HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-03-07 Committee of the Whole Agenda and Reports.pdfCity 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 ARMS (Alouette River Management Society) Annual Update
- Greta Borick-Cunningham, Executive Director
2.PUBLIC WORKS AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Note: The following items have been numbered to correspond with the Council
Agenda:
1101 2016-006-AL, 22270 128 Avenue, Non-Farm Use Application
Staff report dated March 7, 2016 recommending that Non-Farm Use
Application 2016-006-AL for value added agriculture and 2 accessory
employee dwellings be forwarded to the Agricultural Land Commission.
COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
AGENDA
March 7, 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
March 7, 2016
Page 2 of 5
1102 2015-327-RZ, 21710 and 21728 Lougheed Highway, RS-1 to C-2
Staff report dated March 7, 2016 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone
Amending Bylaw No. 7196-2015 to rezone from RS-1 (One Family Urban
Residential) to C-2 (Community Commercial) to permit a commercial
development comprised of a two-storey Gold’s Gym and two smaller
commercial buildings be given first reading and that the applicant provide
further information as described on Schedules C, D and E of the Development
Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999.
1103 2016-009-RZ, 23729 Dewdney Trunk Road, RS-3 to RM-1
Staff report dated March 7, 2016 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone
Amending Bylaw No. 7220-2016 to rezone from RS-3 (One Family Rural
Residential) to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) to permit construction of
approximately 41 townhouse units be given first reading and that the
applicant provide further information as described on Schedules C, D, and E
of the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999.
1104 2011-137-RZ, 12257 227 Street, RS-1 to R-3
Staff report dated March 7, 2016 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone
Amending Bylaw No. 7169-2015 to rezone from RS-1 (One Family Urban
Residential to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) to permit a future
subdivision of approximately 3 lots be given second reading and be forwarded
to Public Hearing.
1105 2013-117-RZ, 12182 228 Street, RS-1 to R-3
Staff report dated March 7, 2016 recommending that Maple Ridge Zone
Amending Bylaw No. 7055-2014 to rezone from RS-1 (One Family Urban
Residential) to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) to permit a future
subdivision of approximately 3 single family lots be given second reading and
be forwarded to Public Hearing.
1106 2014-003-CU, 19975, 19989 and 19997 Dunn Avenue, Temporary Use
Permit
Staff report dated March 7, 2016 recommending that Maple Ridge Official
Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7064-2014 to allow temporary vehicle
inventory storage under a Temporary Use Permit be given second reading and
be forwarded to Public Hearing.
Committee of the Whole Agenda
March 7, 2016
Page 3 of 5
1107 2014-054-DVP, 23627 and 23598 Dogwood Avenue
Staff report dated March 7, 2016 recommending that the Corporate Officer be
authorized to sign and seal 2014-054-DVP to waive road construction
standards on Dogwood Avenue, to reduce the road carriageway width around
the ‘parkette’ and to reduce exterior side yard setbacks for proposed lots 1
and 12.
1108 Billy Miner Pub Liquor License Amendment Application – Change to Liquor
Service Hours
Staff report dated March 7, 2016 recommending that the application by B.
Miner Hospitality Ltd. at 22355 River Road, Maple Ridge, BC for a change in
opening hours be approved and that a copy of the resolution be forwarded to
the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch.
1109 Planet Ice Breakaway Bar & Grill (Maple Ridge) Liquor License Amendment
Application – Increase in Seating Capacity
Staff report dated March 7, 2016 recommending that the application by
Planet Ice Breakaway Bar & Grill (Maple Ridge) at 23588 105 Avenue, Maple
Ridge, BC for an increase in seating capacity be approved and that a copy of
the resolution be forwarded to the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch.
1110 Witch Craft Beer Market & Bistro Liquor Primary Licence Amendment
Application – Change to Liquor Service Hours
Staff report dated March 7, 2016 recommending that the application by Witch
Craft Beer Market & Bistro at 22648 Dewdney Trunk Road, Maple Ridge, BC,
for a change in opening hours be approved and that a copy of the resolution
be forwarded to the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch.
1111 Maple Ridge Ticket Information Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 7210-2016
Staff report dated March 7, 2016 recommending that Maple Ridge Ticket
Information Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 7210-2016 to reflect changes
resulting from the new Tree Protection and Management Bylaw be given first,
second and third readings.
1112 Speed Reader Boards Strategy
Staff report dated March 7, 2016 recommending the creation of a Three
Strike Strategy pertaining to vehicle speeding be endorsed and that $150,000
from the Police Services Reserve be authorized to fund the Three Strike
Strategy.
Committee of the Whole Agenda
March 7, 2016
Page 4 of 5
1113 Award of Contract, Recycling Trucks
Staff report dated March 7, 2016 recommending that Request for Proposal
(RFP-OP15-70) for replacement of recycling trucks be collapsed and that a
new Request for Proposal be issued for supply of up to six recycling trucks,
suitable for curbside collection, for a minimum two-year lease.
3.FINANCIAL AND CORPORATE SERVICES (including Fire and Police)
1131
4. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND RECREATION SERVICES
1151 Downtown Security Patrols
Staff report dated March 14, 2016 recommending that enhanced security
coverage in the downtown core be approved.
1152 Joint Leisure Services Agreement – Arts & Recreation Programming
Staff report dated March 7, 2016 recommending that staff be authorized to
continue joint program delivery on the behalf of the City of Pitt Meadows
through to December 31, 2016, that staff work with the City of Pitt Meadows
to explore an approach and costs for continued involvement in the Arts &
Recreation Guide and subsidized access to Maple Ridge facilities for Pitt
Meadows families facing financial barriers.
5.ADMINISTRATION
1171
6.CORRESPONDENCE
1181
7.OTHER ISSUES
1191
Committee of the Whole Agenda
March 7, 2016
Page 5 of 5
8. ADJOURNMENT
9. COMMUNITY FORUM
Checked by:________________ Date: ________________
COMMUNITY FORUM
The Community Forum provides the public with an opportunity to ask questions of
Council on items that are of concern to them, with the exception of Public Hearing
bylaws that have not yet reached conclusion.
Council will not tolerate any derogatory remarks directed at Council or staff
members.
Each person will be permitted 2 minutes to speak or ask questions (a second
opportunity is permitted if no one else is sitting in the chairs in front of the
podium). Questions must be directed to the Chair of the meeting and not to the
individual members of Council. The total time for this Forum is limited to 15
minutes.
If a question cannot be answered, the speaker will be advised when and how a
response will be given.
Other opportunities are available to address Council including public hearings and
delegations. The public may also make their views known to Council by writing or
via email and by attending open houses, workshops and information meetings.
Serving on an Advisory Committee is an excellent way to have a voice in the future
of this community.
For more information on these opportunities contact:
Clerk’s Department at 604-463-5221 or clerks@mapleridge.ca
Mayor and Council at mayorandcouncil@mapleridge.ca
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: March 7, 2016
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2016-006-AL
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: Non-Farm Use Application
22270 128 Avenue (Golden Ears Cheesecrafters)
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This application is to construct a separate single family dwelling on the subject property referred to
above. The subject property is within the Agricultural Land Reserve and has been part of a dairy
farm for several years. In 2010, the property owners commenced a value added operation, (cheese
making and retailing). A compact mixed use structure has existed on the property since 2011.
Currently, the mix of uses includes two dwelling units on the second storey, a cheese processing and
storage facility, and retail space, which includes a commercial kitchen. The property is part of a
family dairy farm. The retail and processing facilities were permitted under ALC policies 1 and 2,
which conditionally designates farm product processing and on-site retail as farm uses.
This application includes a proposal for a detached dwelling, which will be considered the principal
dwelling unit on the subject property, should the application be successful. The existing two dwelling
units will then be considered employee residential uses, (necessitating a site specific zoning bylaw
text amendment). The Zoning Bylaw implications will be discussed further in this report.
In accordance with Council Resolution (R/2014-397), Council has directed that all requests for
accessory employee residential uses first be processed as a non-farm use application. This
application also seeks Commission review and approval for the existing value added activities on the
subject property. Based on the information within this report, the recommendation is for Council to
forward this application to the Agricultural Land Commission.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Non-Farm Use Application 2016-006-AL for value added agriculture, and 2 accessory employee
dwellings, be forwarded to the Agricultural Land Commission, in accordance with Council direction as
outlined in the staff report dated March 7, 2016, and titled “Non-farm Use Report, 22270 128th
Avenue.
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context
Applicant: Kerry Davison
Owner: Barbara Davison & Kerry Davison
Legal Description: Lot: 5, D.L.: 400, Plan: 69867
OCP :
Existing: Agricultural
Proposed: Agricultural
1101
- 2 -
Zoning:
Existing: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Proposed: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Surrounding Uses
North: Use: Vacant
Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation Agricultural
South: Use: 8 properties, 7 Urban Residential, 1 Rural Residential
Zone: 7 properties zoned RS-1b (One Family Urban
Residential), 1 property zoned RS-3 (One Family Rural
Residential)
Designation: 7 properties designated Urban Residential, 1 property
split designated Agricultural and Urban Residential
East: Use: Vacant
Zone: RS-3 One Family Rural Residential
Designation: Agricultural
West: Use: Farm Use
Zone: RS-3 One Family Rural Residential
Designation: Agricultural
Existing Use of Property: Farm use
Proposed Use of Property: Farm use
b) Project Description:
This proposal is to construct a detached house on a 4.86 hectare (12.0 acre) property that is within
the Agricultural Land Reserve. If this application is successful, the existing 2 dwelling units within
the existing building will be considered accessory employee residential uses.
The general location for the principal dwelling is attached as Appendix C.
