The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2016-12-05 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 Cemetery Operation Update • D. Boag, Director of Parks & Facilities 2. PUBLIC WORKS AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Note: The following items have been numbered to correspond with the Council Agenda: 1101 2016-299-AL, 12176 237 Street, Application for Exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve, Addendum Report Staff report dated December 5, 2016 recommending that Application 2016- 299-AL to exclude approximately 1.12 hectares (2.8 acres) from the Agricultural Land Reserve not be forwarded to the Agricultural Land Commission and providing options for consideration. COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA December 5, 2016 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 December 5, 2016 Page 2 of 6 1102 2016-434-AL, 11680 252 Street, Application for Exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve Staff report dated December 5, 2016 recommending that Application 2016- 434-AL to subdivide 2.5 hectares (6.2 acres) of land within the Agricultural Land Reserve not be forwarded to the Agricultural Land Commission and providing options for consideration. 1103 2016-411-RZ, 21188 Wicklund Avenue, RS-1 to R-1 Staff report dated December 5, 2016 recommending that Application 2016- 411-RZ to rezone from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to R-1 (Residential District) to permit subdivision into two single family residential lots not be given first reading. 1104 2016-052-RZ, 22260 and 22292 122 Avenue and 12159 and 12167 223 Street, LUC and RS-1 to RM-2 Staff report dated December 5, 2016 recommending that Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7243-2016 to designate subject properties from Single Family to Low Rise Apartment be given second reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing and that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7244-2016 to rezone from LUC (Land Use Contracts) and RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to RM-2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential) to permit construction of a 291 unit multi-family rental housing development within the Town Centre. 1105 2016-235-RZ, 22606 Dewdney Trunk Road, Temporary Taxi Dispatch Use Staff report dated December 5, 2016 recommending that Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7283-2016 to designate 22606 Dewdney Trunk Road to permit a temporary taxi dispatch use be given second reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing. 1106 2014-104-SD, 23050 136 Avenue, Local Area Service Staff report dated December 5, 2016 recommending that a local area service bylaw be authorized for enhanced landscape maintenance costs of lands referred to as “East Hampstead” and that East Hampstead Local Area Service Bylaw No. 7278-2016 to require property owners within the development to pay an annual fee as a Local Service Tax for enhanced landscape maintenance areas be given first, second and third readings. Committee of the Whole Agenda December 5, 2016 Page 3 of 6 1107 2015-346-CP, Wildfire Development Permit Update Staff report dated December 5, 2016 recommending that Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7187-2015 to amend recently adopted Wildfire Development Permit Areas to remove references to the National Fire Protection Association standards and provide greater flexibility when reviewing development applications be given second reading as amended and be forwarded to Public Hearing. 1108 2016-448-CP, various addresses 128 Avenue, 26185 130 Avenue, 13301 251A Street, 13055 251A Street, 25100 Alouette Road Staff report dated December 5, 2016 recommending that Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7299-2016 to designate 15 properties in the 256 Street and 128 Avenue vicinity from Suburban Residential and Institutional to Industrial to expand employment opportunities in the vicinity of existing and well-utilized employment lands. 1109 2012-109-DVP, 24979 108 Avenue Staff report dated December 5, 2016 recommending that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2012-109-DVP to reduce minimum lot widths for lots 1, 10, 11, 12 and 13, 1110 Council Policy 6.21 – Development Sign Policy Review Staff report dated December 5, 2016 recommending that Council Policy 6.21 –Development Sign Policy dated September 12, 2012 be repealed and replaced with the revised Council Policy 6.21 – Development Sign Policy. 3. FINANCIAL AND CORPORATE SERVICES (including Fire and Police) 1131 2017-2021 Financial Plan Bylaw Staff report dated December 6, 2016 recommending that Maple Ridge 2017- 2021 Financial Plan Bylaw No. 7300-2016 be given first and second readings. 1132 Council Procedure Amending Bylaw No. 7301-2016 – Release of Vote Pattern from Closed Meetings Staff report dated December 5, 2016 recommending that Maple Ridge Council Procedure Amending Bylaw No. 7301-2016 be given first, second and third readings. Committee of the Whole Agenda December 5, 2016 Page 4 of 6 1133 2017 Acting Mayor, Committee & Commission Appointments Staff report dated December 5, 2016 recommending that the Acting Mayor schedule and appointments to Government Agencies, Advisory and/or Legislated Committees, Special Committees, Community Groups and Organizations and Standing Committees be approved. 1134 Bylaw for Highway Closure & Dedication Removal for a Portion of Laneway (18000 Block of 226 Street and 227 Street) Staff report dated December 5, 2016 recommending that Maple Ridge Highway Closure & Dedication Removal Bylaw No. 7291-2016 for closure and dedicate removal of a portion of laneway in the 18000 block of 226 Street and 227 Street be given first, second and third readings. 1135 Award of Contract, Construction of Fire/Tanker Truck, Fire Truck Replacement, Engine 32 Staff report dated December 5, 2016 recommending that the contract for construction of one fire pumper/tanker truck be awarded to Hub Fire Engines Ltd. and that the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract. 1136 Award of Contract, Construction of Tower Truck Fire Apparatus, Fire Truck Replacement, Tower 1 Staff report dated December 5, 2016 recommending that the contract for construction of one tower truck fire apparatus be awarded to Safetek Emergency Vehicles Ltd. and Smeal Fire Apparatus and that the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract. 4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND RECREATION SERVICES 1151 Maple Ridge Civic and Cultural Facility – Phased Design Process Staff report dated December 5, 2016 recommending that Phase One of the design process be funded from the Parks Recreation and Culture Master Plan funding, that staff be directed to conduct a Request for Proposal to hire a “manager at risk” and that staff be directed to conduct a Request for Proposal to hire a heritage and museum specialist to conduct a stakeholder consultation process. Committee of the Whole Agenda December 5, 2016 Page 5 of 6 1152 Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues Recommendations Staff report dated December 5, 2016 recommending that the Maple Ridge- Pitt Meadows Municipal Advisory Committee of Accessibility Issues continue as a joint committee with the City of Pitt Meadows, sharing all associated costs equally and that staff work with the committee to establish an updated committee structure and bylaw. 1153 Maple Ridge Leisure Centre Retrofit Update Staff report dated December 5, 2016 recommending that a report be provided on the process of updating existing Leisure Centre retrofit costs, communication plan and customer accommodations. 5. ADMINISTRATION 1171 6. CORRESPONDENCE (moved to consent section on Council agenda) 1181 7. OTHER ISSUES 1191 8. ADJOURNMENT Committee of the Whole Agenda December 5, 2016 Page 6 of 6 9. COMMUNITY FORUM Checked by:________________ Date: ________________ COMMUNITY FORUM The Community Forum provides the public with an opportunity to speak with Council on items that are of concern to them, with the exception of Public Hearing bylaws that have not yet reached conclusion. 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. Council will not tolerate any derogatory remarks directed at Council or staff members. 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: December 5, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2016-299-AL FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: Addendum Report Application to Exclude Land fro m the Agricultural Land Reserve 12176 237th Street. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At their October 11, 2016 Council meeting, Council considered and deferred Application 2016-299- AL to exclude the 1.12 hectare (2.8 acres) parcel from the Agricultural Land Reserve, under Section 30 (1) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act. It was understood that Council wished to have an accompanying development proposal in support of the application. The exclusion application occurred concurrently with exclusion application 2016-298-AL, for the subject property at 12102 237th Street, which was forwarded to the Agricultural Land Commission on October 11, 2016. The Commission had previously recommended excluding this parcel, and this recommendation formed the basis of Council’s decision to forward the application. It is assumed that this application will be successful, based on the Commission’s recommendation. Should Council forward Application 2016-299-AL, and if the Commission agrees to its exclusion, the applicant will have a contiguous block of 3 properties, including 12102 and 12146 237th Street. The parcel at 12146 237th Street was previously excluded under application AL/045/04. This report includes the applicant’s response to Council’s request. The original report is attached as Appendix A. RECOMMENDATION: The following resolutions are provided for Council’s consideration: i.That the application not be authorized to go forward to the Agricultural Land Commission; ii.That the application be authorized to go forward to the Agricultural Land Commission with a summary of Council’s comments and the staff report. 1101 - 2 - DISCUSSION: Applicant: Paul Hayes Owner: R C B Enterprises Limited Legal Description: Lot: 2, Section: 21, Township: 12, Plan: NWP72342 OCP : Existing: AGR (Agricultural) Zoning: Existing: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Surrounding Uses North: Use: Rural Residential Zone: A-2 Upland Agriculture Designation Agriculture South: Use: Rural Residential Zone: RS-3 One Family Rural Residential Designation: Agricultural East: Use: 3 properties, urban residential Zone: RS-1b One Family Urban Medium Density Residential Designation: Urban Residential West: Use: Townhouse Residential Zone: RM-1 Townhouse Residential Designation: Urban Residential Existing Use of Property: vacant Proposed Use of Property: not explicitly stated Site Area: 1.12 hectares (2.8 acres) Access: 237th Street Servicing: On-site sewer and water a) Project Description: This application is to exclude the subject property from the Agricultural Land Reserve. In response to Council’s request for more development details, the applicant provides the following: The owner does not have an explicit development plan as two of the three properties are presently within the Agricultural Land Reserve. However, the intention of the owner (if and when ALR exclusion occurs) is to consolidate the three properties at 12102, 12146, and 12176 237th Street and present a proposal for residential development that will meet the Planning Department’s recommendations and expectations that will fit with the neighbouring urban residential lands and the ALR lands to the north, and also that may be supportable by the Maple Ridge City Council. Thank you for your consideration. Paul Hayes - 3 - CONCLUSION: This report has provided, for Council’s consideration, a response to their request for more information about the development intentions for the subject property should this application for exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve be successful. The recomm endations provided in this report are consistent with Council direction for processing exclusion applications. “Original signed by Diana Hall“ _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Diana Hall, MA, (Planning), MCIP 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 E.C. Swabey” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Report dated October 3, 2016, and titled, Application for Exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve, 12176 237th Street City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: October 3, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2016-299-AL FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: Application for Exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve 12176 237 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received under Section 30 (1) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act to exclude approximately 1.12 hectares (2.8 acres) of land from the Agricultural Land Reserve. The applicant’s submission conforms with the notice of application requirements of the Agricultural Land Commission. The applicant has not provided an explicit development plan with this proposal, but indicates an intent to assemble the subject property with the 2 parcels to its south (12146 and 12102 237th Street), as attached to this report (Appendix C) This property is designated Agricultural in the Official Community Plan and in the Regional Growth Strategy of Metro Vancouver. Redevelopment of this property for urban uses would be contrary to these long range plans and would require approval from municipal, regional, and provincial agencies. On this basis, this application could be considered not supportable. The recommendation of this report has been provided in accordance with Council direction for applications for exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve. However, other options for Council’s consideration are presented in the Alternatives section of this report. RECOMMENDATION: In accordance with Council direction for applications for exclusions from the Agricultural Land Reserve, the following resolutions are provided for Council’s consideration: a)That the application not be authorized to go forward to the Agricultural Land Commission; b)That the application be authorized to go forward to the Agricultural Land Commission with a summary of Council’s comments and the staff report. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: Applicant: Paul Hayes Owner: R C B Enterprises Limited Legal Description: Lot: 2, Section: 21, Township: 12, Plan: NWP72342 APPENDIX A - 2 - OCP : Existing: AGR (Agricultural) Zoning: Existing: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Surrounding Uses North: Use: Rural Residential Zone: A-2 Upland Agriculture Designation Agriculture South: Use: Rural Residential Zone: RS-3 One Family Rural Residential Designation: Agricultural East: Use: 3 properties, urban residential Zone: RS-1b One Family Urban Medium Density Residential Designation: Urban Residential West: Use: Townhouse Residential Zone: RM-1 Townhouse Residential Designation: Urban Residential Existing Use of Property: vacant Proposed Use of Property: not explicitly stated Site Area: 1.12 hectares (2.8 acres) Access: 237th Street Servicing: On-site sewer and water b) Project Description: This application is to exclude the subject property from the Agricultural Land Reserve. The applicant does not have a stated land use plan for the site, but indicates a desire to assemble this property with the 2 parcels to its south ( 12146 and 12102 237th Street) for redevelopment, likely to an urban standard. Of these 3 properties, this most northern parcel, if excluded, would require an amendment to Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy prior to redevelopment to an urban standard. The other two parcels are currently designated urban in this regional plan, and therefore, urban development would be possible south of the subject property, without first requiring regional approvals. The parcel at 12102 237th is concurrently being proposed for exclusion under application 2016-298-AL. The Agricultural Land Commission indicated support for its removal from the ALR under Commission Resolution # 2635/2011. The property at 12146 237th Street was previously excluded under Application AL/045/04. A number of letters have been received in opposition to this application, due to a concern over the loss of farmland. These letters will be circulated to the Commission, should this application be supported. c) Planning Analysis: On July 19, 2004, a report for processing exclusion applications was received by Council outlining legal implications and the local government’s role in processing applications for exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve. Council resolved to consider the following options for referring applications to the Agricultural Land Commission: - 3 -  The application be authorized to go forward to the Agricultural Land Commission with no comment.  The application be authorized to go forward to the Agricultural Land Commission with comments.  The application be authorized to go forward to the Agricultural Land Commission with a recommendation to exclude the property with or without comments.  The application be authorized to go forward to the Agricultural Land Commission with a recommendation to not exclude the property with or without comments.  The application not be authorized to go forward to the Agricultural Land Commission. The process for decision making on applications for exclusion from the Agricultural Land Res erve was further refined by Council at their February 14, 2005 Workshop. At that time, Council resolved that the process for referring applications for exclusion to the Agricultural Land Commission include the following options: a) That the application not be authorized to go forward to the Agricultural Land Commission; b) That the application be authorized to go forward to the Agricultural Land Commission with a summary of Council’s comments and the staff report. The above resolution forms the recommendations presented in this staff report. To assist Council in the decision of allowing this application to proceed further, this development proposal will be reviewed in light of the policies of the Official Community Plan and the Agricultural Plan. OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN The Official Community Plan, adopted by Council on November 14, 2006, provides a policy context that has relevance to this application, and the agricultural future of the subject property. The following outlines some of the relevant sections from the Official Community Plan. Official Community Plan Agricultural Policies The Maple Ridge Official Community Plan emphasizes the value of agriculture in contributing to the local economy and to the rural character of the community. It is noted that Maple Ridge agriculture faces considerable challenges, but there is consistent community support for local farming. Policy 6-12 of the Official Community Plan states: Maple Ridge will protect the productivity of its agricultural land by: a) Adopting a guiding principal of “positive benefit to agriculture” when making land use decisions that could affect the agricultural land base, with favourable recognition of initiatives including but not limited to supportive non-farm uses, infrastructure improvements for farmland, or the inclusion of land elsewhere in the Agricultural Land Reserve: b) requiring agricultural impact assessments (AIAs) and Groundwater Impact Assessment of non-farm development and infrastructure projects and identifying measures to off-set impacts on agricultural capability; - 4 - c) preserving larger farm units and areas by using appropriate buffers such as roads, topographic features, watercourses, ditching, fencing, or gradually reduced residential densities on properties adjacent to agricultural land; d) discouraging the subdivision of agricultural land into smaller parcels, except where positive benefits to agriculture can be demonstrated; e) reinforcing the concept that the Agricultural Land Reserve is intended for agricultural use by increasing the minimum lot size for ALR properties that are zoned Rural Residential; f) encouraging the amalgamation of smaller parcels of farmland into larger, more cohesive parcels. Section 6.2 of the Official Community Plan, which pertains to Agricultural opportunities. states that the value of agriculture is consistently recognized and supported within the community, as follows: Agricultural land is a key component of the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy and provides many benefits of local and regional significance. As an economic generator it contributes to a more complete community. Official Community Plan - Growth Management Policies Section 2.1 of the Official Community Plan states that in Maple Ridge th e majority of the growth in population, jobs and housing will be accommodated within the Urban Area Boundary where services are readily available or infrastructure is already in place. The subject property forms the legal boundary of the Agricultural Land Reserve at this location. The Official Community Plan emphasized that adjustments to the Urban Area Boundary, if required, must follow a specified process. Although additional adjustments may occur in the future, this process was generally concluded, thereby clarifying the location of the Urban Area Boundary, through the completion of the Maple Ridge Agricultural Plan in 2009 and the adoption of the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy in 2011. The 2 parcels to the south of the subject property have either been excluded (12146 237th Street) from the Agricultural Land Reserve, or identified as appropriate for this purpose (12102 237th Street) by the Commission. They have both been designated urban in the Regional Growth Strategy, demonstrating the extent of cooperation between the agencies involved. For these reasons, the exclusion and redesignation of these adjacent properties is supportable. However, urban development of the subject property is not supportable. AGRICULTURAL PLAN The Maple Ridge Agricultural Plan, adopted by Council on December 15, 2009, provided additional direction for advancing agricultural opportunities in Maple Ridge. Although adopted, specific actions related to the implementation of the Plan are currently being prioritized by Council. Pertinent excerpts of the Plan are included below. Issue 1 in the Agricultural Plan notes the difficulty faced by farmers in gaining access to underutilized agricultural land. Specific issues included the following: • Absentee landlords • Agricultural land held in idle state • Landless operators unable to find land to farm • High land cost restricts access. - 5 - The Plan indicates that an appropriate means to address these issues would be to encourage non- farming land owners to make idle land available to farmers or to start farming it themselves. The Plan notes the need to re-emphasize the role of agriculture in the Agricultural Land Reserve and to remove some of the perception that the Agricultural Land Reserve is a land reserve for eventual non - agricultural development in Maple Ridge. Issue 5 of the Agricultural Plan discusses the loss of the agricultural land base and notes the following specific issues: • Many small parcels • High level of rural residential incursion into Agricultural Land Reserve • Non-farmed areas of the Agricultural Land Reserve tend to be smaller parcels • Limited availability of irrigation water • Continued conversion pressure from the District of Maple Ridge’s urban growth • Financial pressure on farming The Agricultural Plan recognizes that there may be situations in the future where exclusions may be required to meet community needs, for example employment generating lands. In instances where land conversion is unavoidable, levies or other means be established by the City in order to compensate for the loss of agricultural land. Goal 6 of the Plan discusses the issue of the conversion of agricultural land as follows: The primary goal with respect to larger established farming operations in Maple Ridge is to plan for their retention as farms, rather than watch them languish and deteriorate, so that the community can optimize the rewards and advantages of having agriculture in its midst. Limited to highly specific situations, the secondary goal (if the primary goal is not feasible) is to explore establishing a policy of compensation from development that enables funds to be generated and expended so that the net agricultural capability of the District is enhanced by investment elsewhere. INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES Agricultural Land Commission The Commission has established guidelines for local governments regarding the timing of application processing. These guidelines are provided by the Commission in their document, the Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivision And Procedure Regulation. The local government is normally required to address the application within 60 days of its receipt under Section 21.1 of this Regulation, but has an option to hold a public meeting which would extend the application processing time to 90 days. Metro Vancouver The subject property is designated for Agricultural use in the Official Community Plan. If the property was excluded from the Agricultural Land Reserve, its Agricultural designation would remain in the Official Community Plan. Any change in permitted uses would require an amendment to the Official Community Plan, which in turn would require the approval of Metro Vancouver to amend the Regional Growth Strategy. This type of amendment would be considered by Metro Vancouver to be a Type 2 Minor Amendment. The bylaw amendment process would include a regional public hearing and a two-thirds weighted vote of the Metro Vancouver Board. In this instance, the municipal government would apply for the amendment to Metro Vancouver. - 6 - d) Alternatives: The report recommendations follow Council direction as noted earlier in this report. The property has not been identified for exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve, and is not considered available for urban development in the Regional Growth Strategy. On this basis, this application could be considered not supportable. CONCLUSION: This application for exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve has been considered in the context of the policies of the Official Community Plan, and the Agricultural Plan. On review of this context, this application is found to be not supportable. However, the report recommendation has been prepared in accordance with previous Council direction for applications for exclusion from the Agricultural Land Reserve. “Original signed by Diana Hall” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Diana Hall, MA (Planning), MCIP Planner II “Original signed by Christine Carter” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Christine Carter, MCP, 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” for _______________________________________________ Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Ortho Photo Appendix C – Development Sketch prepared by Applicant. DATE: Sep 26, 2016 FILE: 2016-299-AL BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENT AL/045/04 (EXCLUDED) 2016-009-RZ (41 UNIT RM-1 PROPOSAL) 2016-298-AL (IN PROGRESS) SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:2,500 12176 237 STREET Legend Stream Ditch Centreline ALR City of PittMeadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Aug 9, 2016 FILE: 2016-299-AL BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:3,784 12176 237 STREET Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2015 City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: December 5, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2016-434-AL FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: Application to Subdivide Land within the Agricultural Land Reserve 11680 252 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received under Section 21 (2) of the Agricultural Land Commission Act to subdivide 2.5 hectares (6.2 acres) of land that is within the Agricultural Land Reserve. The Applicant’s submission conforms with the requirements of the Agricultural Land Commission. This report evaluates the merits of this subdivision proposal within the policy context of the Official Community Plan and the Agricultural Plan. Based on this analysis, the recommendation is not to support this application for subdivision within the Agricultural Land Reserve. On this basis, the recommendation is not to forward the application to the Agricultural Land Commission. RECOMMENDATION: That Application 2012-107-AL not be forwarded to the Agricultural Land Commission based on the considerations as outlined in this report, dated December 5, 2016. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: Applicant: Justin Endresen Legal Description: Section: 14, Township: 12 OCP : Existing: Agricultural Proposed: No Change Zoning: Existing: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Proposed: No Change Surrounding Uses North: Use: Rural Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation Agricultural South: Use: Park Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation Park 1102 - 2 - East: Use: Park Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation Park West: Use: 2 Properties, Rural Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation Agricultural Existing Use of Property: Agriculture & Rural Residential Proposed Use of Property: No Change Site Area: 2.5 hectares (6.2 acres) Access: 252 Street Servicing: Water, on site septic b) Project Description: The applicant wishes to subdivide the 2.5 hectare (6.2 acre) subject property into 3 parcels to develop into smaller lot hobby farms. This proposal conforms with the minimum parcel sizes of the RS-3 One Family Rural Residential Zone which is 0.8 hectares (2 acres) where municipal water is available. Kanaka Creek traverses the site at its eastern property line. If this application is forwarded by Council, and receives Agricultural Land Commission approval, the applicant will have to apply for a subdivision through the municipality. Through this process, the applicant will have to demonstrate that all of the proposed lots will have on-site septic capability to current standards. All new parcels must comply with municipal requirements with respect to lot geometry, servicing, road frontage and parcel size. c) Planning Analysis: Official Community Plan The property is designated Agriculture in the Official Community Plan, which contains policies in support of agriculture. On December 16, 2009 Council adopted an Agricultural Plan to support agriculture within the rural area and the Agricultural Land Reserve. The merits of this application will be viewed within this policy context. Section 6.2.2 Sustainable Agriculture Policy 6-12 states: Maple Ridge will protect the productivity of its agricultural land by: a) adopting a guiding principle of ”positive benefit to agriculture” when making land use decisions that could affect the agricultural land base, with favourable recognition of initiatives including but not limited to supportive non-farm uses, infrastructure improvements for farmland, or the inclusion of land elsewhere in the Agricultural Land Reserve; b) requiring agricultural impact assessments (AIAs) and Groundwater Impact Assessment of non-farm development and infrastructure projects and identifying measures to off-set impacts on agricultural capability; c) preserving larger farm units and areas by using appropriate buffers such as roads, topographic features, watercourses, ditching, fencing, or gradually reduced residential densities on properties adjacent to agricultural land; - 3 - d) discouraging the subdivision of agricultural land into smaller parcels, except where positive benefits to agriculture can be demonstrated; e) reinforcing the concept that the Agricultural Land Reserve is intended for agricultural use by increasing the minimum lot size for ALR properties that are zoned Rural Residential; f) encouraging the amalgamation of smaller parcels of farmland into larger, more cohesive parcels. Policy 6-12 emphasizes the importance of discouraging the subdivision of agricultural land into smaller parcels, increasing the minimum parcel size of ALR properties with Rural Residential zoning, and amalgamation to create larger farm parcels. Reasons for discouraging subdivision within the Agricultural Land Reserve include minimizing incentives for land speculation in the Agricultural Land Reserve, which increases the market value of farmland, and exacerbates the issue of economic barriers to entry for legitimate farming interests. Section 6.2.1 Economic Development Strategy. Policy 6-6 of the Official Community Plan describes alternatives to subdivision such as leaseholds that could ensure greater utilization and retain larger parcels, as follows: Maple Ridge will develop an Agricultural Plan that: a) maintains an inventory of local agricultural products and agricultural land use; b) develops and maintains a database of farm businesses and operators; c) promotes leasing opportunities of agricultural land; d) promotes agricultural heritage initiatives; e) identifies appropriate land uses within agricultural areas and at the rural/urban interface; f) promotes urban agriculture; g) recognizes the positive role that agricultural lands have on the environment; h) will identify a variety of mechanisms to assist farm operators and to protect agricultural lands, including but not limited to the creation of trusts, endowments, and life-leases; i) includes an assessment of the agricultural land base; and j) develops Development Permit area guidelines to direct non-agricultural development at the urban/rural interface. One reason for promoting alternative tenures (Policies 6-6 c and h) relates to the high cost of land, which is a known barrier for new farmers wishing to start an agricultural business. By supporting other forms of tenure that can delay or avoid the need for this capital investment by individual farmers, the municipality can improve its agricultural potential, and bring more of its agricultural land into full production. For the above noted reasons, this application does not comply with the Agricultural policies of the Official Community Plan. - 4 - Agricultural Plan Issue 5 of the Agricultural Plan notes concerns with the loss of the agricultural land base, describing the following situations that are pertinent to this application: • Many small parcels • High level of rural residential incursion into Agricultural Land Reserve • Non-farmed areas of the Agricultural Land Reserve tend to be smaller parcels • Continued conversion pressure from the District of Maple Ridge’s urban growth • Financial pressure on farming The Plan also notes that more recent priorities given to food safety, food security, and climate change, includes the development of a local food system. Towards this end, the community would benefit from greater certainty that the agricultural land base is not undermined by incremental land use decisions. The Plan makes the following recommendations that pertain to this application: b) Continue to implement the OCP policies to protect the agricultural land base by creating guidelines for reviewing applications for non-farm use, exclusions, fill applications, transportation and utility applications, subdivisions, and government applications;… g) Explore retention of lots 2 ha (5 acres) and larger in the Agricultural Land Reserve. Currently, the minimum parcel size in the RS-3 One Family Rural Residential Zone is 0.8 hectares (2.0 acres) where community water is available. This zone pertains to most of the land that is within the Agricultural Land Reserve, including the subject property. The RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) zone pre-dates the creation of the Agricultural Land Reserve. Although designated for Agriculture, there is a concern that this historic zoning contributes to the perception that farming is not the primary use of this zone. The Agricultural Plan recommends that 2.0 hectares (5 acres) is a more appropriate minimum parcel size for lands within the Agricultural Land Reserve. Ministry of Agriculture Research provided by the Ministry of Agriculture in their most recent inventory work validates concerns raised in the Agricultural Plan about small lot sizes1. Conclusions drawn from this region wide information have been summarized by Metro Vancouver, as follows: Evidence exists that small parcels are less likely to be farmed and therefore further subdivision of parcels in the ALR is not warranted and will only encourage more non-farm use of ALR land. Currently 75% of the parcels less than 2 ha (5 acres) are not farmed. The average size of parcels not used for farming is 3 ha (7.4 acres), while the average size of parcels used for farming is 7 ha (17 acres).2 1 Maple Ridge was a project partner for the Ministry of Agriculture inventory work in 2011 2 Metro Vancouver, Farming in Metro Vancouver, Metro Facts in Focus | Policy Backgrounder, 2014 - 5 - Figure 1 Source: Metro Vancouver, Farming in Metro Vancouver, Metro Facts in Focus | Policy Backgrounder, 2014 Based on Ministry data, the above table demonstrates the connection between parcel size and farming activity. This information indicates that the subdivision of this property will significantly increase the probability that the 3 new parcels created will not be used for farming. d) Interdepartmental Implications: Engineering Department The Engineering Department would review this proposal for its servicing requirements as part of the municipal subdivision application should Commission approval be granted. It should be noted that the subject property has unconstructed access to 252nd Street. Road construction would be required to serve all properties. Water connection to each parcel would be required and septic capacity to current municipal standards for each parcel would need to be determined by a qualified professional. e) Alternatives: If Council decides not to forward this application to the Commission, it will be considered denied and will not proceed further. However, if Council decides to forward this application to the Agricultural Land Commission, the Commission will evaluate the merits of this application, and make their decision accordingly. - 6 - CONCLUSION: This application has been evaluated for its consistency with the policies of the Official Community Plan, and its implications for the Agricultural Plan, and is found not to comply with this policy framework. On this basis, the recommendation is that this application for subdivision not be supported. “Original signed by Diana Hall” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Diana Hall, MA (Planning), MCIP, CIP 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 E.C. Swabey” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Ortho Photo Appendix C – Subdivision Sketch prepared by Applicant DATE: Nov 29, 2016 FILE: 2016-434-AL BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY 252 ST116 AVE ´ Scale: 1:2,500 11680 252 STREETLegend Stream Ditch Centreline Edge of River Indefinite Creek Lake or Reservoir River Major Rivers & Lakes APPENDIX A City of PittMeadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Nov 4, 2016 FILE: 2016-434-AL BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:2,500 11680 252 STREET Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2015 APPENDIX B SUBJECT PROPERTY:PCL. 30; SEC. 14; TWP. 12; LD. 36; PL. 68686 PROPOSED ROAD ACCESS86 METERS86 METERS86 METERS70 METERS 122 METERS FLOWS INTO KANAKA CREEKPROPOSED LOT 1 PROPOSED LOT 2 PROPOSED LOT 3 TENNIS COURT POOL HOUSECONNECTS TO 252ND STREET117 AVENUE ( 0.8 HA ) ( 0.8 HA ) ( 0.9 HA ) Te UNCLEARED LAND WITH DECOMISSIONED ROAD #1 #2 #3 #4 #5 #6 #7 #8 #9 #10+11 APPENDIX C City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: December 5, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2016-411-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: First Reading 21188 Wicklund Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received to rezone the subject property, located at 21188 Wicklund Avenue, from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to R-1 (Residential District) to permit subdivision into two single family residential lots. As the application does not align with policies within the Official Community Plan (OCP), the recommendation is to not support this development proposal. This application proposes the creation of fewer than 3 new lots; therefore, it is exempt from the requirements under the Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) Policy 6.31. RECOMMENDATION: That the subject application not be given first reading. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: Applicant: Anita Chowdhury Legal Description: Lot 119 District Lot 242 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 47383 OCP: Existing: Urban Residential Zoning: Existing: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Proposed: R-1 (Residential District) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Residential Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) and RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) Designation: Urban Residential South: Use: Residential Zone: RG (Group Housing Zone) Designation: Urban Residential 1103 - 2 - East: Use: Residential Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Designation: Urban Residential West: Use: 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: 969 m² (0.24 acres) Access: Wicklund Avenue Servicing requirement: Urban Standard b) Site Characteristics: The subject property is 969 m² (0.24 acres) in size and is bound by single family residential lots to the north, west and east, and townhomes to the south. The subject property is flat with a row of hedges to the rear of the property and a few trees located in the front and rear yards. There is an existing house on the property that will require removal. c) Project Description: 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 not less than 371 m². It is noted that the proposed lot sizes are larger than the minimum R-1 (Residential District) requirements. Staff had a pre-application meeting with the applicant advising that an application to rezone and subdivide to the R-1 (Residential District) zone would not be supported. Alternative development options were discussed noting that either Duplex or Triplex housing that would achieve similar density and would be in compliance with the OCP. At this time the current application has been assessed to determine its compliance with the OCP and provide a land use assessment only. Detailed review and comments will need to be made if Council supports the proposal and once full application packages have been received. A more detailed analysis and a further report will be required prior to second reading, should Council support this development. 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 currently designated Urban Residential-Neighbourhood Residential. The Neighbourhood Residential designation allows for single detached dwellings and other housing forms, subject to the Neighbourhood Residential Infill policies. The rezoning and subdivision of this property into two single family residential lots and, specifically, use of the R-1 (Residential District) zone is not in compliance with the OCP, as per Policy 3-19 (a) (i), which states: - 3 - The proposed lot area and widths should be not less that 80% of the lot area and width prescribed under the predominate or adjacent zoning in the surrounding neighbourhood. During the OCP review, the above noted policy was created stemming from conversatio ns with residents, who advised that infill developments need to fit the character of a neighbourhood. It was acknowledged that slightly reduced lot sizes were considered appropriate in older, larger lot neighbourhoods; however, there was recognition that the reduction in lot size should be nominal, and that compatible lot width was key to preserving the character of a neighbourhood. For that reason, the policies were written to allow for a lot width not less than 80% of the zoning in the surrounding area. In addition, residents noted a preference to a Duplex or Triplex form, instead of subdivision, to achieve similar density, noting that the lot area and width would remain unchanged. The current RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) zone requires a minimum lot area of 668 m² and lot width of 18 m. The proposed R-1 (Residential District) zone would result in a lot area of 371 m² and lot width of 12 m. Under this policy, the RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) zone would be considered the appropriate zone, with a minimum lot area requirement of 557 m² and a lot width of 15 m; however, the applicant can not achieve the minimum lot area required for two RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) zoned lots. It has been suggested to the applicant that a Duplex or Triplex housing form could be alternative options to achieve additional density, without subdividing. Zoning Bylaw: The current application proposes to rezone the subject property, located at 21188 Wicklund Avenue, from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to R-1 (Residential District) to permit subdivision into two single family residential lots. The minimum lot size for the current RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) zone is 668m2, and the minimum lot size for the proposed R-1 (Residential District) zone is 371 m2. The surrounding neighbourhood is made up of predominantly RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) zoned lots, with the exception of two properties north-east of the subject property, and two properties to the west, which are zoned RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential). Alternatives: That staff be directed to prepare a Bylaw in support of the development application to the R-1 (Residential District) zone. Should Council support this development application, it should be noted that it would not be referred to the Advisory Design Panel or is a Development Information Meeting required, as it is for a two lot single family subdivision. Comments and input will need to be sought from the various internal departments and external agencies and a complete rezoning and subdivision application would be required. The other alternative would be that the application be deferred, and the applicant be requested to revise the application pending direction from Council. - 4 - CONCLUSION: The development proposal is not in compliance with the OCP, as per Policy 3-19, and an amendment to such is not supportable, therefore, it is recommended that this application be denied. “Original signed by Chuck Goddard” for _______________________________________________ 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 E.C. Swabey” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Ortho Map City of PittMeadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Oct 21, 2016 FILE: 2016-411-RZ BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENTFOREST PL.GLENWOOD AVE.212 ST.WICKLUND AVE. 122 AVE.212 ST.NOLAITY ST.12069 2122021170210971221912216 12240 12047 12245 2114521133211912111112115 211422116012116 12230 2111212243 12156 12239 1 2 0 2 0 12090 12056 12218 2110221111211582115321137211342113621210121122114612101-53 2113221151211062120721116211072108812098 121111222921195 12089 12061 2124012234 2117021101211552117821149120502119821103 2119312086 12 12200 120732117521188211662113912 2 3 1 2124712105 120702116112208 210962117512242 2115012128 2108921200211542118921152211472112812070 211122112312225 12217 121162112012222 211012109712062 12186 12050 12037 12038 12213 12219 1210621211211752112021196/9812145 212822118812138 12227 1223 9 211992111921190/92211021223512209 2110221178212412114412212 21201212302118512196 212002123121146120442110412203 18 12081 12209 2116521124211672122112101 12161 12171 21190211612114921127SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:2,000 21188 WICKLUND AVENUE APPENDIX A City of PittMeadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Oct 21, 2016 FILE: 2016-411-RZ BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENTFOREST PL.GLENWOOD AVE.212 ST.WICKLUND AVE. 122 AVE.212 ST.NOLAITY ST.12069 2122021170210971221912216 12240 12047 12245 2114521133211912111112115 211422116012116 12230 2111212243 12156 12239 1 2 0 2 0 12090 12056 12218 2110221111211582115321137211342113621210121122114612101-53 2113221151211062120721116211072108812098 121111222921195 12089 12061 2124012234 2117021101211552117821149120502119821103 2119312086 12 12200 120732117521188211662113912 2 3 1 2124712105 120702116112208 210962117512242 2115012128 2108921200211542118921152211472112812070 211122112312225 12217 121162112012222 211012109712062 12186 12050 12037 12038 12213 12219 1210621211211752112021196/9812145 212822118812138 12227 1223 9 211992111921190/92211021223512209 2110221178212412114412212 21201212302118512196 212002123121146120442110412203 18 12081 12209 2116521124211672122112101 12161 12171 21190211612114921127SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:2,000 21188 WICKLUND AVENUE Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2011 APPENDIX B - 1 - City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: December 5, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2016-052-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: First and Second Reading Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7243-2016 and Second Reading Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7244-2016 22260 & 22292 122nd Avenue, and 12159 & 12167 223rd Street. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received to rezone the subject properties located at 22260 & 22292 122 Avenue and 12159 & 12167 223 Street from LUC (Land Use Contracts) & RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to RM-2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential), to permit the future construction of a 291 unit multi-family rental housing development within the Town Centre. On April 26, 2016, Council granted first reading to Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7244-2016 and considered the early consultation requirements for the Official Community Plan (OCP) amendment. In their consideration, Council expressed concern that the existing tenants would be accommodated with rental housing at rates within their means. This application requires an amendment to the Official Community Plan (OCP) to redesignate the subject properties at 12159 & 12167 223 Street from Single Family to Low Rise Apartment. This proposal is consistent with Council priorities for the provision of rental housing, and is therefore supportable. The minimum lot size for the current RM-2 Medium Density Apartment Residential District Zone is 1300 m2. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1)That, in accordance with Section 475 of the Local Government Act, opportunity for early and on-going consultation has been provided by way of posting Official Community Plan Bylaw No . 7243-2016 on the municipal website and requiring that the applicant host a Development Information Meeting (DIM), and Council considers it unnecessary to provide any further consultation opportunities, except by way of holding a Public Hearing on the bylaw; 2)That Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7243-2016 be considered in conjunction with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Waste Management Plan; 3)That it be confirmed that Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7243-2016 is consistent with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Waste Management Plan; 4)That Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7243-2016 be given first and second readings and be forwarded to Public Hearing; 5)That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7244-2016 be given second reading, and be forwarded to Public Hearing; 1104 - 2 - 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) Approval from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure; iii) Amendment to Official Community Plan Schedule “A”, Chapter 10.4 Town Centre Area Plan, Schedule 1 – Town Centre Area Land-Use Designation Map; iv) Road dedication on 223 Street as required; v) Consolidation of the subject properties; vi) Registration of a Housing Agreement in accordance with Section 483 of the Local Government Act and a Restrictive Covenant stating that the use of the property as consolidated will be restricted to residential rental units; vii) Removal of existing vacant structure at 22292 122nd Street and existing houses at 12159 & 12167 223rd Street. viii) In addition to the site profile, a disclosure statement must be submitted by a Professional Engineer advising whether there is any evidence of underground fuel storage tanks on the subject properties. If so, a Stage 1 Site Investigation Report is required to ensure that the subject property is not a contaminated site. DISCUSSION: 1) Background Context: Applicant: Ciccozzi Architecture Shannon Seefeldt Owner: Viam Holdings Ltd. Legal Description: Lot: 44, D.L.: 399, Plan: NWP41066, Lot: 48, D.L.: 399, Plan: NWP44211, Lot 1; D.L.: 399 NWD; Plan: NWP14397, Lot 2; D.L.: 399; NWD; Plan NWP14397 OCP: Existing: APTL (Low-Rise Apartment) and Single Family Proposed: Medium and High-Rise Apartment Zoning: Existing: LUC (Land Use Contracts) and RS-1 One Family Urban Residential Proposed: RM-2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Apartment and Single Family uses Zone: RM-2 Medium Density Apartment Residential, RM-5 Low Density Apartment Residential, and RS-1 One Family Urban Residential Designation: Apartment and Ground Oriented Multi-Family - 3 - South: Use: Seniors apartment and congregate care Zone: CD-1-00 (Seniors Apartment and Private Hospital) Designation: Low Rise Apartment East: Use: Urban Single Family Residential Zone: RS-1 One Family Urban Residential Designation: Ground Oriented Multi-Family West: Use: Strata Lot Condominium Zone: LUC (Land Use Contracts) Designation: Low Rise Apartment Existing Use of Property: Vacant, Rental Apartment, and Single Family Proposed Use of Property: Rental Apartment Site Area: 1.03 HA. (2.5 acres) Access: 122nd Avenue and 223 Street. Servicing requirement: Urban Standard 2) Background: This development proposal is for 291 rental housing units. There are 4 properties included in this application. The multi-family development on the property at 22292 122nd Avenue (Sunrise Court) was destroyed by fire in 2015. This proposal will replace this structure with a larger multi-family unit structure. The property at 22260 122nd Avenue will also be replaced at a later phase of this development. This phased approach allows current tenants to be accommodated, initially in the existing structure, and then later, in the first of the two new buildings. The applicant has committed to providing assistance to existing tenants with the transition to new living arrangements, which may be in the new building. 3) Project Description: This proposal will assemble the two smaller single family properties along 223 rd Street into this development, which will rebuild existing or previous rental accommodation along 122nd Avenue. A total of 291 dwelling units are proposed, with a mix of 1, 2 and 3 bedroom units, and a projected floor area of approximately 200,000 square feet. PLANNING ANALYSIS: i) Official Community Plan: Official Community Plan / Town Centre Area Plan: The development site is located within the North View subarea of the Town Centre Area Plan and is currently designated Low Rise Apartment and Single Family. An OCP amendment will be required to re-designate the portions of the site that front 223rd Street from Single Family to Low Rise Apartment to allow the proposed RM-2 Medium Density Apartment Zoning. These two smaller parcels were designated Single Family in the Town Centre Area Plan as they were perceived to have limited development options for a site assembly with sufficient lot depth to create a multifamily development and road dedication for the widening of 223rd Street. These constraints will be alleviated by the consolidation of these two parcels with the larger properties to their west. For this reason, the proposed amendment to the Official Community Plan designation from Single Family to Low Rise Apartment is supportable. The resulting assembly will be - 4 - able to provide required road dedication along 223rd Street, and create a sufficiently large parcel for a comprehensive development plan. The applicants were not able to acquire the corner parcel at 22306 122nd Avenue. However, due to its location, this parcel will be able to develop independently as a multi-family development, and does not need to be part of an assembly to realize its development potential. Rental Housing Accommodation. The proposed rental accommodation will improve the housing stock diversity in the Community. The Maple Ridge Official Community Plan notes that Maple Ridge has a shortage of specific types of rental accommodation, including 3 bedroom apartments, which are proposed with this application. The following OCP policies support rental housing: Policy 3-33 – Maple Ridge supports the provision of rental accommodation and encourages the construction of rental units that vary in size and number of bedrooms. Policy 3-34 – Maple Ridge supports the provision of affordable, rental and special needs housing throughout the District. OCP policy 3-33 supports the provision of rental accommodation in varying dwelling unit size and number of bedrooms, and OCP policy 3-34 supports the provision of affordable, rental and special housing needs throughout the City. A recommended approach to secure these units as rental housing will be through a Restrictive Covenant and a Housing Agreement with the property owner. Housing Action Plan: The Housing Action Plan, endorsed by Council on September 15, 2014, identifies rental housing as a priority. Strategy 4 of the Housing Action Plan is to Create New Rental Housing Opportunities. Strategy 4 notes that Municipalities can support the development of new rental housing through a set of incentives, such as a reduction in parking requirements or waiving permitting fees. The units could be “secured” as market rental housing, with a covenant on title. A number of incentives are being considered to facilitate the development of rental housing. The 2017 Planning work program includes consideration for relaxation of parking standards to reduce construction costs to facilitate affordable housing. Reducing the amount of parking required per dwelling unit enables a higher potential dwelling unit count relative to site area, and reduced constructions costs, particularly in large multi-family buildings with underground parking. Of particular relevance to this application, the relaxation of parking requirements is supported in the Housing Action Plan as a means to facilitate the development of rental housing. In Maple Ridge, this practice is currently negotiated during the development process on a case by case basis. The development of a transparent formal process using defensible criteria, such as proximity to services and transit, should be considered as a possible incentive. This concept is currently being used by other Metro Vancouver municipalities including the Corporation of Delta, City of Langley, City of New Westminster, District of North Vancouver, City of Surrey and the City of Vancouver. As this proposed development will increase the amount of rental housing stock in the community, this proposal will meet the objectives of the Housing Action Plan. The parking provisions it proposes comply with the requirements of the Central Business District of the Town Centre for non-market housing. However, this development is close (within 300 metres) but not within the Central Business District and therefore does not qualify for this reduced parking requirement. However, as it is consistent with the policy direction of the Housing Action Plan and proposes rental housing that is near services and transit, a parking reduction may be supportable through a development variance - 5 - permit or other mechanisms. The applicant has agreed to secure this supply of rental housing in perpetuity through a restrictive covenant registered on title1 ii) Zoning Bylaw: There are 2 Land Use Contracts for the subject properties fronting 122nd Avenue. Land Use Contract #H33588 applies to the subject property at 22260 122nd Avenue, while Land Use Contract #P108265 applies to the subject property at 22292 122nd Avenue. Both contracts must be discharged prior to zoning the properties RM-2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential). To address this issue, the attached zoning amendment bylaw will also discharge these Land Use Contracts. This application also proposes to rezone the properties located at 12159 and 12167 223rd Street from RS-1 One Family Urban Residential to RM-2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential) to permit a 4 storey apartment building. The minimum lot size for the current RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) zone is 668 m2, and the minimum lot size for the proposed RM-2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential) zone is 1300 m2. Any variations from the requirements of the proposed zone will require a Development Variance Permit application. Appendix C describes the Zoning Map Amendment proposed with this development. iii) Off-Street Parking And Loading Bylaw: The Off Street Parking and Loading Bylaw establishes that 1.5 parking stalls and 0.2 visitor stalls are required for each dwelling unit in the RM-2 Zone. For the 291 housing units proposed, the full complement of parking would be 495 stalls. The parking provided is consistent with requirements for non-market multi-family development in the Central Business District of the Town Centre. For this reason, a parking relaxation will be required, and is supportable due to the proximity of the site to transit services along Dewdney Trunk Road and the rental tenure of the proposed housing stock. Parking information provided by the applicant indicate that their existing rental buildings consistently have more parking than is used. The following table shows three rental housing developments managed by the applicant. Two of these are within the Maple Ridge Town Centre but out of the Central Business District (one of these is the existing Sorrento building on the subject site). The other building is in the City of Coquitlam. Parking stalls used in 3 rental housing developments in Maple Ridge and Coquitlam Site Total suites Total parking provided Stalls in use Vacant stalls stalls used /# suites Coquitlam 53 78 35 43 0.66 Sorrento (MR) 22 54 22 32 0.53 Maple Ct. (MR) 108 150 53 97 0.49 1 Council has requested information on rental rates and how existing tenants will be accommodated with the transition to new housing. Dialogue with the applicant reveals concessions are being considered as follows:  Right of first refusal in new building  Offer of available unit in other buildings owned by the applicant (one of these is within Maple Ridge)  Financial compensation to all tenants to assist with relocation. - 6 - In all of these examples (involving over 180 rental units), the parking complement is less than 1 stall used per dwelling unit. This ratio is significantly lower than the Off Street Parking Bylaw requirement, even for the reduced standards of the Central Business District. On this basis, a parking variance is supportable. A parking reduction study prepared by a qualified professional has been provided, offering further justification for a parking reduction, as follows: A key finding in the MVAPS (Metro Vancouver Apartment Parking Study) was that residents of rental apartment units (both market and non-market units combined) had average auto ownership levels of 0.82 vehicles per household, approximately 65% of that of strata units …2 Section 3.4 of the Off-Street Parking Bylaw provides a cash in lieu option for relaxing parking requirements for properties that are within a 930 metre radius of the boundary of the Municipal parking lot in the Town Centre. This option could be a consideration. However, the cash contribution that required would be $8000.00 per stall, which would be onerous for the applicant to provide. Additional options for consideration could be providing car share facilities. A mix of options could be considered, including granting a variance, cash in lieu, electric car charging stations, provision of some non-market rental, and car share facilities. iv) Proposed Variances: A Development Variance Permit application has been received for this project and involves the following relaxations: 1. To vary the exterior side yard setback: (North PL along 122nd Avenue) from the required 7.5 metres to 6.0 metres. 2. To vary the interior side yard setback: (West and South PL) from the required 7.5 metres to 6.0 metres. 3. To vary the front yard setback: (East PL along 223rd Street) from 7.5 metres to 3.6 metres. Note: this setback is measured from the new property line established after a 3.9 metre road dedication along 223rd Street). 4. Parking requirements. The parking provided (288 stalls) generally complies with requirements in the Central Business District for non-market housing. However, parking requirements for the site, which is within 300 metres, but not within the CBC, are 1.7 stalls per dwelling unit, amounting to 495 stalls required. The requested variances to the setback and parking requirements in the RM-2 Medium Density Zone will be the subject of a future Council report. v) Development Permits: Pursuant to Section 8.11 of the OCP, a Town Centre Development Permit application is required for all multifamily residential, flexible mixed use and commercial development located in the Town Centre. vi) Advisory Design Panel: The Advisory Design Panel (ADP) reviewed the form and character of the proposed development and the landscaping plans at a meeting held on October 11, 2016. 2 Sunrise Re-Development Parking Variance Study, Bunt & Associates, November 2016 - 7 - Following presentations by the project Architect and Landscape Architect, the ADP made the following resolution that: The proposal be re-submitted and presented at a future Advisory Design Panel meeting with the following concerns addressed: 1. Consider relocating the office, multi purpose room, and fitness area to a central location and access to courtyards. Stacking program spaces is an option. 2. Consider further natural light elements along length of corridor and throughout building. 3. Consider further variation and diversity of building elevations for building as a whole. 4. Consider allowing additional natural light into courtyard areas by addressing building massing. 5. Consider further enhancements to courtyard resident entries. 6. Consider distributing underground bike parking throughout parking area. 7. Consider CEPTED issues and weather protection related to parking stairwells. 8. Consider additional variation of treatments and breaking up of building elevations on south façade. 9. Provide further enhancement and design forward play area for west play area. 10. Provide additional vertical elements to central play area. 11. Provide drop off area. 12. Reconsider activities for programming within courtyard area and noise conflicts. 13. Diversify the planting design within the massed planting areas. The applicant has responded to these comments as follows: 1. Consider relocating the office, multi purpose room, and fitness area to a central location and access to courtyards. Stacking program spaces is an option. Response: The location for the amenity areas was carefully selected in efforts to minimize the negative impacts to the neighbouring units and therefore livability. Having the amenities located near the front entrance of the building also allows for the office to ensure a secure building by way of having clear sight lines to who is entering/exiting the building and subsequently who is utilizing the amenity areas. Therefore, the current location of our office and amenity package serves to maintain a high level of security and consequently reduce theft/damage to the building. 2. Consider further natural light elements along length of corridor and throughout building. Response: Natural light elements in a corridor is uncommon in condo/apartment buildings, as the natural light comes at the expense of reducing unit sizes. For this proposal, we have made every effort to ensure the units are as livable as possible, with ample windows creating a vast improvement on the current condition. The corridors will be well lit and have security features throughout. 3. Consider further variation and diversity of building elevations for building as a whole. Response: Consideration will be made to bring more individual identity to the three end elevations fronting 223rd. 4. Consider allowing additional natural light into courtyard areas by addressing building massing. Response: The building was oriented to maximize the amount of south facing units. Adjusting massing at this point will reduce the number of units that directly face the sun throughout the day, therefore not gaining a net positive offset through more light into courtyards. During the summer months, our shadow study shows that throughout the day that majority of the courtyard areas will see sunshine into the late afternoon. - 8 - 5. Consider further enhancements to courtyard resident entries. Response: Lobby entry points will be investigated for the potential to be further refined and enhanced. 6. Consider distributing underground bike parking throughout parking area. Response: A revised parkade plan has been developed and is appended to this report. 7. Consider CEPTED issues and weather protection related to parking stairwells. Response: Stairwells will be secure with residents accessing through exits from the parkade below in emergency situations only. Stairwells are also located directly in front of multiple unit windows and balconies which will give many tenants a direct sightline into them. Should any issues arise, tenants will be able to contact building management who will take the appropriate steps to correct. The stairwells are also located within the boundaries/fencing of the property and will only be accessible by tenants. Additional security measures will be discussed and investigated. It is important to also consider that this will be a rental building and any security issues or damage to the building will need to be remedied at the cost of Amacon (the Landlord). It is therefore in our best interests to carefully consider the security of this building in efforts to reduce future issues. 8. Consider additional variation of treatments and breaking up of building elevations on south façade. Response: Consideration will be made to varying the massing on the south elevation. 9. Provide further enhancement and design forward play area for west play area. Response: Landscape architect will revise to maximize the ‘fun’ potential of play area while ensuring a high level of safety is maintained. 10. Provide additional vertical elements to central play area. Response: Landscape architect will revise to maximize the ‘fun’ potential of play area while ensuring a high level of safety is maintained. 11.Provide drop off area. Response: Architect and Civil engineer will investigate possibility of having loading and pickup/drop off area near front entrance of building. This will be dictated by Maple Ridge Engineering’s direction for the road widening at 223rd Street. 12. Reconsider activities for programming within courtyard area and noise conflicts. Response: Any activities that cause excessive noise will be limited (ie no basketball hoop). 13. Diversify the planting design within the massed planting areas. Response: Landscape architect will investigate other low-maintenance vegetation that could also be planted. The applicant has considered and addressed ADP concerns as noted above and reflected in the current plans. A detailed description of how these items were incorporated into the final design will be included in a future report to Council pertaining to the required development permit. - 9 - Not all of the Advisory Design Panel’s recommendations have been provided by the applicant. However, Council is not required to insist on strict adherence to the recomm endations of this advisory committee. On this basis, Council may wish to approve or defer the applicant’s latest submission. vii) Development Information Meeting: A Development Information Meeting was held at the Maple Ridge Legion at 12101 on July 20, 2016. There were 17 attendees attended the meeting. A summary of the main comments and discussions with the attendees was provided by the applicant and include the following main points: Concerns: 1. Basketball court/hoop in play area 2. Skylights on top floor 3. Dishwashers 4. Amenity room rentable 5. Wooden blinds (or like material) 6. Swings in the courtyard area 7. Secluded area for smoking tenants 8. Unit square footages to remain same as those in previous buildings 9. Need big bedrooms and storage room 10. Rent to remain the same as current rates The following are provided by the applicant in response to the issues raised by the public: 1. Basketball court/hoop in play area. Though we will have a courtyard suitable for all children of all ages, we will not be able to include a basketball hoop on site. There is a park on 222nd St and 121st Ave that has a basketball hoop and is within a 5 minute walk from the building. 2. Skylights on top floor. Skylights will require additional structural design and reinforcement which will add substantial cost to the building construction in addition to added ongoing maintenance. The rental homes on the top level will have significant natural light through oversized windows. 3. Dishwashers. This again comes down to the cost benefit of including a dishwasher vs the affect it will have on the rental rates. We will review as we progress. 4. Amenity room rentable. This is typical in condominium buildings we have done in the past and rental of the amenity room will be managed by the on – site building manager. 5. Wooden blinds (or like material). Each unit will come equipped with sets of blinds though the exact material has not been specified yet. 6. Swings in the courtyard area. As the exact play equipment has not been selected, we still have the potential to include swings in the courtyard. Liability concerns may be raised here due to potential injury on private property. 7. Secluded area for smoking tenants. Tenants who wish to smoke will be able to use their personal balconies unless future law requires a designated area. If so, a designated area will be provided. 8. Unit square footages to remain same as those in previous buildings. Our square footage for the proposed units will be smaller in size than the old Sunrise and Sorrento buildings. However, the new units will be more efficiently laid out to maximize the full potential of the unit an create a much more livable space. 