project” means the project identified on Building Permit No: “Municipal Property Tax” means the property taxes Council has imposed pursuant to Schedule A of the Maple Ridge Tax Rates Bylaw, and does not include any other property taxes 2. Owner’s Obligations 2.1. In consideration of the City granting the Owner a revitalization tax exemption in accordance with the Bylaw, the Owner agrees to construct the following new improvement(s) or carry out the following alteration(s) to an existing improvement(s) on the Lands: Brief description and reference building permit number and DP# where applicable. 2.2. The Owner will ensure that the Project is constructed, maintained, operated and used in a fashion that will be consistent with and will foster the objectives of the revitalization tax exemption program, as outlined in the Bylaw. 2.3. Throughout the term of this Agreement, the Owner shall operate, repair and maintain the Project and will keep the Project in a state of good repair. 2.4. The Owner agrees that a revitalization tax exemption granted by the City under the Bylaw is subject to the Owner’s compliance with and fulfilment of all the terms and conditions arising out of the Building Permits issued. 2.5. The Owner shall construct the Project and, at all times during the term of the tax exemption, operate, use and occupy the Lands and the Project in compliance with all statutes, laws, regulations and orders of any authority having jurisdiction and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, all federal, provincial, or municipal laws or statutes or bylaws, including all the rules, regulations, policies, guidelines, criteria, or the like made under or pursuant to any such laws. 2.6. The Owner must bear all the expenses of performing the obligations and covenants of contained within this Agreement. 2.7. All covenants made by the Owner herein shall be for the benefit of the City. 2.8. The Owner represents and warrants to the City that: a. All necessary corporate actions and proceedings have been taken by the Owner to authorize its entry into and performance of this Agreement; b. Upon execution and delivery on behalf of the Owner, this Agreement constitutes a valid and binding contractual obligation of the Owner; c. Neither the execution and delivery, nor the performance of this Agreement shall breach any other Agreement or obligation or cause the Owner to be in default of any other Agreement or obligation respecting the Lands; and, d. The Owner has the corporate capacity and authority to enter into and perform this Agreement. Page 3 of 5 Form RTE2015B-TCIIP 3. City’s Rights, Powers and Obligations 3.1. Nothing contained or implied in this Agreement prejudices or affects the City’s rights and powers in the exercise of its functions or its rights and powers under any public and private statutes, bylaws, orders or regulations to the extent the same are applicable to the Lands, all of which may be fully and effectively exercised in relation to the Lands as if this Agreement had not been executed and delivered by the Owner. 3.2. Where the terms and conditions of this Agreement and the Bylaw have been met, the City shall issue a Revitalization Tax Exemption Program Certificate to the Owner in accordance with the provisions of the Bylaw. 3.3. The City reserves the right to terminate this Agreement and revoke the Revitalization Tax Exemption Program Certificate if the Owner fails to comply with any of the terms, conditions or requirements of this Agreement or the Bylaw, and the Owner fails to remedy any such breach or non-compliance within the time specified by the City in its notice to the Owner. 3.4. For a Revitalization Tax Exemption Program Certificate that is revoked, the City may recapture: a. The value of the Tax Exemption provided on the Lands for the current and any previous taxation years to which the Revitalization Tax Exemption Program Certificate applies; and, b. The value of any amounts provided through a Partnering Agreement entered into by the Owner and the City. 3.5. If the Owner fails to remit the recapture amount noted in Section 3.4 of this Agreement within thirty (30) days, the amount may be placed on the general property tax bill for the Lands. 3.6. The City will act in its sole discretion to make or give any decision, direction, determination, or consent. 4. General Provisions 4.1. The Owner and the City represent that the City has made no representations, covenants, warranties, guarantees, promises, or any agreements, express or implied, with the Owner other than those expressly contained in this Agreement. 4.2. This Agreement may only be modified by written agreement of the City and the Owner. 4.3. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and is binding on the parties and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns. 4.4. Time is of the essence in this Agreement. 4.5. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the Owner and the City with regard to the subject matter herein, and supersedes all prior agreements, understandings, negotiations, and discussions, whether oral or written, of the City with the Owner. 4.6. No amendment or waiver of any portion of this Agreement shall be valid unless in writing and executed by the parties to this Agreement. 4.7. Waiver of any default by a party shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any subsequent Page 4 of 5 Form RTE2015B-TCIIP default by that party. 