The current application is part of a value added operation (cheese making and retail) that has been
in place for a few years. The purpose of this request is to meet the housing needs of one of the farm
operators who has since married and started a family. There are two dwelling units currently on the
subject property within the existing mixed use building. One of these units is considered to be an
accessory employee residence, while the other is considered as a principal dwelling unit. However,
both of these units are small (80 square metres each) and no longer meet the needs of a growing
family. If this application is successful, both of these existing dwelling units will be retained and
considered as accessory farm help units. The diverse uses in this structure are identified through a
covenant and through a previous development variance permit that was approved for the mixed use
building.
c) Planning Analysis:
ALC Policy #9 provides an interpretation of Agricultural Land Commission Act for accessory farm help
residential, as pasted below:
Unless permitted by this Act, the regulations or the terms imposed in an order of the
commission,
- 3 -
(a) a local government, or an authority, a board or another agency established by it or a
person or an agency that enters into an agreement under the Local Services Act may
not
(ii) approve more than one residence on a parcel of land unless the additional
residences are necessary for farm use.
The Agricultural Land Commission gives considerable autonomy to local governments in determining
whether there is sufficient agricultural activity to justify the need for an additional residential use.
However, the Commission does stipulate that the need must be legitimate. One criteria is farm
status through BC Assessment Authority. However, in many instances, especially for leased
properties, having farm status does not necessarily justify having an extra dwelling. Commission
Policy #9 states that if a local government has any question with regards to need, a non-farm use
application is required.
There are 2 Agricultural Land Commission policies for value added agriculture that are pertinent to
this application. Commission Policy #1 interprets the Agricultural Land Commission Act for farm
product processing, stating the following:
The storage, packing, product preparation and processing of farm products are designated
by the Regulation as farm uses, and as such, may not be prohibited by a local government
bylaw, except a farm bylaw approved by the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Fisheries
under Section 917 of the Local Government Act. This permitted farm activity is in addition to
general farm uses permitted under the Act. The Regulation permits farm product processing
and related activities on a farm in the ALR provided at least 50 % of the farm product is
produced (i.e. grown or raised) on the farm on which the processing or related activity takes
place. The farm may be comprised of one or several parcels of land owned or operated by a
farmer as a farm business.
Commission Policy #2 interprets the Agricultural Land Commission Act for farm product retail with
the following:
Farm retail sales are designated by the Regulation as a farm use, and as such, may not be
prohibited by a local government bylaw, except a farm bylaw approved by the Minister of
Agriculture, Food and Fisheries under Section 917 of the Local Government Act. This
permitted farm activity is in addition to general farm uses permitted under the Act. The
Regulation permits, as a farm use, farm retail sales on a farm in the ALR. If all products
originate or are produced on the farm on which the sales are taking place there is no
limitation for the retail sales area. If farm or non-farm products offered for sale originate
elsewhere, there is a retail sales area limitation or threshold. In this case, where products
not originating from the farm are also sold, at least 50% of the retail sales area must be
used for the sale of farm product produced on that farm and the total retail sales area for all
products, both farm and off-farm in origin, must not exceed 300 square meters. The farm
may be comprised of one or several parcels of land owned or operated by a farmer as a farm
business.The 50% area limitation is based on the area devoted to the retail sale of farm
products produced on that farm. Wholesale sale of farm product is considered to be a farm
activity within the meaning of the definition of ‘farm use’ in the Act and thus is not restricted
by the Regulation.
It should be noted that the applicant has developed this property in accordance with municipal
regulations and has followed the appropriate process for required permits. However, although not
overtly prohibited in the Commission policy for retail uses, the existing commercial kitchen that is
- 4 -
part of the facility has been called into question. For this reason, this application includes a request
that this portion of the operation be reviewed and approved by the Commission
Current Application.
The agricultural operations on the property include hedging cedars as well as forage for the family
dairy farm. The value added portion of the operation has a high profile within the community and is
generally reviewed favorably. The operation appears to justify providing enough full-time
employment to justify the accessory farm help dwellings. It is also understood that the commercial
kitchen is used for product processing as part of the retail portion of the business. Based on these
factors, this application is found to be supportable.
Zoning Bylaw:
If this application is successful, a principal dwelling will be constructed in accordance with the
regulations of the RS-3 Zone. The two existing dwelling units will then be considered as accessory
employee residential. A text amendment to the Zoning Bylaw will be required to permit a second
dwelling for this purpose, as currently the bylaw sets limits of 1 employee dwelling use per property.
For this purpose, a site specific text amendment is supportable.
If the Commission approves the commercial kitchen, and recognizes the use as consistent with the
farm operation, the use will be able to continue without a zoning bylaw amendment. If the use is
approved as not consistent with farm use, a site specific text amendment may also be required for
this food service use.
In 2010, a development variance permit (VP/096/10) was approved in order to facilitate the mixed
use building. The approved variances were:
To waive the required 15 metre separation between principal dwelling unit and agricultural
building;
To waive the required 3 metre separation between principal dwelling unit and accessory
employee residential unit;
To vary the height limit for an employee residential unit from 7.5 metres to 10.5 metres; and
To vary the height limit for an agricultural building from 9.5 metres to 10.5 metres.
In order for this project to proceed, the applicant is required to provide a restrictive covenant noting
that three of the proposed uses – processing, retail, and accessory employee residential – can only
take place on the property while it is being actively farmed as determined by BC Assessment
Authority information. Should the farm operation cease to exist, the existing structure would either
have to be demolished or repurposed in compliance with the regulations of the Zoning Bylaw and the
Agricultural Land Commission. Securities will be required to cover the cost of demolition should the
farm use discontinue.
d) Interdepartmental Implications:
The subject property is within the floodplain and therefore subject to a Natural Features
Development Permit. The site is served with water, and presumably this service could be extended
to a new residential structure. The existing facility is served by sewer, but the new residence will
need to be served by septic disposal. The Engineering Department confirms that septic disposal and
related approvals would be required.
- 5 -
e) Intergovernmental Issues:
Agricultural Land Commission. The subject property is under the jurisdiction of the Agricultural Land
Commission, and Commission Policy #9 requires sufficient demonstration of need before an
employee dwelling could be permitted for farm purposes. This application also seeks Commission
review of the commercial kitchen component of the facility.
Ministry of Agriculture. At the April 12, 2011 Council meeting, Council considered the findings of the
Maple Ridge Agricultural Advisory Committee in their review of the Ministry of Agriculture document,
titled “Bylaw Standard for Residential Uses in the Agricultural Land Reserve”. For Council’s
consideration, the Agricultural Advisory Committee passed the following resolution on March 24,
2011:
That within the Agricultural Land Reserve in the District of Maple Ridge, the following limits
to residential development be considered:
A maximum house size of 7,000 square feet,
A maximum 0.2 hectare residential footprint,
A maximum footprint depth of 60 metres from the fronting road to the rear of the
footprint.
Council indicated their support for the Agricultural Advisory Committee findings by authorizing the
Committee’s report to be circulated to the Ministry of Agriculture as feedback to the Bylaw Standard
document. The Council resolution is as follows:
That report titled “Ministry of Agriculture Bylaw Standard for Residential Uses in the Agricultural
Land Reserve”, dated April 4, 2011 be forwarded to the Ministry of Agriculture for information.
The Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw, currently under review, will be incorporating these standards into the
regulations for land that is within the Agricultural Land Reserve. It should be noted, however, that at
present, the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw does not prevent extremely large houses or excessive front
yard setbacks from being constructed within the Agricultural Land Reserve. These regulations are
within the jurisdiction of the local government to create.
The applicant has indicated their siting preference which is attached as Schedule C. If this
application is forwarded to the Commission, the Commission will have the option of setting
conditional approvals for the placement and size of the new structure. It should be noted that the
compact design of the existing structure maximizes the available land base for farming.
f) Alternatives:
The recommendation is to forward this application to the Commission for their review. If this
application for accessory employee residential is not successful, the applicant could alternatively
choose to decommission one of the existing two units, thereby retaining one existing dwelling unit for
accessory employee residential use, as this use was previously permitted. In this case, the applicant
would then have the ability to construct a principal dwelling with secondary suite as a detached
structure.
If the Commission denies the commercial kitchen, the applicant may be faced with having to
decommission the space. As it stands, the retail use and the processing portion of the facility
comply with Commission regulations for farm products.
- 6 -
CONCLUSION:
This application proposes to construct a principal dwelling unit and retain the existing dwelling units
for accessory farm help. The application is being made In accordance with Council resolution
R/2014-397, which directs that requests for accessory farm help dwellings first be processed as a
non-farm use application.
In addition, this application seeks Agricultural Land Commission affirmation of the existing facility,
and most particularly for its commercial kitchen. It is generally felt that this facility is an asset to the
community and is supportable. The recommendation therefore is to forward the application to the
Agricultural Land Commission for their review.
“Original signed by Diana Hall”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Diana Hall MA, MCIP, RPP
Planner 2
“Original signed by Christine Carter”
_____________________________________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
“Original signed by David Pollock” 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
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A – Subject Map
Appendix B – Ortho Photo
Appendix C – Applicant’s Preferred Siting for New Residential Structure
DATE: Jan 22, 2016
FILE: 2016-006-AL
BY: PC
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTY
´
Scale: 1:2,500
22270 128 AVENUELegend
Stream
Ditch Centreline
Edge of River
Edge of Marsh
Indefinite Creek
River Centreline
Lake or Reservoir
Marsh
River
Major Rivers & Lakes
APPENDIX A
City of Pitt
Meadows
District of
Langley District of MissionFRASER R.
^
DATE: Jan 22, 2016
FILE: 2016-006-AL
BY: PC
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTY
´
Scale: 1:2,500
22270 128 AVENUE
Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2011
APPENDIX B
Preferred locaƟon
of detached
dwelling
APPENDIX C
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: March 7, 2016
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2015-327-RZ
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: First Reading
Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7196-2015
21710 and 21728 Lougheed Highway
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received to rezone the subject properties, located at 21710 and 21728
Lougheed Highway, from RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to C-2 (Community Commercial) to
permit a commercial development comprised of a two-storey Gold’s Gym, as well as two smaller
commercial buildings with the potential for a drive-through restaurant and second floor apartment
units. This development proposal is in compliance with the Official Community Plan (OCP). To
proceed further with this application additional information is required as outlined below. Pursuant
to Council’s resolution, this application is not subject to the Community Amenity Contribution
Program. If the second storey apartments proposed are not rental units secured through a Housing
Agreement, a Community Amenity Contribution per unit charge would apply as they are located
outside of the Town Centre.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7196-2015 be given first reading; and
That the applicant provide further information as described on Schedules C, D, and E of the
Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879–1999.