9. Need big bedrooms and storage room. Our bedrooms will be sized to support full size bedroom furniture. We will also have entry closets and storage closets in all units. Some units will also include dens (ie 2 bedrooms + a small den). - 10 - 10. Rent to remain the same as current rates. This cannot be guaranteed as this will be a brand new rental building at market rental rates to be assessed at completion. viii) Parkland Requirement: As this development proposes to consolidate 4 parcels into one, there will be no parkland dedication required for this proposal. 4) Traffic Impact: As the subject properties are located within 800 metres of the Lougheed Highway, a referral has been sent to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. Ministry approval of the Zone Amending Bylaw will be required as a condition of final reading. A traffic study will be forwarded to the Ministry for its approval. 5) Interdepartmental Implications: i) Engineering Department: Comments provided by the Engineering Department pertain to required servicing upgrades, traffic impacts, and road dedication. The conditions set out by the Engineering Department will be included as part of the Rezoning Servicing Agreement, stated as a condition of final approval, or will be addressed during the phase of construction by the Building Department. ii) License, Permits and Bylaws Department: The License, Permits and Bylaws Department will be addressing all matters relating to building permits and the demolition of the existing structures on the subject site. As noted, the construction process will proceed as a phased process, with the Sorrento Building that is currently occupied remaining until the initial construction is complete. At that time, the existing tenants will be relocated, and the Sorrento building will be demolished. The other 3 structures are currently undergoing demolition. iii) Fire Department: The Fire Department will require the applicant to provide a construction safety plan to cover the construction process. Additional information and requirements include structural details for emergency planning, Fire Department access based on established protocols, fire safety plan prior to occupancy, security measures, and address visibility. 6) Intergovernmental Issues: i) Local Government Act: An amendment to the OCP requires the local government to consult with any affected parties and to adopt related bylaws in compliance with the procedures outlined in Section 477 of the Local Government Act. The amendment required for this application, for the two parcels at 12159 & 223rd Street, from single family to low rise apartment, 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. - 11 - The amendment has been reviewed with the Financial Plan/Capital Plan and the Waste Management Plan of the Greater Vancouver Regional District and determined to have no impact. 7) Citizen/Customer Implications: The provision of rental housing is needed in the community and is a Council priority. This proposal will assist with meeting these objectives, and is therefore supportable. CONCLUSION: It is recommended that first and second reading be given to OCP Amending Bylaw No . 7243-2016, that second reading be given to Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7244-2016, and that application 2016- 052-RZ be forwarded to Public Hearing. “Original signed by Diana Hall” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Diana Hall, MA (Planning), 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 E.C. Swabey” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Ortho Map Appendix C – OCP Amending Bylaw No. 7243-2016 Appendix D – Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7244-2016 Appendix E – Site Plan and Parking Plan Appendix F – Building Elevation Plans Appendix G – Landscape Plan DATE: Feb 29, 2016 FILE: 2016-052-RZ BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTIES ´ Scale: 1:2,000 22260/92 122 AVENUE & 12159/67 223 STREET 122 AVE 223 ST222 STLegend Stream Ditch Centreline Indefinite Creek APPENDIX A City of PittMeadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Feb 29, 2016 FILE: 2016-052-RZ BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTIES ´ Scale: 1:2,000 22260/92 122 AVENUE & 12159/67 223 STREET Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2011 122 AVE 223 ST222 STAPPENDIX B CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7243-2016 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 expedient to amend Schedule "B" to the Official Community Plan; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge, enacts as follows: 1.This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7243-2016." 2.Schedule "B" is hereby amended for that parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: Lot 44 District Lot 399 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 41066 Lot 48 District Lot 399 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 44211 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 924, a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby designated/amended as shown. 3.Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 is hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the day of , 20 READ a second time the day of , 20 PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , 20 READ a third time the day of , 20 ADOPTED, the day of , 20 . ____________________________________________________________ PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER APPENDIX C BROWN AVE.222 ST.DELCREST ST,222 ST.123 AVE. 123 AVE.223 ST.122 AVE.224 ST.GARDEN ST.121 AVE. 12128 12310 12251 222602219012101 2222512121 12104 12286 12093 12087 120612222912295 2233312083 12151/73 12241 12096 12219 1216722230 2216112170 12175 12159 12228 12283 12117 12210 12147 12128 222921207222160/9012275 12250 12230 2225512157 12127 12255 12097 12130 12150 12220 221602221322207222752231512082 12191 1227522175 121232218512231 2232812154 1211122160 12135 12294 12118 121421213122306 1212412119 12130 12092 12241 2232012170 2229512096 12151 221791212722229 12084 12258 2216212238 12107 221782230512075 12129 12209 22332222771220722165 12149 12139 12240 12 4 CP 1 B 1 1 1 8 Q C H 17 8 9 12 16 D 2 Rem 7 2 11 23 4 11 Pcl."A" 57 8 Rem 6 1 18 O 21 A M 51 10 212 M 10 58 12 14 19 I 40 5356 Pcl. 1 11 20 12 B Rem 3 3 41 9 5 274 G L 9 10 29 A 3 1398 13 2 275 2 K 13 13 11 16 14 3 14 15 A 15 14 15 15 L 48 7 "A" 9 13 "B" N 272 28 P 13 7 1 44 Rem 8 273 P 16997 P 16012NWS 612 LMS 1802 LMP 39518(lease) P 57090 LMP 27702 NWS 1357 P 41066 BCP 30288 P 49482 P 14543P 15728P 1112 P 8813(P 9669) P 13442 P 8540P 14397LMP 27701 LMP 26249 LMP 15241 P 22111P 36736BCS 3724 P 16012 P 13752P 58218LMP 50617 NWS 1615P13752NWS 133 P 30167BCP 48429 P 10689 P 15022*LMP 22261*PP119 P 13752P 16997 LMP 24836P 18496 LMS 3721 P 60017 P 20588NWS 1531 P 16132 P 15728 P 61062P 15022 LMP 12218 P 13752(P 38752) BCS 3276 P 16997 P 44211 P 51690 *PP119 L M P 5 1 6 8 LMP 50618 LMP 27700RW 18394 LMP 35734RW 78233LMP 26402 LMP 37897 RW 81544LMP 7151EP 70164 BCP 48430 RW 75573LMP 87 LMP 24837EP 30259 LMP 26401RW 80320P 28405 BCP 15939 BCHPA LMP 15242LMP 24835RW 45029 EP 70164 LMP 24838EP 72617 RW 48132LMP 26325LMP 35899´ SCALE 1:2,500 MAPLE RIDGE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDINGBylaw No. Map No. Purpose:From: To: To Amend the Town Centre Area Plan Schedule 1Single-Family Residential Low-Rise Apartment 7243-2016924 CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7244-2016 A Bylaw to amend Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 and to discharge certain Land Use Contracts ______________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended; and WHEREAS a land use contract may, under s.546 of the Local Government Act, be discharged by bylaw with the agreement of the local government and the owner of any parcel of land that is described in the bylaw as being covered by the discharge; and WHEREAS the owner of land legally described as: Lot 44 District Lot 399 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 41066 and Lot 48 District Lot 399 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 44211 has agreed in writing to the discharge of the land use contracts charging each of those parcels; 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 and Land Use Contract Discharge Bylaw No. 7244-2016." 2.Those parcel (s) or tract (s) of land and premises known and described as: Lot 44 District Lot 399 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 41066 Lot 48 District Lot 399 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 44211 Lot 1 District Lot 399 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 14397 Lot 2 District Lot 399 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 14397 as shown outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1674 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, are hereby rezoned to RM-2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential). 3.Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended and Map "A" attached thereto are hereby amended accordingly. 4. The land use contract registered on April 12, 1972 and assigned registration number H33588 is discharged from the land described as Lot 44 District Lot 399 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 41066 (PID 002-539-187). APPENDIX D 5. The Land Use Contract registered on November 6, 1978 and assigned registration number P108265 is discharged from the land described as Lot 48 District Lot 399 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 4421(PID 00-354-991). 6. The Corporate Officer shall register in the Land Title Office a discharge of each of the land use contracts that is subject to this bylaw, together with a certified copy of this bylaw, in accordance with the Land Title Act and Sections 546 and 547 of the Local Government Act. READ a first time the 26th day of April, 2016. READ a second time the day of , 20 PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , 20 READ a third time the day of , 20 APPROVED by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure this day of , 20 ADOPTED, the day of , 20 _____________________________ ____________________________ PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER 222 ST.123 AVE.DELCREST ST,222 ST.123 AVE. BROWN AVE.223 ST.122 AVE.224 ST.GARDEN ST.121 AVE. 12128 12310 12251 222602219012101 12231 2222512121 2216212093 12061 2233312083 12151/73 12241 12096 12219 12295 1216722230 2216112170 12159 12228 12283 12154 12117 12210 12104 12147 1209622292 1207222160/9012275 12250 12230 2225512157 12127 12255 1209722277 12130 12150 22160222132227512286 2231512128 12087 12124 12082 12191 1227522175 1212322185 1217522328 1211122160 12135 12294 12119 12118 12142221651213122306 2220712130 12092 12241 2232012170 2229512151 12220 221791212722229 12084 12258 12238 12107 22178223052222912075 12129 12209 2233212207 12149 12139 12240 3 29 1 A 1 8 C 17 8 272 12 48 D 2 40 1 Rem 7 1 2 11 23 4Pcl."A" 6 16 18 14 O 21 M 51 12 10 15 7 212 3 M 10 58 14 19 I 8 11 53 14 56 Pcl. 1 20 B Rem 3 11 41 5 274 G L 9 10 9 Rem A 1 H 3 139B 13 275 2 12 K 13 CP 13 4 16 A 8 13 9 9 14 15 15 L "A" 2 15 13 11 "B" N 28 P 57 Q 7 1 44 Rem 8 12 273 P 16997 P 16012NWS 612 LMP 39518(lease) P 57090 NWS 1357 P 41066 BCP 30288 P 49482 P 1112 P 14543P 16132 (P 9669)P 8540P 14397LMS 1802 LMP 27701 LMP 26249 LMP 15241P 36736BCS 3724 *LMP 22261P 16012 P 13752P 58218LMP 50617 NWS 1615P13752P 15728NWS 133 P 30167BCP 48429 P 10689 P 15022P 8813P 61062*PP119 P 13752LMP 27702P 16997 LMP 24836P 18496 LMS 3721 P 60017 P 20588NWS 1531 P 15728 P 15022 LMP 12218 P 13752P 22111(P 38752) BCS 3276 P 13442 P 16997 P 44211 P 51690 *PP119 RW 78233LMP 50618 LMP 27700RW 18394 LMP 35734LMP 15242LMP 26402 RW 81544 L M P 5 1 6 8 LMP 7151LMP 37897 EP 70164 BCP 48430 LMP 87 LMP 24837EP 30259 LMP 26401RW 80320LMP 24838P 28405 BCP 15939 BCHPA LMP 24835RW 45029 EP 70164 EP 72617 RW 48132RW 75573 LMP 26325LMP 35899´ SCALE 1:2,500 MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDINGBylaw No. Map No. From: To: LUC (Land Use Contracts) Registration #H33588 & #P108265RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)RM-2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential) 7244-20161674 LUC #H33588 LUC #P108265 APPENDIX F 11.09.2016SUNRISE RE-DEVELOPMENT22260, 22292 122ND AVE & 12159-12167 223RD ST, MAPLE RIDGE RENDERINGLOOKING AT MAIN ENTRY FROMY 233RD STREET APPENDIX G - 1 - City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: December 5, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2016-325-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: Second Reading Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7283-2016 22606 Dewdney Trunk Road EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A Temporary Use Permit application has been received for the subject property, located at 22606 Dewdney Trunk Road, to permit a temporary taxi dispatch use. The applicant is currently operating a taxi dispatch office at 20542 Dewdney Trunk Road; however, this property is not commercially zoned and the previous temporary use permit has lapsed. A previous application to rezone 20542 Dewdney Trunk Road and bring the taxi dispatch use into compliance was received in 2013 but the applicant did not proceed beyond first reading and the application was subsequently closed due to inactivity. The applicant no longer intends to develop 20542 Dewdney Trunk Road to include the existing non-compliant taxi business. The purpose of the subject application is to temporarily relocate the taxi business to 22606 Dewdney Trunk Road to rectify the current business’ non - compliance at the current location. Council granted first reading and considered the early consultation requirements for the Official Community Plan (OCP) Amending Bylaw No. 7283-2016, on September 20, 2016. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1)That, in accordance with Section 475 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. 7283-2016 on the municipal website and requiring that the applicant host a Development Information Meeting (DIM), and Council considers it unnecessary to provide any further consultation opportunities, except by way of holding a Public Hearing on the bylaw; 2)That Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7283-2016 be considered in conjunction with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Waste Management Plan; 3)That it be confirmed that Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No . 7283-2016 is consistent with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Waste Management Plan; 4)That Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7283-2016 , as amended, be given second reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing; 5)That the following terms and conditions be met prior to final reading: i)Amendment to Official Community Plan Appendix D – Temporary Use Permits, to add the subject property to the list of properties; and 1105 - 2 - ii) Provision of a refundable security equivalent to 100% of the estimated landscape cost, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Temporary Use Permit. DISCUSSION: 1) Background Context: Applicant: SDM Transport Ltd. Legal Description: Lot 4 Except Westerly 81.1 Feet District Lot 401 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 7863 OCP: Existing: Town Centre Commercial Proposed: Temporary Use Permit Zoning: Existing: CS-1 (Service Commercial) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Automotive Repair, Indoor Recreation Zone: CS-1 (Service Commercial) Designation: Town Centre Commercial South: Use: Road, Vacant, Bus Loop Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential), C-3 (Town Centre Commercial) Designation: Medium and High-Rise Apartment, Town Centre Commercial East: Use: Child Care Zone: C-3 (Town Centre Commercial) Designation: Town Centre Commercial West: Use: Restaurant, Office Zone: C-3 (Town Centre Commercial) Designation: Town Centre Commercial Existing Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Taxi Dispatch Office Site Area: 0.168 ha. (0.4 acres) Access: Dewdney Trunk Road, 226 Street Servicing requirement: Urban Standard 2) Background: The applicant proposes to amend Appendix D - Temporary Use Permits of the OCP to allow a Temporary Use Permit for a taxi dispatch office. The uses requested for the temporary use permit include a taxi dispatch office and taxi parking. The applicant proposes to improve the overall appearance of the property by painting the existing building, and adding landscaping. - 3 - The applicant is currently operating a taxi dispatch office at 20542 Dewdney Trunk Road; however, this property is not commercially zoned and the previous temporary use permit has lapsed. A previous application to rezone 20542 Dewdney Trunk Road and bring the taxi dispatch use into compliance was received in 2013 but the applicant did not proceed beyond first reading and the application was subsequently closed due to inactivity. The applicant no longer intends to develop 20542 Dewdney Trunk Road to include the existing non-compliant taxi business. The purpose of the subject application is to temporarily relocate the taxi business to 22606 Dewdney Trunk Road to rectify the current business’ non-compliance at the current location (see Appendix A and B) 3) Project Description: The subject property has vehicular access via Dewdney Trunk Road and 226 Street, which the applicant proposes to keep fenced with a chain link gate for security purposes. A total of 43 parking spaces will be provided on the property for taxi parking and taxi driver parking. The existing building on the property will be utilized for a taxi dispatch office, which operates 24 hours per day, seven days a week. No propane refueling will take place on the property. 4) Planning Analysis: i) Official Community Plan: An OCP amendment is required to add the subject property into Appendix D – Temporary Use Permits of the OCP. Appendix D of the OCP states the following: 1. Lands in the City may be designated to permit temporary uses if a condition or circumstance exists that warrants the use for a short period of time but does not warrant a change of land use designation or zoning of the property. 2. Council has the authority by resolution to issue Temporary Use Permits to allow temporary uses on specific properties. Council may specify conditions for the temporary use. 3. Designated Temporary Use Permit areas will require guidelines that specify the general conditions regarding the issuance of permits, the use of the land, and the date the use is to terminate. 4. As a condition of issuing the permit, Council may require applicants or owners to remove buildings, to restore the property to a specific condition when the use ends, and to post a security bond. A permit may be issued for a period of up to three years, and may be renewed only once. 5. Council may issue Temporary Use Permits to allow: a) temporary commercial uses, i.e., temporary parking areas; and b) temporary industrial uses, i.e. soil screening. c) other temporary uses. 6. A Temporary Use Permit is issued in accordance with the provisions of Section 492 of the Local Government Act. 7. The following section lists areas designated for Temporary Uses and describes the purpose of the use. The described purpose and the specified general conditions for issuing a Permit for the declared areas are described as part of the Temporary Use Permit. The main difference between rezoning and temporary use permits is the duration of time that the use is permitted on the property, and the removal and restoration requirements. The bylaw has been amended to add the Permit Area Number “4”, to be in sequential numeric order within Appendix D of the OCP (see Appendix C). - 4 - ii) Development Information Meeting: A Development Information Meeting was held at the Maple Ridge Library on November 22, 2016. A total of three people attended the meeting from surrounding apartment buildings and were concerned that the applicant intended to construct a tall building that would impede their view. After the applicant presented the proposal (see Appendix D), the attendees felt that the presence of an office operating 24 hours per day would increase safety in the neighbourhood. 5) Interdepartmental Implications: The Licenses, Permits and Bylaws Department (the Bylaws Department) has provided the following draft operating requirements for the business license, which are in line with the City’s Taxi Bylaw.  The records of all daily trips for each taxi must be kept in the place of business for a period of six months and shall be produced for inspection at any time on request by the Police or the Bylaw department.  Any taxi that is older than 7 years must be removed from the fleet.  The drivers must always have a current chauffeurs permit and the Company must send the bylaw department updated lists of all current drivers.  All drivers must clearly display photo identification inside the taxi.  Each taxi must display a vehicle for hire plate that is valid for the current year. These plates are not transferrable from vehicle to vehicle.  A list of complaints must be forwarded to the Bylaw Department twice monthly. As the Bylaws Department is currently dealing with infractions at the existing business location, the above noted conditions will need to be resolved to the satisfaction of the City prior to issuance of a Temporary Use Permit on the subject property. The property located at 20542 Dewdney Trunk Road holds a valid business license which expires on December 31, 2016. Due to the RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) zoning of that property, which does not permit a taxi dispatch use, the business license will not be renewed for that property. 6) Intergovernmental Issues: i) Local Government Act: An amendment to the OCP requires the local government to consult with any affected parties and to adopt related bylaws in compliance with the procedures outlined in Section 477 of the Local Government Act. The amendment required for this application, to amend Appendix D - Temporary Use Permits of the Official Community Plan (OCP) is proposed to allow a Temporary Use Permit on the subject property, is considered to be minor in nature. It has been determined that no additional consultation beyond existing procedures is required, including referrals to the Board of the Regional District, the Council of an adjacent municipality, First Nations, the School District or agencies of the Federal and Provincial Governments. The amendment has been reviewed with the Financial Plan/Capital Plan and the Waste Management Plan of the Greater Vancouver Regional District and determined to have no impact. - 5 - CONCLUSION: It is recommended that first and second reading be given to OCP Amending Bylaw No. 7283-2016, and that application 2016-325-RZ be forwarded to Public Hearing. “Original signed by Amelia Bowden” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Amelia Bowden, M. Urb 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 E.C. Swabey” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Ortho Map Appendix C – OCP Amending Bylaw No. 7283-2016 Appendix D – Site and Landscape Plan City of PittMeadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Aug 22, 2016 FILE: 2016-325-RZ BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENT SELKIRK AVE. McINTOSH AVE. 121 AVE. BROWN AVE.227 ST.227 ST.121 AVE. LANE LANE SELKIRK AVE.227 ST.226 ST.EDGE ST.DEWDNEY TRUNK ROAD LANE BRO WN AVE. 119 AVE. SELKIRK AVE.226502271211857 12075 226061185822602226452256722626120182258311937 1197122681225962258722519 11920/3622588120872263012085 11890 119702262012077 11882 225972256122481226102257612070 11900 225901196322574RCMP22577 11844 11910 11990 22557226252226112261522610226332264022490226242263411980 11996 2271122577Haney Place Mall 2256222701/226482255022680118692262122530/62 22625226392270511931225402258822582 1187622640225042255811960 2264722631Courthouse 22610225542251411944 226491190922644/482264112003 225892256622603Municipal Hall 1186222597 119472267422661 22637-4512047 11834 22611Arts Centre 227202260611940/48226602268012060 12038 11995 /09 1188922670 2270822596SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:2,500 22606 DEWDNEY TRUNK ROAD APPENDIX A City of PittMeadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Aug 22, 2016 FILE: 2016-325-RZ BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENT SELKIRK AVE. McINTOSH AVE. 121 AVE. BROWN AVE.227 ST.227 ST.121 AVE. LANE LANE SELKIRK AVE.227 ST.226 ST.EDGE ST.DEWDNEY TRUNK ROAD LANE BRO WN AVE. 119 AVE. SELKIRK AVE.226502271211857 12075 226061185822602226452256722626120182258311937 1197122681225962258722519 11920/3622588120872263012085 11890 119702262012077 11882 225972256122481226102257612070 11900 225901196322574RCMP22577 11844 11910 11990 22557226252226112261522610226332264022490226242263411980 11996 2271122577Haney Place Mall 2256222701/226482255022680118692262122530/62 22625226392270511931225402258822582 1187622640225042255811960 2264722631Courthouse 22610225542251411944 226491190922644/482264112003 225892256622603Municipal Hall 1186222597 119472267422661 22637-4512047 11834 22611Arts Centre 227202260611940/48226602268012060 12038 11995 /09 1188922670 2270822596SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:2,500 22606 DEWDNEY TRUNK ROAD Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2011 APPENDIX B CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7283-2016 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 expedient to amend Schedule "A" to the Official Community Plan; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge, enacts as follows: 1.This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7283-2016." 2.Appendix D. TEMPORARY USE PERMITS, Section TEMPORARY USE PERMIT AREA is amended by deleting Temporary Commercial Use Permit Area Location No.2 in its entirety and renumbering subsequent locations accordingly. 3.Appendix D. TEMPORARY USE PERMITS, Section TEMPORARY USE PERMIT AREA is amended by the addition of the following, in sequential numeric order: Temporary Commercial Use Permit Area Location No. 4 Purpose: To permit a temporary taxi dispatch office and taxi parking located at 22606 Dewdney Trunk Road. Location: Those parcels or tracts of land shown on Temporary Commercial Use Permit Area No. 5 map, and known and described as: Lot 4 Except: Westerly 81.1 feet; District Lot 401 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 7863 is hereby designated to permit a temporary commercial use for a taxi dispatch office, for the lesser of a three-year maximum period or in the event of an offence to any City bylaw. The time period becomes effective upon adoption of this bylaw. 4. Appendix D. TEMPORARY USE PERMITS, Section TEMPORARY USE PERMIT AREA is amended by the addition of the attached Temporary Commercial Use Permit Area Location No. 4 map, in sequential numeric order. APPENDIX C 5. Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No.7060-2014 as amended, is hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the 20th day of September, 2016. 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 DATE: Sep 6, 2016 BY: DT McINTOSH AVE. BROWN AVE.227 ST.227 ST.LANE LANE SELKIRK AVE.227 ST.226 ST.EDGE ST.DEWDNEY TRUNK ROAD LANE BROWN AVE. 119 AVE.2265012075 226062260222645225672262612018 2258311937 1197122681225872251922588 11920/36 12087 2263011890 11970 12077 11882 2259722561226102257612070 225901196322574RCMP22577 11910 11990 225572262522611226242263411980 11996 22577Haney Place Mall 2264822550226802262122530/62 1193122540 2264011876225581196022631Courthouse226102255411944226491190922644/482264112003 225892256622603Municipal Hall 22597119472267422661 22637-4512047 22611Arts Centre 11940/48 12060 12038 /09 118892267022596Rem. 2956 2 81.5 14 Rem. 16 A 56 299 61 301 296 3 9 1 7 Rem.64 652 8 313118 9 Rem 127 11 3 Rem 7 Rem. A Feet 298 B 11 Rem 120 6 5 3 A CP 2 294 4 15 West Rem 1205 Rem. A Rem. 1 2 3 300 4 4 293 A 1 1 E 297 A 8 5 C 4 B Rem. LOT A6 2 Rem 2 4 1 1 78 303 3 292 4 2 ARem. 4 117 A 1 13P 47933P 7863 P 60562 P 68843 P 9541 *PP094 P 14185P 9446 P 60562 P 9446 RP 84340 P 8081P 8081Plan 81350 P 7997 P 80888P 8695 P 12640 P 9446 (P9687) EPP 12098 RP 79869 *PP093 P 9541 (P 9541) NWS 2403 LMP 37413P 12215P 9541 P 51167 *PP088P 43724LMP 19460 EPS 2538 P 65997 *PP086P 12215BCP 34253 P8695*PP088 P 8843 P 22418LMP 15424 LP 73289 P 43724 (EPS 2806) P 8081 P 9687 P 9190NWS 2403P 12567P 20546 P 60451 (EPS 1223) *PP084 P 9236P 8844P 44882 P 58055*LMP18210 P 43724 P 8679P 54086EP 69139RP 69394 BCP 52040BCP 49797 RW 59110 RW 18394 P 57372LMP 46994EPP 14312EP 65137 LMP 52324 RW 18394 LMP 45326 BCP 13823 RP 68844 RW 18394RW 68845 P 70955 EPP 13648 RW 61238 ´ Scale: 1:2,000 TEMPORARY COMMERCIAL USE PERMIT AREALocation No. 5 CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPENDIX D City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: December 5, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2014-104-SD FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: First, Second, and Third Reading East Hampstead Local Area Service Bylaw No. 7278-2016 23050 136 Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The developer of the property located at 23050 136 Avenue has made a formal petition (Appendix “D”), per the Community Charter, Part 7, Division 5, 211 (1)(a), requesting the City provide a Local Area Service Bylaw specific to those properties to be created by subdivision. The service is for enhanced landscape maintenance including road bioswales and two parkettes within the development. The bylaw will require the future property owners of each the 21 single family lots to pay an annual fee as a Local Service Tax for these enhanced landscape maintenance areas within the development. Similar Local Area Service bylaws have been established in Albion and Silver Valley. A concurrent rezoning application (2014-104-RZ) is scheduled for final reading on December 6, 2016. Local Area Service Bylaws have previously been applied in other areas of Maple Ridge, predominantly in growth areas such as Silver Valley and Albion. Staff will be preparing an information report to Council in the near future outlining the current practices and performance of Local Area Service Bylaws. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1.That a Local Area Service Bylaw, as formally petitioned by the developer of the lands referred to as ‘East Hampstead’, and per the Community Charter, Part 7, Division 5, 211 (1)(a), be authorized for the enhanced landscape maintenance costs to be levied on the benefitting properties to be created by subdivision of the land; and further 2.That East Hampstead Local Area Service Bylaw No. 7278-2016 be given first, second and third readings. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: The subject property located at 23050 136 Avenue is 1.7 ha (4.22 acres) in size. The applicant is proposing to rezone a portion of the property from R-1 (Residential District) and R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District to R-2 (Urban Residential District) to permit a future subdivision with a total of 21 lots. If approved, this will result in the addition of two lots from the previously proposed subdivision plan. 1106 - 2 - In revising the subdivision plan for the R-2 (Urban Residential District) zoned lots, the applicant has enlarged the park area adjacent to Lot 8 resulting in 352m² of additional land to be dedicated as Park. This will provide increased green space between the groups of lots, which is one of the features of an Eco Clusters development. b) Desired Outcomes: A Local Area Service Bylaw is required for the enhanced landscape maintenance of an enhanced road bioswales and two parkettes within the development in order for subdivision approval under application 2014-104-SD. The developer has made a formal petition, per the Community Charter, Part 7, Division 5, 211 (1)(a), requesting the City provide a Local Area Service Bylaw, specific to those properties to be created by subdivision. The developer of the site will be responsible for the enhanced landscaped areas installation costs and maintenance costs, ensuring 100% survival, for the two years after completion of planting. The costs for ongoing maintenance in subsequent years will then be provided by the 21 property owners after subdivision. The cost recovery method will be through the collection of 100% of the enhanced landscaping maintenance costs as a Local Service Tax. c) Enhanced Landscape Area Requirements: The enhanced landscape maintenance areas include enhanced road bioswales and two parkettes. These areas are identified on the Bylaw Map (Schedule “A” of Appendix “C”). The planting concept for these landscape areas is for enhanced natural areas that will be planted with a variety of native trees and shrubs. The planting plan for the enhanced landscape planting areas was prepared by Phoenix Environmental Services and is attached as Schedule “C” of Appendix “C”. The recommended procedures and frequencies for maintenance is attached as Schedule “B” of Appendix “C”. This standard is for preservation of natural conditions, with weeds and debris removed periodically. The standard includes maintaining areas to preserve natural plantings in a natural condition. Phoenix Environmental Services has provided an estimate for the yearly maintenance of $2,820.00 per year after the developer’s initial two year maintenance period, attached as Schedule “B” of Appendix “C”. d) Citizen Implications: The estimated cost of the petitioned service will be $134.29 per year for each residential lot of the 21 lots in the East Hampstead Local Area Service. It is anticipated that this charge will start in 2020, after the completion of the two year maintenance period required from the developer. Potential buyers prior to 2020 will be advised of the future charge through a notation on the Property Tax Information Sheet. Once the charge comes into effect, the cost will be included in the property tax. e) Interdepartmental Implications: Operations Department: The enhanced landscaping maintenance requirements for the enhanced landscape planting areas in this development are in excess of the funded base level of maintenance provided throughout Maple Ridge, and therefore would be unfunded by the City. Local Area Service Bylaws have been established in several other areas in the City, including Albion and Silver Valley. - 3 - Finance Department: The Property Tax section of the Finance Department will impose the cost of this service as a levy and place the notation on the tax roll of the benefitting property owners, anticipated to be in 2020. CONCLUSION: It is recommended that the formal petition by the developer for a Local Area Service be authorized by Council for the enhanced landscape maintenance costs to be levied on the benefitting properties to be created by subdivision of the land; and that first, second and third readings be given to East Hampstead Local Area Service Bylaw No. 7278-2016. “Original signed by Amelia Bowden” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Amelia Bowden. M.Urb 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 E.C. Swabey” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Ortho Photo Appendix C – Local Area Service Bylaw No. 7278-2016 Appendix D – Petition for Local Area Service DATE: May 8, 2015 2014-104-SD BY: JV CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:2,500 23050 136 AvenueLegend !(Ponds \\Wetlands GPS Creek Centrelines Streams & Rivers (Topographic) Feature Type Indefinite Creek Centreline Ditch Centreline River Centreline Rivers & Lakes (Topographic) Feature Type Canal Flooded Land Lake/Reservoir Marsh River APPENDIX A DATE: May 8, 2015 2014-104-SD BY: JV CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY City of Maple Ridge´ Scale: 1:2,500 23050 136 Avenue Legend !(Ponds \\Wetlands GPS Creek Centrelines Streams & Rivers (Topographic) Feature Type Indefinite Creek Centreline Ditch Centreline River Centreline Rivers & Lakes (Topographic) Feature Type Canal Flooded Land Lake/Reservoir Marsh River APPENDIX B CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE LOCAL AREA SERVICE BYLAW NO. 7278-2016 A Bylaw to authorize a municipal service to maintain enhanced landscape areas; to define the benefitting lands; and to establish that the cost of the municipal service shall be borne by the owners of real property within such defined area. ______________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, Council has been petitioned to provide a municipal service pursuant to Division 5, Section 210 of the Community Charter S.B.C. 2003, c.26 (the “Community Charter”); AND WHEREAS the Corporate Officer has certified that the petition received for the municipal services does constitute a sufficient and valid petition; AND WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to proceed with the works; AND WHEREAS the “Maple Ridge Local Area Service Policy”, as amended, provides that the cost of providing a municipal service shall be recoverable from each of the existing parcels of land and all future lots created by subdivision of the parcels, specifically: Lot 2 Section 29 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 5116 Except Plans BCP42569 and BCP48907 that will benefit from the service. 1.This Bylaw may be cited as “East Hampstead Local Area Service Bylaw No. 7278-2016”. 2.The contents of Schedules “A”, “B”, and “C” attached hereto are hereby declared to be made an integral part of this Bylaw. 3.The Local Area Service of the City for the benefit of which the enhanced landscape areas are to be maintained as a municipal service are defined as the hatched areas on the attached Schedule “A”. 4.The recommended procedures and frequencies for maintenance and Annual Charges are described on the attached Schedule “B”. 5.The Enhanced Landscape Area planting and design plans “21-Lot Residential Subdivision 23050 136 Avenue, Maple Ridge, BC” by Phoenix Environmental Services Ltd. dated October 2016; and “Typical Cross Sections & Curb Returns by Aplin & Martin dated August 2015 are attached as Schedule “C”. 