4.8. This Agreement shall be construed according to the laws of the Province of British Columbia. 5. Revitalization Tax Exemption 5.1. Subject to fulfilment of the conditions set out in this Agreement and the Bylaw, the City shall issue a Revitalization Tax Exemption Program Certificate to BC Assessment entitling the Owner to a property tax exemption in relation to the Project as specified in Part 6 of this Agreement. 6. Calculation of Revitalization Tax Exemption 6.1. The Tax Exemption is equivalent to 100% of the Municipal Property Tax payable on the amount of Non-Market Change attributed to the Commercial Portion of the Project, as specified in Part 7 of the Bylaw, and where all the conditions as stated in Pa rt 8 of the Bylaw have been met for a total of <<Choose Exemption Term>> years. 7. Term of Tax Exemption 7.1. Provided the requirements of this A greement and the Bylaw are met, the tax exemption shall be for the taxation years: to inclusive. 8. No Refund 8.1. For greater certainty, under no circumstances will the Owner be entitled under the City’s revitalization tax exemption program to any cash credit, any carry forward tax exemption credit or any refund for any property taxes paid. 9. Notices 9.1. Any notice or other communication required or contemplated to be given or made by any provision of this Agreement shall be given or made in writing and either delivered personally (and if so, shall be deemed to be received when delivered), or mailed by prepaid registered mail in any Canada Post Office (and if so, shall be deemed to be delivered on the sixth business day following such mailing, except that, in the event of interruption of mail service, notice shall be deemed to be delivered only when actually received by the party to whom it is addressed), so long as the notice is addressed to the party at the address shown on Page 1 of this Agreement. 10. Severance 10.1. If any portion of this Agreement is held invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, the invalid portion shall be severed and the decision that it is invalid shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this Agreement. 11. Further Assurances 11.1. The parties shall execute and do all such further deeds, acts, things and assurances that may be reasonably required to carry out the intent of this Agreement. As evidence of their agreement to be bound by the terms of this Revitalization Tax Exemption Page 5 of 5 Form RTE2015B-TCIIP Agreement, the parties have executed this Revitalization Tax Exemption Agreement as follows: Corporate Officer City of Maple Ridge Executed by the (Insert name) by its authorized signatories: Name Name The Revitalization Tax Exemption Agreement template for the ELIIP program is essentially the same as this document, other than:  Term and basis for exemption - the ELIIP tax exemption is provided for 5 years on a declining basis, whereas the TCIIP is provided for 3 years on a static basis.  Eligibility requirements – the ELIIP program outlines property uses that comply with the Zoning Bylaw but are ineligible for the incentive program. ELIIP eligibility requirements are specified in Bylaw #7112-2014. City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: October 05, 2015 and Members of Council FILE NO: T21-212-003 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C.O.W SUBJECT: Adjustments to 2012, 2013, 2014 and 2015 Collector’s Rolls EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: BC Assessment has revised the assessed value for the 2015 Collector’s Roll through the issuance of Supplementary Rolls 4 through 6. BC Assessment has also revised the assessed values for one folio for 2012 through 2014 as a result of an appeal that has just been settled. The Collector is required to make all the necessary changes to the municipal tax roll records and reports these adjustments to Council. RECOMMENDATION(S): None required, information only DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: Twelve folios were adjusted in total: Assessments for nine residential and one light industry class properties were reviewed and the assessments adjusted to more accurately reflect the values and conditions of the improvements. The heritage exemption for a property in Whonnock was incorrectly stopped one year too soon and therefore had to be reinstated. In addition, appeals filed with the Property Assessment Appeal Board for 2012 through 2015 resulted in an adjustment to the assessed value of a commercial property at 217th and Lougheed Highway to more accurately reflect the value of the land and the improvements. (Municipal tax revenue changes 2015: Increase in Class 1 (Residential) $2,609; Decrease in Class 5 (Light Industry) $20; Increase in Class 9 (Farm) $25; Decrease in Class 6 (Commercial) $5,296) (Municipal tax revenue changes 2012 through 2014: Decrease in Class 6 (Commercial) $25,446) b)Business Plan/Financial Implications: There is a total decrease of $ 28,128 in municipal tax revenue. Page 1 of 2 1132 CONCLUSIONS: Adjustments by BC Assessment resulted in an increase of $583,400 to the Residential assessment base, an increase of $783 to the Farm assessment base, a decrease of $1,600 to the Light Industry assessment base and a decrease of $430,439 to the Commercial assessment base. This report dated Oct. 5, 2015 is submitted for information and