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context:
Applicant: Joseph Park Architecture
Owner: Norman and Maureen Owen
Legal Description: Lots 1 and 2, District Lot 247, Group 1, New Westminster
District Plan 6664
OCP:
Existing: Commercial
Zoning:
Existing: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Proposed: C-2 (Community Commercial)
1102
- 2 -
Surrounding Uses:
North: Use: Hotel
Zone: CS-1 (Service Commercial)
Designation: Commercial
South: Use: Single Family Residential, Two Family Residential
Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential), RT-1 (Two Family
Residential)
Designation: Urban Residential
East: Use: Church
Zone: P-4 (Place of Worship Institutional)
Designation: Institutional
West: Use: Mobile Home Park
Zone: CS-3 (Recreation Commercial)
Designation: Commercial and Urban Residential
Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Commercial
Site Area: 0.81 ha (2 acres)
Access: Lougheed Highway
Servicing requirement: Urban Standard
b) Site Characteristics:
A single family home is currently located on each of the subject properties, located at 21710 and
21728 Lougheed Highway (see Appendix A and B). The properties are treed around the perimeter
and in the southern third of the properties. Both properties are flat, with narrow frontages on
Lougheed Highway and significant lot depths of approximately 129 metres (425 ft).
c) Project Description:
The applicant proposes to rezone the subject properties to permit a commercial development. The
development proposal is comprised of three buildings on the site, the largest building is anticipated
to be Gold’s Gym. Two additional smaller commercial buildings are also proposed, which may
contain second floor apartment units and a drive-through restaurant use. Access in and out of the
development will be from Lougheed Highway (see Appendix D).
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 once
full application packages have been received. A more detailed analysis and a further report will be
required prior to second reading. Such assessment may impact proposed lot boundaries and yields,
OCP designations and Bylaw particulars, and may require application for further development
permits.
d) Planning Analysis:
Official Community Plan:
The subject properties are designated Commercial in the OCP and fall within the General
Commercial category, due to their location along Lougheed Highway within the Urban Area Boundary
and outside of the Town Centre. The objective of the General Commercial category as stated in the
OCP is to “respond to emerging market trends and shopping preferences and to permit greater
- 3 -
flexibility in the range of commercial uses”. The C-2 (Community Commercial) zone aligns with the
General Commercial category.
On September 30, 2014 Council endorsed the Housing Action Plan. This plan contains a number of
action items to protect existing and create new rental housing stock in the City. One key component
is to create new rental units above commercial developments. Currently, this practice is being
negotiated on an individual basis during the development process.
This project is of a suitable scale and a desirable location to incorporate apartments. Provision of
apartments in this part of the community would help to achieve a better mix of housing types, can
utilize available school capacity, and increase density on along a major corridor without detracting
from the expected commercial potential. Apartments being proposed on the site would not only
assist in implementing the future Housing Action Plan, but would also achieve the following OCP
policies:
Policy 3-31 Maple Ridge supports the provision of rental accommodation and encourages the
construction of rental units that vary in size and number of bedrooms. Maple Ridge may
also limit the demolition or strata conversion of existing rental units, unless District-wide
vacancy rates are within a healthy range as defined by the Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation.
Policy 3-32 Maple Ridge supports the provision of affordable, rental and special needs housing
throughout the District. Where appropriate, the provision of affordable, rental, and
special needs housing will be a component of area plans.
Policy 3-33 Maple Ridge will encourage housing that incorporates “age-in-place” concepts and
seniors housing designed to accommodate special needs.
To this end, staff has sought the inclusion of rental units on the second floor of proposed Building B
in the current proposal. This would align with other developments granted third reading by Council
where all or a portion of the proposed units would be secured though a Housing Agreement for rental
and adaptive units under SAFER housing Standards. The applicant has expressed an interest in
providing apartment units in Building B, with the potential to provide up to three storeys above
ground floor commercial with underground parking. Such a proposal would require the approval of a
building height variance above 7.5 metres (25 ft) and this would possibly impact neighbouri ng single
family residential lots to the south. If this option is developed further, the commitment on the
division of rental and market units would need to be negotiated with the developer, subject to the
outcome of first reading and further feasibility studies.
Zoning Bylaw:
The current application proposes to rezone the subject properties from RS-1 (One Family Urban
Residential) to C-2 (Community Commercial) to permit a commercial development (see Appendix C).
Any variations from the requirements of the proposed zone will require a Development Variance
Permit application. The applicant has indicated that they are seeking a building height of
approximately 13 metres for the Gold’s Gym building, to reflect the business needs and corpora te
building design. The applicant has sited this over-height building along the eastern property line, to
avoid interface issues with the single family lots to the south.
- 4 -
The zoning requirements for the C-2 (Community Commercial) zone allow a two storey height building
provided that the second storey does not exceed 50% of the ground floor area. In recent commercial
projects on 203 Street, 240 Street and 112 Avenue, and Dogwood Avenue, the Planning Department
has supported a site specific variance to permit a full second storey provided that the developer
creates rental housing units above the commercial units and entered into a Housing Agreement,
protecting the apartments as rental units in perpetuity.
A draft Zoning Bylaw is in process, and one of the proposed zoning changes is to permit a full second
storey in the C-2 (Community Commercial) zone. Should this application be approved prior to the
new Zoning Bylaw, a variance will be required to permit a second floor that exceeds 50% of the
ground floor for the proposed two larger buildings on the site. In the event that the draft Zoning
Bylaw is adopted with the proposed changes to the C-2 (Community Commercial) zone in advance of
this rezoning application, a variance permit for the second storey would not be required.
Staff have had preliminary discussions with the applicant on the provision of rental housing in
proposed Building B; however, at this stage in the rezoning process, the developer is hesistant to
conduct extensive feasibility studies prior to first reading. Additionally, in the absence of a Council
policy regarding the provision of rental housing through re-development, discussions regarding this
type of use have been based on a case-by-case basis through discussions with developers. Further
discussions during the detailed design stage between staff and the applicant will finalize the
opportunity for rental housing provision with this project, as well as the supportable variances and
zone amendments needed to realize the development.
Development Permits:
Pursuant to Section 8.5 of the OCP, a Commercial Development Permit application is required to
address the current proposal’s compatibility with adjacent development, and to enhance the unique
character of the community in accordance with the following key development permit guidelines:
1. Avoid conflicts with adjacent uses through sound attenuation, appropriate lighting,
landscaping, traffic calming and the transition of building massing to fit with adjacent
development;
2. Encourage a pedestrian scale through providing outdoor amenities, minimizing the visual
impact of parking areas, creating landmarks and visual interest along street fronts;
3. Promote sustainable development with multimodal transportation circulation, and low
impact building design;
4. Respect the need for private areas in mixed use development and adjacent residential
areas; and
5. The form and treatment of new buildings should reflect the desired character and pattern of
development in the area by incorporating appropriate architectural styles, features,
materials, proportions and building articulation.
Important design considerations for this development include the interface between the proposed
commercial building and adjacent single family homes, prioritizing the pedestrian in building siting
and parking lot considerations, and using high quality building materials and design elements to
create an attractive building façade.
- 5 -
Advisory Design Panel:
A Commercial Development Permit is required and must be reviewed by the Advisory Design Panel
prior to second reading.
Development Information Meeting:
A Development Information Meeting is not required for this application, as an OCP amendment is not
required, and the accessory apartment dwelling unit count is not anticipated to exceed 25 dwelling
units. Should the proposed dwelling unit count exceed 25 when the site design is finalized after first
reading, then a Development Information Meeting will be required prior to second reading.
e) Interdepartmental Implications:
In order to advance the current application, after first reading, comments and input, will be sought
from the various internal departments and external agencies listed below:
a) Engineering Department;
b) Operations Department;
c) Licenses, Permits, and Bylaws;
d) Fire Department; and
e) Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MoTI).
The above list is intended to be indicative only and it may become necessary, as the application
progresses, to liaise with agencies and departments not listed above. This application has not been
forwarded to the Engineering Department for comments at this time; therefore, an evaluation of
servicing requirements has not been undertaken. This evaluation will take place between first and
second reading.
f) Traffic Impact:
As the subject properties are fronting Lougheed Highway, and under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of
Transportation and Infrastructure, review and approval of the proposed development is a
requirement of the rezoning application. A referral will be sent to the Ministry of Transportation and
Infrastructure following first reading and any conditions or servicing design requirements must be
considered and accommodated prior to final approval.
g) Development Applications:
In order for this application to proceed the following information must be provided, as re quired by
Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879–1999 as amended:
1. A complete Rezoning Application (Schedule C);
2. A Commercial Development Permit (Schedule D); and
3. A Development Variance Permit (Schedule E).
The above list is intended to be indicative only, other applications may be necessary as the
assessment of the proposal progresses. Also, information is required to establish a suitable
stormwater management strategy, potential for tree retention, provision of public art, rental/adaptive
housing and access meeting for MoTI requirements.
- 6 -
h) Alternatives:
Council could elect not to support this application in its current form and insist that rental
apartments be provided above the ground floor commercial units. This position would align with
recently completed commercial developments on 203 Street, 240 Street and 112 Avenue, and
Dogwood Avenue, as well as Town Centre Area projects. It is noted that preliminary discussions with
the applicant have included the potential to build up to three storeys of apartments above proposed
building B, with a mix of rental and market units. The scope of the residential component in a
commercial development outside of the Town Centre would be significantly larger than similar
precedents in the community. The proposed C-2 (Community Commercial) zone currently permits a
1.5 storey building (maximum height of 7.5 m/25 ft), and a variance for additional storeys would
require a variance permit.