6.This bylaw shall take effect as of the date of adoption hereof. READ a first time the day of , 20 READ a second time the day of , 20 READ a third time the day of , 20 ADOPTED, the day of , 20 _____________________________ ____________________________ PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER APPENDIX C 136 AVE. 136 AVE. 1 3 4 L O O P135B AVE.232 ST.229 LOOP230A ST.136 AVE.232 ST.230A ST.1351722945 13412 13449229 952296613610 22956 1 3 4 8 5 135461354523154 229721350813579 23 0 07 1 3 5 3 7 2 3 02 813477 135161353013563 22811 2299013466 229751 3 5 1 1 134392295713547 13569 13442/581 3 4 7 8 2 3 00 1229751342923020136371359013519 13586 2 3 03 622981134071346522918230002301213500 13625 229511 3 4 9 5 1 3 5 5 7 13385 1349322976 13426 13517 13493 1 3 5 3 7 13490 13572 2 3 0 2 5 13616 1346123140 13602 (PUMP STATION) 13575 229962310613631 23012 1 3 5 3 613585 230601 3 4 6 8 13486 134751 3 5 4 2 13573 1350113582 13492 2 3 01 922969230312298613485 1 3 4 7 2 1 3 5 5 5 2 3 02 022966229821 3 5 5 6 23 0 31 1 3 5 2 922996 13589 1 3 5 0 3 13516 2318313527 1356822990 23050135782297823141229301 3 5 2 5 1 3 5 2 122963 13381 1 3 5 3 1 229601 3 5 4 5 13565 1 3 5 6 222962 229692310313486 2300623002 230412 2 98 72 3 01 313480 229521 3 5 5 0 13474 1 3 5 2 8 13509 7 53 5 45 B 16 18 E 48 35 53 14 18 D 50 10 B 4 Rem. 2 35 36 1 68 3 A 69 74 23 PARK 4 PARK 43 Rem 1 56 52 54 58 32 27 49 PARK 19 23 70 28 19 13 31 PARK 22 17 21 40 38 60 64 67 46 71 59 62 75 6 61 55 44 PARK Rem 6 15 5 10 PARK 41 2 2 9 72 21 37 11 A 52 7 25 PARK 39 3 18 6 9 29 18 8 42 22 8 34 26 20 51 19 A 13 PARK 24 33 49 19 30 11 57 66 77 63 73 34 48 72 62 17 36 51 50 12 20 27 47 12 1 65 73 EP 15824 P 19056 P 43567 BCP 49303 BCP 27885 EPP 44846 RP 11765BCP 51504*PP154BCP 49303BCP 51504BCP 49303BCP 51504 BCP 49303BCP 48906 LMP 9042 P 5116 P 8175 BCP 48906 BCP 27885 P 21219EPP 52568P 7855 P 43567 BCP 49303 P 11173 BCP 48907 P 8175 EPP 32166 BCP 49303EPP 44846 P 11173BCP 33861BCP 51504 E P P 4 9 1 3 8 BCP 48908 BCP 49342BCP 48909BCP 5 1 5 0 6 BCP 49304 BCP 51505BCP 49304 BCP 42569 BCP 27887 BCP 51506BCP 48909B C P 4 9 3 0 5 B C P 4 9 3 0 6 EPP 49227 BCP 51506 BCP 48909B C P 5 1 5 0 6 EPP 52781 BCP 48909 BCP 29525 E P P 3 3 3 6 6 ´ SCALE 1:3,000 MAPLE RIDGE LOCAL AREA SERVICE BYLAWBylaw No. Enhanced Landscape Areas Original Lot Boundary 7278-2016 "Schedule A" CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE LOCAL AREA SERVICE BYLAW NO. 7278-2016 SCHEDULE “B” Class of Work: The establishment, maintenance and replacement of enhanced road bioswales and two rain gardens indicated by bold outline on Schedule “A” are to be maintained as per the attached recommended procedures and frequencies. Annual Charge: The Annual Charge is based on a per lot basis for each of the 21 lots created by the subdivision of: Lot 2 Section 29 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 5116 Except Plans BCP42569 and BCP48907 of $134.29 starting in 2020. The charges established under this Bylaw shall be specifically charged against the parcels benefitting from the work, payable by a per lot basis levied year by year. The Annual Charge Adjustment: The annual charge will be reviewed each year by the Operations Department, and adjusted accordingly to reflect any change in maintenance requirements or costs, and to reflect any increase in the Consumer Price Index (CPI) for Vancouver, BC for the immediately preceding year, as provided by Statistics Canada. 23050136Avenue,MapleRidge,BCProcedure Schedule(Month) FrequencyYearlyCostJan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov DecInspection/ReportingxxxxxxxxxAsshown$450.00GarbageRemovalxxxxxxxxxAsshown$600.00Weedingx x x x x x x Monthlyingrowingseason$600.00InvasiveplantremovalxxxxxxMonthlyingrowingseason $300.00PruneshrubsAsrequiredonly $200.00HazardtreeassessmentandabatementEvery5yearsorwhenreported$200.00Note:Propertydeveloperisresponsiblefor2yearsofestablishmentmaintenanceandwarrantyonplantmaterialSubͲTotal $2,350.0015%AdministrationFee $352.50GST $117.50CityofMapleRidgeorcontractorwillbeginmaintenanceafter2yearsestablishmentmaintenanceTotal $2,820.00LocalAreaService(LAS)AgreementLandscapeMaintenanceProgramBylaw#7246Ͳ2016 PROPOSED 21-LOT SUBDIVISIONDEVELOPER:PROJECT:GRD MITCHELL HOMES INC.23050 136 AVENUEMAPLE RIDGE, B.C.41-1145 INLET STREET, COQUITLAM, BC V3B 6E8PH (604) 474-2123171014-318-10TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS&CURB RETURNS#505 – 1755 W. Broadway Street, Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6J 4S5Tel: (604) 224-6827, Fax: (604) 597-9061, Email: general@aplinmartin.com APPENDIX D City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: December 5, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2015-346-CP FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: Wildfire Development Permit Update Second Reading Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7187-2015 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On July 26, 2016, Council gave first reading to Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7187- 2015, to amend the recently adopted Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines to remove the references to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards and provide greater flexibility when reviewing development applications, while still offering a satisfactory measure of risk management for wildfire events. In the first reading report, a commitment was made to consult with the Urban Development Institute (UDI) and Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association (GVHBA) through the UDI/GVHBA Liaison Committee, as well as the Maple Ridge Builders’ Forum, prior to seeking second reading on the bylaw. As these consultations have now occurred, the Official Community Plan Amending bylaw is coming forward for second reading and to be forwarded to Public Hearing. RECOMMENDATION: That Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7187-2015, as amended, be given second reading, and be forwarded to Public Hearing. DISCUSSION: On July 26, 2016, Council gave first reading to Official Community Plan (OCP) Amending Bylaw No. 7187-2015, to amend the recently adopted Wildfire Development Permit Area bylaw to remove the references to the NFPA Standards and provide greater flexibility when reviewing development applications (see Appendix A). 1107 CONSULTATION UPDATE: UDI/GVHBA The proposed OCP amending bylaw was presented at the September 16, 2016 Maple Ridge Development Liaison Committee meeting, and a positive written response was received on September 27, 2016 (see Appendix B). Both the UDI and GVHBA are supportive of the proposed amendments as their members have also found that some of the NFPA standards conflicted with Official Community Plan policies and could undermine the unit yields for some projects . They feel that staff have provided a good compromise that limits the loss of dev elopment yields while still providing wildfire protection. The UDI and GVHBA also appreciated the approach of reviewing the policy one year after adoption to assess the impacts and fine-tune the policy. Builders’ Forum The proposed OCP amending bylaw was also presented at the November 16, 2016 Builders’ Forum. Approximately 45 builders were in attendance. There was discussion around coordination of the various consultants involved in a development proposal; however, no serious concerns were raised with the proposed amendments. Agricultural Land Commission A referral was sent to the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC) regarding the proposed amendments. A response has not been received. Comments from the ALC on the original OCP amending bylaw were received on September 18, 2014. The ALC comments were related to the definition of farm use and the ALC in the Development Permit Area Exemptions section. The current exemption section in the bylaw reads as follows: “On lands where a farm use, as defined in the Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivision and Procedure Regulation B.C. Reg. 171/2002 or its successor, is being practiced and where the building design for residential buildings comply with the NFPA 1144 (latest edition) building guidelines, a Wildfire Development Permit will not be required. Non- residential farm buildings are exempt from all Wildfire Development Permit requirements, as long as they are sited at least 10 metres away from all residential buildings.” In order to remove the reference to the NFPA standards, the proposed wording reads as follows: “For non-residential farm buildings, located on lands where a farm use is being practiced, as defined in the Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivision and Procedure Regulation B.C. Reg. 171/2002 or its successor, provided that they are sited at least 10 metres away from any residential building(s) and wildfire interface. If within 10 metres, then a restrictive covenant detailing building design and landscaping requirements will be required for these types of developments within the Wildfire Development Permit Area.” This wording has been revised slightly from what had been proposed at first reading, to remain consistent with the ALC’s original comments. The bylaw has been amended to reflect this revision (see Appendix C). CONCLUSION: As there were no significant concerns with the proposed amendments to the Wildfire Development Permit Guidelines, it is recommended that second reading be given to OCP Amending Bylaw No. 7187-2015, as amended in this report, and that application 2015-246-CP be forwarded to Public Hearing. “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 E.C. Swabey” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – First reading report Appendix B – UDI/GVHBA response letter Appendix C – OCP Amending Bylaw No. 7187-2015 City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: July 25, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2015-346-CP FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: COW SUBJECT: Wildfire Development Permit Update First Reading Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7187-2015 Development Procedures Amending Bylaw No. 7233-2016 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On October 28, 2014, Council approved Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7101-2014 and Development Procedures Amending Bylaw No. 7102-2014 for the Wildfire Development Permit Guidelines. At that time, there was also a commitment made to report back to Council one year after adoption. Since the adoption of the bylaws, several development applications have been subject to the Wildfire Development Permit and staff and the consultants have had an opportunity to further evaluate the program. For the most part, the Wildfire Development Permit has been successful; however, there have been some challenges in applying the Wildfire Development Permit Guidelines as they were originally written. Specifically, the guidelines refer to compliance with the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards, which have proven to be significantly restrictive, resulting in potential reductions to development potential within the Wildfire Development Permit Area and substantially increased construction costs. The following report provides an update on the Wildfire Development Permit and includes recommendations intended to fine-tune the policy. Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7187-2015 and Development Procedures Amending Bylaw No. 7233-2016 are intended to amend the recently adopted bylaws to remove the references to the NFPA Standards and make the Development Procedures Schedule J consistent with the other schedules within the bylaw. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1.That Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7187 -2015 be given first reading; 2.That Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7187-2015 be considered in conjunction with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Waste Management Plan ; 3.That it be confirmed that Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7187 -2015 is consistent with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Wast e Management Plan; APPENDIX A - 2 - 4. In respect of Section 475 of the Local Government Act, requirement for consultation during the development or amendment of an Official Community Plan, Council must consider whether consultation is required with specifically: i. The Board of the Regional District in which the area covered by the plan is located, in the case of a Municipal Official Community Plan; ii. The Board of any Regional District that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan; iii. The Council of any municipality that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan; iv. First Nations; v. Boards of Education, Greater Boards and Improvements District Boards; and vi. The Provincial and Federal Governments and their agencies. and in that regard it is recommended that additional consultation be required with the Urban Development Institute and Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association via the Maple Ridge UDIGVHBA Liaison Committee, and the Maple Ridge Builders’ Forum prior to second reading , in addition to the early posting of the proposed Official Community Plan amendments on the City’s website, together with an invitation to the public to comment, and; 5. That Development Procedures Amending Bylaw No. 7233-2016 be given first and second reading. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: In 2004, the Provincial Government recommended that all communities undertake a Community Wildfire Risk Assessment and funding was established to help municipalities pay for this work. A Maple Ridge Wildfire Risk Assessment and a Wildfire Protection Plan were produced for the City in 2007. These documents discussed the risk of wildfire in Maple Ridge and the Plan provided the following context in the executive summary: “The District of Maple Ridge is embedded within the forest; approximately 60% of the community is forested. This region of the Province is susceptible to both lightning and human caused fires. Overall, the community could be classified with a fire risk profile described by a low to moderate fire probability and high to extreme consequences based on the values at risk.” The Community Wildfire Protection Plan provided 21 recommendations on:  Risk assessment;  Education and communication;  Structure protection;  Emergency response;  Training  Fuel management; and  Post fire rehabilitation. - 3 - On July 10, 2007, Council passed the following resolution: “That the recommendations contained in the Community Wildfire Protection Plan be adopted in principle pending the development of a detailed implementation plan with an associated financial plan which will be brought back to Council for their consideration and adoption; and That staff be instructed to make application to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities for grant funding to develop an implementation plan for the Community Wildfire Protection Plan recommendations.” In the Fall of 2007, Maple Ridge was awarded a grant for the development of municipal wildfire legislation. At that time, a staff working group was formed with representatives from Fire, Planning, Engineering, Operations, Building, and Parks and Leisure Services Departments to develop a draft Wildfire Development Permit. During that time, staff worked together to ensure the draft incorporated:  risk mitigation measures;  a process that would work concurrently and in concert with existing related regulations; and  built-in flexibility to allow for alternative options that effectively mitigate risk. At the January 7, 2013 Council Workshop, Council raised concerns with the technical aspects of the boundaries of the Wildfire Development Permit Area and the potential costs that would be incurred by the development community and referred the Wildfire Development Permit back to staff. A peer review was conducted and it was determined that the methodology used to prepare the Wildfire Development Permit Area was sound and that the forests around Whonnock Lake and Webster’s Corner should also be included in the Wildfire Development Permit Area. Over the course of developing the Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines, four consultation events occurred in 2012, and one in 2014 when the boundaries were revised to include the forests around Whonnock Lake and Webster’s Corner. On May 27, 2014, Council passed a resolution directing staff to prepare the bylaws for the Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines. A Public Hearing for the Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7101-2014 was held on October 21, 2014. The Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7101-2014 and Development Procedures Amending Bylaw No. 7102-2014 received third and final reading on October 28, 2014. The areas included within the Wildfire Development Permit Area are not proposed to change as a result of this report. b) Update: The Wildfire Development Permit Guidelines were originally written to be as flexible as possible with built-in exemptions and options if the requirements were not feasible. The requirements to meet the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards referenced made it difficult to develop within the Wildfire Development Permit Area without significantly reducing the developable area or significantly increasing the cost of building. This was not the intent of the Wildfire Development Permit Guidelines. - 4 - In addition, staff have identified concerns with the NFPA standards, noting that they often conflict with the Official Community Plan Silver Valley Area Plan, which was developed through extensive public consultation in 1994 and adopted in 1996. Examples of Development Principles from the Silver Valley Area Plan that conflict with the NFPA and FireSmart principles include:  Plan compact housing clusters as a solution to preserving natural environments and significant vegetation.  Promote patterns and forms of development that allow for retention of existing mature trees and vegetation.  Adopt road and street types and standards that limit speed, fit to topography and minimize impervious areas.  Utilize reduced road width to achieve traffic calming, reduced site consumption, and maintenance of the desired rural character.  Encourage unpaved, shared driveways and narrow paved lanes to housing clusters to minimize paved areas. Since the Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines were adopted on October 28, 2014, twelve Wildfire Development Permit applications have been received and three have been approved. Of the twelve Wildfire Hazard Assessment reports that have been provided by consultants to the City, 9 have been prepared by Diamond Head Consultants Ltd. and 3 have been prepared by B.A. Blackwell and Associates. Both consultants have expressed concern with preparing Wildfire Hazard Assessment reports in accordance with the NFPA standards. The main examples of NFPA code requirements that conflict with the Silver Valley Area Plan Development Principles and/or Zoning Bylaw No. 3510–1985 siting regulations include the following: Building Separation: Issue During the Development of the Wildfire Development Permit Guidelines, there was always an awareness that establishing separation distances in the bylaw could be problematic. NFPA 1141 requires that any building shall be separated from another building by at least 9.1 metres (30 ft.) and shall be set back at least 9.1 metres (30 ft.) from a property line. The FireSmart Protecting Your Community from Wildfire manual requires a minimum of 15 to 20 metres of space separating dwellings to minimize the spread of fire. Current Zoning Bylaw siting requirements are as follows: Zone Interior Side Setback Front Setback Rear Setback R-1 Residential District 1.2 m (4 ft.) 5.5 m (18 ft.) 8.0 m (26 ft.) R-2 Urban Residential District 1.2 m (4 ft.) 3.0 m (10 ft.) 8.0 m (26 ft.) R-3 Special Amenity Residential District 1.2 m (4 ft.) 3.0 m (10 ft.) 6.0 m (20 ft.) - 5 - The Fire Chief at the time had indicated a comfort in using his discretion when considering alternatives to the NFPA standards. However, when reviewing the Wildfire Hazard assessments, concerns with variances and liability have since arisen from staff and the consultants. Recommendation The proposed alternative to the siting requirements is to manage the building construction materials at wildfire interfaces and provide landscaping treatment within the different priority zones. This is addressed through the proposed revisions to the Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines (see Appendix A). The FireSmart Homeowner’s Manual provides guidance for how to reduce the risk of wildfire hazard with respect to building construction and landscaping treatments. Access: Issue NFPA 1141 requires a minimum clear width of 3.7 metres (12 ft.) for each lane of travel, excluding shoulders and parking, which conflicts with the Road Cross Sections identified in the Maple Ridge Supplementary Standard Detail Drawings. The typical lanes of travel for arterial and collector roads range from 3.4 metres (11 ft.) in typical areas, to 3.1 metres (10 ft.) in Silver Valley areas. In addition, when vehicles are parked on both sides of a local road, the width does not accommodate the ability for two vehicles to pass and requires drivers to yield to oncoming vehicles. Recommendation As an alternative for developments with a single access, the Registered Professional Forester, in consultation with the Project Engineer, will be required to identify strategic locations to provide passing lanes within Wildfire Development Permit Areas. This is addressed through the proposed revisions to the Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines (see Appendix A). Building Materials: Issue NFPA 1144 requires exterior vertical walls to “meet the requirements for heavy timber construction, ignition-resistive material, fire-retardant-treated wood, or be a minimum 20 minute fire-rated assembly where walls are potentially exposed to a wildland fire”. FireSmart recommends that “any material used for siding purposes should be fire-resistant, such as stucco, metal siding, brick, cement shingles, concrete block, poured concrete and rock. Siding material should be at least 12 millimetres thick and extend from ground level to the roofline.” When the Wildfire Development Permit Guidelines were initially under review, developers had a concern with the additional cost of ignition-resistant or non-combustible materials for the exterior cladding. Since the adoption of the Wildfire Development Permit Guidelines, the option of using vinyl siding with external sprinklers has been considered and deemed unsuitable. Upon further review, the logistics of managing the external sprinklers and the lack of reference standards for installation of such sprinklers made the option unfeasible. It was also problematic to ensure there would be the capacity to run the external sprinklers without impacting the water pressure and storage capacity required for Fire Department suppression needs. - 6 - In the interim, serious wildfires in the country illustrated the importance of target -hardening buildings, noting that vinyl siding easily melts, exposing combustible building materials which catches fire. Recommendation It is recommended that exterior elevations exposed to the wildfire interface be constructed of ignition-resistant or non-combustible materials (i.e. stucco, metal siding, brick, cement shingles, cement board, concrete block, poured concrete, concrete composite, rock and logs or heavy timber). The approximate cost of installing vinyl siding ranges from $2.40 -$3.10 per square foot. The approximate cost of installing non-combustible hardie board and rainscreen ranges from $5.75- $6.75 per square foot. A typical rear elevation of an R-1 sized home, minus the windows, is approximately 530 ft², so the difference in cost for this example could range from $1,400.00 to $2,300.00. This amount would vary, depending on the size of the home and number of elevations that are exposed to the wildfire interface. Additional Proposed Revisions: In addition to the revisions to the Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines described above, a minor revision to Section 8.4, Development Permit Area Exemptions is proposed to exclude a single- family home Building Permit from requiring a Wildfire Hazard Development Permit, as long as a restrictive covenant is registered on title, specifying the building design, siting, landscaping and open space requirements, as specified in the guidelines. Schedule J of the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879–1999 is also proposed to be amended to include the requirement for the application form and fee and to remove the details of the Wildfire Hazard Assessment report (see Appendix B) and to provide these details as a separate hand-out for applicants. This practice is consistent with other technical report guidelines, such as Geotechnical Reports or Agricultural Impact Assessments. c) Early and Ongoing Consultation: In respect of Section 475 of the Local Government Act for consultation during an Official Community Plan amendment, it is recommended additional consultation is conducted with the Urban Development Institute and Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association via the Maple Ridge UDIGVHBA Liaison Committee, and the Maple Ridge Builders’ Forum, prior to second reading, in addition to the early posting of the proposed OCP amendments on the City’s website, together with an invitation to the public to comment. CONCLUSION: As with current City practice, this report represents a review of the Wildfire Development Permit that was adopted in 2014. Since that time, the City has reviewed twelve Wildfire Hazard Assessment Reports and has had an opportunity to review the Wildfire Development Permit Guidelines. For the most part, the Wildlfire Development Permit has been successful; however, there have been challenges in applying the Wildfire Development Permit Guidelines as they were originally written. Specifically, the guidelines refer to compliance with the NFPA standards, which have proven to be - 7 - significantly restrictive, resulting in potential reductions to development potential within the Wildfire Development Permit Area and substantially increased construction costs. The proposed amendments to the Official Community Plan Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines, Exemptions and Development Procedures Bylaw Schedule J will help to reduce the difficulty in applying NFPA standards and provide greater flexibility when reviewing development applications, while still offering a satisfactory measure of risk management for wildfire events. It is recommended that Council grant first reading to Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7187-2015 and first and second reading to Development Procedures Amending Bylaw No. 7233- 2016. “Original signed by Michelle Baski” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Michelle Baski, AScT, MA Planner 1 “Original signed by Michael Van Dop” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Michael Van Dop Assistant Chief Planning and Prevention “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 E.C. Swabey” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – OCP Amending Bylaw No. 7187-2015 Appendix B – Development Procedures Amending Bylaw No. 7233-2016 CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO.7187-2015 A Bylaw to amend the Official Community Plan _______________________________________ WHEREAS the Local Government Act empowers a local government to adopt or amend an Official Community Plan; AND WHEREAS it is deemed desirable to amend Schedule "A" to the Official Community Plan; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge, enacts as follows: 1.This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No.7187-2015." 2.Section 8.4 Development Permit Area Exemptions, Item 4 is replaced with the following: “4. A Wildfire Development Permit is not required under the following circumstances: a)For an addition or renovation to any existing building in the municipality where the value of the work indicated on the building permit application does not exceed 50% of the assessed value of the improvements on the property on the date of the building permit application. For the purposes of this section the value of the building on the date of the building permit application is deemed to be the value as shown on the most recent assessment, by the British Columbia Assessment Authority, where such an assessment is available. b)For interior renovations to an existing lawfully constructed, or legally non-conforming, building or structure wholly contained within, and not projecting beyond, the foundation. c)For a single family home or a subdivision resulting in the creation of not more than two residential lots. A restrictive covenant detailing building design and landscaping requirements will be required for these types of developments within the Wildfire Development Permit Area. d)For non-residential farm buildings, provided that they are sited at least 10 metres away from any residential building(s) and wildfire interface. If within 10 metres, then a restrictive covenant detailing building design and landscaping requirements will be required for these types of developments within the Wildfire Development Permit Area. e)For public works and services and maintenance activities carried out by, or on behalf of, the City. f)For any construction of a building or structure or any alteration of land that does not require a permit from the City.” 3.Section 8.12 Wildfire Development Permit Guidelines, Subsection 8.12.1 Key Guideline Concepts and 8.12.2 Guidelines, Items A -D are replaced with the following: “Intent The Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines are intended for the protection of life and property in designated areas that could be at risk of wildfire and where this risk, in some cases, may be reasonably abated through implementation of appropriate precautionary measures. A Development Permit will be required for all development and subdivision activity or building permits for areas identified as Wildfire Risk Areas identified on Map 1: Wildfire Development Permit Area. A Development Permit may not be required under certain circumstances indicated in the Development Permit Exemptions, Section 8.4, Item 4. These Development Permit Guidelines are to work in concert with all other regulations, guidelines and bylaws in effect. 8.12.1 Key Guideline Concepts The intent of the Key Guideline Concepts is to ensure that development within the Wildfire Development Permit Area is managed to minimize the risk to property and people from wildfire urban interface hazards and to further reduce the risk of potential post-fire landslides and debris flows. Applications for Wildfire Development Permits will be assessed against the following key guideline concepts: 1.Locate development on individual sites so that, when integrated with the use of mitigating construction techniques and landscape management practices, the risk of wildfire hazards is reduced; 2.Mitigate wildfire impacts while respecting environmental conservation objectives and other hazards in the area; 3.Ensure identified hazard areas are recognized and addressed within each stage of the land development process; and 4.Manage the interface forest fuel components, including vegetation and structures, thereby increasing the probability of successful fire suppression, containment and minimize adverse impacts. 8.12.2 Guidelines The design and construction of buildings and structures located within the boundaries of th e Wildfire Development Permit Area shall be in accordance with the following key guidelines. Additional details can be found in the BC Wildfire Service FireSmart manuals. The City may consider alternative design and construction solutions if the alternative solution meets the intent of these guidelines. A. Subdivision Design and Construction 1.The development building face should be located a minimum of 10 metres away from the adjacent forest interface. This 10 metre distance (Priority Zone 1) should be created between all sides of the foundation and the forest interface (vegetation shall be modified to mitigate hazardous conditions within 10 metres of the foundations prior to the start of construction). The treatment within Priority Zone 1 may include: treating fuel on the existing parcel; developing a trail as a part of the Priority Zone; or including an environmental and geotechnical setback, if such treatment is mutually beneficial to the intent of the setback areas and FireSmart principles. 2.Priority Zone 1 may incorporate cleared parks, roads, or trails to meet the 10 metre distance requirement. 3.Development shall be set back a minimum of 10 metres from the top of ridgelines, cliffs or ravines. Variations may be considered if a wildfire hazard assessment can justify a change in the setback distance. 4.Where the City requires fire hydrants within a development, these must be fully functional prior to construction above the foundation level. 5.For subdivisions where a secondary access is not provided and an emergency Utility Vehicle (UTV) trail system is planned as an alternative, the trail access must be constructed with a 1.5 metre trail width and a minimum height and width of 2 metres cleared of vegetation, with pullouts for passing and turnaround every 500 metres, where appropriate. In areas where a 30 metre environmental setback is required, the City may consider including the trail within the 30 metre setback; however, it must be located outside of a 15 metre watercourse setback from the top of bank. Trails or turnaround points must consider appropriate design measures for protecting environmentally sensitive and/or geotechnical sensitive areas. 6.Access points suitable for evacuation and the movement of emergency response equipment must be provided. The number of access points and their capacity should be determined during subdivision design. Two means of access are preferred for subdivisions in a Wildfire Development Permit Area. If two access points are not possible, then the single access must have the capability of accommodating two fire trucks - each with a width of 2.9 metres – safely passing each other at strategic locations. B. Building Design and Siting 1.Locate building sites on the flattest areas of the property and avoid gullies or draws that accumulate fuel and funnel winds. 2.Steep roofs and closed or screened gutters are preferred in order to prevent the collection of leaves or needles, and to reduce the risk of ember shower accumulation. 3.Buildings must comply with the requirements listed below. Accessory buildings located within the Wildfire Development Permit Area must meet the same building standards as the principal residence. Roofing Materials a)Roof materials shall have a Class A or B fire resistance rating as defined in the current British Columbia Building Code, as amended. Examples of typical Class A or B roofing products include, but are not limited to: asphalt shingles, metal, concrete tile, clay tile, synthetic, slate, and hybrid composite materials. Note: Wood shakes and shingles are not acceptable, unless certified to Class A or B. Exterior Cladding a)Exterior cladding on elevations adjacent to the wildfire interface shall be constructed of ignition-resistant or non-combustible materials such as: stucco, metal siding, brick, cement shingles, cement board, concrete block, poured concrete, concrete composite, rock and logs or heavy timber. b)Decorative construction features, such as fascia, trim board materials and trim accents, are exempted from this requirement, to a maximum of 10% per elevation. Overhanging Projections and Cantilevered Floors a)Overhanging projections attached to buildings and their support (i.e. decks, balconies, porches, structural columns, and beams) shall be constructed of heavy timber construction, ignition-resistant or non-combustible materials, similar to those allowed in the “Exterior Cladding” section above. b)The underside of all exposed floors (i.e. underside of balconies, decks and porches) shall be sheathed or skirted with fire-resistant materials, similar to those allowed in the “Exterior Cladding” section above. c)The underside of all cantilevered floors (i.e. bay windows, hutches, and window seats) shall be protected with fire-resistant materials and have the floor system fire-blocked at the exterior wall plane. d)Areas under overhang projections must be kept clear of debris. Exterior Doors and Windows a)Exterior doors and garage doors shall be constructed of non-combustible materials (i.e. metal clad, solid core wood or have a 20 minute fire protection rating), and must meet the requirements of the North American Fenestration Standard (NAFS). b) Exterior windows and glazing within doors exposed to the wildfire interface and skylights shall be tempered glass, multi-layer glazing, or have a fire protection rating of not less than 20 minutes, and must meet the requirements of the NAFS. Openable windows shall be covered with non-combustible, corrosion-resistant screens. Eaves, Soffits and Vents a) All eaves and ventilation openings in exterior walls, roofs, and soffits shall be covered with non-combustible, 3 millimetre corrosion-resistant wire mesh, or be designed to prevent flame or ember penetration into the structure. b) Eaves and soffits shall be constructed of ignition-resistant or non-combustible materials. Chimney a) Spark arrestor screens are required on all wood-burning appliances. C. Landscaping and Open Spaces 1. Landscaping within the 10 metre Priority Zone 1 should be designed based on FireSmart landscaping standards to ensure minimal fuel loading within the landscaped areas and provide ongoing resistance to wildfire. The type and density of fire resistive plantings incorporated within landscaped areas will assist in mitigating the wildfire hazard. 