is available to the public. “Original signed by Silvia Rutledge”_______________ Prepared by: Silvia Rutledge Manager of Revenue & Collections “Original signed by Paul Gill”______________________ Approved by: Paul Gill, BBA, CGA General Manager: Corporate & Financial Services “Original signed by Kelly Swift”____________________ Concurrence: Kelly Swift Acting Chief Administrative Officer Page 2 of 2 City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: October 5, 2015 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: COW SUBJECT: Golden Ears Winter Club Funding Request EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At its meeting of September 10, the Commission reviewed a request from staff to add funding to the existing Golden Ears Winter Club (GEWC) operating agreement; the report is attached for background detail. Commission directed staff to add an additional clause to the lease agreement which would identify the services being provided to the Community by the Club, in exchange for funding support. Staff will make this change prior to bringing it back to Council if approved. The recommendation is now referred to Council for consideration. RECOMMENDATION: That the Golden Ears Winter Club request be referred to the 2016-2020 business planning process for consideration. “Original signed by Wendy McCormick” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: David Boag, Acting General Manager Community Development, Parks & Recreation Services “Original signed by Kelly Swift” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: Kelly Swift Acting/Chief Administrative Officer :ik Attachments: Commission Report of September 10, 2015 1151 \\mr.corp\docs\CDPR-Admin\01-Admin\0540-Council-Committees\20-PLSC\02- Agendas\Regular\2015\2015-09-10\PLSC_2015-09-07_GEWC_Funding_Request.docx 1 SUBJECT: GOLDEN EARS WINTER CLUB FUNDING REQUEST EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Golden Ears Winter Club (GEWC) is a non-profit society that operates the curling facility located at 23580 - 105 Avenue under an operating agreement with the City of Maple Ridge. The current operating agreement does not provide funding for operation of the club or facility. Currently the Society is unable to meet its financial obligations as outlined in the attached operating agreement (Attachment #1). They continue to accumulate debt and use capital/operating reserves to fund operations. At the September 11, 2014 Commission meeting staff were directed to provide interim financial support to the club equal to 40% of the club’s utility expenditures, up to $20,000.00. Secondly, Commission requested staff work with the GEWC to determine the level of support required to operate the curling facility in the long term. As directed, staff completed a review of the GEWC operation in an effort to identify efficiencies, opportunities and areas where Commission might provide support. Staff also spent considerable time working with other communities comparing operating models and costs; identifying the City of Coquitlam facility as the best option for cost comparison purposes as it is identical in size and configuration to the GEWC. Staff is recommending Commission add funding to the existing Golden Ears Winter Club operating agreement, this is consistent with how the Commission treats other non-profit organizations that operate facilities and provide services on behalf of the Commission. RECOMMENDATION: (a) That a recommendation be forwarded to Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows Councils as part of the 2016 – 2020 budget deliberations to increase funding to the Golden Ears Winter Club operating agreement by $20,000 from Maple Ridge and $5,000 from Pitt Meadows per the terms of the Joint Leisure Services Agreement; AND, (b) If operating funds are approved by both Councils, that staff update the agreement with Golden Ears Winter Club to fund $45,000 per year toward the cost of utilities to be re-assessed on conclusion of the three year term; AND, (c) That a recommendation be forwarded to Maple Ridge Council to forgive the outstanding debt, currently at $58,529.66, that the Golden Ears Winter Club owes for outstanding operating expenses related to utility fees; AND, Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows Parks & Leisure Services Commission Report REGULAR MEETING September 10, 2015 \\mr.corp\docs\CDPR-Admin\01-Admin\0540-Council-Committees\20-PLSC\02- Agendas\Regular\2015\2015-09-10\PLSC_2015-09-07_GEWC_Funding_Request.docx 2 (d) That a recommendation be forwarded to Pitt Meadows Council to grant an amount equal to Pitt Meadows proportionate share of the outstanding debt for the Golden Ears Winter Club per the Joint Leisure Services Agreement, currently $11,705.93. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: The GEWC has a long history of working with the City of Maple Ridge and the Commission to operate curling facilities and provide service to the community. The GEWC originally operated a curling facility (Quonset hut) on the land now occupied by the Haney Place Mall. From 1980 to 1999 they continued operation of a facility on land now occupied by the Maple Ridge Arts Centre and Theatre. From 2000 to 2015 the GEWC has operated the facility at the current location adjacent to the Planet Ice Arena in Albion. The current curling facility was constructed by RG Properties LTD. (RG) as part of the Planet Ice arena development located adjacent to the Albion fairgrounds. The City entered into a trust agreement with RG (September 1, 1999) while retaining community use of the curling facility. On September 1, 1999, the City of Maple Ridge (District at the time) entered into an operating agreement with the GEWC to operate the curling facility at no cost to the Commission or City other than ongoing major capital infrastructure replacement. From 1999 to 2005, RG Arenas was responsible for payment of all utilities and for off season operations at the GEWC in exchange for rights to food and beverage services at the club. In 2005 RG Arenas opted out of the food and beverage agreement and with this change, GEWC became responsible for additional operating costs of approximately $7,000 per month and summer (off season) operation of the club. Through the addition of a summer operating addendum to their operating agreement with the City, the GEWC accepted responsibility for dry floor operations and off season rentals in an effort to create a revenue stream to off-set the newly acquired operating costs. At that time, staff worked closely with the club to increase their revenues through the acquisition of a liquor license and off-season dry floor rentals with Ridge Meadows Minor Ball Hockey. Under the summer addendum the Commission paid the club $20,000 to operate the facility and the club provided dry floor services to the community (ball hockey, grad ceremonies, home show and agricultural fair) over a four month period. After numerous discussions with staff, on August 21, 2013, the club provided written notice (Attachment #2) of their intention to “opt out” of the summer operations agreement due to the financial and human resources burden that has been placed on the volunteers and GEWC staff since 2005. As a result, on April 16, 2014, Parks and Leisure Services staff took over the operation of the GEWC for the summer season, including booking, staffing, maintenance, utilities and other related costs associated with running the facility. On September 11, 2014, Commission directed staff to provide interim financial support to the club equal to 40% of the club’s utility expenditures to a maximum of $20,000.00 (utilizing the $20,000 previously used to fund summer operations) until a permanent funding strategy could be developed. \\mr.corp\docs\CDPR-Admin\01-Admin\0540-Council-Committees\20-PLSC\02- Agendas\Regular\2015\2015-09-10\PLSC_2015-09-07_GEWC_Funding_Request.docx 3 Current Status Since 2007, utility costs at the curling facility have averaged $53,912 a year or just over $4,400 per month. In 2014 utility costs at the GEWC facility were $66,000 or $5,500 per month. Planet Ice (RG Properties) invoices the Commission for the utility costs which include ice plant monitoring, miscellaneous services and repairs; the Commission subsequently invoices the GEWC to recover funds paid to RG Properties on the club’s behalf. Over the past three years the club has accumulated a debt owing to the Commission in the amount of $58,529.66 (May 2015). In light of recent news releases from BC Hydro regarding rate increases and the ever increasing costs and complexity of staffing and operating large facilities we can anticipate that GEWC will continue to fall behind in the future and their ability to operate the facility will end. The club feels the current situation is not sustainable in the long term and will jeopardize their ability to operate the club. The GEWC board has informed staff they will no longer be able to meet the terms of their existing operating agreement past the 2015/16 curling season due to ever increasing operating costs and the decision of the board not to replace the vacant manager’s position. The club’s membership shows a steady increase since 2010 with a decrease of 66 members in the 2013/14 season. The 2013/14 membership decrease parallels a substantial increase in membership dues introduced by the board to meet an anticipated operating loss resulting in many members moving to neighbouring clubs. The club’s revenues are generated by membership dues, lounge/concession operations and rental revenue, the decline in membership and the increase in operating cost (utilities, staffing and repairs) have jeopardized their ability to operate the facility. Currently the Society is unable to meet its financial obligations, they continue to accumulate debt (owed to the City) and use capital/operating reserves to fund operations. Golden Ears Winter Club Net Operating totals (unaudited): 2014 = (35,189) loss 2013 = (19,425) loss 2012 = (14,176) loss 2011 = 5,203 *Please note, May 2015, the GEWC owes the City $58,529.66 for unpaid utility costs. To address the decline in membership the GEWC invests in providing quality curling ice and working with school age children and juniors to introduce them to the sport. Through recent efforts they have managed to increase membership by 15 members since the 2013/14 membership year and expect to continue this trend into next season. \\mr.corp\docs\CDPR-Admin\01-Admin\0540-Council-Committees\20-PLSC\02- Agendas\Regular\2015\2015-09-10\PLSC_2015-09-07_GEWC_Funding_Request.docx 4 Membership Recruitment and Development One of the strategic focus areas of the GEWC is to bring awareness of the club and its members to those in and surrounding the communities of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. To achieve this goal the club has completed the following within the past year. GEWC marketing efforts are limited as they are reliant on by Board Members and volunteers not staff. 