CONCLUSION:
The subject application is for a three building service commercial development, with Gold’s Gym as
the anchor tenant. There is potential for rental housing to be integrated into this proposal. The
development proposal is in compliance with the OCP, therefore, it is recommended that Council
grant first reading subject to additional information being provided and assessed prior to second
reading.
“Original signed by Amelia Bowden”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Amelia Bowden
Planning Technician
“Original signed by Christine Carter”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
“Original signed by David Pollock” 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
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A – Subject Map
Appendix B – Ortho Map
Appendix C – Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7196-2015
Appendix D – Preliminary Site Plan
DATE: Oct 27, 2015
2015-327-RZ
BY: JV
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTY
216´
Scale: 1:2,500
21710/21728 Lougheed Hwy
2011 Image
Legend
Stream
Indefinite Creek
River Centreline
Major Rivers & Lakes
APPENDIX A
DATE: Oct 27, 2015
2015-327-RZ
BY: JV
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTY
216´
Scale: 1:2,500
21710/21728 Lougheed Hwy
2011 Image
Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2011
Legend
Stream
Ditch Centreline
Indefinite Creek
River
Major Rivers & Lakes
APPENDIX B
CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 7196-2015
A Bylaw to amend Map "A" forming part of Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended
______________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as
amended;
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows:
1.This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7196-2015."
2.Those parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as:
Lot 1 District Lot 247 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 6664
Lot 2 District Lot 247 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 6664
and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1653 a copy of which is attached hereto
and forms part of this Bylaw, are hereby rezoned to C-2 (Community Commercial).
3.Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended and Map "A" attached
thereto are hereby amended accordingly.
READ a first time the day of , 20
READ a second time the day of , 20
PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , 20
READ a third time the day of , 20
APPROVED by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure this day of , 20
ADOPTED, the day of , 20
_____________________________ ____________________________
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
APPENDIX C
11653
11742
21640216372164621668216842169521736217592177411670217851175021800 2179511737
11748
11728
1175421807
11685
11666
11722
11858
21621216852171021756217352176911741
11712 218062181811723
11731
11875
11882
216492167421701217112173021723217452175911729 217952180511683
11709
11690
11772
11861 216552169821784217712180011829
11691
11708
218412184811677
11691
11718/20 2166721710217282175521768217642177111753
11738
1176221787
218012183011863
11873
1174721842 1176221810
11703
11652/54
11748
21626216502167721674216922171621715/1921732217442174611696
1172621796 11851
11699 21808218142180311662
11663
1188511881
11680
11754
11868
216262162311714/16 216622167521720217132172121733217312174721742217502177311713
11706
11841
11717
11767
11721 11720
11738
11688 21656216652169421699217312170721741217682177811707
21783218082182111757
11702218 ST.CARR ST.117 AVE.117 AVE.
HOWISON AVE.218 ST.117 AVE.
LOUGHEED HWY.
DOVER RD.
DE1/2
238
"B"
226 228 229
79
276
234
89
186 P 3331113
8
B
B
Rem 3
P 64655
"A"
D
221 220
1
74 80
77 85
3
232
87
241
1
236 237
2 EP 1025118P 1720514
7
C
6
5
2
*LMP 34333
P 87322159
LMP 22030
225
70
2
LP 77304
217
P 32510
278
233
A P 8409
123
118
149
4
7
125 126
P 38052N 50' of 3
5
163 164
P 7433B
P 11112
224
P 32510P 32510
219
76
83
P 35974
2
235
242
185
17
122
15P 1238611
9
119
7P 76203
P 13429
158
324
P 13429 W1/2
P 11112
223
6
P 8950
218
84
2
P 6664
192
279P 38855244
213
P 15184
187
Rem
121
P 13839P 131616
A
124
P 32876
1
LP 59245
2 P 792066
160 161
Rem
73
227
P 61812
230 231
216
88
277
275
90
211
P 12386150
2
3 P 13839P 13161*PP067P 13161
151
LMP 12706
LMP 12706
162
P 32876
P 79206
(P 84920)
P 1007
222
NWS 18481
81
P 36099
82
P 32510
78 P 35428214
243
*PP066
240
189
C P 13876P 4451812
10
124
5
148
LMS 3673
3
P 30039
P 5046
P 36904
2
*C
Rem
71
P 7795575
P 6664
319
P 32510
*PP075
P 12044
B
188
P 35974B
210
16
P 17205
120
1
3
4
EP 75514
43175
EP 36356
EP 77957P 56604RP 30988
43175 52239EP 77956BCP49047BCP48915
RP 76202
BCP
EP 36421
RP 84920
RP 74552
BCPBCP
LOUGHEED HWY.216 ST.SCALE 1:2,500
MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDINGBylaw No. Map No. From:
To:
RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
C-2 (Community Commercial)
7196-20151653
A1Preliminary Site PlanYYJP-OCT 23,2012Project NumberChecked:Drawn:Checked:Designed:REVISIONSDate Remarks#ISSUEDIssued forDatejp@jpai.ca Direct 604-771-5695Telephone 604-917-0154Facsimilie 604-565-0234www.jpai.ca#207-508 Clarke RoadCoquitlam BC Canada V3J 3X2CONSULTANTTHIS DRAWING MUST NOT BE SCALED. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR SHALL VERIFYALL DIMENSIONS AND LEVELS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF WORK. ALL ERRORSAND OMISSIONS SHALL BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT. COPYRIGHTRESERVED. THIS PLAN AND DESIGN ARE AT ALL TIMES REMAIN THE EXCLUSIVEPROPERTY OF JOSEPH PARK ARCHITECTURE AND MAY NOT BE USED ORREPRODUCED WITHOUT PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.PROJECT TITLEDISCLAIMER:THIS DRAWING IS PREPARED BY JOSEPH PARK ARCHITECTURE FOR THE ACCOUNT OFGG PO CO PROPERTIES LTD. PARTNERSHIP, THE CLIENT. ANY USE WHICH A THIRDPARTY MAKES OF THIS DRAWING, OR ANY RELIANCE ON OR DECISIONS TO BE MADEON IT, ARE RESPONSIBILITY OF SUCH THIRD PARTIES. JOSEPH PARK ARCHITECTUREACCEPTS NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR DAMAGES, IF ANY SUFFERED BY ANY THIRD PARTYAS A RESULT OF DECISIONS MADE OR ACTIONS BASED ON THIS DRAWINGS. THISDRAWING IS ISSUED BY JOSEPH PARK ARCHITECTURE FOR BUILDING PERMITAPPLICATION ONLY. THIS IS NOT ISSUED FOR CONSTRUCTION. FOR ANY USE BYCONTRACTORS INCLUDING GG PO CO PROPERTIES LTD. PARTNERSHIP, OR ANYRELIANCE ON OR DECISIONS TO BE MADE ON IT FOR CONSTRUCTION, ARERESPONSIBILITY OF SUCH PARTIES. JOSEPH PARK ARCHITECTURE ACCEPTS NORESPONSIBILITY FOR DAMAGES, IF ANY SUFFERED BY ANY PARTY AS A RESULT OFDECISIONS MADE OR ACTIONS BASED ON THIS DRAWINGS FOR CONSTRUCTION.21710, 21728 Lougheed Hwy.Gold's Gym Commercial Development10 --OCT 09, 2015 SCHEME 1- ISSUED FOR CLIENT'S REVIEWOCT 25, 2015 ISSUED FOR RZ APPLICATION-1ST READING ONLYOCT 19, 2015 REVISED AS PER CLIENT'S COMMENTSOCT 25, 2015 REVISED AS PER CLIENT'S COMMENTSDEC 20, 2015 SCHEME 2- ISSUED FOR CLIENT'S REVIEWDEC 30, 2015 SCHEME 3- ISSUED FOR CLIENT'S REVIEWJAN 11, 2016 SCHEME 4- ISSUED FOR CLIENT'S REVIEWJAN 19, 2016 SCHEME 5- ISSUED FOR CLIENT'S REVIEWJAN 25, 2016 ISSUED FOR RZ APPLICATION-1ST READING ONLYAPPENDIX D
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: March 7, 2016
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2016-009-RZ
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: First Reading
Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7220-2016
23729 Dewdney Trunk Road
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received to rezone the subject property from RS-3 (One Family Rural
Residential) to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) to permit future construction of approximately 41
townhouse units. This application is in compliance with the Official Community Plan (OCP). To
proceed further with this application additional information is required as outlined below. Pursuant
to Council resolution, this application is subject to the Community Amenity Contribution Program.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7220-2016 be given first reading; and
That the applicant provide further information as described on Schedules C, D, and E of the
Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879–1999.
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context:
Applicant: Focus Architecture Inc.
Owner: Chang Long Jay and Mee Yuen Jay
Legal Description: Parcel “2” (J43410E) of Parcel “A” (Explanatory Plan 1734) of
the South East Quarter Section 21 Township 12 Except Firstly:
Parcel “One” (Explanatory Plan 17000); Secondly: Part
Subdivided by Plan LMP36965; New Westminster District
OCP:
Existing: Urban Residential
Zoning:
Existing: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Proposed: RM-1 (Townhouse Residential)
1103
- 2 -
Surrounding Uses:
North: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential)
Designation: Urban Residential
South: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-1b (One Family Urban (Medium Density) Residential),
CD-1-93 (Amenity Residential District)
Designation: Urban Residential
East: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation: Urban Residential
West: Use: Single Family Residential, Multi-Family Residential
Zone: R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District), RM-1 (Townhouse
Residential)
Designation: Urban Residential
Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Multi-Family Residential
Site Area: 1.0 ha (2.5 acres)
Access: 237 Street
Servicing requirement: Urban Standard
b) Site Characteristics:
The subject property is located at the corner of 237 Street and Dewdney Trunk Road. An existing
home and accessory buildings are currently located on the property. The subject property is flat with
no watercourses. Existing stands of trees are located in the eastern and southern portions of the
property.
c) Project Description:
The applicant proposes to rezone the subject property from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to
RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) to permit approximately 41 townhouse units. The entrance to the
development is via 237 Street; however, dedication of a rear lane will be achieved to complete 120A
Lane between 237 Street and 238 Street in the future when the remaining lots in this block are re-
developed. All of the units are proposed to have double car garages and three bedrooms. The
proposed unit size ranges from 126 m2 to 139 m2 (1,355 ft2 – 1,492 ft2).