2. Removal of all debris (wood and vegetation) after land clearing for development must be completed prior to the approval of any new subdivision plan. 3. A landscaping security may be required for landscaping works in accordance with the Maple Ridge Landscape Security Policy No. 6.28.” 4. Subsection 8.12.2 Guidelines, Item E be renumbered accordingly. 5. Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 as amended is hereby amended accordingly. READ A FIRST TIME the day of , 2016. READ A SECOND TIME the day of , 2016. PUBLIC HEARING HELD the day of , 2016. READ A THIRD TIME the day of , 2016. ADOPTED, the day of , 2016. ______________________________ ______________________________ PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICE R CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7233-2016 A Bylaw to amend the Maple Ridge Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999 ____________________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend the Maple Ridge Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999 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 Development Procedures Amending Bylaw. No. 7233- 2016”. 2.Maple Ridge Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999 be further amended by replacing the Development Application Submission Checklist for Schedule J - Wildfire Development Permit Application with the following: “Schedule J WILDFIRE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT APPLICATION The City will provide the opportunity for applicants to meet with staff from the appropriate departments early in the application process. Applications for Wildfire Development Permits are to be made to the Planning Department, and must include the following: 1)A completed application form with the prescribed fee. 2)A Certificate of Title and a Consent Form (if the applicant is different from the owner shown on the Certificate of Title) plus copies of any restrictive covenant documents registered against Title. 3)A Site Profile. 4)A Site Plan prepared by a certified BCLS including: i.Topography and natural features; ii.Parcel boundaries; iii.Adjacent streets and Rights-of-Way; iv. Existing structures and infrastructure; v.Location of watercourses, wetlands, ponds, etc. and approved environmental protection setback and geotechnical setback areas for steep slopes; vi. Proposed tree retention areas; vii. Proposed subdivision plan or lot layout; viii. Building envelopes, driveways, parking areas and impervious surfaces; - 2 - ix. Servicing infrastructure such as water, sewage disposal systems, stormwater detention, and surface drainage; and x. The extent of the proposed site clearing and lot grading. 5) A Wildfire Hazard Assessment, prepared by a Registered Professional Forester, qualified by training or experience in fire protection engineering, with at least two years of experience in fire protection engineering and with assessment and mitigation of wildfire hazards in British Columbia (see Wildfire Hazard Assessments Guidelines). The Wildfire Hazard Assessment will also need to include: i. A Comprehensive Plan indicating proposed modifications to retained interface areas; new plantings; proposed enhancement planting works for adjacent park land; trees to be retained and protected; and trails on or adjacent to the site. A cost estimate for the proposed works must be included. The cost estimate amount will be used to determine the security amount taken for the Wildfire Development Permit. ii. A plan for ongoing landscaping maintenance for park areas must also be provided, including a cost estimate. The amount will be used to help determine a Local Area Service Bylaw fee. iii. A summary of proposed exterior building materials exposed to the wildfire interface. Reference Documents:  BC Wildfire Service: bcwildfire.ca/Prevention/firesmart.htm  FireSmart Homeowner’s Manual – FireSmart Begins at Home  FireSmart – Protecting Your Community from Wildfire  National Fire Protection Association 1141 Standard for Fire Protection Infrastructure for Land Developments in Suburban and Rural Areas  National Fire Protection Association 1144 Standard for Reducing Structure Ign ition Hazards from Wildland Fire” READ a first time the day of , 2016. READ a second time the day of , 2016. READ a third time the day of , 2016. ADOPTED the day of , 2016. PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER APPENDIX B CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO.7187-2015 A Bylaw to amend the Official Community Plan WHEREAS the Local Government Act empowers a local government to adopt or amend an Official Community Plan; AND WHEREAS it is deemed desirable to amend Schedule "A" to the Official Community Plan; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge, enacts as follows: 1.This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No.7187-2015." 2.Section 8.4 Development Permit Area Exemptions, Item 4 is replaced with the following: “4. A Wildfire Development Permit is not required under the following circumstances: a)For an addition or renovation to any existing building in the municipality where the value of the work indicated on the building permit application does not exceed 50% of the assessed value of the improvements on the property on the date of the building permit application. For the purposes of this section the value of the building on the date of the building permit application is deemed to be the value as shown on the most recent assessment, by the British Columbia Assessment Authority, where such an assessment is available. b)For interior renovations to an existing lawfully constructed, or legally non-conforming, building or structure wholly contained within, and not projecting beyond, the foundation. c)For a single family home or a subdivision resulting in the creation of not more than two residential lots. A restrictive covenant detailing building design and landscaping requirements will be required for these types of developments within the Wildfire Development Permit Area. d)For non-residential farm buildings, located on lands where a farm use is being practiced, as defined in the Agricultural Land Reserve Use, Subdivision and Procedure Regulation B.C. Reg. 171/2002 or its successor, provided that they are sited at least 10 metres away from any residential building(s) and wildfire interface. If within 10 metres, then a restrictive covenant detailing building design and APPENDIX C landscaping requirements will be required for these types of developments within the Wildfire Development Permit Area. e) For public works and services and maintenance activities carried out by, or on behalf of, the City. f) For any construction of a building or structure or any alteration of land that does not require a permit from the City.” 3. Section 8.12 Wildfire Development Permit Guidelines, Subsection 8.12.1 Key Guideline Concepts and 8.12.2 Guidelines, Items A -D are replaced with the following: “Intent The Wildfire Development Permit Area Guidelines are intended for the protection of life and property in designated areas that could be at risk of wildfire and where this risk, in some cases, may be reasonably abated through implementation of appropriate precautionary measures. A Development Permit will be required for all development and subdivision activity or building permits for areas identified as Wildfire Risk Areas identified on Map 1: Wildfire Development Permit Area. A Development Permit may not be required under certain circumstances indicated in the Development Permit Exemptions, Section 8.4, Item 4. These Development Permit Guidelines are to work in concert with all other regulations, guidelines and bylaws in effect. 8.12.1 Key Guideline Concepts The intent of the Key Guideline Concepts is to ensure that development within the Wildfire Development Permit Area is managed to minimize the risk to property and people from wildfire urban interface hazards and to further reduce the risk of potential post -fire landslides and debris flows. Applications for Wildfire Development Permits will be assessed against the following key guideline concepts: 1. Locate development on individual sites so that, when integrated with the use of mitigating construction techniques and landscape management practices, the risk of wildfire hazards is reduced; 2. Mitigate wildfire impacts while respecting environmental conservation objectives and other hazards in the area; 3. Ensure identified hazard areas are recognized and addressed within each stage of the land development process; and 4. Manage the interface forest fuel components, including vegetation and structures, thereby increasing the probability of successful fire suppression, containment and minimize adverse impacts. 8.12.2 Guidelines The design and construction of buildings and structures located within the boundaries of the Wildfire Development Permit Area shall be in accordance with the following key guidelines. Additional details can be found in the BC Wildfire Service FireSmart manuals. The City may consider alternative design and construction solutions if the alternative solution meets the intent of these guidelines. A. Subdivision Design and Construction 1. The development building face should be located a minimum of 10 metres away from the adjacent forest interface. This 10 metre distance (Priority Zone 1) should be created between all sides of the foundation and the forest interface (vegetat ion shall be modified to mitigate hazardous conditions within 10 metres of the foundations prior to the start of construction). The treatment within Priority Zone 1 may include: treating fuel on the existing parcel; developing a trail as a part of the Pri ority Zone; or including an environmental and geotechnical setback, if such treatment is mutually beneficial to the intent of the setback areas and FireSmart principles. 2. Priority Zone 1 may incorporate cleared parks, roads, or trails to meet the 10 metre distance requirement. 3. Development shall be set back a minimum of 10 metres from the top of ridgelines, cliffs or ravines. Variations may be considered if a wildfire hazard assessment can justify a change in the setback distance. 4. Where the City requires fire hydrants within a development, these must be fully functional prior to construction above the foundation level. 5. For subdivisions where a secondary access is not provided and an emergency Utility Vehicle (UTV) trail system is planned as an alternative, the trail access must be constructed with a 1.5 metre trail width and a minimum height and width of 2 metres cleared of vegetation, with pullouts for passing and turnaround every 500 metres, where appropriate. In areas where a 30 metre environmental setback is required, the City may consider including the trail within the 30 metre setback; however, it must be located outside of a 15 metre watercourse setback from the top of bank. Trails or turnaround points must consider appropriate design measures for protecting environmentally sensitive and/or geotechnical sensitive areas. 6. Access points suitable for evacuation and the movement of emergency response equipment must be provided. The number of access points and their capacity should be determined during subdivision design. Two means of access are preferred for subdivisions in a Wildfire Development Permit Area. If two access points are not possible, then the single access must have the capability of accommodating two fire trucks - each with a width of 2.9 metres – safely passing each other at strategic locations. B. Building Design and Siting 1. Locate building sites on the flattest areas of the property and avoid gullies or draws that accumulate fuel and funnel winds. 2. Steep roofs and closed or screened gutters are preferred in order to prevent the collection of leaves or needles, and to reduce the risk of ember shower accumulation. 3. Buildings must comply with the requirements listed below. Accessory buildings located within the Wildfire Development Permit Area must meet the same building standards as the principal residence. Roofing Materials a) Roof materials shall have a Class A or B fire resistance rating as defined in the current British Columbia Building Code, as amended. Examples of typical Class A or B roofing products include, but are not limited to: asphalt shingles, metal, concrete tile, clay tile, synthetic, slate, and hybrid composite materials. Note: Wood shakes and shingles are not acceptable, unless certified to Class A or B. Exterior Cladding a) Exterior cladding on elevations adjacent to the wildfire interface shall be constructed of ignition-resistant or non-combustible materials such as: stucco, metal siding, brick, cement shingles, cement board, concrete block, poured concrete, concrete composite, rock and logs or heavy timber. b) Decorative construction features, such as fascia, trim board materials and trim accents, are exempted from this requirement, to a maximum of 10% per elevation. Overhanging Projections and Cantilevered Floors a) Overhanging projections attached to buildings and their support (i.e. decks, balconies, porches, structural columns, and beams) shall be constructed of heavy timber construction, ignition-resistant or non-combustible materials, similar to those allowed in the “Exterior Cladding” section above. b) The underside of all exposed floors (i.e. underside of balconies, decks and porches) shall be sheathed or skirted with fire-resistant materials, similar to those allowed in the “Exterior Cladding” section above. c) The underside of all cantilevered floors (i.e. bay windows, hutches, and window seats) shall be protected with fire-resistant materials and have the floor system fire-blocked at the exterior wall plane. d) Areas under overhang projections must be kept clear of debris. Exterior Doors and Windows a) Exterior doors and garage doors shall be constructed of non -combustible materials (i.e. metal clad, solid core wood or have a 20 minute fire protection rating), and must meet the requirements of the North American Fenestration Standard (NAFS). b) Exterior windows and glazing within doors exposed to the wildfire interface and skylights shall be tempered glass, multi-layer glazing, or have a fire protection rating of not less than 20 minutes, and must meet the requirements of the NAFS. Openable windows shall be covered with non-combustible, corrosion-resistant screens. Eaves, Soffits and Vents a) All eaves and ventilation openings in exterior walls, roofs, and soffits shall be covered with non-combustible, 3 millimetre corrosion-resistant wire mesh, or be designed to prevent flame or ember penetration into the structure. b) Eaves and soffits shall be constructed of ignition-resistant or non-combustible materials. Chimney a) Spark arrestor screens are required on all wood-burning appliances. C. Landscaping and Open Spaces 1. Landscaping within the 10 metre Priority Zone 1 should be designed based on FireSmart landscaping standards to ensure minimal fuel loading within the landscaped areas and provide ongoing resistance to wildfire. The type and density of fire resistive plantings incorporated within landscaped areas will assist in mitigating the wildfire hazard. 2. Removal of all debris (wood and vegetation) after land clearing for development must be completed prior to the approval of any new subdivision plan. 3. A landscaping security may be required for landscaping works in accordance with the Maple Ridge Landscape Security Policy No. 6.28.” 4. Subsection 8.12.2 Guidelines, Item E be renumbered accordingly. 5. Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 as amended is hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the 26th day of July, 2016. READ a second time the day of , 2016. PUBLIC HEARING HELD the day of , 2016. READ a third time the day of , 2016. ADOPTED, the day of , 2016. ______________________________ ______________________________ PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICE R 1 City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: December 5, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2016-448-CP FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W SUBJECT: First Reading OCP Amending Bylaw No. 7299-2016 13150, 13120, 13070, 13030, 12990 ,12940, 13655 256 Street; 25775,25801,25801,25927,25927 128 Avenue; 26185 130 Avenue;13301 251A Street; 13055 251A Street, 25100 Alouette Road; 51 lots comprised of Kanaka Business Park and adjacent park land Employment Land Use Suitability Assessment (Located East and West of 256 Street and North of 128 Avenue) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On September 19, 2016, Council authorized staff to begin preparing an OCP Amending Bylaw to redesignate the above noted properties in the 256 Street and 128 Avenue vicinity under the following resolution: That staff draft a bylaw amendment to the Official Community Plan to redesignate lands in the 256 Street vicinity to Industrial from Suburban Residential and Institutional. This OCP amendment will serve to facilitate future employment uses and development. These lands, while not identified in the 2012-2014 Commercial and Industrial Strategy, evolved from an investigation of suitable employment land across the City. These subject properties were seen as another means of expanding employment opportunities in the vicinity of existing and well-utilized employment lands. This report summarizes the existing policy and site context of the subject lands and outlines considerations stemming from a redesignation of the lands to Rural Resource, along with minor portions of land to be redesignated as Park, Suburban Residential, and Estate Residential. The 51 M-2 (General Industrial) zoned properties in the Kanaka Business Park are also included in the OCP amending bylaw to align to the existing zone with the Industrial and Conservation land use designations. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1)That Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7299-2016 be given first reading; 2)That, in respect of Section 475(2)(b) of the Local Government Act, requirement for consultation during the development or amendment of an Official Community Plan, Council must consider whether consultation is required with specifically: i.the board of the regional district in which the area covered by the plan is located, in the case of a municipal official community plan; ii.the board of any regional district that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan; iii.the council of any municipality that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan; iv. first nations; 1108 2 v. boards of education, greater boards and improvement district boards; vi. the Provincial and federal governments and their agencies. 3) That the only additional consultation to be required in respect of this matter beyond the consultation and communication process outlined in this report titled “Employment Land Use Suitability Assessment (Located East and West of 256 Street and North of 128 Avenue)” and the early posting of the proposed Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw on the City’s website, together with an invitation to the public to comment, are meetings with the subject property owners. DISCUSSION: It is the purpose of this report to present the results stemming from a high-level land use assessment intended to investigate the suitability of the lands located generally to the east and west of 256 Street and north of 128 Avenue for an employment designation (see Figure 1). The report also presents OCP Amending Bylaw 7299-2016 to redesignate the subject lands from Suburban Residential and Institutional, to Rural Resource, Industrial, Park, Suburban Residential and Estate Suburban Residential. The Rural Resource land use designation would allow for a variety of industrial and light-industrial activities to be considered in the future, including gravel extraction. While Council had originally directed staff to consider an Industrial redesignation, further analysis revealed that a Rural Resource designation would accommodate Council’s industrial employment goals while preserving potential gravel resources. Figure 1: The Subject Lands Located to the East and West of 256 Street and North of 128 Avenue 1 2 3 4 3 a) Background Context: On October 5, 2015, Council endorsed the Commercial and Industrial Strategy Implementation Plan Matrix. The Commercial and Industrial Strategy indicates that the City needs a range of 69-93 hectares (170-230 acres) of additional industrial lands by 2040. As part of the ensuing discussion with Council, a number of areas that could potentially accommodate employment-based land uses were identified (See Figure 2), along with the following Council Resolutions: That staff be directed to obtain a more detailed site analysis [of each identified location] to determine feasibility as employment generating lands. (Dec. 2, 2013); OR For this work to be completed as part of development application information. On September 19, 2016, Council authorized staff to begin preparing an amending bylaw to redesignate the lands in the 256 Street and 128 Avenue vicinity with the following resolution: That staff draft a bylaw amendment to the Official Community Plan to redesignate lands in the 256 Street vicinity to Industrial from Suburban Residential and Institutional. Again, staff have noted that a Rural Resource designation aligns with Council’s direction while also acknowledges the presence of gravel resources and their importance to the City. Further, these lands, under the proposed Rural Resource land use designation, offer another means of expanding employment opportunities in vicinity of existing and well-utilized employment lands. Figure 2: Potential Employment Lands City-Wide 256th St Lands 1 4 b) Property Description: The subject lands are located to the east and west of 256 Street and to the north of 128 Avenue. These properties represent approximately 153 gross hectares (378 acres) comprised of multiple properties, many with different land use designations. As such, staff have grouped the various properties for clarification purposes. As shown in Figure 1:  The properties in group “1” are currently a mix of Suburban Residential, Rural Resource, and Agricultural designated properties. The properties are located immediately west of the existing Kanaka Business Park.  The property identified as “2” is comprised of two smaller properties immediately adjacent to Suburban Residential properties which are hooked to a larger parcel. The property is currently designated Institutional in reflection of past land use activities, and is generally surrounded by Rural Resource land.  The property identified as “3” has a current split land use designation of Rural Resource and Suburban Residential, and is zoned A-2 (Upland Agricultural).  The land identified as “4” is a portion of a larger parcel that has a number of different zones including A-2 (Upland Agricultural), M-2 (General Industrial), M-4 (Extraction Industrial) and P-5 (Corrections and Rehabilitation). The portion of the lot in question is currently designated Institutional based on historic uses, while the remainder of the parcel is designated Rural Resource to reflect the current gravel extraction operation. All of the properties in Figure 1 are located outside of the City’s Urban Area Boundary. Regionally, the sites are not within the Metro Vancouver Urban Containment Boundary, and are designated either Industrial or Rural in the Regional Growth Strategy and are adjacent to lands designated Industrial by Metro Vancouver. The properties identified as “2” is within the Fraser Sewerage Area, while portions of group “1”, “3”, and “4” are either outside of, or partially within, the Fraser Sewerage Area. Those properties that are included or are partially within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) do not form part of OCP Amending Bylaw No. 7299-2016 and are to remain designated Agricultural and within the ALR. c) Property Assessment: In consideration of Council’s earliest motion, namely to investigate the suitability of lands within the City for a employment designation, staff undertook a high-level assessment of the potential environmental and technical requirements that face any future redevelopment of these lands, regardless of land use designation. Topography and Watercourses – The properties in this area are relatively level, although changes in topography are notable in proximity to known watercourses. As well, any future development will be impacted by the setbacks associated with the watercourses present (ranging from 10 m to 30 m). A Watercourse Protection Development Permit will be required for those properties that are within 50 metres of a watercourse, pond, or wetland feature to ensure riparian areas and environmentally sensitive habitat remains protected. Soils and Geology - Given the topography and presence of watercourses, hydro-geotechnical issues likely exist, requiring further hydro-geotechnical studies to determine setbacks from top of slope and toe of slope. A Natural Features Development Permit is required for development of sites on slopes over 15% to consider OCP Hillside Management Policies. 5 Significant Trees and Forest Areas – While some of the lands in this area are already cleared as a result of past land use activities, there are remaining portions of the sites that would require clearing and tree removal. A Tree Cutting Permit is required under the Tree Protection and Management Bylaw. Further investigation through a Tree Management Plan is required to determine potential retention areas for significant tree clusters, especially on the periphery of the sites and around conservation boundaries. In addition, appropriate studies, mitigation, and coordination measures are required to manage tree retention and tree removal areas on site, including tree replacement requirements. Surface Water, Groundwater and Vulnerable Aquifer Management – This area is accessible and serviceable, which reduces uncertainty with respect to groundwater impacts and aquifer management. At the time of any future development, groundwater issues will need to be dealt with through measures including adaptive stormwater management plans and coordination with grading, conservation areas, and geotechnical setback recommendations. A Groundwater Impact Assessment is anticipated to be required for stormwater management purposes depending on proximity of future development to steep slopes and the scale of any clearing that may be needed. Stormwater Management – Floodplain issues are peripheral to these lands. At the time of a development application, any implicated lands, especially those that are in proximity to the Alouette River, would need to demonstrate compliance with the City’s stormwater management requirements with respect to three tier on-site source controls using Provincial and Metro Vancouver design standards. Emphasis within the three tier approach is on management of volumes, runoff rates, and water quality improvements which need to be coordinated with geotechnical recommendations, environmentally sensitive areas, and tree retention areas. Agriculture Impacts – Some of the subject lands are adjacent to land in the Agricultural Land Reserve. All future development of these lands will be required to complete an Agricultural Impact Assessment for adjacent Agricultural Land Reserve properties. Mitigation recommendations may include; but are not be limited to: landscape buffering, fencing, and road design with each future development application. d) Engineering Considerations: Access – In general, many of the properties in this area either abut or are readily accessible from 256 Street. For those parcels located in the northwesterly extent of the area, access may be more challenged. Any future developments on these properties will need to confirm if access to those portions of land available for development can be achieved within the design and construction standards set out in the Maple Ridge Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw; as well as meet the requirements for emergency access identified by the Maple Ridge Fire Department. Furthermore, truck traffic stemming from this area, if redesignated, may warrant an examination of the Strategic Transportation Plans recommendations, specifically regarding the identified routes for access to this area and consider if specific improvements are necessary such as the turning movements at the intersection of 256 Street and Dewdney Trunk Road. 6 Municipal Water – Municipal watermains are currently located along 256 Street and 128 Avenue; however, not all of the subject lands fronting these roads have a water connection. There is no municipal watermain on Alouette Road, which provides road frontage to some of the subject lands. The Engineering Department has identified an upcoming capital works project scheduled for spring 2018 that will increase the water capacity and fire flow potential through an upgrade to the 270A Street reservoir. Although this capital project will address such likely needs for the subject lands in the short term, a detailed review of water requirements will be required to confirm the need for any upgrades to accommodate the change in land use. Sanitary Service – The subject lands have varying degrees of access to the municipal sanitary sewer system depending on their status in the Fraser Sewerage Area. Some of the properties are partially or wholly within the Fraser Sewerage Area, allowing full or limited sanitary connections; whereas as some of the lands are not within the Fraser Sewerage Area. Properties within the latter category will require a private septic system to deal with sanitary requirements. Industrial development on private septic systems is currently the case at the M-2 (General Industrial) zoned Kanaka Business Park to the east of the subject lands. A study is required to determine what upgrades to the sewage collection system would be required to accommodate the proposed change in land use. e) Development Potential: Once combined, the environmental and technical requirements will inherently limit the development of these lands, regardless of future land use designation. With attention solely on the topography and the known watercourses, staff prepared a summary illustration of the areas available for development to the east and west of 256 Street and to the north of 128 Avenue. As shown in more detail in Figure 3, which identifies the possible development potential for each property or group of properties, overall it was identified that of the possible 153 gross hectares (378 acres) of site area, the total resulting development area is approximately 115 hectares (284 acres) or 75%. Figure 3: Potential Lands Available for Development to the East and West of 256 Street and to the North of 128 Avenue (Allowing for Slope and Watercourses). 7 f) Policy and Zoning Assessment: Aside from environmental factors, the site will be further influenced by the City’s policy and regulatory directions. Official Community Plan The Rural Resource land use designation supports industrial and employment uses and aligns with the M-2 (General Industrial), M-4 (Extraction Industrial) and M-5 (High Impact Industrial) zones. The Rural Resource land use is intended to identify potential gravel deposits given its importance as a natural resource. The OCP outlines a long-term vision for identifying additional employment generating lands, yet equally places an emphasis on ensuring the suitability of any lands contemplated for new opportunities. As a result, the OCP provides a set of evaluation parameters for potential lands being considered for employment, be it industry or business park. These include: Policy 6-41 The identification of additional employment generating land is a priority for the District. Maple Ridge will evaluate alternate locations for a large block or blocks of additional employment generating land to support the growth of the employment sector in the future. Location parameters for suitable industrial land may include, but is not limited to: a) land that is relatively flat; b) land that is conducive to industrial development; c) land that is contiguous to a full range of municipal services; d) land that is strategically located near the Regional transportation network. While the above noted policy emphasizes the presence of municipal services, it is noted that Schedule A of the Maple Ridge Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw exempts developments under the Industrial zones from the requirement to provide municipal services outside of the Urban Area Boundary, excluding municipal water connections. Gravel Deposits Properties in group “1” and property “3” are currently designated in part Rural Resource, and several gravel extraction businesses are in operation in this area. Two policies guide the development of Rural Resource designated land in Maple Ridge: Policy 6-45 Rural Resource Industrial lands are located in the northern portion of the community and provide for a range of general industrial, heavy industrial and high impact resource based industrial uses following the removal of gravel resources on these lands. Policy 6-46 The gravel reserves in the Rural Resource area at the north end of 256 Street will be considered for use prior to development of the industrial potential. However, before any additional gravel extraction traffic occurs, beyond historic levels, alternative access needs to be developed to prevent increased impacts on the residential character of the neighbourhood. 8 As a result of these policies, the process for consideration of any other general industrial use aside from resource extraction under the Rural Resource designation is to first identify if gravel deposits exist, and second, for identified gravel deposits to be removed. At this time, no analysis of the extent of gravel deposits on the subject lands has taken place; however anecdotal knowledge and existing topography indicates that some gravel deposits have historically been removed. The City’s Soil Removal Bylaw No. 6398-2006 permits a maximum threshold of 300,000 cubic metres of gravel to be extracted per year. As current rates have yet to approach this threshold, it would appear that continued gravel extraction could take place on some of these lands in the future. Given that, while the expansion of the Rural Resource designation may permit a wide array of industrial activities, any future redevelopment will be required to assess the gravel extraction potential of any such lands and/or identify any implications to the Soil Removal Bylaw No. 6398-2006, as a condition of development. Commercial and Industrial Strategy: The Commercial and Industrial Strategy presented an industrial land demand forecast based on employment growth, which indicates that Maple Ridge will require between 170 and 230 acres (69 to 93 hectares) of additional industrial lands by 2040. The Strategy recognized the inherent challenge of finding industrial land in the medium to long term in an already competitive region. It also identified that Maple Ridge currently has vacant and/or underutilized lands that may be suitable for industrial redevelopment in the short term. Various long-term directions were offered as ways to meet future demand, including maintain the status quo supply. However, in the interim it was emphasized that the City should begin planning for the anticipated long-term growth now so it can best accommodate demand for industrial lands whenever it occurs. The subject lands under current consideration were reviewed in the Commercial and Industrial Strategy, but the area was identified as not being viable in the short term. Land sales for industrial properties have increased recently, reducing the number of vacancies and unsold properties significantly, and indicating that there is local market demand for industrial land in North-East Maple Ridge. The Commercial and Industrial Strategy further noted that the 256 Street industrial lands were more likely to attract M-2 (General Industrial) zoning uses (i.e industrial activity unenclosed by a building) due to the Albion Industrial Area’s classification as a Business Park and alignment with the M-3 (Business Park) zone. Regional Policy Context: The subject lands are currently designated Industrial and Rural in Metro Vancouver’s Regional Growth Strategy (RGS). The Industrial land use designation aligns with both heavy and light industrial uses that have access to municipal services such as water and sanitary sewer. The Rural land use designation is a non-urban land use designation that allows a range of small scale low density uses, including industrial uses that do not require the provision of urban services. As a result, industrial activity on the subject lands can proceed without an amendment to Metro Vancouver’s land use designation or the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District’s Fraser Sewerage Area boundary. Should a more intensive scale of industrial development, or an expansion of the Fraser Sewerage Area be desired in this area in the future, an amendment to the Fraser Sewerage Area boundary and the Regional Growth Strategy would be required. 