1n 2014 the club hosted 3 separate Learn to Curl sessions. The Learn to Curl sessions were reasonably successful and resulted in approximately 15 new curlers as well as the formation of a 5 week Beginner League. In addition, the club had a display at Haney Place Mall that focused on junior curling that included a “Rocks and Rings” promotional program. The program was fairly successful. An advertisement was also taken out in the Maple Ridge News. The Haney Masters (men 55 and over) did a parallel marketing program aimed at 55+ by advertising in the local papers and encouraging each Masters member to bring in a new curler. Overall the club realized a net increase of 15 full time curlers and a number of part-time spares for the 2014/15 season, somewhat reversing the negative trend (loss of 66 full time curlers) observed in the 2013/14 season. In 2015, the GEWC hosted the BC Scotties Provincials which generated some much needed revenue while creating awareness for the sport and the club. Other marketing efforts include signage on a fence at Telosky Sports Field, which is visible to West bound traffic as they enter the core of the City. One notable strength of the club is the condition of the curling ice. The curling surface is known to be the best in the lower mainland and has attracted teams and players from Coquitlam and other jurisdictions. GEWC has also improved the information on the website ensuring it is up-to-date along with social media pages located on Facebook and Twitter. The club’s marketing weakness is found in their inability to produce quality posters for bonspiels and to purchase quality advertising due to current financial constraints and lack of staff support. All marketing efforts are completed by volunteers, which will vary from year to year depending on volunteer availability and skills to perform the necessary tasks. The PLS department continues to support the club through the Parks and Leisure brochure, social media and joint advertising and will provide staff support when needed. \\mr.corp\docs\CDPR-Admin\01-Admin\0540-Council-Committees\20-PLSC\02- Agendas\Regular\2015\2015-09-10\PLSC_2015-09-07_GEWC_Funding_Request.docx 5 Membership Fee Comparison GEWC Peace Arch Delta Coquitlam Port Moody Mission Abbotsford Membership $100 $250 $25.00 $200 Adult Leagues $285 $252 $247 $280 $260 $185 (TBA) $300 Masters $230 $165 $147 $125 $145 $280 Juniors $120 $105 $105 $125 $75 $105 *Peace Arch has a building assessment fee of 30 for members 35 for non members Volunteers and Staffing In an effort to contain operating costs the club reduced staffing and operated without a manger, relying on volunteers to mange the club for the 2014/15 season and possibly the entire 2015/16 season. They utilized capital equipment replacement reserves to supplement operating losses, reduced regular maintenance, deferred equipment replacement, opted out of summer operations and were unable to pay 100% of utility costs due to the Commission. However, the club feels this is not sustainable in the long term and will jeopardize their ability to operate the club beyond the 2015/16 curling season. Prior to 2014, the majority of the hours committed to the operation of the club were through GEWC staff with support from a volunteer board. However, this changed dramatically starting in April of 2014 when they reduced staff hours, mainly due to the board’s decision to not replace the vacant manager’s position. This development put increased pressure on volunteers and is seen in the dramatic decrease in staff hours versus the increase in volunteer hours as outlined in the graph below. It’s safe to say that the operation of the club is heavily based on volunteers and commitment to the club is waning as the volunteers become exhausted. Club Finances A comparison of the Statement of Financial Position for the club for the years 2008 – 2014 shows some interesting overall trends. In 2008, the majority of assets were held in cash, while accounts payable (City of Maple Ridge) and accrued charges were relatively small. Over the next few years, GEWC’s cash position decreased dramatically. In 2008, the GEWC stated that it held a cash total of $97,198, which then decreased by a total of 87% to a total of $12,893 as of fiscal year end 2014. \\mr.corp\docs\CDPR-Admin\01-Admin\0540-Council-Committees\20-PLSC\02- Agendas\Regular\2015\2015-09-10\PLSC_2015-09-07_GEWC_Funding_Request.docx 6 In addition, accounts payable to the City of Maple Ridge was just over $70,000 (2014) and currently (May 2015) is $58,529.66 almost back to the 2008 levels where the amount owed was $75,189. As mentioned, the GEWC collects the majority of its revenue from membership dues. The decline in membership, especially in a time of rising costs (utilities, wages/benefits, repairs and maintenance) has created a financial hardship for the club. As the chart below indicates the ever increasing costs of utilities and staffing have out paced the ability of the club to meet these expenditures through membership and other revenue sources. (Attachment #3 - Budget Details) Other Jurisdictions In an effort to better understand the current situation the GEWC is facing and how we