At this time the current application has been assessed to determine its compliance with the Official
Community Plan (OCP) and provide a land use assessment only. Detailed review and comments will
need to be made once full application packages have been received. A more detailed analysis and a
further report will be required prior to second reading. Such assessment may impact proposed lot
boundaries and yields, OCP designations and Bylaw particulars, and may require application for
further development permits.
- 3 -
d) Planning Analysis:
Official Community Plan:
The subject property is located within the Urban Area Boundary and is designated Urban Residential
in the OCP. The subject property fronts Dewdney Trunk Road, which is identified as a Major Corridor
in Figure 4, Appendix E of the OCP. There are a range of development options that comply with
Major Corridor Residential Infill policies subject to neighbourhood compatibility and context. Major
Corridor residential infill options are described in Policy 3-20, as follows:
3 - 20 Major Corridor Residential Infill developments must be designed to be compatible with
the surrounding neighbourhood and will be evaluated against the following criteria:
a) building forms such as single detached dwellings, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes,
townhouses, apartments, and small lot intensive residential developments subject
to Policy 3-21;
b) a maximum height of two and one-half storeys with an emphasis on ground oriented
units for all developments except for apartments;
c) a maximum height of four storeys for apartments; and
d) adherence to Development Permit Guidelines for multi-family and intensive
residential developments as outlined in Chapter 8 of the Official Community Plan.
Compatibility criteria for residential infill are further detailed in Policy 3-21 which states:
3 - 21 All Neighbourhood and Major Corridor Residential infill developments will respect and
reinforce the physical patterns and characteristics of established neighbourhoods, with
particular attention to:
a) the ability of the existing infrastructure to support the new development;
b) the compatibility of the site design, setbacks, and lot configuration with the existing
pattern of development in the area;
c) the compatibility between building massing and the type of dwelling units in the
proposed development and the surrounding residential properties;…
The proposed RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) zone is in compliance with the Urban Residential land
use designation. Neighbourhood compatibility considerations include similar height and massing to
existing single family homes. Construction of 120A Lane along the north property line will ensure an
additional setback distance between then existing single family homes and the new proposed
townhouses.
Zoning Bylaw:
The current application proposes to rezone the subject property, located at 23729 Dewdney Trunk
Road, from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) to permit
approximately 41 townhouse units. The minimum lot size for the current RS-3 (One Family Rural
Residential) zone is 8,000 m2, and the minimum lot size for the proposed RM-1 (Townhouse
Residential) zone is 557 m2. Any variations from the requirements of the proposed zone will require
a Development Variance Permit application. Based on the preliminary site plan, an exterior side yard
setback reduction will be sought by the applicant for the Dewdney Trunk Road frontage.
- 4 -
Development Permits:
Pursuant to Section 8.7 of the OCP, a Multi-Family Development Permit application is required to
ensure the current proposal enhances existing neighbourhoods with compatible housing styles that
meet diverse needs, and minimize potential conflicts with neighbouring land uses.
Advisory Design Panel:
A Multi-Family Development Permit is required and must be reviewed by the Advisory Design Panel
prior to second reading.
Development Information Meeting:
A Development Information Meeting is required for this application, as more than 25 units are
proposed. Prior to second reading the applicant is required to host a Development Information
Meeting in accordance with Council Policy 6.20.
e) Interdepartmental Implications:
In order to advance the current application, after first reading, comments and input, will be sought
from the various internal departments and external agencies listed below:
a) Engineering Department;
b) Operations Department;
c) Fire Department;
d) Building Department;
e) Parks Department;
f) School District; and
g) Canada Post.
The above list is intended to be indicative only and it may become necessary, as the application
progresses, to liaise with agencies and departments not listed above. This application has not been
forwarded to the Engineering Department for comments at this time; therefore, an evaluation of
servicing requirements has not been undertaken. This evaluation will take place between first and
second reading.
f) Early and Ongoing Consultation:
In respect of Section 475 of the Local Government Act for consultation during an OCP amendment, it
is recommended that no additional consultation is required beyond the early posting of the proposed
OCP amendments on the City’s website, together with an invitation to the public to comment.
g) Development Applications:
In order for this application to proceed the following information must be provided, as re quired by
Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879–1999 as amended:
1. A complete Rezoning Application (Schedule C);
2. A Multi-Family Residential Development Permit Application (Schedule D);
3. A Development Variance Permit (Schedule E);
- 5 -
The above list is intended to be indicative only, other applications may be necessary as the
assessment of the proposal progresses.
CONCLUSION:
The subject application is to permit approximately 41 townhouse units and the provision of a 120A
Lane connection in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) zone. The development proposal is in
compliance with the OCP, therefore, it is recommended that Council grant first reading subject to
additional information being provided and assessed prior to second reading.
“Original signed by Amelia Bowden”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Amelia Bowden
Planning Technician
“Original signed by Christine Carter”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
“Original signed by David Pollock” 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
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A – Subject Map
Appendix B – Ortho Map
Appendix C – Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7220-2016
Appendix D – Proposed Site Plan
DATE: Jan 22, 2016
FILE: 2016-009-RZ
BY: PC
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTY
´
Scale: 1:2,000
23729 DEWDNEY TRUNK ROAD
Legend
Stream
Ditch Centreline
Indefinite Creek
APPENDIX A
City of Pitt
Meadows
District of
Langley District of MissionFRASER R.
^
DATE: Jan 22, 2016
FILE: 2016-009-RZ
BY: PC
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTY
´
Scale: 1:2,000
23729 DEWDNEY TRUNK ROAD
Aerial Imagery from the Spring of 2011
APPENDIX B
CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 7220-2016
A Bylaw to amend Map "A" forming part of Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended
______________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as
amended;
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows:
1.This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7220-2016."
2.That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as:
Parcel “2” of Parcel “A” (Explanatory Plan 1734) of the South East Quarter
Section 21 Township 12 EXCEPT: FIRSTLY: Parcel “One” (Explanatory Plan 17000);
SECONDLY: Part subdivided by Plan LMP 36965; New Westminster District
and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1662 a copy of which is attached hereto
and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby rezoned to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential).
3.Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended and Map "A" attached
thereto are hereby amended accordingly.
READ a first time the day of , 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
236382364311987
1194223700 2371611979
11908
11926
11932 23730237552377012 0 9 0
237802378812070120 782381811971
11917
11960
11970 238892362311941
11965
11954
11915
11949 237601 2 0 9 4
23780
11931 238232383011959
238252362823652236822367523679236832369411917
11953
11918
11930
11931
11937
1199123730 2372912087
2374512 0 8 0
2376012071
1192112083 1208212074
23807236671192923697 2370811978
12 0 7 3
1192023735 23770
12079
11915
11900238102381511918 2380812111
1193023622236312366311977
11988 11967
2375023765237952377512055
23612236392370211966
11909 2375011914
11938
1190711908
11949
12005
23822119402361923627236352365923671236982371023720237401209812075
12057
11904
1192823820 11983
119952384023831
11927
12073
119502361623655236872369112099
12102
2371211923
11943
11957 237402
3
7
4
5 237912379423831238002383811911
119392385012069
12077
12085
11980
237A ST.237A ST.237 ST.237 ST.119B AVE.238A ST.DEWDNEY TRUNK RD.238B ST.120B AVE.238B ST.237A ST.238A ST.238B ST.238 ST.LANE
12 0B AVE.
120A LANE
237 ST.119B AVE.
P 20770
SL4
10
LMS 988
13
1/2
Rem LMP 25296
18
4
6
21
11 10
14
18
21
28 *LMP10227EP 1700012
11
9
10
27
LMP 30403
5
12
3
LMP 27307
48
5 7
LMP 9544
(EPS 1766)P 103612
BCP 97 13
LMP 252967
5
7
10
LMP 252961
4
19
14
20
P 765363
45
BCS 1441
SL3
BCP 17476
6
5
12
LMP 2529620
20 19
LMP 2529614
11
9
3
4 5
P 72572
P 72572
16
13
23
LMP 30403
LMP 30403
P 7653614
15
B
24
4
9
46
BCP 97 13
P 20770A of 7
14
of
22 18
8
6
1
Rem Pcl. 2 of Pcl. A
15
P 7257226
9
25 1
10
25
7 LMP 304035
4
BCP 6847
80.7'
15
12
16
2
P 72572P 7257216
20
30 27
15
16
P 85134P 85134
Rem 115903
23
9
11
3
19
2
3
9 PARK
2
8
15
17 2
3
LMP 3985 1P 581215
19
17
14
21
17
8
12
4
P 8513417
6
20
26
1
2
4
4
SL6
8
5 6
Rem
16 17 19 21
2
7
5
7
PcL 110 LMP 3040311
18
EP
P 7653616
13
47 CPSL5
Rem 3
11
Pcl.
W
E
3
13
L M P 3 9 8 5 1
EP 1734
29
6
17
22
8 LMP 39851P 8513424
13
BCP 21769
22
2
BCS 3574
18
LMP 3166
LMP 30404BCP 49651BCP 49654
RW 72574LMP 4233 LMP 30401EP 76537BCP 17477LMP 9545LMP 25297LMP 9545
RW 72574LMP 39850
LMP 3164 BCP 49651LMP 4613
RW 28408
RP 86679BCP 9714LMP 9545
LMP 25297BCP 19100
RP 8312
LMP 6385LMP 3333
LMP 8074 RW 72573LMP 9546
BCP 21770
EP 76228LMP 30401
LMP 787 BCP 21771RP 57263
BCP 19841
LMP 27920
B.C. TELEPHONE CO.