9 Compatibility with Surrounding Development: The lands to the east and west of 256 Street and to the north of 128 Avenue are surrounded in part by residential uses along 130 Avenue, agricultural uses south of 128 Avenue and Rural Resource and other industrial uses to the north. Building off of the industrial context of this area, the industrial Kanaka Business Park is also present immediately east of the properties grouped as “1” in Figure 1 along 128 Avenue. While not abutting, the residential neighbourhood of Whispering Falls is also in close proximity to this area, and will share access along 128 Avenue. Existing institutional uses in the vicinity of the subject lands also include the Fraser Regional Correction Centre and the Justice Institute Fire and Safety Training Centre. g) Land Use Redesignation Implications: While acknowledging the environmental and technical issues that would need to be addressed through any future development of these lands, the high-level staff assessment has identified that approximately 115 hectares (284 acres) or about 75% of the gross site area could be suitable for an employment land use designation. Based upon anecdotal observations from within the Maple Meadows Business Park and operations in the 256 Street industrial area, such combined industrial development potential could equate to 10-12 industrial units per acre. Using this anecdotal rule of thumb further, it suggests that industrial development could result in the creation of thousands of employment-generating units over the long term future. Further, the properties present possible synergies with surrounding industrial and institutional land uses, offering an opportunity to satisfy in a large part the future demand for employment lands in one consolidated location. The staff analysis also identified that access, especially by truck traffic servicing any future industrial uses, could be a limiting factor and may require additional assessment of the City’s road network. Ongoing monitoring and assessment of existing gravel deposits in this area would also be an ongoing consideration of any future industrial development. As well, it is noted that the existing suburban residential development in this area could be further impacted by an expansion of employment- generating land uses. Given that, and reflecting that limited discussion has occurred in terms of the types of employment uses and levels of land use intensity that may be appropriate on the subject lands, further community dialogue is encouraged as Council considers OCP Amending Bylaw 7299- 2016. h) Other Considerations: Five other land use amendments are proposed under OCP Amending Bylaw 7299-2016: Industrial, Park, Estate Suburban Residential, and Suburban Residential. In the high-level examination undertaken it was noted that the property identified as “2” in Figure 1 is hooked to two smaller parcels. These two parcels currently abut existing residential properties. It is therefore recommended through OCP Amending Bylaw 7299-2016 that these properties be designated Estate Suburban Residential and Suburban Residential to accommodate a continuation of the adjacent residential uses. Furthermore, an exisiting city right-of-way adjacent to the subject lands is proposed to be redesignated to Park. This right-of-way is not anticipated to be constructed as a road, and in discussion with Parks, Recreation and Culture Department staff it was identified as a desirable trail connection. Identifying this right-of-way as park for the purpose of accommodating future greenways will create a buffer between residential and employment uses in this area. 10 Lastly, the Kanaka Business Park is included under OCP Amending Bylaw 7299-2016 to be redesignated to Industrial and Conservation from Suburban Residential and Rural Resource. This will bring the existing zoning into alignment with the appropriate land use designation. i) Consultation and Communication: The Local Government Act (LGA) Section 475 provides the framework to guide consultation for OCP amendments. Council must consider if consultation should be early and ongoing with one or more persons, organizations and authorities. Specifically with: i. the board of the regional district in which the area covered by the plan is located, in the case of a municipal official community plan; ii. the board of any regional district that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan; iii. the council of any municipality that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan; iv. first nations; v. boards of education, greater boards and improvement district boards; vi. the Provincial and federal governments and their agencies. In light of the challenges inherent to these lands, but in recognition of the employment potential in this general area, further engagement with the land owners is warranted. For the subject lands, the following consultation and communication process is proposed: a. Interdepartmental referrals will be sent to Engineering for comments on traffic and servicing, Finance Department for consistency with the Five Year Financial Plan, Parks, Recreation and Culture for consistency with the Parks Master Plan, and Economic Development for comment on the consistency of the proposed use in conjunction with the Economic Development Plan; b. Intergovernmental referral will be sent to Metro Vancouver and the Greater Vancouver Sewerage & Drainage District for comment on the consistency with the Regional Growth Strategy; c. Engagement with owners of the subject lands will be undertaken. Invitations for discussion with adjacent land owners such as the Katzie First nation and the Province of B.C will also be issued to determine the vision for these properties. Following Council consideration of first reading, letters to property owners will be mailed out with an invitation to participate in a consultation meeting. It is anticipated, based on the wider consultation and the discussions with the community and stakeholders that refinements to OCP Amending Bylaw 7299-2016 may be needed, which will be completed prior to Council reading of the Bylaw a second time. j) Alternative: Staff’s high-level assessment suggests that the subject lands are suitable in the long-term for employment-generating activities. However, an alternative direction would be for Council to direct staff not to redesignate these lands at this time, and to engage the community prior to bringing forward an OCP Amending Bylaw for first reading. 11 CONCLUSION: The Commercial and Industrial Strategy recognized that regional competition and an existing supply of under-utilized industrial lands elsewhere in the community, give the City time to plan for future land use changes. Towards that end, and in response to direction from Council, staff has undertaken an assessment of various properties to the east and west of 256 Street and to the north of 128 Avenue to assess their long-term suitability for employment-generating land uses, all in a proactive attempt to meet anticipated future demand. OCP Amending Bylaw 7299-2016, which seeks to redesignate the subject lands to a Rural Resource land use designation, is based upon the findings of the assessment, which point to the potential availability of 115 hectares (284 acres) of land that could accommodate future employment interests. However, while these lands might be located in proximity to an already existing industrial node in the City, recognition is also given to the presence of many suburban homes which might be impacted by increased employment activities. Combining these perspectives suggests that early consultation be undertaken with the property owners in the vicinity of the subject lands to better understand the land use vision for this area. Such input will be brought back to Council, potentially in the form of a revised OCP Amendment Bylaw 7299-2016, prior to second reading. “Original signed by Amelia Bowden” Prepared by: Amelia Bowden, M. Urb 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 E.C. Swabey” Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer Appendix A – OCP Amendment Bylaw 7299-2016 CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7299-2016 A Bylaw to amend the Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 _______________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS Section 477 of the Local Government Act provides that the Council may revise the Official Community Plan; AND WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend Schedule "B" to the Official Community Plan; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge, enacts as follows: 1.This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7299-2016." 2.Schedule "B" is hereby amended for that parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: Part Southwest ¼ Group 1 Lot 1 Section 25 Township Plan 12 New Westminster District Plan NWP41107 Group 1 Lot 1 Section 25 Township Plan 12 New Westminster District Plan LMP26779 Group 1 Lot 2 Section 25 Township Plan 12 New Westminster District Plan LMP26779 Part Southwest ¼ Lot 3 Section 25 Township Plan 12 New Westminster District Plan NWP70124 Part Southwest ¼ Group 1 Lot 2 Section 25 Township Plan 12 New Westminster District Plan NWP70124 Part Southwest ¼ Group 1 Lot 4 Section 25 Township Plan 12 New Westminster District Plan NWP41107 Part Southwest ¼ Group 1 Lot 1 Section 25 Township Plan 12 New Westminster District Plan NWP70124 Parcel 1 Part Southwest ¼ Reference Plan 17316 of Parcel A Reference Plan 3015 Section 25 Township Plan 12 NWD Parcel A Part Southwest ¼ Reference Plan 3015 Excluding Parcel 1 Reference Plan 17316 Section 25 Township Plan 12 NWD Legal Subdivision 7 Group 1 Section 25 Township Plan 12 NWD (PID 013-301-748) Group 1 Lot A Section 26 Township Plan 12 New Westminster District Plan NWP83431 Lot 22 Section 26 Township plan 12 New Westminster District Plan LMP25391 Lot A Section 26 Township Plan 12 New Westminster District Plan BCP45610 PID 000-947-261 Lots 1-5,8-11, and 13-51 Section 25 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan BCP42202 and four adjacent park parcels Lots 1-3 Section 25 Township Plan 12 New Westminster District Plan BCP44861 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 926, a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby designated as shown. APPENDIX A 3. Schedule "C" is hereby amended for that parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: Part Southwest ¼ Group 1 Lot 1 Section 25 Township Plan 12 New Westminster District Plan NWP41107 Group 1 Lot 1 Section 25 Township Plan 12 New Westminster District Plan LMP26779 Group 1 Lot 2 Section 25 Township Plan 12 New Westminster District Plan LMP26779 Part Southwest ¼ Lot 3 Section 25 Township Plan 12 New Westminster District Plan NWP70124 Part Southwest ¼ Group 1 Lot 2 Section 25 Township Plan 12 New Westminster District Plan NWP70124 Part Southwest ¼ Group 1 Lot 4 Section 25 Township Plan 12 New Westminster District Plan NWP41107 Part Southwest ¼ Group 1 Lot 1 Section 25 Township Plan 12 New Westminster District Plan NWP70124 Parcel 1 Part Southwest ¼ Reference Plan 17316 of Parcel A Reference Plan 3015 Section 25 Township Plan 12 NWD Parcel A Part Southwest ¼ Reference Plan 3015 Excluding Parcel 1 Reference Plan 17316 Section 25 Township Plan 12 NWD Legal Subdivision 7 Group 1 Section 25 Township Plan 12 NWD (PID 013-301-748) Group 1 Lot A Section 26 Township Plan 12 New Westminster District Plan NWP83431 Lot 22 Section 26 Township plan 12 New Westminster District Plan LMP25391 Lot A Section 26 Township Plan 12 New Westminster District Plan BCP45610 PID 000-947-261 Lots 1-5,8-11, and 13-51 Section 25 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan BCP42202 and four adjacent park parcels Lots 1-3 Section 25 Township Plan 12 New Westminster District Plan BCP44861 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 927, a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby amended by adding Park and Conservation. Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 is hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the day of , 20 READ a second time the day of , 20 PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , 20 READ a third time the day of , 20 ADOPTED, the day of , 20 . ______________________________ ______________________________ PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER ´ SCALE 1:18,000 MAPLE RIDGE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDINGBylaw No. Map No. Purpose: From:To: To Amend Schedule BInstitutional, Rural Resource, and Suburban ResidentialIndustrial Estate Suburban ResidentialRural Resource Suburban Residential 7299-2016926 ParkConservation ´ SCALE 1:18,000 MAPLE RIDGE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDINGBylaw No. Map No. Purpose: To Amend Schedule C as shown To Add to Park To Add To Conservation 7299-2016927 City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: December 5, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2012-109-DVP FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: CoW SUBJECT: Development Variance Permit 24979 108 Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A development Variance Permit application 2012-109-DVP has been received in conjunction with a rezoning and subdivision application to rezone the subject property from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) to allow for future subdivision into 13 single family residential lots. The requested variance is to: Reduce the minimum lot width for lots 1, 10, 11, 12 and 13 from 15 m (50 ft.) to: 14.6 m (47.9 ft.) for lot 1 14.7 m (48.2 ft.) for lot 10 14.7 m (48.2 ft.) for lot 11 14.3 m (46.9 ft.) for lot 12 14.3 m (46.9 ft.) for lot 13 Council will be considering final reading for rezoning application 2012-109-RZ on December 6, 2016. It is recommended that Development Variance Permit 2012-109-DVP be approved. RECOMMENDATION: That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2012-109-DVP respecting property located at 24979 108 Avenue. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context Applicant: Aplin & Martin Consultants Ltd. Legal Description: Lot “A” Section 11 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 23702 OCP: Existing: Low/Medium Density Residential Zoning: Existing: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Proposed: RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) 1109 - 2 - Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Residential Zone: RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) with Density Bonus to R-1 (Residential District) Designation: Low/ Medium Density Residential South: Use: Residential Zone: R-1 (Residential District) Designation: Medium Density Residential East: Use: Residential Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Designation: Suburban Residential West: Use: Residential Zone: RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium DensityResidential) Designation: Low/Medium Density Residential Existing Use of Property: Residential Proposed Use of Property: Residential Site Area: 0.82 Ha (2.15 acres) Access: 108 Avenue and Morrisette Place Servicing requirement: Urban Standard b) Project Description: The subject property, located at 24979 108 Avenue, is within the Albion Area Plan. The single family home that was located on the property has recently been demolished, as a condition of rezoning. To the west are single family RS-1b (One Family Urban (Median Density) Residential) lots, to the north are single family RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential), with a Density Bonus to R- 1 (Residential District) sized lots; to the east are single family RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) lots; and to the south are R-1 (Residential District) lots. The applicant is proposing subdivision into 13 single family residential lots. c) Variance 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 variance and rationale for support are described below: Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985, Schedule D – Minimum Lot Area Dimensions. To reduce the minimum required lot width of 15 m (50 ft.) for the following lots to:  14.6 m (47.9 ft.) for lot 1  14.7 m (48.2 ft.) for lot 10  14.7 m (48.2 ft.) for lot 11  14.3 m (46.9 ft.) for lot 12  14.3 m (46.9 ft.) for lot 13 The proposed reduction in lot width, to the above mentioned lots, is required to allow for a future potential Lot 14, directly north of the development site. Potential Lot 14 is currently hooked to Lot 1 on the adjacent northern development, located across 109 Avenue, which was recently rezoned to RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential), with a Density Bonus to R-1 (Residential - 3 - District), (see Appendix D). The property owner of the subject property and owner of the adjacent northern Lot 1 are currently negotiating the terms for a purchase of proposed Lot 14, which would be the subject of a separate subdivision application at a later date. The future potential Lot 14 would remain as an RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential) zoned lot, and would use the Density Bonus to R-1 (Residential District) specifications. A no-build covenant will be placed on a portion of the subject application Lot 13, 1.4 m in width, to ensure that proposed Lot 14 meets the minimum requirements for lot width of the R-1 (Residential District) zone. 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. CONCLUSION: The proposed variance to reduce the minimum lot width to lots 1, 10, 11, 12 and 13 is supported to allow a future potential Lot 14 to develop, currently hooked to Lot 1 on the adjacent northern development (see Appendix D). The variance will allow for an effective assembly of land between the neighbouring properties; otherwise, the hooked portion could become an unkempt remnant parcel. The subject property owner and the neighbouring property owner are currently negotiating the terms for purchase of potential Lot 14. It is therefore recommended that this application be favourably considered and the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal Development Variance Permit 2012-109-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 E.C. Swabey” __________________________________________________ Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Subject Map Appendix B – Ortho Map Appendix C – Subdivision Plan, indicating proposed width variances for Lots 1, 10, 11, 12 and 13 Appendix D – Land Assembly Map, necessary to create future combined Lot 14 City of PittMeadows District ofLangley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Jul 8, 2013 2012-109-VP BY: JV 24979-108 Ave CORPORATION OFTHE DISTRICT OFMAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT2488610891 10921 249071084824937 249852490310793 10822 10860 249002490624913249172492224927107922493724940 24979249022490510785 249271087224947 2498224988249062491524930249432500725010248922491024916249332 4 9 3 2 10836 2499624912249502490724917249202492310782249 ST.109 AVE.MORRISETTE PL.108B AVE.249A ST.108A AVE. 108 AVE. 27 BCP 33200 1 BCP 49693 15 31 10 3 45 4 11 6 P 23702 26 22 20 16 21 17 9 14 78 P 23702 27 1 19 2 8 BCP 33200 5 10 BCP 33200 2 18 11 44 12 P 34411 6 7 BCP 49693 3 4 9 5 77 A Rem B 28 29 30 8 7 13 79 Subject Property ´ Scale: 1:1,500 APPENDIX A City of PittMeadows District of Langley District of MissionFRASER R. ^ DATE: Dec 9, 2015 FILE: 2012-109-RZ BY: PC PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBJECT PROPERTY ´ Scale: 1:2,000 24979 108 AVENUE Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2011 APPENDIX B APPENDIX C Proposed Lot 14 Currently hooked to Lot 1 at above development APPENDIX D City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: December 5, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2016-389-CP FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: CoW SUBJECT: Council Policy 6.21 – Development Sign Policy Review EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On October 24, 2016, staff presented a draft Council Policy 6.21 - Development Sign Policy and updated sign template that included seven revisions to the existing Council policy. The revisions proposed are to address the recommendations of the Mayor’s Open Government Task Force and to improve how development applications are communicated and advertised to the public. At the October 24, 2016 Workshop, staff recommended forwarding the proposed changes to the Development Liaison Committee for review by the Urban Development Institute (UDI) and the Greater Vancouver Homebuilders’ Association (GVHBA). This referral has occurred and no revisions were suggested. Accordingly, it is now recommended that the draft policy be adopted. RECOMMENDATION: That Council Policy 6.21 - Development Sign Policy, dated September 12, 2012 be repealed and replaced with the attached draft Council Policy 6.21 - Development Sign Policy. DISCUSSION: The proposed Council Policy 6.21 - Development Sign Policy included a new sign template as well as the following changes: Increasing the duration of sign posting; Building in flexibility for the Director of Planning to require additional signs depending on land size and geometry; Including a subdivision layout or building rendering on the sign prior to Public Hearing; Removing technical jargon and using easily understood language; Adding colour for visual interest; Adding email contact information, with opportunities to direct residents to the Land Development Application Viewer (gis.mapleridge.ca/LandDevelopmentViewer); and Adding Land Use Contract Amendments and Discharges to list of applications requiring a development sign, and Director of Planning discretion for all other applications as necessary. Following the October 24, 2016 Workshop, a referral was sent to the Development Liaison Committee requesting review of the draft policy and sign template by the Urban Development Institute (UDI) and the Greater Vancouver Homebuilders’ Association (GVHBA). The UDI and GVHBA circulated the information to their members and responded that they support the policy and feel it brings more clarity to developers and the public. No suggestions for change were provided through that referral process. 1110 - 2 - CONCLUSION: The revisions proposed to Council Policy 6.21 - Development Sign Policy are to address the recommendations of the Mayor’s Open Government Task Force and to improve how development applications are communicated and advertised to the public. It is recommended that the attached draft Council Policy 6.21 -Development Sign Policy be adopted. “Original signed by Amelia Bowden” _______________________________________________ Prepared by: Amelia Bowden, M.Urb 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 E.C. Swabey” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A – Current Council Policy 6.21 Appendix B – Proposed Council Policy 6.21 Appendix C – Revised Template Page 1 of 7 Policy 6.21 POLICY MANUAL Title: DEVELOPMENT SIGN POLICY Policy No : 6.21 Supersedes: Revised Authority: Legislative Operational Approval: Council CMT General Manager Effective Date: September 12, 2012 Review Date: 2013 That with respect to the posting of development signs, be it resolved that the policy take effect when approved by Council. 1.This policy shall apply to all Official Community Plan, Rezoning, and Heritage Revitalization Agreement development applications. 2.Development signs shall be placed to indicate to the general public the intent of a development application and to indicate the property(ies) involved in an application. 3.The applicant shall be solely responsible for the preparation, placement, maintenance and removal of the sign(s) and there shall be no cost to the municipality. 4.The sign(s) shall be placed on the site a minimum of 10 calendar days prior to consideration of the application for First Reading at Committee of the Whole. Failure to place the sign at the property will prevent further processing of the application. A photo of the sign on the property must be provided prior to consideration of the application for First Reading at Committee of the Whole. 5.The following information shall be added to the development sign only when required: Notification of a Development Information Meeting (D.I.M.) must be placed on the site a minimum of 10 calendar days prior to the Development Information Meeting. Failure to place the sign at the property 10 days prior to the scheduled Development Information Meeting will invalidate the Development Information Meeting and another meeting will be required. Notification of a Public Hearing (P.H.) must be placed on the site a minimum of 10 and no more than 20 calendar days prior to the Public Hearing. Failure to place the sign at the property 10 days prior to the scheduled Public Hearing will result in the application being withdrawn from the agenda of that Public Hearing. 6.The sign(s) shall be placed in a prominent location on the site, shall be clearly visible and shall not be obscured. Where a site abuts more than one road, one sign for each road frontage may be required. The sign shall not obstruct visibility for vehicle traffic. APPENDIX A Page 2 of 7 Policy 6.21 7. The size, layout and arrangement of text on the sign(s) sha ll be in accordance with the attached sketches. The overall dimensions of the sign shall be 1.2 m by 2.4 m (4 ft by 8 ft). 8. The content of the sign shall be subject to the approval of the municipality and shall contain the following information: a) The development application number; b) The purpose of the application (e.g. single family lots, townhouses, commercial units, or heritage revitalization); c) A description of the development proposal: i. For subdivision: Proposed number of lots, lot size range; or; ii. For multi-family, commercial, or industrial: Proposed number of units and total site area. d) The date, place and time of the Development Information Meeting (if required); e) The date, place and time of the Public Hearing; f) An invitation to obtain information from the applicant and the Planning Department with contact numbers and the District of Maple Ridge website; g) Additional information as may be deemed necessary by the Director of Planning. 9. The sign(s) shall contain a 0.6 m by 0.6 m (2 ft by 2 ft) map showing the location of the property involved in the application. 10. The sign shall be removed within 30 days following the Public Hearing or upon denial of the application. The sign removal shall be solely the responsibility of the applicant. 11. The sign shall be maintained by the applicant and any required repair or replacement due to damage, theft, or vandalism shall be solely the responsibility of the applicant. Purpose: To ensure proper notification to the public of proposed development changes in their community. Definitions: Page 3 of 7 Policy 6.21 Key Areas of Responsibility Action to Take  Development application received  Applicant is provided a copy of the Development Sign Policy 6.21  Correspondence sent to applicant requesting draft of sign for review and approval  Applicant submits proof of sign installation for file record  Application forwarded to Committee of the Whole for First Reading  Applicant submits proof of Development Information Meeting notification decal submitted to the Planning Department (if required)  Applicant submits proof of Public Hearing notification decal submitted to Planning Department  Applicant confirms sign removed after Public Hearing Responsibility  Planning Development Services Technician or Planning Technician/ Planner  Planning Technician/Planner  Planning Technician/Planner  Planning Technician/Planner  Planning Technician/Planner  Planning Technician/Planner  Planning Technician/Planner Page 4 of 7 Policy 6.21 Page 5 of 7 Policy 6.21 Page 6 of 7 Policy 6.21 Page 7 of 7 Policy 6.21 Page 1 of 2 Policy POLICY MANUAL Title: DEVELOPMENT SIGN POLICY Policy No : 6.21 Supersedes: Authority: Legislative Operational Approval: Council CMT General Manager Effective Date: Review Date: That with respect to the posting of development signs, be it resolved that the policy take effect when approved by Council. 1.This policy shall apply to development applications including: Official Community Plan amendments and Rezoning, and other applications at the discretion of the Director of Planning. This policy shall also apply to amendments or discharges of Land Use Contracts and Heritage Revitalization Agreements involving changes to use or density. 2.Development signs shall be placed to indicate to the general public the intent of a development application and to indicate the property(ies) involved in an application. 3.The applicant shall be solely responsible for the preparation, placement, maintenance and removal of the sign(s) and there shall be no cost to the City. 4.A subdivision layout or building rendering (minimum 300 DPI), as applicable, shall be installed on the sign no less than 10 days prior to consideration at Public Hearing. 5.The sign(s) shall be placed on the site a minimum of 10 calendar days prior to consideration of the application for First Reading at Committee of the Whole. Failure to place the sign at the property will prevent further processing of the application. A photo of the sign on the property must be provided prior to consideration of the application for First Reading at Committee of the Whole. 6.The following information shall be added to the development sign only when required as a 76 cm by 15 cm (30 in by 6 in) white decal: Notification of a Development Information Meeting (D.I.M.) must be placed on the site a minimum of 10 calendar days prior to the Development Information Meeting. Failure to place the sign at the property 10 days prior to the scheduled Development Information Meeting will invalidate the Development Information Meeting and another meeting will be required. Notification of a Public Hearing (P.H.) must be placed on the site a minimum of 10 and no more than 20 calendar days prior to the Public Hearing. Failure to place the sign at the property 10 days prior to the scheduled Public Hearing will result in the APPENDIX B Page 2 of 2 Policy application being withdrawn from the agenda of that Public Hearing. 7. The sign(s) shall be placed in a prominent location on the site, shall be clearly visible and shall not be obscured. Where a site abuts more than one road, one sign for each road frontage may be required. Additional signs may be required at the discretion of the Director of Planning due to the size or geometry of the land under development. The sign shall not obstruct visibility for vehicle traffic. 8. The size, layout and arrangement of text on the sign(s) sha ll be in accordance with the attached sketch. The overall dimensions of the sign shall be 1.2 m by 2.4 m (4 ft by 8 ft). 9. The content of the sign shall be subject to the approval of the City and shall contain the following information: a) The development application number; b) The purpose of the application (e.g. single family lots, townhouses, commercial units, or heritage revitalization); c) A description of the development proposal: i. For subdivision: Proposed number of lots, lot size range; or; ii. For multi-family, commercial, or industrial: Proposed number of units and total floor area and number of storeys. d) The date, place and time of the Development Information Meeting (if required); e) The date, place and time of the Public Hearing; f) An invitation to obtain information from the applicant and the Planning Department with contact numbers, email addresses and the City of Maple Ridge website; g) Additional information as may be deemed necessary by the Director of Planning. 10. The sign(s) shall contain a 0.56 m by 0.56 m (1.8 ft by 1.8ft) map showing the location of the property involved in the application. The sign(s) shall also contain a 0.56 m by 0.56 m (1.8 ft by 1.8 ft) subdivision layout or coloured building rendering, as applicable. 11. The sign shall be removed within 7 days following final approval or upon denial of the application from Council. The sign removal shall be solely the responsibility of the applicant. 12. The sign shall be maintained by the applicant and any required repair or replacement due to damage, theft, or vandalism shall be solely the responsibility of the applicant. Purpose: To ensure proper notification to the public of proposed development changes in their community. Definitions: CITY OF HAVE YOUR SAY ! PLANNING DEPARTMENT MAPLE RIDGE D.I.M. Decal Install on sign min. 10days before D.I.M Install on sign min. 10days before Public Hearing All text must be approved by the Planning Department prior to construction of the sign. All text is Franklin Gothic Book 2.4 m1.2 m*Provide information on proposed # of lots at subdivision or # of units and storeys as well as size range of lots at subdivision or total floor space for other developments Development Sign Drawing & Specifications 0.13m0.76 m BE PART OF THE PROCESS D.I.M DECAL PUBLIC HEARING DECAL SUBDIVISION PLAN OR RENDERING PROPOSED BUILDINGLOCATION SUBJECT PROPERTY MAP -Subject Parcel shaded -North arrow -Adjoining Roads and parcels -Road names and addresss in bold PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 604-467-7341 planning@mapleridge.ca gis.mapleridge.ca/ LandDevelopmentViewer APPLICANT: SPR Development Group 604-123-4567 development@spr.com sprdevelopmentgroup.com FOR MORE INFO To enable development of _____ ___________________________ ___________________________ ___________________________ (These numbers are approximate only and may change before final approval) PROPOSED REZONING * DEVELOPMENTAPPLICATION 12345 LOUGHEED HWY NO. 2016-001-RZ Public Hearing in the Council Chambers at the Municipal Hall on _______,_____ at_____ pm Development Information Meeting _______________________ __ pm to ___ pm APPENDIX C Public Hearing in the Council Chambers at the Municipal Hall on _______,_____ at_____ pm Development Information Meeting_______________________ __ pm to ___ pmBE PART OF THE PROCESSSUBDIVISION PLANOR RENDERINGPROPOSED BUILDINGLOCATIONSUBJECT PROPERTY MAP-Subject Parcel shaded-North Arrow-Adjoining roads and parcels-Road names and addressses in boldPLANNING DEPARTMENT:604-467-7341planning@mapleridge.cagis.mapleridge.ca/LandDevelopmentViewerAPPLICANT: SPR Development Group604-123-4567development@spr.comsprdevelopmentgroup.comFOR MORE INFOTo enable development of ______________________________________________________________________________________(These numbers are approximate only and may change before final approval)PROPOSED REZONINGDEVELOPMENTAPPLICATION 12345 LOUGHEED HWYNO. 2016-001-RZ City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read and Members of Council MEETING DATE: December 5, 2016 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Committee of the Whole SUBJECT: 2017-2021 Financial Plan Bylaw EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Municipal Council received presentations on the 2017-2021 Business Financial Plans and the Financial Overview Report at public meetings held on November 28, 29 and 30. A Financial Plan overview was presented again on the evening of November 30th. That meeting was livestreamed over the Internet and a public question and answer period followed. As part of its deliberations, Council voted on each of the incremental packages that were recommended by staff and shown on Page 18 of the Financial Overview Report. Council supported the staff recommendations with the following exceptions: 1.The Social Planning incremental request was approved contingent upon Council approving a plan to be developed at a future Workshop. 2.Council also approved an additional incremental expense for increased security in the downtown core ($20,000) to be funded from Accumulated Surplus. Council's direction is incorporated into the attached Financial Plan Bylaw. Final consideration of this bylaw will not occur until the New Year, thus allowing additional time for public input. The Financial Plan Bylaw is a consolidated plan that includes the general revenue fund, the sewer and water utility funds and the capital program. It is in a format that follows the legislated requirements. This includes revenue and tax policy disclosure, the objectives and policies regarding the proportions of revenue proposed to come from various funding sources, the distribution of property taxes among property classes, and the use of permissive tax exemptions. RECOMMENDATION(S): That Maple Ridge 2017-2021 Financial Plan Bylaw No. 7300 - 2016 be given first, second and third readings. 1131 DISCUSSION: a)Background Context The 2017–2021 Financial Plan was presented to Council at public meetings along with the Business Plans from all areas. The Financial Plan Bylaw incorporates the following direction from Council: 1.General Purpose Property Tax Increase: 1.90% in 2017 and 2018 and 2.00% per year in 2019 through 2021 2.Infrastructure Sustainability Property Tax Increase: 0.70% per year 3.Parks, Recreation and Culture Property Tax Increase: 0.25% per year 4.Storm Water Property Tax Increase: 0.30% per year 5.Water Levy Increase: 4.50% per year 6.Sewer Levy Increase: 3.60% per year 7.Recycling Levy Increase: 1.67% in 2017 and 2018 and 2.75% per year in 2019 through 2021 8.Growth in Property Tax Revenue Assumption: 2.00% per year 9.Incremental Adjustments (as outlined in pages 14 to 18 of the Financial Overview Report 2017 – 2021) were approved with the following amendments: a.The incremental for additional staffing in Social Planning (page 15) was approved, but no spending will occur until further Council discussion. b.An additional incremental adjustment of $20,000 for security was approved, and will be funded through Accumulated Surplus. 