might ensure the club continues to provide services to our communities, staff looked at the state of curling in our region and how our neighbouring communities are supporting the sport of curling. Staff determined that typically, municipalities contribute funding to \\mr.corp\docs\CDPR-Admin\01-Admin\0540-Council-Committees\20-PLSC\02- Agendas\Regular\2015\2015-09-10\PLSC_2015-09-07_GEWC_Funding_Request.docx 7 offset operating costs of curling facilities or, the municipality is the direct service provider and operator. The current relationship between Commission and the GEWC is consistent with other municipalities. While staff’s research has found that 75% of the respondents have a situation where the City is the owner of the building and the club is the operator for the season, we are one of the few who do not contribute to the ongoing operating costs of curling facilities. The GEWC is the only not for profit organization who operate a facility on behalf of the Commission who do not receive operating funds or have a fee for service/operating agreement. Regionally there are a number of models in place including:  Cost sharing of utilities and operating costs (fee for service).  Cases where the club does not own the building and are involved in a lease/rental arrangement where they pay the city for ice time and the city is responsible for all building and ice maintenance and building capital costs (City of Coquitlam).  Cases where the club owns the building and the city owns the land so that the city and club share the responsibility for building upgrades and repairs including capital costs.  Private clubs that receive no municipal support. (Attachment #4 - Summary of the Survey Results). b) Desired Outcome: To provide opportunities for residents of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows to learn and participate in the sport of curling through the provision of a high quality cost efficient service. Secondly, that the curling facility continues to be operated by a local non-profit organization to promote independence and a sense of responsibility for the delivery of leisure services by community groups in a manner that delivers benefits to citizens and is financially sustainable. c) Strategic Alignment: This initiative aligns with a Safe and Livable Community as it would support citizens to engage in healthy lifestyles and supports community-driven efforts to build community capacity through partnerships with local volunteer and not for profit groups that provide a recreation service to the community. Moreover, To provide high quality municipal services to our citizens and customers in a cost effective and efficient manner. d) Citizen/Customer Implications: Curling provides an opportunity for social and physical activity that has deep roots in the community and Canadian culture. Three hundred and ninety (390) people currently hold memberships while thousands participate in skill development, school programs, local and \\mr.corp\docs\CDPR-Admin\01-Admin\0540-Council-Committees\20-PLSC\02- Agendas\Regular\2015\2015-09-10\PLSC_2015-09-07_GEWC_Funding_Request.docx 8 regional tournaments. In addition ball hockey, lacrosse, home show, agricultural fair, grads and other users utilize the facility for special events and leisure activities. e) Business Plan/Financial Implications: The incremental cost ($25,000) to fund the existing operating agreement with the GEWC will be considered as part of the 2016 budget deliberations in each City, $20,000.00 from Maple Ridge and $5,000.00 from Pitt Meadows. This funding is in addition to the $20,000 of interim funding currently in place and granted by the Commission in 2014. That current debt the GEWC owes the cities be waived in an amount not exceed $60,000.00; $48,000.00 by the City of Maple Ridge and $12,000.00 by the City of Pitt Meadows as per the terms of the Joint Recreation Agreement. f) Policy Implications: Development of a fee for service agreement with a not for profit organization aligns with the Commission’s Asset-Based Community Development Policy P092 and is consistent with Commission’s approach with other organizations who operate a building and provide services on behalf of the commission. g) Alternatives: For the staff to investigate the feasibility and cost of alternative operating models: 1. The City to operate and manage the facility charging the GEWC to use the Ice. (City of Coquitlam direct service model) – net operating costs are significant at approximately $206,000. 2. Convert the facility to a ice and sports facility, the GEWC facility was designed to accommodate a regulation sized ice surface and is used in the summer months for ball hockey, lacrosse and community events – upgrade costs approximately $500,000 + operating costs (Commission operate or go to market for a operator). 