LMP 16374 RW 72573
´
SCALE 1:2,500
MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDINGBylaw No. Map No. From:
To:
RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
RM-1 (Townhouse Residential)
7220-20161662
Urban Area Boundary
Urban Area Boundary
APPENDIX D
- 1 -
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: March 7, 2016
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2011-137-RZ
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: Second Reading
Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7169-2015
12257 227 Street
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received to rezone the subject property, located at 12257 227 Street, from
RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District), to permit a future
subdivision of approximately 3 lots. Council granted first reading to Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7169-
2015 on October 13, 2015. This application is in compliance with the Official Community Plan.
Pursuant to Council Resolution, this application is exempt from the Community Amenity Charge due
to its location in the Town Centre.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1)That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7169-2015 be given second reading, and be forwarded to Public
Hearing;
2)That the following terms and conditions be met prior to final reading:
i)Road dedication on 227 Street as required;
ii)Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for Stormwater Management;
iii)Removal of existing buildings; and
iv)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 property. 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: Vijay Mehta
Owner: Vijay Mehta
Legal Description: Lot 224, Section 20, Township 12, NWD Plan 42134
1104
- 2 -
OCP:
Existing: Single-Family Residential
Proposed: Single-Family Residential
Zoning:
Existing: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Proposed: R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District)
Surrounding Uses:
North: Use: Single Family Dwelling
Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Designation: Single Family Residential
South: Use: Single Family Dwelling
Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Designation: Single Family Residential
East: Use: Single Family Dwelling
Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Designation: Ground-Oriented Multi-Family
West: Use: Single Family Dwelling
Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Designation: Single Family Residential
Existing Use of Property: Single Family Dwelling
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Dwelling
Site Area: 947 m² (10,193 ft²)
Access: 122 Avenue and 227 Street
Servicing requirement: Full Urban Servicing
Companion Applications: 2011-137-SD/DP/VP
2) Project Description:
The subject property is within the Town Centre area, is relatively flat, and is bounded by single family
residential properties to the north, west, east and south (see Appendices A and B).
3) Planning Analysis:
An application has been received to rezone the subject property from RS-1 (One Family Urban
Residential) to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) (see Appendix C), to permit future
subdivision into three single family lots (see Appendix D). A new lane will be dedicated to access the
lots from the rear.
i) Official Community Plan:
The subject property is designated as Single Family Residential in the North View Precinct of the
Town Centre Area Plan, which provides options for increasing density and choice of housing form,
while retaining the single family character in these established neighbourhood blocks. The R-3
(Special Amenity Residential District) zone is compatible with the Zoning Matrix for the Single Family
Residential designation within the Town Centre Area Plan in the Official Community Plan (OCP).
- 3 -
ii) Zoning Bylaw:
The current application proposes to rezone the subject property from RS-1 (One Family Urban
Residential) to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) to permit future subdivision into 3 single
family lots. The minimum lot width and length for the R-3 (Special Amenity Resdiential District) zone
is 7.9 metres (25.9 ft.) and 27 metres (88.6 ft.), respectively, for a lot accessed via a rear lane. The
proposed lots satisfy these requirements, as well as the minimum lot area of 213 m² (2,293 ft²).
iii) Off-Street Parking And Loading Bylaw:
The Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990 requires two off-street parking spaces per
dwelling unit, which are provided through detached double-car garages for lots 1 and 2, and a
detached single-car garage and concrete parking pad for lot 3.
iv) Proposed Variances:
A Development Variance Permit will be required to vary the Subdivision and Development Servicing
Bylaw No. 4800-1993, to reduce the road allowances along 227 Street, 122 Avenue, and the
proposed lane. Additional variances will be required to the Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 to reduce
the minimum visual clearance at intersections from 7.5 metres (24.6 ft.) to 6 metres (19.7 ft.) and
the minimum distance for a driveway from an intersection from 7.5 metres (24.6 ft.) to 6 metres
(19.7 ft.). The requested variances will be the subject of a future report to Council.
v) Development Permits:
The subject property is located in the Town Centre Area Plan, which states that small lot Single-
Family development in the Town Centre is subject to the Intensive Residential Development Permit
Area Guidelines of the OCP. Pursuant to Section 8.8 of the OCP, an Intensive Residential
Development Permit application is required to ensure the current proposal provides emphasis on
high standards in aesthetics and quality of the built environment, while protecting important
qualities of the natural environment. The form and character of the single family homes will be the
subject of a future report to Council.
vi) Development Information Meeting:
A Development Information Meeting was not required as there are fewer than 25 lots being created
and an OCP amendment is not required.
vii) Parkland Requirement:
As there are not more than two additional lots proposed to be created, the developer is not required
to comply with the park dedication requirements of Section 510 of the Local Government Act prior to
subdivision approval.
- 4 -
4)Interdepartmental Implications:
i)Engineering Department:
The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed development and has determined that all
required services exist; therefore, a Rezoning Servicing Agreement is not required. Aside from the
road dedication required along 227 Street, all servicing upgrades will be provided at the Subdivision
stage, through a Subdivision Servicing Agreement.
CONCLUSION:
It is recommended that second reading be given to Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7169-2015, and that
application 2011-137-RZ 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 David Pollock” 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
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A – Subject Map
Appendix B – Ortho Map
Appendix C – Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7169-2015
Appendix D – Site Plan
Appendix E – Building Elevation Plans
Appendix F – Landscape Plan
DATE: Sep 16, 20152011-137-RZ BY: JV
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTY
227 St´
Scale: 1:2,000
12257-227 St2011 Image
Legend
Canal Edge
Ditch Centreline
Edge of River
Edge of Marsh
Edge of Flooded Area
Indefinite Creek
River Centreline
Canal
Marsh
River
Major Rivers & Lakes
APPENDIX A
DATE: Sep 16, 2015
2011-137-RZ
BY: JV
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTY
227 StCity of Maple Ridge´
Scale: 1:2,000
12257-227 St
2011 Image
Legend
Canal Edge
Ditch Centreline
Edge of River
Edge of Marsh
Edge of Flooded Area
Indefinite Creek
River Centreline
Canal
Marsh
River
Major Rivers & Lakes
APPENDIX B
CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 7169-2015
A Bylaw to amend Map "A" forming part of Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 as amended
______________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 as
amended;
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows:
1.This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7169-2015."
2.That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as:
Lot 224 Section 20 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 42134
and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1644 a copy of which is attached hereto
and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby rezoned to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential
District).
3.Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 as amended and Map "A" attached
thereto are hereby amended accordingly.
READ a first time the 13th day of October, 2015.
READ a second time the day of , 20
PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , 20
READ a third time the day of , 20
ADOPTED the day of , 20
_____________________________ ____________________________
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
APPENDIX C
225972262022610226172264212187
12308
12271
22612226342265212263
12214
12230
12284
12311
12203
12253 227302260812250
1226022641 2266612192
12208 2270412193
1229022596
22587122702264212221
12302
225922260712195
12257
12264
12231
12218
1224022587
22582225802258922622226192263112211
12219
12281
12244
12261
12321
12243
12194
12208
12228225692260912239
12293
12311
12272
12298
1231622702
12275
2257022579225772259022611226322266312254
12297
12314
12216
12222
12230
245
7
246
227
3
P 19921P 7236591
130
254
229
19 20
P 21417223
131 P 56893P 39649122
P 42134
251
2
A
P 29696
B
P 28939P 2555589
123
P 42134
16
231
260
230
252
248
4
3 P 42134224
66
1
2
90
P 44381198 12187
P 42134
228
3
4
BCP 12842
4
197P 284972
221
84
PARK
P 42134
261
247
5
18
2
Rem. A
226 225Rem.
127
219P 40438
1
330
2
1 P 21837265
86 P 25555232
P 19358
P 7219
2
1 P 14396P 3991888
259
P 19358
253
6
17
250
249
21
RP 84324
218
331 P 70504220
264 P 2857985
RW 41758
EP
4
4
3
8
9
HINCH CRES.