10.Provision for costs associated with growth as outlined on page 12 of the Financial Overview Report, subject to available funding 11.Capital Works Program totaling $32.9 million 2017, $27.8 million in 2018, $24.9 million in 2019, $26.5 million in 2020 and $23.5 million in 2021 12.Cost and revenue adjustments from page 13 of the Financial Overview Report, which reconciles the 2016-2020 Financial Plan with the 2017 - 2021 Financial Plan The financial strategy for additional Parks, Recreation & Culture investments (discussed on page 38 of the Financial Overview Report) was presented to Council, and feedback from the community will be sought during the public consultation process. We have about $1.6 billion invested in our infrastructure and it is important that we protect this investment. This financial plan continues the dedicated funding strategy for sustaining our infrastructure. As well, we are a growing community and along with that growth comes pressure on our existing services. This financial plan provides funding to help meet growth related demands. The funding for growth and for infrastructure sustainability are in line with Council’s Financial Sustainability Policies. The amount of incremental property tax revenue from new construction will not be known until property assessments are finalized. The growth assumption built into the financial plan for 2017 is 2.0%. Future budget amendments will include the actual growth revenue as well as projects that were approved in 2016 and are still in progress. The previously approved funding sources will also be included in the plan, placing no burden on 2017 property taxes. b)Desired Outcome A financial plan that accurately reflects planned expenditures and methods of funding that are consistent with corporate strategic plans, policies and Council direction. c)Strategic Alignment All departments submitted Business Plans which considered relevant strategic and master plans. The Financial Plan reflects Council’s Strategic Financial Sustainability Policies and Infrastructure Funding Strategy. d)Citizen/Customer Implications The business plans have far-reaching citizen and customer implications. The Financial Plan reflects the financial impact of the business plans. Property tax revenue and user fees are planned to increase as described in the above discussion. e)Statutory Requirements and Policy Implications The financial plan has been prepared in accordance with statutory requirements and Municipal financial policies. There are several requirements in the Community Charter for the Financial Plan Bylaw, including: disclosure of the proportions of revenue proposed to come from various funding sources, the distribution of property taxes among property classes, and the use of permissive tax exemptions. Explicit policies and objectives in each of these areas are also required. Maple Ridge’s approach to business planning, property taxation policies and other financial policies have addressed all these reporting requirements. The attached bylaw includes this information. Public consultation is an important and legislated component of financial plan preparation. Regular feedback and interaction with the public is also considered when business plans are developed. The business planning presentations were open to the public; there was also a live question and answer period where comments and questions were accepted in person as well as by phone, email and social media like Facebook and Twitter. f)Alternatives Council is required to adopt a five year Financial Plan Bylaw prior to May 15 each year. There are very tangible benefits to adopting the bylaw early in the year. Work plans can proceed with more certainty and construction projects can be tendered to secure companies availability in seasonal construction windows, maximizing competition and likely reducing costs. In the event that this bylaw is not adopted, the City is not authorized to make any expenditures other than those identified in the existing 2016-2020 Financial Plan Bylaw. This will require departments to curtail or delay expenditures and only proceed with capital projects that were identified in the previous financial plan. CONCLUSIONS: The Financial Plan is a multi-year planning, reviewing and reporting tool that represents Council’s priorities and commitment to providing quality services to the residents of Maple Ridge. The Financial Plan provides a forecast of the financial resources that are available to fund operations, programs and infrastructure for the five year period. The Financial Plan Bylaw is routinely amended in late April or early May to include the projects that were approved but not completed in the prior year. The change also includes an update to reflect the actual property tax revenue due to the amount of real growth. "Original signed by C.K. Lee" Prepared by: C.K. Lee, Financial Analyst "Original signed by Trevor Thompson" Approved by: Trevor Thompson, Manager of Financial Planning "Original signed by Trevor Thompson" Approved by: Paul Gill, General Manager Corporate and Financial Services “Original signed by Christine Carter” Approved by: Frank Quinn, General Manager, Public Works & Development “Original signed by David Boag” Approved by: Kelly Swift, General Manager, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services "Original signed by E.C. Swabey" Approved by: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7300-2016 A bylaw to establish the five year financial plan for the years 2017 through 2021 ____________________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, through a public process in an open meeting the business and financial plans were presented; AND WHEREAS, the public will have the opportunity to provide comments or suggestions with respect to the financial plan; AND WHEREAS, Council deems this to be a process of public consultation under Section 166 of the Community Charter; NOW THEREFORE, the Council for the City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows: 1.This Bylaw may be cited as “Maple Ridge 2017-2021 Financial Plan Bylaw No. 7300-2016”. 2.Statement 1 attached to and forming part of this bylaw is hereby declared to be the Consolidated Financial Plan of the City of Maple Ridge for the years 2017 through 2021. 3.Statement 2 attached to and forming part of the bylaw is hereby declared to be the Revenue and Property Tax Policy Disclosure for the City of Maple Ridge. 4.Statement 3 attached to and forming part of the bylaw is hereby declared to be the Capital Expenditure Disclosure for the City of Maple Ridge. READ a first time the day of , 20 . READ a second time the day of , 20 . READ a third time the day of , 20 . PUBLIC CONSULTATION completed on the day of , 20 . ADOPTED the day of , 20 . ________________________________ PRESIDING MEMBER ________________________________ CORPORATE OFFICER ATTACHMENT: Statement 1, Statement 2 and Statement 3 Attachment to Maple Ridge 2017-2021 Financial Plan Bylaw 7300-2016 Statement 1 Consolidated Financial Plan 2017-2021 (in $ thousands) 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 REVENUES Revenues Development Fees Developer Contributed Assets 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Developer Cost Charges 4,478 1,189 5,703 8,906 7,447 Developer Specified Projects ----- Parkland Acquisition 200 200 200 200 200 Contributions from Others 1,300 1,338 1,307 1,329 1,321 Development Fees Total 25,978 22,727 27,210 30,435 28,968 Property Taxes 78,526 82,600 86,828 91,255 95,917 Parcel Charges 3,012 3,085 3,181 3,282 3,385 Fees & Charges 40,256 41,793 43,409 44,994 46,664 Interest 1,898 1,913 1,928 1,943 1,958 Grants (Other Govts) 4,500 3,899 3,709 4,168 4,379 Property Sales 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,000 - Total Revenues 155,670 157,517 167,765 177,077 181,271 EXPENDITURES Operating Expenditures Interest Payments on Debt 2,006 1,940 1,815 1,687 1,554 Amortization Expense 19,780 19,780 19,780 19,780 19,780 Other Expenditures 103,333 106,439 109,898 113,589 117,317 Total Expenditures 125,119 128,159 131,493 135,056 138,651 ANNUAL SURPLUS 30,551 29,358 36,272 42,021 42,620 Add Back: Amortization Expense (Surplus) 19,780 19,780 19,780 19,780 19,780 Less: Capital Expenditures 32,952 27,831 24,859 26,520 23,530 Less: Developer Contributed Capital 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 CHANGE IN FINANCIAL POSITION (2,621) 1,307 11,193 15,281 18,870 OTHER REVENUES Add: Borrowing Proceeds 6,000 7,000 --- OTHER EXPENDITURES Less: Principal Payments on Debt 3,706 3,723 3,803 3,886 3,972 TOTAL REVENUES LESS EXPENSES (327) 4,584 7,390 11,395 14,898 INTERNAL TRANSFERS Transfer from Reserve Funds Capital Works Reserve 3,849 150 150 150 150 Equipment Replacement Reserve 2,298 3,921 2,307 1,671 1,603 Fire Department Capital Reserve 585 ---- Land Reserve ----- Local Improvement Reserve ----- Sanitary Sewer Reserve ----- Transfer from Reserve Fund Total 6,732 4,071 2,457 1,821 1,753 Less :Transfer to Reserve Funds Capital Works Reserve 1,915 3,364 3,803 2,292 2,626 Equipment Replacement Reserve 2,760 2,893 3,028 3,192 3,358 Fire Dept. Capital Acquisition 783 861 991 1,127 1,267 Land Reserve 5 5 5 5 5 Local Improvement Reserve ----- Sanitary Sewer Reserve 30 30 30 30 30 Total Transfer to Reserve Funds 5,493 7,153 7,857 6,646 7,286 Transfer from (to) Own Reserves (74) (271) (826) (1,303) (1,109) Transfer from (to) Surplus (838) (1,231) (1,164) (5,267) (8,256) Transfer from (to) Surplus & own Reserves (912) (1,502) (1,990) (6,570) (9,365) TOTAL INTERNAL TRANSFERS 327 (4,584) (7,390) (11,395) (14,898) BALANCED BUDGET ----- Attachment to Maple Ridge 2017-2021 Financial Plan Bylaw 7300-2016 Statement 2 Revenue and Property Tax Policy Disclosure REVENUE DISCLOSURE Revenue Proportions 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 $ ('000s) % $ ('000s) % $ ('000s) % $ ('000s) % $ ('000s) % Revenues Property Taxes 78,526 48.6 82,600 50.2 86,828 51.8 91,255 51.5 95,917 52.9 Parcel Charges 3,012 1.9 3,085 1.9 3,181 1.9 3,282 1.9 3,385 1.9 Fees & Charges 40,256 24.9 41,793 25.4 43,409 25.9 44,994 25.4 46,664 25.7 Borrowing Proceeds 6,000 3.7 7,000 4.3 - - - - - - Other Sources 33,876 21.0 30,039 18.3 34,347 20.5 37,546 21.2 35,305 19.5 Total Revenues 161,670 100 164,517 100 167,765 100 177,077 100 181,271 100 Other Sources include: Development Fees Total 25,978 16.1 22,727 13.8 27,210 16.2 30,435 17.2 28,968 16.0 Interest 1,898 1.2 1,913 1.2 1,928 1.1 1,943 1.1 1,958 1.1 Grants (Other Govts) 4,500 2.8 3,899 2.4 3,709 2.2 4,168 2.4 4,379 2.4 Property Sales 1,500 0.9 1,500 0.9 1,500 0.9 1,000 0.6 - - 33,876 21.0 30,039 18.3 34,347 20.5 37,546 21.2 35,305 19.5 OBJECTIVES & POLICIES Property Tax Revenue Property tax revenue is the City’s primary revenue source, and one which is heavily reliant on the residential class. Diversification of the tax base and generation of non-tax revenue are ongoing objectives, outlined in Financial Sustainability Policy 5.52 section 6. The Financial Plan includes property tax increases that are as listed below: 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 General Purpose 1.90% 1.90% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Infrastructure Replacement 0.70% 0.70% 0.70% 0.70% 0.70% Parks & Recreation 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% 0.25% Drainage 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% 0.30% Total Property Tax Increase 3.15% 3.15% 3.25% 3.25% 3.25% Additional information on the tax increases and the cost drivers can be found in the most recent Financial Plan Overview Report. Specific policies discussing the tax increases are included in the Financial Sustainability Plan and related policies which were adopted in 2004. Property tax revenue includes property taxes as well as grants in lieu of property taxes. Parcel Charges Parcel charges are comprised of a recycling charge, a sewer charge and on some properties, a local area service or improvement charge. Parcel charges are a useful tool to charge all or a subset of properties for a fixed or variable amount to support services. Unlike property taxation the variable amount does not need to be related to property assessment value, but can be something that more accurately reflects the cost of the service. Attachment to Maple Ridge 2017-2021 Financial Plan Bylaw 7300-2016 Statement 2 (cont.) Revenue and Property Tax Policy Disclosure Fees & Charges Fees should be reviewed annually and updated if needed. Recent fee amendments include recreation fees, development application fees, business license fees and cemetery fees. A major amendment to the Development Costs Charges (DCC), recommended no more frequently than every five years, was completed in 2008. Minor DCC amendments are done more frequently. Some fees are used to offset the costs of providing specific services. The utility fees are reviewed annually with a view towards using rate stabilization practices to smooth out large fluctuations in rates, as set out in the Business Planning Guidelines. Borrowing Proceeds Debt is used when it makes sense, and with caution as it commits future cash flows to debt payments, restricting the ability to use these funds to provide other services. The source of the debt payments needs to be considered as does the justification for advancing the project. More information on previously approved borrowing can be found in the most recent Financial Plan Overview report. Other Sources This will vary greatly year to year as it includes: Development fees which fund capital projects from the DCC Reserve Contribution from others in relation to capital Grants which are sought from various agencies and may be leveraged with City funds PROPERTY TAX DISCLOSURE The 2017 property tax revenue and updated rates will be included in a Financial Plan Amending Bylaw that proceeds the Property Tax Rate Bylaw, as the 2017 property assessed values are not yet finalized. For information purposes the 2016 distribution is included. Property Tax Revenue Distribution Property Class Taxation Revenue Assessed Value Tax Rate Multiple ('000s) ('000s) ($/1000) (Rate/Res.Rate) 1 Residential 56,532 78.3% 12,918,297 91.2% 4.3761 1.00 2 Utility 541 0.8% 13,516 0.1% 40.0000 9.14 4 Major Industry 591 0.8% 17,291 0.1% 34.1952 7.81 5 Light Industry 2,760 3.8% 232,323 1.7% 11.8801 2.71 6 Business/Other 11,565 16.0% 973,520 6.9% 11.8801 2.71 8 Rec./ Non-Profit 39 0.1% 2,577 0.0% 15.2783 3.49 9 Farm 164 0.2% 4,852 0.0% 33.7082 7.70 Total 72,192 100% 14,162,376 100% Attachment to Maple Ridge 2017-2021 Financial Plan Bylaw 7300-2016 Statement 2 (cont.) Revenue and Property Tax Policy Disclosure PROPERTY TAX DISCLOSURE Objectives & Policies Property taxes are the City’s largest source of revenue and are contained by efficient business practices. Annual business planning practices are the mechanism for resource allocation decisions. The City’s Financial Sustainability Policy section 6 discusses the necessity of diversifying the tax base. Development of employment-related properties is one method of diversification; therefore a key performance measurement in Strategic Economic Initiatives tracks the increased investment and development of non-residential properties. A policy in the Financial Sustainability Plan that calls for stable tax increases and the adoption of the annual increase early in the prior year in the Business Planning Guidelines provides citizens with a more stable and predictable set of cost increases. In some cases costs are phased in over multiple years to stay within the set tax increases. Property Tax Rates It is policy to adjust property tax rates annually to negate the impact of fluctuations in the market values of properties. Tax rates are reduced to negate the market increases. Property tax increases are then applied at the same relative increase for all classes, unless legislation restricts the rates, as with Class 2, Utility. The Business Class and Light Industry Class properties have the same tax rate and are treated as a composite class when setting the tax rates, as the types of businesses in each class are similar. In 2016, the increase was reduced from 3.15% to 1.85% to reduce the relative property tax burden for these properties. A review was done on the Major Industry Class rates and the recommendation from the Audit and Finance Committee and Council was a 5% property tax reduction in both 2009 and 2010 to support additional investments in the subject property and to keep rates competitive. In 2014 and 2015, property taxes charged to major industrial class properties were reduced by $70,000 in each year. In reviewing tax rates to ensure competitiveness, absolute rates, tax multiples and overall tax burden are considered. The impact that assessed values have when comparing to other geographical areas must be considered in a comparison of tax rates. Permissive Tax Exemptions Council has set policies around the use of permissive tax exemptions. These are Council Policies 5.19 through 5.24. These policies discuss Churches, Community Halls, Heritage Sites, Homes for the Care of Children and the Relief of the Aged, the Poor, the Disabled and the Infirm, Municipal Recreational Services, Private Hospitals and Daycares, Private School and Youth Recreation Groups. Revitalization Tax Exemption Program The Employment Land Investment Incentive Program is designed to encourage job creation by supporting private investment in buildings and infrastructure on identified "employment lands". More information on this tax exemption can be found on our website. Attachment to Maple Ridge 2017-2021 Financial Plan Bylaw 7300-2016 Statement 3 Capital Expenditure Disclosure The sole purpose of this statement is to meet legislative requirements and highlight the value of the DCC program; no other conclusions should be drawn from the figures as the information could be misconstrued. This disclosure is required under the Local Government Act s. 560 (2); capital costs attributable to projects to be partially funded by Development Cost Charges (DCC) must be included in the financial plan. The DCC program includes projects as far out as 2035 so the capital expenditures must be extended to match. Certain types of projects are not planned past the five year time horizon of the financial plan. Much less scrutiny is given to projects that are planned in years 2022 through 2035. Projects in these years typically exceed likely funding available. Capital Works Program for 2022 – 2035 (in $ thousands) Capital Works Program 336,703 Source of Funding Development Fees Development Cost Charges 145,877 Parkland Acquisition Reserve - Contribution from Others 3,304 149,181 Borrowing Proceeds - Grants 42,664 Transfer from Reserve Funds 18,792 Revenue Funds 126,066 187,522 336,703 City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: December 5, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council SUBJECT: Council Procedure Amending Bylaw 7301-2016 –Release of Vote Pattern from Closed Meetings EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At the November 21, 2016 Council Meeting staff were directed to prepare a Council Procedure Amending Bylaw to include: When a resolution is released by Council from Closed status, and unless otherwise resolved by Council, the names of any members who voted in the negative will be released as decided on a case by case basis. Bylaw 7301-2016 is included as attachment A and will amend the Council Procedure Bylaw 6472-2007 with the change noted above. RECOMMENDATIONS: That Bylaw 7301-2016 be given first, second and third reading. DISCUSSION: For transparency, it is prudent for Council to release resolutions from Closed Meetings as soon as is possible after the matter has been settled. Council has directed staff to prepare a bylaw amendment to release the voting pattern on a case by case basis to ensure that consideration is given to sensitive matters when necessary. Should the bylaw be given first, second and third readings, the amendment will be advertised to allow for public comment. “Original signed by Laurie Darcus” ______________________________________________ Prepared by: Laurie Darcus, MA, MMC, SCMP, CPM Manager of Legislative Services and Emergency Program “Original signed by Paul Gill” _______________________________________ Approved by: Paul Gill, B.B.A, C.G.A, F.R.M General Manager: Corporate & Financial Services “Original signed by E.C. Swabey” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer 1132 CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7301-2016 A Bylaw to amend Maple Ridge Council Procedures Bylaw No. 6472-2007 ______________________________________________________________________________ WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Council Procedures Bylaw No. 6472-2007 as amended; NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows: 1.This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Council Procedure Amending Bylaw No. 7301-2016.” 2.That Maple Ridge Council Procedure Bylaw No. 6472-2007, be amended as follows: a)That Part 13 – Voting at Council Meetings, be amended by: Adding to - Recording of Votes, the following: 37.1 When a resolution is released by Council from Closed status, and unless otherwise resolved by Council, the names of any members who voted in the negative will be released as decided on a case by case basis. READ a first time the th day of , 2016. READ a second time the th day of , 2016. READ a third time the th day of , 2016. ADOPTED the th day of , 2017. _____________________________ ____________________________ PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER 1594917 District of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read DATE: December 5, 2017 and Members of Council FILE NO: 0530-01 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: C of W SUBJECT: 2017 Acting Mayor, Committee & Commission Appointments EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The attached list of appointments has been reviewed by the Mayor and is now presented to Council for consideration. RECOMMENDATION: That the Acting Mayor schedule and appointments to Government Agencies, Advisory and/or Legislated Committees, Special Committees, Community Groups and Organizations and Standing Committees as attached to the staff report dated December 5, 2017 be approved. DISCUSSION: Council is required under its Procedure Bylaw to appoint from amongst its members, for defined periods of the year, members to serve on a rotating basis as the Acting Mayor. The current Acting Mayor schedule concludes on January 31, 2017. Appointments to Committees and Commissions are traditionally reviewed annually. Respecting this tradition, the attached list provides the proposed 2017 appointments. “Original signed by Laurie Darcus” Prepared by: Laurie Darcus, MA, MMC, SCMP, CPM Manager of Legislative Services and Emergency Program “Original signed by Laurie Darcus” for Approved by: Paul Gill, B.B.A., C.G.A., F.R.M. General Manager: Corporate & Financial Services “Original signed by E.C. Swabey” Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer :ld Attachments: Committee and Commission Appointments and Acting Mayor Appointments 2017 1133 City of Maple Ridge Committee & Commission Appointments for 2017 Government Agencies 2017 Appointments Fraser Basin Council Councillor Masse Fraser Valley Regional Library Councillor Bell Alternate: Councillor Duncan Metro Vancouver Board Mayor Read Alternate: Councillor Shymkiw Mayors’ Council on Regional Transportation Mayor Read Alternate: Councillor Shymkiw Advisory and/or Legislated Committees 2017 Appointments Active Transportation Advisory Committee Councillor Duncan Alternate: Councillor Masse Agricultural Advisory Committee Councillor Speirs Alternate: Councillor Duncan Community Heritage Commission Councillor Speirs Alternate: Mayor Read Economic Development Committee Councillor Shymkiw Alternate: Mayor Read Environmental Advisory Committee Councillor Masse Alternate Councillor Duncan Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues Councillor Speirs Alternate: Councillor Duncan Public Art Steering Committee Councillor Duncan Alternate: Councillor Bell Social Policy Advisory Committee Councillor Masse Alternate: Councillor Speirs Special Committees 2017 Appointments Parcel Tax Review Panel (formerly Court of Revision or Frontage Tax) Mayor Read Councillor Bell Councillor Robson Pitt Meadows Airport Society Mayor Read Councillor Masse Maple Ridge & Pitt Meadows Policing Task Force Mayor Read Councillor Robson Committee and Commission Appointments 2016 Page 2 Community Groups & Organizations/Liaisons 2017 Appointments Alouette River Management Society Councillor Masse Alternate: Councillor Robson Business Improvement Association Staff member as appointed Alternate: Councillor Shymkiw Chamber of Commerce Staff member as appointed Alternate: Councillor Shymkiw Fraser Health Authority Mayor Read Alternate: Councillor Shymkiw Fraser Regional Correctional Centre Mayor Read Alternate: Councillor Robson Ridge Meadows Seniors Society Councillor Bell Alternate: Mayor Read Malcolm Knapp Research Forest Community Advisory Board Councillor Speirs Alternate: None Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Arts Council Councillor Bell Alternate: Councillor Duncan Ridge Meadows Recycling Society Councillor Duncan Alternate: Councillor Masse Ridge Meadows Youth Justice Advocacy Association Councillor Shymkiw Alternate: Councillor Duncan Standing Committees 2017 Appointments Committee of the Whole All Members of Council Chaired by the Presiding Councillor Audit & Finance Committee All Members of Council Councillors Presiding as Chair at Committee of the Whole and as Acting Mayor 2017 Acting Mayor December 2016/January 2017 Councillor Masse February/March 2017 Councillor Duncan April/May 2017 Councillor Shymkiw June/July 2017 Councillor Speirs August/September 2017 Councillor Robson October/November 2017 Councillor Bell City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: December 5, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C.O.W. SUBJECT: Bylaw for Highway Closure & Dedication Removal for a portion of Laneway (18000 Block of 226 Street and 227 Street) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In the fall of 2015, the City completed negotiations for the sale of 14 properties it had acquired in the City’s Town Centre. The development plan will see these 14 properties consolidated and then later subdivided to create five separate parcels. These five parcels will in turn form the footprint for the five planned phases of residential and commercial development. An east-west laneway currently bisects the 14 properties, between Selkirk Avenue and 119 Avenue (18000 Block of 226 Street and 227 Street). While the westerly portion of the lane currently services the existing residential development, the developer has approached the City to request closure and sale of the easterly portion to support both the construction of an underground parking lot and a more fulsome development design. While the closure of the lane will limit east-west vehicular access through the proposed development, pedestrian mobility will be maintained. See attached survey plan (Appendix B) for location of the proposed lane closure. In order to sell the subject property, Council would first have to pass the attached bylaw closing the highway and removing the road dedication. At that point, the City would take ownership in title, subdivide to create two legal lots and could dispose of the property as allowed under Section 26 of the Community Charter. RECOMMENDATION(S): That Maple Ridge Highway Closure & Dedication Removal Bylaw No. 7291-2016 be given first, second and third readings. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: The attached advisory from the Government of British Columbia, titled “Highway Closure & Removal of Highway Dedication”, describes the process as required under the Community Charter. Upon approval of the above recommendation, staff will provide public notice of the highway closure and road dedication removal in the local newspaper, in accordance with Section 40 and Section 94 of the Community Charter. Persons affected by the bylaw will be given an opportunity to submit written responses to the Corporate Officer for Council consideration before final reading. Operators of utilities would not be affected by the closure and no property owner will be deprived of access to his or her property. The closed portion of highway will be subdivided 1134 into a legal residential lot and this residential lot disposed of as per the provisions contained within Sections 40 and 94 of the Community Charter. b) Interdepartmental Implications: The Property Management Committee and the Planning, Engineering and Fire Departments support the highway closure and dedication removal. “Original signed by Darrell Denton”_______________ Prepared by: Darrell Denton Property & Risk Manager “Original signed by Laurie Darcus” _________ Approved by: Laurie Darcus Manager of Legislative Services & Emergency Program “Original signed by David Pollock”_________________ Approved by: David Pollock, P. Eng Municipal Engineer “Original signed by Paul Gill”_______________________ Approved by: Paul Gill, BBA, CGA General Manager – Corporate & Financial Services “Original signed by Frank Quinn”____________________ Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng, General Manager, Public Works and Development Services “Original signed by E.C. Swabey” Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer Attachments Appendix A: Bylaw for Highway Closure & Dedication Removal within the Municipality Appendix B: Survey Plan of Proposed Roadway Closure Appendix C: Government of British Columbia Advisory - Highway Closure & Removal of Highway Dedication Appendix A: Bylaw for Highway Closure & Dedication Removal within the Municipality CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7291-2016 A Bylaw for Highway Closure & Dedication Removal within the Municipality. WHEREAS Council may, in the same bylaw, close all or part of a highway and remove the dedication of a highway; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows: 1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as “Maple Ridge Highway Closure & Dedication Removal Bylaw No. 7291-2016". 2. Attached hereto and forming part of this Bylaw is a copy of Reference Plan EPP65494 dated September 21, 2016 and prepared by Michael Bernemann, Terra Pacific Land Surveying, a B.C. Land Surveyor, and marked as Appendix “B”. 3. That portion of public highway comprised of 666m2 identified as ‘Lane’ outlined in heavy black line on the aforementioned described Reference Plan is hereby declared stopped and closed to public traffic and shall cease forever to be dedicated as public highway. 4. The portion of the public highway outlined in heavy black line and identified as “Lane” on the Reference Plan attached to and made part of this Bylaw has its dedication as a highway removed. 5. Council shall, before adopting this Bylaw, cause Public Notice of its intention to do so to be given by advertisement once each week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper published or circulating in the City of Maple Ridge and posted at the public posting places as required by Sections 40 and 94 of the Community Charter. READ a first time the day of , 2016. READ a second time the day of , 2016. READ a third time the day of , 2016. ADOPTED the day of , 2016. _________________________________ PRESIDING MEMBER ________________________________ CORPORATE OFFICER Appendix B. Survey Plan of Proposed Roadway Closure Appendix C: Government of British Columbia Advisory - Highway Closure & Removal of Highway Dedication Prior to the Community Charter municipalities had right of possession of local highways but ownership was in the name of the province. The Community Charter gives municipalities ownership of most municipal highways (exceptions are listed in s. 35(2)). Municipalities also have authority to regulate and prohibit in relation to highways, (subject to provincial legislation) and the authority to close highways. Since municipalities now own local highways (subject to the provincial right of resumption), provisions have been established if a municipality wants to use a portion of the highway for a different purpose, or if it wants to dispose of it. All of these provisions can be found in Part 3, Division 5 of the Community Charter. What Is Required 1. Highway Closure and Removal of Highway Dedication Municipalities can close a highway and remove its highway dedication by bylaw. These actions can be done either in one bylaw, or by separate bylaws. The bylaw(s) must include a reference plan or explanatory plan outlining the portion of road that will be affected. If done separately, the bylaws can be passed concurrently, or at different times. Prior to adopting a highway closure bylaw, a municipality must: • provide public notice in accordance with section 94; • provide an opportunity for persons who are affected by the bylaw to make representations to council; • deliver notice of its intention to close a highway to operators of utilities whose works council considers will be affected by the closure. The operator of a utility affected by a closure may require the municipality to provide reasonable accommodation of the utility’s works. If the municipality and utility are unable to reach an agreement the matter may be settled by arbitration under the Commercial Arbitration Act; • ensure that a proposed highway closure does not completely deprive an owner of access to his/her property unless the municipality receives consent from the property owner or compensates the owner and provides alternative access; • refer any highway closure bylaws to the Minister of Transportation (through the local Ministry of Transportation District office) for approval where the proposed highway closure is within 800 metres of an arterial highway (note that specified District staff may grant such approval on behalf of the Minister of Transportation). Prior to adopting a highway dedication removal bylaw, a municipality must: • provide public notice in accordance with section 94; • provide an opportunity for persons who are affected by the bylaw to make representations to council; • obtain consent of the owner of property if the highway in question is part of a subdivision, where the highway has not been developed and the owner of the land who created the subdivision continues to own all the parcels. Circumstances in which these conditions apply are rare. 2. Raising Title Once the highway closure bylaw and removal of highway dedication bylaw are adopted, and the removal of highway dedication bylaw is filed in the appropriate Land Title Office, the property ceases to be a highway, its dedication as a highway is cancelled and title to the property will be registered in the name of the municipality, in accordance with section 120 of the Land Title Act. In order for title to be raised in the name of the municipality, the Land Title Office requires that municipalities submit the bylaw and plan package to the registrar, together with an application in Form 17, a Property Transfer Tax form and the prescribed fee. As raising title and disposing of the land may occur in close conjunction, note also the Land Title Office filing requirements discussed under Disposing of Property. 3. Disposing of Property Once title is raised, municipalities who want to dispose of the property must do so in accordance with the property disposal rules set out in Part 3, Division 3 of the Community Charter. If a municipality plans to dispose of property for a closed highway that removes public access to a body of water, it must either provide alternative public access to the same body of water, or set aside money in a reserve fund to acquire property that will provide public access to the same body of water. The Community Charter provides a provincial right to resume property that was once a highway for the purpose of: an arterial highway; other transportation purposes; or a park, conservancy, recreation area, ecological reserve or other area established under the Park Act, the Ecological Reserve Act, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act or the Environment and Land Use Act. The right of resumption can be removed by order of the Minister of Transportation. Alternatively, the Minister of Transportation can by regulation set out the circumstances in which the right is automatically removed. The Minister of Transportation has adopted a regulation (BC Reg 245/2004 (12 KB)) that provides that the right of resumption is automatically removed if the corporate officer of the relevant municipality files with the Land Title Office a statement certifying the following 3 facts: • the municipality has, by bylaw, closed the highway and removed its dedication; • the closed highway is not adjacent to a park, conservancy, recreation area, ecological reserve or other area established under the Park Act, the Ecological Reserve Act, the Protected Areas of British Columbia Act or the Environment and Land Use Act; and • the closed highway land is to be disposed of for either of the following two purposes: o in exchange for land necessary for the purpose of improving, widening, straightening, relocating or diverting a highway, or o to one or more adjacent land owners for the purpose of consolidating it with the landowners’ existing adjacent parcel or parcels of land. The certifying statement must be satisfactory to the Land Title Office. Typically, this means a written statement from the municipality that: identifies the closed highway land; states the 3 conditions in the regulation; certifies that the land at issue satisfies those conditions and therefore the right of resumption is to be removed; is signed by the corporate officer; and is accompanied by the prescribed Land Title Office fee. Under this regulation, if the closed highway land satisfies the regulation – in other words, if the corporate officer of the municipality can certify that the transaction meets the circumstances set out in the regulation – then the municipality does not need a specific order removing the right of resumption. Instead, the right of resumption is automatically removed on the date that the certifying statement is filed in the Land Title Office. As noted, the municipality is responsible for satisfying itself that the 3 conditions in the regulation are met. This means the municipality is responsible for confirming the boundaries of the road in question and, in relation to the second condition (parks/conservancy), is responsible for confirming those boundaries relative to the boundaries of provincial parks/conservancy. To assist in determining the location of a road relative to provincial parks/conservancy, a municipality can obtain a list of provincial parks/protected areas in its region from the appropriate regional office of the Ministry of Environment: Only if the municipality has confirmed that the road in question is in fact adjacent to a provincial park/conservancy would the municipality need to contact the Ministry of Environment regional planner to identify if there are any issues with the proposed disposal of the closed road. In that case, the matter would not be within the circumstances set out in the regulation. For any situations not covered by the regulation, a municipality will still need to seek a possible order from the Minister of Transportation to remove the right of resumption. City of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: December 5, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Committee of the Whole SUBJECT: Award of Contract, Construction of One Fire Pumper/Tanker Truck. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Fire Department recommends the purchase of a new fire pumper/tanker apparatus from our capital replacement budget to replace a current ageing fire engine at Fire Hall 3. In the summer of 2016, a request for proposal (RFP) was issued and these proposals have been evaluated based on the criteria contained in the RFP document. We are now seeking Council approval to award a contract for the construction of this truck. RECOMMENDATION: That the contract for the construction of one fire pumper/tanker truck at the cost of $596,154.00 plus applicable taxes and a 10% contingency be included for any unanticipated scope changes; be awarded to Hub Fire Engines and Equipment Ltd. of Abbotsford, B.C. and that the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: The Maple Ridge Fire Department is working to maintain a modern and current fleet of fire trucks. In this case, a 1992 fire engine is in need of replacement. Further, we have been working towards standardizing the chassis style and body component of the fire trucks within our department. This will reduce the maintenance costs by standardizing the required parts to maintain the trucks and will improve operational efficiency. The RFP described the fire truck design specifications and 3 proponents made initial submissions with detailed drawings. All designs required the fire trucks to comply with our operational requirements and all Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Canada Transport Regulations, National Fire Protection Association, 1901 standards and Underwriters Laboratory - Canada Standards. The Request for Proposal process was completed within the purchasing guideline with oversight from Daniela Mikes, Manager of Procurement. 1135 b) Desired Outcome: To obtain Council’s approval to proceed with the awarding of a contract and construction of a fire tanker, apparatus for the fire department. Strategic Alignment: The purchase of these trucks is in alignment with the Council adopted Fire Department Business Plan and the Equipment Replacement Reserve fund. c) Business Plan/Financial Implications: Proposal analysis Three manufactures responded with proposals. The fire department apparatus evaluation team, which consisted of two fire administration staff, performed an analyses of these submissions based on the criteria described in the RFP. At the conclusion of the evaluation process the fire department apparatus evaluation team awarded the highest score to the Hub Fire Trucks proposal. CONCLUSIONS: The Maple Ridge Fire Department believes that standardizing the chassis and body style of our fire trucks will improve operational efficiency and lower maintenance cost. The specifications and costs proposed by Hub Fire Engines Ltd. represent the best value and product to meet the needs of the fire department. Therefore we recommend the awarding of a contract for the construction of the “pumper/tanker” to Hub Fire Engines and Equipment Ltd. of Abbotsford, B.C. “Original signed by Doug Armour”___________________ Prepared by: Doug Armour, Acting Assistant Fire Chief “Original signed by Howard Exner”___________________ Prepared and Approved by: Howard Exner, Fire Chief “Original signed by Laurie Darcus”___________________ Approved by: Paul Gill, General Manager Corporate and Financial Services “Original signed by Ted Swabey”_____________________ Concurrence: Ted Swabey Chief Administrative Officer City of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: December 5, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Committee of the Whole SUBJECT: Award of Contract, Construction of a Tower Truck Fire Apparatus. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Fire Department recommends the purchase of a new Tower Truck Fire Apparatus from our capital replacement budget to replace a current ageing Tower Truck in Fire Hall 1. In the summer of 2016, a request for proposal (RFP) was issued and these proposals have been evaluated based on the criteria contained in the RFP document. We are now seeking Council approval to award a contract for the construction of this truck. RECOMMENDATION: That the contract for the construction of one Tower Truck Fire Apparatus at the cost of $1,585,925.00 plus applicable taxes and a 10% contingency be included for any unanticipated scope changes; be awarded to Smeal Fire Apparatus Company of Snyder, Nebraska and that the Corporate Officer be authorized to execute the contract. And, that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign SafeTek Emergency Vehicles LTD “offer to purchase” wherein the existing Tower Truck, (VIN# 4S7AT9D00TC021345), would be traded in for the amount of $25,000.00 CAD. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: The Maple Ridge Fire Department is working to maintain a modern and current fleet of fire trucks. This truck is a key piece of fire fighting apparatus as it is the only ladder truck in the department. This ladder truck is used at all large structure fires. Tower 1 was built 1996 and if approved will be replaced in January of 2018. The RFP described the fire truck design specifications and 2 proponents made initial submissions with detailed drawings. All designs required the fire trucks to comply with our operational requirements and all Canadian Motor Vehicle Safety Standards and Canada Transport Regulations, National Fire Protection Association, 1901 standards and Underwriters Laboratory - Canada Standards. The Request for Proposal process was completed within the purchasing guideline with oversight from Daniela Mikes, Manager of Procurement. 1136 Desired Outcome: To obtain Council’s approval to proceed with the awarding of a contract and construction of a tower truck fire apparatus for the fire department. Strategic Alignment: The purchase of these trucks is in alignment with the Council adopted Fire Department Business Plan and the Equipment Replacement Reserve fund. b) Business Plan/Financial Implications: Proposal analysis Two manufacturers responded with proposals. The fire department apparatus evaluation team, which consisted of two fire administration staff who performed an analyses of these submissions based on the criteria described in the RFP. At the conclusion of the evaluation process the fire department apparatus evaluation team awarded the highest score to the Safetek proposal. CONCLUSIONS: The Maple Ridge Fire Department believes that there are essential benefits of purchasing this truck for the citizens and businesses in the City. The specifications and costs proposed by Smeal Fire Apparatus Company represent the best value and product to meet the needs of the fire department. Therefore, we recommend the awarding of a contract for the construction of the “tower truck” to Smeal Fire Apparatus Company of Snyder Nebaska. And to accept the offer to purchase of the existing Tower Apparatus from SafeTek Emergency Vehicles LTD. “Original signed by Doug Armour”___________________ Prepared by: Doug Armour, Acting Assistant Fire Chief “Original signed by Howard Exner”__________________ Prepared and Approved by: Howard Exner, Fire Chief “Original signed by Laurie Darcus” for_______________ Approved by: Paul Gill, General Manager Corporate and Financial Services “Original signed by Ted Swabey”___________________ Concurrence: Ted Swabey Chief Administrative Officer 1 City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: December 05, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: COW SUBJECT: Maple Ridge Civic and Cultural Facility – Phased Design Process EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: At the November 15, 2016 Council meeting, staff was directed to identify a funding source to incrementally advance the detailed design process of the Civic and Cultural Facility towards a “shovel ready” project. Further, that once a funding source is identified, staff issue a request for proposals (RFP) to conduct phase one of a multiple phased design process for the Maple Ridge Civic and Cultural Facility for an estimated cost of $525,000. Through the RFP process staff will ensure the design team includes a heritage/museum archives professional. This would bring the design process to approximately 25% of the final construction document, or design development stage. Funding for this project would be achieved through the Parks Recreation and Culture Master Plan reserve. RECOMMENDATION: 1.That phase one (25%) of the design process be funded from the Parks Recreation and Culture Master Plan reserve in an amount estimated to be $525,000; and 2.That staff be directed to issue a Request for Proposal to conduct phase one (25%) of the detailed design process for the Maple Ridge Civic and Cultural facility. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: The Government of Canada is committed to funding community infrastructure to assist in building strong, inclusive and sustainable communities by increasing infrastructure funding over the next ten years. Funding details for the 2017 infrastructure grant intake have not been announced at this point; typically grant application criteria gives priority to shovel ready projects that have design, detailed costing and funding mechanisms identified. In May 2, 2016, Council directed staff to prepare concept designs and high level costing estimates for proposed Parks, Recreation & Culture facilities to be brought to the public for consultation. This work has been completed and a high level concept plan has been presented to Council. Before proceeding with detailed design, the 1151 2 successful proponent will be required to consult with community members and subject matter experts for advice on design elements of the various components. T he estimated capital cos ts based on concepts for the Civic Facility, Parkade and Youth Wellness components are estimated to be $18,300,500. Detailed design fees for projects of this nature typically range from 10 – 12% of construction value or approximately $2,196,060. It is important to note that the design fees of any additional floors beyond the civic use component are not included in this cost or scope of work. On October 17, 2016, Council adopted a resolution authorizing the Mayor and staff to travel to Ottawa to meet with Federal Ministers about funding opportunities related to the Maple Ridge Civic and Cultural facility. On October 24 & 25, 2016, Mayor Read and staff went to Ottawa to meet with Cabinet Ministers and key staff from a number of Government Ministries to request financial support and leadership to advance Council’s number one priority for grant funding; the proposed Civic and Cultural Facility in downtown Maple Ridge. What emerged was a clear consensus that the design development of the Civic Centre project requires further clarity to ensure it is shovel ready for the next round of grant funding applications and to properly identify the many potential streams of funding possibilities that the project may qualify for. Taking this project to design development, approximately 25% of the final construction documents will move the city towards a shovel ready project that may be eligible for Federal and Provincial funding. This is a four to six month design process which starts after the project is awarded. Should Council approve funding, the project timeline is estimated to be:  December/January - Develop the RFP for p hase o ne (25%) of the design process .  January/February – RFP issued, evaluated and awarded.  February/July – Community consultation completion of phase on e of the design development. b) Desired Outcome: To initiate phase one (25%) of the detailed design process of the proposed Civic and Cultural Centre and provide enough information to demonstrate confidence in our costing estimates to secure Provincial and Federal infrastructure funding. The advancement of this project will demonstrate the city’s commitment to moving this project through to completion. c) Strategic Alignment: This Maple Ridge Civic and Cultural Facility aligns with recommendations in the Parks, Recreation & Culture Master Plan adopted by Council in 2010 and conveys Council’s commitment to increasing the likelihood of securing Federal and Provincial Infrastructure Funding for this project. d) Citizen/Customer Implications: Parks, Recreation & Culture infrastructure supports citizens in maintaining healthy lifestyles through their participation in sport, recreation, arts, and culture in venues that allow them to connect with their neighbours and communities of common interest. Funding partnerships with 3 senior governments help address local and regional infrastructure needs while reducing costs for local governments. e) Interdepartmental Implications: Various departments provide support to Parks, Recreation & Culture in these processes including Planning, Engineering, Building, Clerks, Communications and Finance. f) Business Plan/Financial Implications: Proceeding with a phased/incremental approach is critical to securing Federal and Provincial government funding. Phase 1 of the detailed design process for the Maple Ridge Civic and Cultural Centre, Youth Wellness Centre and underground parking is estimated at $525,000. In 2017 the Parks Recreation and Culture Reserve will have sufficient capacity to accommodate an expenditure of this amount. CONCLUSION: Significant emphasis has been placed on discussing Parks, Recreation & Cultural amenities over the past number of months. Council endorsement of the resolutions in this report will initiate a key step in the process necessary to secure grant funding for the Maple Ridge Civic and Cultural Facility project. The recommendations in this report will advance Council’s priorities and incrementally move this project towards shovel ready to take advantage of available grant funding. “Original signed by Don Cramb” Prepared by: Don Cramb, Sr. Recreation Manager “Original signed by Wendy McCormick” Approved by: Wendy McCormick, Director Recreation and Community Services “Original signed by David Boag for Kelly Swift” Approved by: Kelly Swift, General Manager, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services “Original signed by Ted Swabey” Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer :dc 1 City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: December 5, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: COW SUBJECT: Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues Recommendations EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues (MACAI) has been a joint committee with the City of Pitt Meadows since 1999. MACAI, as a joint committee, has enjoyed great success working together and, in most cases, the work has benefitted the citizens of both communities. The dissolution of the Joint Leisure Services Agreement (JLSA) has naturally led to a review of the current collaborative structure. Due to committee members such as School District No. 42, Ministry of Children and Family Development, Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation, Ridge Meadows Association for Community Living and Fraser Health all serving both communities, it is recommended that MACAI remain a joint committee. This will ensure that community groups are not split between the two communities, allowing for greater representation. As a joint committee, it is recommended that each city be responsible for sharing all related costs equally. RECOMMENDATION: That the Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues continue as a joint committee with the City of Pitt Meadows sharing all associated costs equally; AND, That staff be directed to work with Pitt Meadows City staff representative and the committee to establish an updated committee Terms of Reference and bylaw and report back to Council. DISCUSSION: a)Background Context: As a long standing joint committee the Municipal Advisory Committee on Accessibility Issues (MACAI) has successfully applied for and participated in several provincial grants and initiatives for the City of Maple Ridge and the City of Pitt Meadows such as, Legacy Now 2010, Rick Hansen Community Grants and Age Friendly Initiatives. These funds have been used for a number of city specific and joint community projects, such as; the purchasing of accessible outdoor play equipment, accessible and inclusive fitness equipment, and the publication of “Plan and Design for Choice – Universal Design Guidelines for Outdoor Spaces” and the Age Friendly community engagement and recognition process. Additionally, MACAI continues to organize the Annual Accessibility Awards which are hosted alternately in the two communities. This recognition event is entering its 15th year and honors service providers, businesses and citizens who are ‘difference makers’ in their community and in the lives of individual’s with varying abilities. 1152 2 MACAI was founded in 1993 and formalized by a Maple Ridge bylaw in 1996. In 1999 the bylaw was rewritten to align with the Joint Leisure Services Agreement. MACAI’s mandate is to advise, inform and educate the Councils, municipal departments, service providers and general public on accessibility and disability issues. The service providers represented on the committee serve both cities and have expressed that it would be difficult to resource committees in each city. MACAI is currently comprised of fifteen members; eight of the fifteen members represent the following governments, and/or service providers:  One Councillor for the City of Maple Ridge  One Councillor for the City of Pitt Meadows  One School District No. 42 Trustee  Ministry of Children and Family Development  Ministry of Social Development and Social Innovation  Ridge Meadows Association for Community Living  Fraser Health Members-at-large include:  Six residents, employed within or eligible to be on the Municipal Voters List for the City of Maple Ridge (and)  Two residents, employed within or eligible to be on the Municipal Voters List for the City of Pitt Meadows. As a joint committee, MACAI has found the current structure to be very successful. The collaboration of the two municipalities has created the above mentioned successes. As we move forward, MACAI will revisit its structure and staff supports to reflect shared support and cost associated with supporting the committee. b) Desired Outcome: To welcome residents and community members into participating in all aspects of community living in a progressive accessible and inclusive environment. To align with and support Accessibility 2024, a Provincial initiative for the purpose of implementing a ten year action plan with the goal of making BC more accessible for all. c) Strategic Alignment: As stated within the Maple Ridge Parks, Recreation and Culture Master Plan (2010), “strive to break down barriers by bringing people together and supporting participation by those who are hard to reach along with everyone else. d) Citizen/Customer Implications: A joint committee allows service providers to allocate resources to better respond to the needs of the citizens of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows. e) Interdepartmental Implications: MACAI supports interdepartmental information sharing and works closely with engineering and planning when required. f) Business Plan/Financial Implications: All costs associated with the committee will be shared equally. 3 g) Policy Implications: Bylaw No. 5845 – 1999 will need to be updated to reflect the new committee structure and will be brought back to Council for final reading and approval. Conclusion: The membership believes that a joint committee is an asset to both the City of Maple Ridge and the City of Pitt Meadows. Shared resources will provide both communities with the necessary expertise in becoming fully accessible communities and offering residents the opportunity to participate in all aspects of community life. Losing this shared, collaborative resource could result in the loss of valuable service provider participation because the agencies are already feeling their resources are limited and they may be unable to attend meetings in both communities. “Original signed by Petra Frederick” _______________________________________________ Submitted by: Petra Frederick, Recreation Coordinator Leisure Access MACAI Staff Liaison “Original signed by Tony Cotroneo” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Tony Cotroneo, Recreation Manager Community Services “Original signed by Wendy McCormick” _______________________________________________ Approved by: Wendy McCormick, Director Recreation & Community Services “Original signed by David Boag for Kelly Swift” ________________________________________________ Approved by: Kelly Swift, General Manager, Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services “Original signed by Ted Swabey” _______________________________________________ Concurrence: Ted Swabey Chief Administrative Officer 1 City of Maple Ridge TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: December 5, 2016 and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: COW SUBJECT: Maple Ridge Leisure Centre Retrofit Update EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On December 10, 2015, Council deferred repairs of the Leisure Centre to allow for a second aquatic facility to be considered in order to mitigate the impact on the public when the aquatic facility would need to be closed for repairs. The Recreation Facilities Infrastructure Plan is now underway and community consultation will provide Council with the public’s feedback on the proposed infrastructure. It has become clear that the full scope of the work required to complete projects of this magnitude is a four to five year process. Council may wish to reconsider delaying the retrofit of the Leisure Centre Aquatic facility to coincide with the proposed Civic and Cultural Facility should it proceed and, direct staff to bring back a report on how the retrofit and improvements to the Leisure Centre might be achieved, which may be prior to the construction and completion of the proposed Wellness Centre. RECOMMENDATION: That staff provide a report outlining the process of updating the Leisure Centre retrofit plan including, proposed timeline, customer implications and potential funding source. a)Discussion For over 35 years, the Leisure Centre has been providing recreation, cultural and social programs and services. Over this time minor improvements to interior design, changes to space allocations, purchase of new equipment, furnishings and fixtures has contributed to the facility’s welcoming environment and to meeting the community’s programming needs. In 2001, the addition of the teach pool, wading pool and water slide created much needed additional aquatic space for the increased growth and demand for aquatic amenities at that time. Although this expansion introduced new filtration systems specific for the operation of the new pools, the original aquatics facility filtration and mechanical system were not upgraded as these two systems operate independently of each other. Staff routinely maintain the pool systems to ensure continued safe operation of the facility with the replacement of mechanical components, many of which are now obsolete and must be custom manufactured. As identified in the 2014 business plan, staff utilized a consultant to complete detailed planning of a retrofit to the Leisure Centre aquatics area. The retrofit would have been timely due to the increasing age of the facility, and the impending timeline of replacing key mechanical and electrical components of the aquatics pool systems. The community consultation currently underway for Parks, Recreation and Culture Infrastructure projects will generate a final report 1153 2 compiling the residents’ feedback for Council’s review and is anticipated for March 2017. If Council determines the Multi-Use Wellness Facility with an Aquatic Centre and Curling Facility is one of the community’s top priorities the completion could be approximately five years away. Staff recommends that Council consider proceeding with the Leisure Centre retrofit in conjunction with the proposed Civic and Cultural Facility. Retrofit Background Early in 2013, staff retained the services of Bruce Carscadden Architect Inc. (BCA) and their team of structural and mechanical engineering consultants to conduct a comprehensive architectural and engineering review and assessment of the pool mechanical and safety systems, and effected areas at the Maple Ridge Leisure Centre. The main objectives of the project were to:  Consider a change from a gas chlorination system to liquid chlorination system.  Review chemical treatment systems to achieve best practices and ensure continued safe delivery and use of pool chemicals.  Assess the condition of existing equipment.  Review life-cycle replacement of major pool systems that were showing risk of failure or were beyond expected useful life. The architectural review included the following notes:  Electrical Room – The equipment exposed to pool atmosphere is corroded. Relocation of the electrical room/panels and creating environmental separation must be a part of the consolidated mechanical upgrades.  Mechanical Room – The existing chlorine is remotely located and has been identified as a potential safety issue. The options to address current code and safety concerns however, will require new and renovated facilities adjacent to the existing basement mechanical; 12’ Ceilings are identified for the preferred filtration system.  Pool Tank Accessibility – The toddler pool, leisure pool, swirl pool and lap pools do not have wheel chair access and limit accessibility. Important aspirations for accessibility should be included in the mechanical renovations of the tanks.  Pool Deck Safety –Removing visual barriers and enhancing pool deck circulation to ensure full visibility for effective lifeguarding. In 2015, Shape Architecture was retained to develop a detailed construction design for the aquatics retrofit. The completed design expanded the existing leisure pool to include programmable water walking space along with beach entry to improve accessibility and leisure play for toddlers and preschoolers, ramp entry to a relocated and larger swirl pool, removal of the existing guard towers and rising of the leisure pool to create a single level throughout the aquatics area. This included an expansion to the mechanical room that would house a complete upgrade of all mechanical and filtration systems for the newly designed leisure pool and swirl pool. In order to mitigate the displacement of the swim club athletes, staff worked with surrounding municipalities to develop a pool rental agreement whereby the City could purchase pool and lane time to ensure adequate time and space was available for training. In addition the outdoor pool operation provides another opportunity for lesson and leisure programming May through September. However the retrofit would have an impact on the public as pool amenities will be reduced during the length of the construction. To date, we have not experienced a significant mechanical failure and the facility continues to work safely and in full operation. However, some critical pool components are well beyond 3 estimated lifespan and therefore significant repair or renovations to the existing facility would be necessary in the event of a system failure, and would result in an extended closure of the facility. Staff continues to ensure that the aquatics area is kept at the maximum operating capacity and plan for regular preventative maintenance improvements at scheduled intervals and at the annual shutdown to minimize the likelihood of an unplanned repair and closure. However, as the system and major components are beyond the expected useful life, emergency repairs and replacement of minor operating parts have occurred. These unplanned deficiencies do cause disruption to service levels and result in unplanned closure of one or more pools. Non-Aquatics Leisure Centre Areas In addition to the retrofit project, staff retained the services of a consultant to conduct a functional and physical space assessment of the Leisure Centre excluding the aquatic facility. This space review was identified in the 2015 business plan. The consultant solicited feedback from key stakeholders, including user groups, contract service partners, and facility and program users. The consultant developed a short term and long term concept plan with recommendations that would produce the following key outcomes for improvements to customer experiences and service provision:  Provide more community gathering spaces; a place to socially connect in a safe, welcoming and central location.  Improve customer entry, circulation, accessibility and visual connectivity i.e. rethinking the control access points and public connectivity between the Leisure Centre and Greg Moore Youth Centre.  Provide more functional multipurpose space for programs, services, rental and meeting opportunities i.e. renovate existing rooms with limited functionality to be more multi purpose oriented.  Relocate and/or expand programmable spaces i.e. expand Fitness Centre, rethink quantity of raquet sport courts. The improvements would produce a greater holistic wellness experience for customers, deepening the relationship customers have with each other and fostering heightened enjoyment within the programs and services offered at the Leisure Centre. The space plan recommendations should be considered in conjunction with the aquatics facility upgrades and could be funded through general capital. Update on the YMCA Council has previously considered a relationship with the YMCA and invited the CEO of the Greater Vancouver YMCA, Steve Butz, to speak to Council about the potential of a YMCA in Maple Ridge. Mr. Butz indicated that the YMCA works through building relationships with communities, Councils, staff and citizens to determine if the City and the YMCA’s values align. More importantly the YMCA gets to know a community to determine whether or not their presence in the community, in partnership with the City, would provide value to the community. Mr. Butz used the analogy of a relationship with the agreement to go forward in partnership, being like a marriage and indicating that there needs to be a period of dating to determine if a long-term 4 relationship is in the future. Mr. Butz also spoke about other communities that the YMCA is currently working with and indicated that they were further along in the process. He then used the analogy that we were ‘on the bus,’ but had a backseat. It is important that Council understands the YMCA runs YMCA’s; they do not operate community recreation facilities, they are not a contracted service. In a recent conversation with Mr. Butz, he informed staff that the City has moved past the point where the YMCA would typically begin their involvement, as YMCA’s are informed by a variety of other factors rather than community consultation. In addition, if the City would like the YMCA to build and operate a facility in Maple Ridge, the earliest that they could begin to have the conversation with us would be 2018 -2020 as they are currently at capacity. Correspondence from Mr. Butz attached. Staff continues to build this relationship and are partnering in a Healthy Heart program with the YMCA that will see programming and support for Maple Ridge residents in receiving cardiovascular rehabilitation whereby most residents are currently travelling west to receive this service. b) Desired Outcome: Continue to provide high calibre recreation facilities for the benefit and enjoyment of the community now and into the future. c) Strategic Alignment: Manage existing municipal infrastructure through the preparation of appropriate plans to ensure development, maintenance and renewal of parks and open spaces, roads, sidewalks, water, sewer and storm water systems, public buildings as well as data and communications technology d) Citizen/Customer Implications: The retrofit upgrades along with the short term recommendations in the facility space plan would further enhance the customer experience when using the Leisure Centre, modernizing the 35 year old facility and providing accessible amenities in both the aquatics and non-aquatics area for all residents to enjoy. As the only recreation facility in the City, the Leisure Centre is well used by residents and improvements will ensure relevancy and reliability for use by future generations. e) Business Plan/Financial Implications: The initial retrofit budget in 2015 was $5.5 million; however, it is likely to be significantly higher as this estimate is almost two years old now. The longer the project is delayed, construction costs will continue to increase thereby increasing budgeted costs year over year. The consultant’s recommendations include general scope of work however; detailed pricing has not been retained at this time. Staff is recommending that some of the short term projects be considered for advancement together with the aquatic retrofit to improve the functionality and flexibility of the existing program spaces. 5 CONCLUSIONS: In consideration of the proposed addition to the civic complex, as a result of the significant redesign that will be required for the aquatic filtration and mechanical systems to accommodate the underground parking, staff is recommending that some of the non-aquatic upgrades also be included with the redesign process to enhance the functionality and flexibility of the centre. Doing this work in conjunction with the Civic and Cultural Facility design will ensure that the two facilities complement each other and that the civic centre will continue to be a desired location for all citizens to enjoy. “Original signed by Wendy McCormick” Prepared by: Wendy McCormick, Diretor of Recreation and Community Services “Original signed by David Boag for Kelly Swift” Approved by: Kelly Swift, General Manager Parks, Recreation & Cultural Services “Original signed by Ted Swabey” Concurrence: E.C. Swabey Chief Administrative Officer :cb Attachment: Email Correspondence S. Butz Wendy McCormick Director of Recreation and Community Services 11925 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-467-7328 Web Facebook YouTube Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. Survey Email Comments From: Steve Butz [mailto:steve.butz@gv.ymca.ca] Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 9:25 AM To: Wendy McCormick Subject: Re: FW: Community Consultation Will Shape Future of Recreation Facilities in Maple Ridge - 2016-10-26 Hi Wendy... I think the answer to your question is -it's up to you.... Your attachment offers what I would describe as a typical facility development approach led by a municipality. As I have mentioned, working with the Y would demand a more equitable approach, driven less by facility and amenity and more how critical community needs are met in a sustainable manner - through a collaborative approach. This is another way of saying we have no interest in an operating agreement for a municipal facility - a operating agreement with a municipality for the purposes of operating a YMCA does have potential assuming a period of due diligence would allow both parties to decide whether there was a workable model. That said, we are not interested in a informal process given our current priorities - ie: if the City is not genuinely interested as noted I would prefer not to advance the conversation at this time - ie: it's ok by us if you wish to pass. Hope this helps...S On 3 November 2016 at 18:07, Wendy McCormick <wmccormick@mapleridge.ca> wrote: Hello Steve, I have attached the recent press release that went out to the local press. It describes how Maple Ridge is moving forward with infrastructure planning. In our last conversation you indicated that given the direction Maple Ridge Council has taken at this time, the YMCA would not be interested in this particular opportunity. Council had given our department direction to explore a formal relationship with YMCA regarding future partnership opportunities. Sometime ago I reported out that : YMCA met with both Council and staff. Their key message was the importance of building an inter-agency relationship. PRC has pursued program-level partnerships to continue to build relations, and has kept YMCA staff apprised of potential infrastructure opportunities. At this time I need to close this item and I am wondering if you would be willing to provide me a written response on whether or not the YMCA has any interest in being involved in this process. Thanks Steve, Wendy Wendy McCormick Director of Recreation and Community Services Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows Parks & Leisure Services 11925 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-467-7328