3. Convert the Ice surface to leisure ice to accommodate public skating, lessons and events, this would free up ice time at Pitt Meadows Arena and Planet Ice currently booked for public skating and lessons – upgrade costs approximately $350,000 + operating costs (Commission operate or go to market for a operator). CONCLUSIONS: The Golden Ears Winter Club is an important community partner who operates the Golden Ears curling facility on behalf of the Commission, the cities of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. The burden of ever increasing operating costs and debt has jeopardized the club’s ability to generate enough revenue from its membership and operations to consistently meet its financial obligations. The club has exhausted all of its reserves, operating and equipment capital and has accumulated a sizable debt to the Commission. They have increased membership fees, reduced staffing and will attempt to operate during the 2014/15 and 2015/16 curling season(s) by not filling the vacant club manager’s position, managing the facility with volunteers from the board. They continue to apply for grants and \\mr.corp\docs\CDPR-Admin\01-Admin\0540-Council-Committees\20-PLSC\02- Agendas\Regular\2015\2015-09-10\PLSC_2015-09-07_GEWC_Funding_Request.docx 9 hosted the 2015 BC Scotties in an effort to generate additional income, promote the club and the community. Given this situation, it is prudent to explore other operating models or fund a portion of the operating costs through a fee for service arrangement to sustain curling in the community in the near and long term. “Original signed by Christa Balatti for Don Cramb” Prepared By: Don Cramb Senior Recreation Manager “Original signed by Sue Wheeler for Wendy McCormick” Reviewed By: Wendy McCormick Director Recreation “Original signed by David Boag, Acting/General Manager” Approved By: Kelly Swift General Manager, Community Development Parks & Recreation Services : dp Attachment # 1 – Operating Agreement Attachment # 2 – Summer Operation’s Notice Attachment # 3 – Financial Detail Attachment # 4 – Survey \\mr.corp\docs\CDPR-Admin\01-Admin\0540-Council-Committees\20-PLSC\02- Agendas\Regular\2015\2015-09-10\PLSC_2015-09-07_GEWC_Funding_Request.docx 10 Attachment #1 – Operating Agreement \\mr.corp\docs\CDPR-Admin\01-Admin\0540-Council-Committees\20-PLSC\02- Agendas\Regular\2015\2015-09-10\PLSC_2015-09-07_GEWC_Funding_Request.docx 11 \\mr.corp\docs\CDPR-Admin\01-Admin\0540-Council-Committees\20-PLSC\02- Agendas\Regular\2015\2015-09-10\PLSC_2015-09-07_GEWC_Funding_Request.docx 12 \\mr.corp\docs\CDPR-Admin\01-Admin\0540-Council-Committees\20-PLSC\02- Agendas\Regular\2015\2015-09-10\PLSC_2015-09-07_GEWC_Funding_Request.docx 13 \\mr.corp\docs\CDPR-Admin\01-Admin\0540-Council-Committees\20-PLSC\02- Agendas\Regular\2015\2015-09-10\PLSC_2015-09-07_GEWC_Funding_Request.docx 14 \\mr.corp\docs\CDPR-Admin\01-Admin\0540-Council-Committees\20-PLSC\02- Agendas\Regular\2015\2015-09-10\PLSC_2015-09-07_GEWC_Funding_Request.docx 15 \\mr.corp\docs\CDPR-Admin\01-Admin\0540-Council-Committees\20-PLSC\02- Agendas\Regular\2015\2015-09-10\PLSC_2015-09-07_GEWC_Funding_Request.docx 16 \\mr.corp\docs\CDPR-Admin\01-Admin\0540-Council-Committees\20-PLSC\02- Agendas\Regular\2015\2015-09-10\PLSC_2015-09-07_GEWC_Funding_Request.docx 17 \\mr.corp\docs\CDPR-Admin\01-Admin\0540-Council-Committees\20-PLSC\02- Agendas\Regular\2015\2015-09-10\PLSC_2015-09-07_GEWC_Funding_Request.docx 18 \\mr.corp\docs\CDPR-Admin\01-Admin\0540-Council-Committees\20-PLSC\02- Agendas\Regular\2015\2015-09-10\PLSC_2015-09-07_GEWC_Funding_Request.docx 19 \\mr.corp\docs\CDPR-Admin\01-Admin\0540-Council-Committees\20-PLSC\02- Agendas\Regular\2015\2015-09-10\PLSC_2015-09-07_GEWC_Funding_Request.docx 20 \\mr.corp\docs\CDPR-Admin\01-Admin\0540-Council-Committees\20-PLSC\02- Agendas\Regular\2015\2015-09-10\PLSC_2015-09-07_GEWC_Funding_Request.docx 21 \\mr.corp\docs\CDPR-Admin\01-Admin\0540-Council-Committees\20-PLSC\02- Agendas\Regular\2015\2015-09-10\PLSC_2015-09-07_GEWC_Funding_Request.docx 22 \\mr.corp\docs\CDPR-Admin\01-Admin\0540-Council-Committees\20-PLSC\02- Agendas\Regular\2015\2015-09-10\PLSC_2015-09-07_GEWC_Funding_Request.docx 23 \\mr.corp\docs\CDPR-Admin\01-Admin\0540-Council-Committees\20-PLSC\02- Agendas\Regular\2015\2015-09-10\PLSC_2015-09-07_GEWC_Funding_Request.docx 24 \\mr.corp\docs\CDPR-Admin\01-Admin\0540-Council-Committees\20-PLSC\02- Agendas\Regular\2015\2015-09-10\PLSC_2015-09-07_GEWC_Funding_Request.docx 25 \\mr.corp\docs\CDPR-Admin\01-Admin\0540-Council-Committees\20-PLSC\02- Agendas\Regular\2015\2015-09-10\PLSC_2015-09-07_GEWC_Funding_Request.docx 26 Attachment #2 – Summer Operations Notice \\mr.corp\docs\CDPR-Admin\01-Admin\0540-Council-Committees\20-PLSC\02- Agendas\Regular\2015\2015-09-10\PLSC_2015-09-07_GEWC_Funding_Request.docx 27 Attachment #3 – Financial Detail FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Statement of Financial Position 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Current Assets Cash $97,198 $48,411 $31,078 $27,853 $18,080 $23,569 $12,893 Term deposits $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Restricted cash ------$2,783 Accounts receivable $2,032 $25,286 $9,672 $19,018 $16,913 $3,239 $10,182 Receivable from general reserve $10,500 Inventory $9,970 $11,627 $5,337 $5,255 $2,300 $2,300 $2,300 Prepaid expenses $1,824 $1,824 $2,162 $1,964 $902 $902 $1,395 $116,024 $92,148 $53,249 $59,090 $43,195 $35,010 $45,053 Capital Assets, at nominal value $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $1 $116,025 $92,149 $53,250 $59,091 $43,196 $35,011 $45,054 Current Liabilities Accounts payable and accrued charges $75,189 $107,312 $25,970 $22,566 $24,487 $35,731 $69,170 GST payable $19,663 $678 $2,542 $2,904 $2,770 $4,014 Deferred revenue ------$10,500 Deposits held -$725 $3,000 $4,500 $500 $500 $500 $94,852 $108,715 $28,970 $29,608 $27,891 $39,001 $84,184 Unrestricted net assets ($4,491)($42,230)$4,856 $10,059 ($4,119)($17,225)($41,913) Externally restricted net assets $25,664 $25,664 $19,424 $19,424 $19,424 $13,235 $2,783 $21,173 ($16,566)$24,280 $29,483 $15,305 ($3,990)($39,130) $116,025 $92,149 $53,250 $59,091 $43,196 $35,011 $45,054 Net Assets Assets Liabilities \\mr.corp\docs\CDPR-Admin\01-Admin\0540-Council-Committees\20-PLSC\02- Agendas\Regular\2015\2015-09-10\PLSC_2015-09-07_GEWC_Funding_Request.docx 28 Statement of Operations 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Club lounge, net $40,093 $36,635 Advertising income $1,666 $3,287 $2,900 $3,968 $3,250 Concession, net $3,097 $1,254 Concession revenue, net $4,684 ($923)($3,150)$6,042 $6,079 Dues $94,665 $87,437 Club dues $94,688 $112,507 $111,405 $93,933 $91,924 Fundraising $11,517 $11,695 Donations Received $400 $9,585 Membership fees $1,260 $3,598 Gaming grant $1,200 --$4,000 $4,000 Open ice and other rentals $43,873 $42,567 Fundraising income $4,728 $4,330 $3,480 $1,272 $403 Bonspiels (net)$3,393 $19,161 Interest income $399 $243 $201 $155 $63 Miscellaneous $3,704 $6,271 Loung revenue, net $36,244 $25,282 $23,558 $17,915 $13,951 Interest earned $1,123 $622 Municipal grant -$20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 Grants -$4,000 Misc. revenue $12,715 $8,691 $2,787 $5,706 $5,935 Pro-shop revenue, net $2,132 $1,188 $5,153 $4,581 ($364) Rental revenue $60,292 $51,550 $33,957 $33,861 $40,777 School visits $6,804 $10,445 $4,386 $2,234 $2,425 $202,725 $213,240 $229,561 $236,600 $204,677 $194,067 $198,028 Accounting and bookkeeping $1,895 $14,475 Advertising and promotion $7,861 $7,672 $5,816 $4,513 $2,099 Advertising $2,050 $4,599 Bad Debts ---$625 $1,260 Bad debts $2,086 -Bank charges and interest $9,657 $4,875 $4,146 $4,175 $4,323 Bank charges $2,031 $6,939 Bookkeeping $12,775 $11,836 $13,413 $6,811 $10,908 Dues - PCCA/BCLCA $5,246 $5,158 Equipment Purchases -$2,959 Equipment purchases $13,566 $11,327 Insurance $3,220 $5,219 $4,328 $3,205 $2,855 Equipment rental $461 -Legal fees --$6,727 -- Insurance $2,557 $2,882 Licenses, dues etc. $5,917 $7,479 $7,181 $6,733 $5,533 Licenses and memberships $1,414 $1,290 Office $11,459 $9,658 $4,335 $6,766 $4,831 Office and sundry $5,791 $6,767 Professional development $209 $432 $119 -- Repairs and supplies $16,115 $40,978 Professional fees $2,500 $2,250 $1,200 ($1,600)- Telephone $2,014 $2,350 Repairs and maintenance $20,995 $26,653 $16,512 $26,610 $22,472 Trophies $172 $57 Telephone $3,225 $2,839 $3,643 $3,159 $3,496 Utilities and share costs $43,628 $54,167 Travel $223 $610 $1,761 $761 $111 Wages and benefits $97,651 $99,990 Utilities $49,511 $47,306 $52,959 $48,688 $66,096 Wages and benefits $104,314 $104,568 $96,713 $100,712 $109,233 $196,677 $250,979 $231,866 $231,397 $218,853 $213,492 $233,217 Excess $6,048 ($37,739)Excess ($6,314)$5,203 ($14,176)($19,425)($35,189) Shared costs recovery Shared costs recovery $53,400 -- Net Excess for the Year Net Excess for the Year $47,086 $5,203 ($14,176)($19,425)($35,189) Revenues Expenses \\mr.corp\docs\CDPR-Admin\01-Admin\0540-Council-Committees\20-PLSC\02- Agendas\Regular\2015\2015-09-10\PLSC_2015-09-07_GEWC_Funding_Request.docx 29 Statement of Cash Flow 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Operations Excess (deficiency) of revenues for year $6,048 ($37,739)$47,086 $5,203 ($14,176)($19,425)($35,189) Changes in non-cash working capital Decrease (increase) in accounts receivable $317 ($23,254)$15,614 ($8,746)$2,104 $13,675 ($6,943) Decrease (increase) in inventory $75 $1,657 $6,290 $82 $2,955 -- Increase in prepaid expense ($325)-($338)$198 $1,062 -($493) Increase (decrease) in accounts payable and accrued charges ($5,845)$32,123 ($82,020)$4,437 $1,920 $11,244 $33,440 Increase (decrease) in GST payable $6,086 ($18,985)$1,425 $362 $134 $1,244 Increase in deposits held -$725 $2,275 $1,500 ($4,000)-- Net Change/Operations $6,356 ($48,787)($11,093)($7,625)($9,773)$5,360 ($7,941) Investing Activities Capital expenditures ($6,240)--$129 $48 Cash from (used in) investing activities ($6,240) Increase (decrease) in cash $6,356 ($48,787)($17,333)($7,625)($9,773)$5,489 ($7,893) Cash, beginning of year $95,842 $102,198 $53,411 $36,078 $32,853 $23,080 $28,569 Cash, end of year $102,198 $53,411 $36,078 $28,453 $23,080 $28,569 $20,676 Represented by: Cash $97,198 $48,411 $31,078 $23,453 $18,080 $10,334 $12,893 Term deposits $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Restricted cash -----$13,235 $2,783 \\mr.corp\docs\CDPR-Admin\01-Admin\0540-Council-Committees\20-PLSC\02-Agendas\Regular\2015\2015-09-10\PLSC_2015-09- 07_GEWC_Funding_Request.docx 30 Attachment #4 – Survey Summary of Survey Results City Operator Owner Off Season Operator Utilities Revenue Capital Costs Responsibility Operating Budget Chilliwack Club City Club Club Club Coquitlam City 100% City 100% City City 100% $105,000 City $311,000 Mission Club Club pays a lease fee of $1,700 City City City 100% City New Westminster Private Club Club owns the building, City owns the land – 99 year lease Club Club 100% Club 100% Property tax waived Peace Arch White Rock Club 400 Members City Negotiating for the city to operate during the offseason Negotiating 60 / 40 split City 100% Port Moody City 100% City 100% City City 100% City 100% $100,000 Richmond Building – Club Land – City Club Club Club Club $750,000 Vancouver Parks Board Parks Board Club Club for Share of Use $380,000 Club $800,000