123 AVE.
122 AVE.227 ST.122 AVE.FLETCHER ST.´
SCALE 1:1,500
MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDINGBylaw No. Map No. From:
To:
RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District)
7169-20151644
37.1FG 37.036.56FG 36.5636.56FG 36.5736.58FG 36.5836.70FG 36.8536.80FG 36.8536.50FG 36.5536.44FG 36.5736.52FG 36.5836.90FG 36.9037.41FG 37.4136.85FG 37.336.95FG 36.9536.55FG 36.5837.11FG 37.116.0027.06122nd Avenue6.0030.078.508.508.89LOT 38.508.508.89PROPOSED PLROPERTY LINESIDE YARDSET BACKSIDE YARDSET BACKSIDE YARDSET BACKSIDE YARDSET BACKFRONT YARDSET BACKTO FOUNDATIONTO FNDSIDE YARDSET BACK6m FROM INTERSECTION2818 sq. ft.216.80 sq. m.2748.58 sq. ft.255.44 sq. m.LOT 22748.58 sq. ft.255.44 sq. m.LOT 1TO ROOFTO FOUNDATIONTO FACE OF POSTPATHBETWEEN STRUCTURESTO FND30.06PATHTO FNDTO FACE OF POSTTO FACE OF POSTLINE OF ALLOWABLEEAVE ENCROACHMENTLINE OF ALLOWABLEEAVE ENCROACHMENTINTO REAR YARDBETWEEN STRUCTURESBUILDING DEPTHLINE OF ALLOWABLEEAVE ENCROACHMENTINTO SIDE YARDLINE OF ALLOWABLEEAVE ENCROACHMENTINTO FRONT YARDSIDE YARDSET BACKSIDE YARDSET BACKSIDE YARDSET BACKSIDE YARDSET BACKBUILDING WIDTHSIDE YARDSET BACKTO FNDFRONT YARDSET BACKFRONT YARDSET BACKTO FOUNDATIONTO FOUNDATIONTO FACE OF POSTBETWEEN STRUCTURESBUILDING WIDTHBUILDING WIDTHBUILDING DEPTHBUILDING DEPTHBUILDING DEPTHBUILDING DEPTHTO FND30.06LINE OF ALLOWABLEEAVE ENCROACHMENTINTO SIDE YARD127th StreetLANEProposed Lot 1:R-3 MINIMUM BUILDING ENVELOPE 5X0R-3 MINIMUM LOT AREA 213 SQ.MACTUAL LOT AREA: 255.44 SQ.MMAXIMUM FLOOR AREA: .7 = 178.81 SQ.M 1924.67 SQ. FT.ACTUAL FLOOR AREA: 172.86 SQ.M 1860.7 SQ FT.Proposed Lot 2:R-3 MINIMUM BUILDING ENVELOPE 5X0R-3 MINIMUM LOT AREA 213 SQ.MACTUAL LOT AREA: 255.44 SQ.MMAXIMUM FLOOR AREA: .7 = 178.81 SQ.M 1924.67 SQ. FT.ACTUAL FLOOR AREA: 172.86 SQ.M 1860.7 SQ FT.Proposed Lot 3:R-3 MINIMUM BUILDING ENVELOPE 5X0R-3 MINIMUM LOT AREA 213 SQ.MACTUAL LOT AREA: 261.8 SQ.MMAXIMUM FLOOR AREA: .7 = 183.26 SQ.M 1972.59 SQ. FT.ACTUAL FLOOR AREA: 170.79 SQ.M 1838.34 SQ FT.TO FNDTO FNDTO FNDTO FNDTO ROOFTO FNDTO ROOFTO FNDDRAWING NUMBER:SCALE:DATE:DRAWN BY:DRAWING TITLE:CLIENT:ISSUED / REVISEDNO.DATEThe contractor shall check and verify alldimensions and data noted on site andis responsible for reporting any discrepanciesto Owner prior to commencement ofwork. All drawings are the property ofDesigner and shall not be reproducedwithout written consent of the Designer.Drawings shall not be scaled.ISSUED FOR DP1FEB 8, 2016VPROPOSEDCNMAPLE RIDGE, BCA 1 OF 10Feb, 20161:100SITE PLANSITE PLANSCALE: 1:100AVERAGE GRADE CALCULATIONAPPENDIX D
MAX BUILDING HT. 48.01mPROPOSED BASEMENT FLOORELEVATION 36.95mAVERAGE GRADE 37.01mPROPOSED UPPER LVL FLOORELEVATION 42.68mUNDERSIDE OF CEILINGELEVATION 45.14mRIDGEELEVATION 47.89mPROPOSED MAIN LVL FLOORELEVATION 39.66mFG 37.41FG 36.95MAX BUILDING HT. 48.01mPROPOSED BASEMENT FLOORELEVATION 36.95mAVERAGE GRADE 37.01mPROPOSED UPPER LVL FLOORELEVATION 42.68mUNDERSIDE OF CEILINGELEVATION 45.17mRIDGEELEVATION 47.89mPROPOSED MAIN LVL FLOORELEVATION 39.66mFG 37.41FG 36.58MAX BUILDING HT. 48.01mPROPOSED BASEMENT FLOORELEVATION 36.95mAVERAGE GRADE 37.01mPROPOSED UPPER LVL FLOORELEVATION 42.68mUNDERSIDE OF CEILINGELEVATION 45.17mRIDGEELEVATION 47.89mPROPOSED MAIN LVL FLOORELEVATION 39.66mFG 36.58FG 37.11MAX BUILDING HT. 48.01mPROPOSED BASEMENT FLOORELEVATION 36.95mAVERAGE GRADE 37.01mPROPOSED UPPER LVL FLOORELEVATION 42.68mUNDERSIDE OF CEILINGELEVATION 45.17mRIDGEELEVATION 47.89mPROPOSED MAIN LVL FLOORELEVATION 39.66mFG 37.41FG 37.11DRAWING NUMBER:SCALE:DATE:DRAWN BY:DRAWING TITLE:CLIENT:ISSUED / REVISEDNO.DATEThe contractor shall check and verify alldimensions and data noted on site andis responsible for reporting any discrepanciesto Owner prior to commencement ofwork. All drawings are the property ofDesigner and shall not be reproducedwithout written consent of the Designer.Drawings shall not be scaled.ISSUED FOR DP1FEB 8, 2016PROPOSEDCNMAPLE RIDGE, BCA 7 OF 10Feb, 20161:50ELEVATIONSELEVATIONSSCALE: 1:50APPENDIX E
DRAWING NUMBER:SCALE:DATE:DRAWN BY:DRAWING TITLE:CLIENT:ISSUED / REVISEDNO.DATEThe contractor shall check and verify alldimensions and data noted on site andis responsible for reporting any discrepanciesto Owner prior to commencement ofwork. All drawings are the property ofDesigner and shall not be reproducedwithout written consent of the Designer.Drawings shall not be scaled.ISSUED FOR DP1FEB 8, 2016PROPOSEDCNMAPLE RIDGE, BCA 8 OF 10Feb, 20161:50GARAGEGARAGESCALE: 1:50
37 .1FG 37 .036.56FG 36 .56
36 .56FG 36 .57
36 .58FG 36 .58
36 .70FG 36 .85
36 .80FG 36 .85
36 .50FG 36 .55
36 .44FG 36 .57
36 .52FG 36 .58
36 .90FG 36 .90
37 .41FG 37 .41
36 .85FG 37 .3
36 .95FG 36 .95
36 .55FG 36 .58
37 .11FG 37 .11
PATHLANESidewalkConcrete CurbConcrete CurbLetdownPATHPATHPATHSHEET TITLEDATEREVISIONSDRAWN R.D.CHECKED R.D.SCALE: 1/8" = 1'0"February 17, 2015SHEET NUMBERPROJECTPROPOSED 3 LOT SUBDIVISION12257 227TH STREETMAPLE RIDGE, BCLANDSCAPE PLAN& STREET TREE PLANL-11-Dec. 21/15 Added parking stall- lot 3Rev. #2 - Feb. 15/162-Feb. 15/16 City comments/ site plan changes6M FROM INTERSECTIONTree #150cm Cherry(remove)Tree #235cm Fir(retain & monitor)Tree #340cm Fir(retain & monitor)Tree #430cm Cedar(retain & monitor)Tree #525cm Cedar(retain & monitor)OFF-SITETREESEXISTING TREETO BE REMOVED(also refer to treeassessment letter)EXISTING OFF-SITE TREESTO BE RETAINEDPROVIDE TREEPROTECTION FENCINGDURING CONSTRUCTIONSEE DETAIL THIS SHEETLANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE GRAPHIC DESIGN DIGITAL ILLUSTRATIONRORY DAFOEBCSLA CSLALandscape Architect11278 Eltham StreetMaple RidgeBritish ColumbiaCanadaV2X 1P3 rorydafoe@shaw.caOffice & Mobile: (604) 460 0606RORY DAFOEBCSLA CSLALandscape ArchitectLandscape ArchitectLANDSCAPE ARCHITECT:NOTES:THE SOLE TERMS OF THE LANDSCAPEARCHITECTS SCOPE OF WORK ANDPROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES ARE DEFINEDON THE LANDSCAPE SCHEDULES SUBMITTEDFOR THIS PROJECT.ALL DESIGNS & DRAWINGS (PAPER & DIGITAL COPIES)ARE COPYRIGHT & REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF RORYDAFOE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ANDARE NOT TO BE REPRODUCED, REVISED OR COPIEDWITHOUT PRIOR CONSENT.LANDSCAPE PLANS FORM AN INTEGRAL PART OFTHE DEVELOPMENT AND BUILDING PERMITS ANDMUST BE ADHERED TO FOR RELEASE OF THELANDSCAPING LETTER OF CREDIT.RORY DAFOE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT ASSUMES NORESPONSIBILITY WHATSOEVER FOR ACCURACY OF BASEINFORMATION SUPPLIED BY OTHERS. BASE INFORMATIONSUPPLIED BY RUSBOURNE DESIGN.PLANT LIST SYMBOLQUANTITYBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMESIZESPACING6CercidiphyllumjaponicaKatsura Tree6cm cal., min. 2.0m standard, B&B3Picea omorikaSerbian Sprucemin. 2.0m ht, B&BSHRUBS11Azalea 'Hino White'Hino White Azalea#2 Cont.18Leucothoe fontanesiana 'Rainbow'Rainbow Leucothoe#2 Cont.30Prunus l. 'Otto Luyken'Otto Luyken Laurel#2 Cont.17Thuja occidentalis 'Smaragd'Smaragd Cedar1.2m ht.0.75m O.C.GROUNDCOVERS AND PERENNIALS53Erica carnea 'Springwood White'Springwood White Heather#1 Cont.0.60m O.C.22Helictotrichion sempervirens Blue Oat Grass#1 Cont.0.60m O.C.23Hemerocallis 'Stella D'Oro'Stella D'Oro Daylily#1 Cont.0.60m O.C.NOTES:ALL WORK & MATERIALS TO CONFORM TO THE LATEST EDITION OF THE BC LANDSCAPE STANDARD ANDIN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE STANDARDS, UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.IN THE EVENT OF A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE B.C. LANDSCAPE STANDRD AND CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE STANDARDS,CITY OF MAPLE STANDARDS SHALL TAKE PRECEDENCE.PROVIDE FERTILITY & PARTICLE SIZE ANALYSIS TEST FOR GROWING MEDIUM PRIOR TO STARTING WORK.GROWING MEDIUM TO BE WEED FREE AND COMPOSTED, CONFORMING TO BCNTA STANDARD FOR 'LEVEL 2 SOILS'.PROVIDE TOPSOIL DEPTHS AS FOLLOWS:TREES-Min. 2' IN ALL DIRECTIONS FROM ROOT BALLS. Min. 1 m3 PER TREE.SEE MAPLE RIDGE STREET TREE PLANTING DETAIL FOR BOULEVARD STREET TREE INSTALLATION.SHRUB & GROUNDCOVER BEDS:18" DEPTH CONTINUOUS.LAWN AREAS-Min. 4" DEPTH CONTINUOUS.PROVIDE 5CM DEPTH(2") COMPOSTED BARK MULCH IN ALL PLANTING BEDS.ONE YEAR PLANT WARRANTY SITE REVIEW WILL BE CONDUCTEDALL PLANT MATERIAL TO COME FROM A CERTIFIED DISEASE-FREE NURSERY. PROVIDE CERTIFICATION UPON REQUEST.MINIMUM STREET TREE PLANTING CLEARANCESOFF-SITE STREET TREE NOTES-Final locations, species and installation of Street Trees to be to the satisfaction of theCity of Maple Ridge.Contact the Landscape Planning Technician at 604-467-7499 for a reviewof staked street tree locations prior to planting.Refer to street tree planting detail on this sheet.25mm DEPTH COMPOSTED HEMLOCK / FIR BARK MULCHIN TREE SAUCER KEEP MULCH OFF TRUNK.ALL BOULEVARDS TO BESODDED OVER MIN. 100mmDEPTH APPROVEDGROWING MEDIUM TYPE '2-L'WOOD PRIVACY FENCE4"X4" DECORATIVE WOODPOST CAP1"X6" T&G FENCE BOARDSW/ V- JOINTS2"X4" BOTTOM RAIL4"X4" POSTS AT MAX.8'0" ON CENTREFINISHED GRADE.15m DEPTH COMPACTED GRAVELCOMPACTED SUBGRADECONCRETE FOOTING, min.24" deep& 12" dia.5'-0" max.All other wood members to be CedarNOTES:2"X4" TOP RAIL2"X4" MID RAIL1"X1" NAILER STRIP HORIZ.& VERT., BOTH SIDES+/- 1.5"8'-0" max.Posts & perimeter frame to be pressuretreated fir/hemlock.2"X6" KICK RAIL2"X4" MID RAILnot to scale+/-6"Fence to be constructed with spiralgalv'd. nails. and/ or treated screws.All other hardware to be galvanized.Provide 2 coats of stain. Color as selectedby Developer.2.4m1.8m1.8m2.1m2.1m9.9m7.5m STREET TREE CORNER OFFSET7.5m STREET TREE CORNER OFFSETdeckabovedeckabovedeckabovegaragegaragegaragewoodgatewoodgate5' HIGH WOOD FENCESee detail this sheetEXISTING CEDAR HEDGEON ADJACENT PROPERTY(shown approximate)GRAVEL MULCHOVER LANDSCAPEFILTER FABRICGRAVEL MULCHOVER LANDSCAPEFILTER FABRICsodded boulevardsodded boulevardsodded boulevardsodsod5' HIGH WOOD FENCESee detail this sheet5' HIGH WOOD FENCESee detail this sheetsodsodTREE PROTECTION FENCINGSee detail this sheetLOT 3LOT 2LOT 1sodsodsodsodsodded boulevardPROPOSED STREETTREESSee detail this sheetPROPOSED STREET TREESSee detail this sheetAPPENDIX F
- 1 -
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: March 7, 2016
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2013-117-RZ
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: Second Reading
Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7055-2014
12182 228 Street
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received to rezone the subject property located at 12182 228 Street from
RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District), to permit a future
subdivision of approximately 3 single family lots. Council granted first reading to Zone Amending
Bylaw No.7055-2014 on February 11, 2014. This application is in compliance with the Official
Community Plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1)That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7055-2014 be given second reading, and be forwarded to Public
Hearing;
2)That the following terms and conditions be met prior to final reading:
i)Registration of a temporary Statutory Right of Way on the proposed center lot, to provide
temporary access to the rear lane, until such time as alternative access is provided via a
lane system;
ii)Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for Stormwater Management;
iii)Removal of existing building;
iv)Dedication of the 7.5m wide lane, to be projected on the Subdivision plan as per
Subdivision and Servicing Amending Bylaw # 7093-2014.
v)Registration of a ‘No Build’ Restrictive Covenant on the remnant land east of the lane;
vi)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 ta nks on the
subject property. If so, a Stage 1 Site Investigation Report is required to ensure that the
subject property is not a contaminated site.
1105
- 2 -
DISCUSSION:
1) Background Context:
Applicant: Gary Tiwana
Owner: Paramjit Joshi
Legal Description: Lot 1, Except Firstly the North 75 feet and Secondly Part subdivided by Plan
44214, Section 20, Township 12, New Westminster District Plan 4836
OCP:
Existing: Single-Family Residential
Zoning:
Existing: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Proposed: R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District)
Surrounding Uses:
North: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Designation: Single Family Residential
South: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Designation: Single Family Residential
East: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential)
Designation: Single Family Residential
West: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) and
RM-1 (Townhouse Residential)
Designation: Single Family Residential
Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Site Area: 0.138 ha (0.34 acres)
Access: 228 Street
Servicing: Urban Standard
Companion Applications: 2013-117-SD and 2013-117-DP
2) Project Description:
The subject property is situated in a block bound by 122 Avenue to the north, Greenwell Street to the
east, Purdey Avenue to the south, and 228 Street to the west (see Appendix A and B). The subject
property fronts 228 Street, and is located in the Town Centre Area Plan. A single family home is
currently located on the property. No watercourses or steep slopes exist on the subject property.
The applicant is proposing to develop 3 single family lots with detached homes, consisting of a
basement and 2 storeys. Detached garages are projected in the rear yards, with rear lane access.
Also included in the project is a portion of remnant land that will be consolidated for future
subdivision with the adjacent property to the east.
- 3 -
It is anticipated that through redevelopment of other properties within this block, the rear lane will be
extended and accessed via Greenwell Street. 228 Street is designated as a collector road intended
to accommodate both a high volume of vehicle traffic and on-street parking. Providing a rear lane
will eliminate driveway letdowns, maximizing the available on-street parking for new developments
on 228 Street.
3) Planning Analysis:
i) Official Community Plan:
The subject site is located within the North View Precinct of the Town Centre Area Plan and is
currently designated Single-Family Residential, which allows for intensive single family and duplex
development as a transition from higher densities in the downtown area to existing larger lot single
family residential areas outside of the Town Centre Area. The North View Precinct of the Town Centre
encompasses a range of land uses. The highest residential densities, such as high -rise apartments,
are permitted adjacent to the civic core and transition down to lower single family residential
densities closer to the area plan boundaries. The Town Centre Area Plan states the following in the
Single-Family Residential designation:
The Single-Family Residential designation in the Town Centre provides options for increasing
density and choice of housing form, while retaining the single family character in these
established neighbourhood blocks.
Policy 3-17 To enable some densification in areas designated for Single-Family Residential,
Maple Ridge will consider:
a. A Detached Garden Suite, subject to consistency with the Maple Ridge
Detached Garden Suites policy;
b. A Secondary Suite within a principle single-family use dwelling, subject to
consistency with the existing Maple Ridge Secondary Suite Bylaws.
c. Lot size of 213m2 to 370m2 is permitted, where vehicle access is from a
rear lane only.
d. Minimum lot size of 371m2 is permitted, where driveway access is located
from the rear lane or the street.
e. Duplex development will be permitted on a corner lot or a lot with lane
access to concealed parking. The minimum lot size for duplex
development is 557m2 and the character of the development should be
similar to a single-family development in its size, scale, and massing.
Policy 5-9 Maple Ridge will encourage the retention of laneways and the creation of new
laneways should be considered, where appropriate and feasible.
The proposed single detached form with vehicle access from the lane is consistent with the Town
Centre Area Plan policies.
ii) Zoning Bylaw:
The current application proposes to rezone the subject property located at 12182 228 Street from
RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) to permit future
subdivision into approximately three single family lots and a lane. (see Appendix C) The proposed
lots are approximately 327 m2 in area and 9.2 metres in width. The minimum area requirement for
R-3 (Special Amenity Residential District) is 213 m2.
- 4 -
iii) Off-Street Parking And Loading Bylaw:
Schedule A of the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw states that for a building with One Family
Residential, and Two Family Residential uses, a number of 2.0 parking spaces on the property is
required. The proposed plan shows double garages on each lot.
iv) Development Permits:
Pursuant to Section 8.8 of the OCP, an Intensive Residential Development Permit application is
required to ensure the current proposal provides emphasis on high standards in aesthetics and
quality of the built environment. Compliance with the key guidelines will be the subject of a future
report to Council for application 2013-117-DP. The proposed form and character of the buildings
consist of detached 2 storey residences with a basement.
v) Parkland Requirements:
As there are fewer than three additional lots proposed to be created, the developer will not be
required to comply with the park dedication requirements of Section 510 of the Local Government
Act prior to subdivision approval.
4) Interdepartmental Implications:
i) Engineering Department:
The Subdivision and Servicing Amending Bylaw No. 7093-2014 requires a right-of-way width of 7.5 m
for a lane but the subdivision plan originally submitted by the applicant proposes a 6m wide lane for
access to the garages (See Appendix D). It is noted that the property can accommodate a 7.5m wide
lane. The Engineering Department therefore does not support a variance to reduce the lane
width. The applicant is advised on the new standard and needs to submit a new plan for subdivision.
Consistent with the Town Centre Area Plan and the intended functionality of a collector road, the
Engineering Department supports the lane access requirement for newly created lots less than
370m2 in area. At this time, a statutory right-of-way will be required over one of the proposed lots
until such time that lane access can be connected through to Greenwell Street, or the lane is
extended and a new temporary access is provided on an adjacent property.
A Stormwater Management Plan has been prepared by Civic Consultants in Abbotsford, received
November 26, 2015. It is part of a conceptual servicing design and therefore reviewed by our
Engineering Department.
ii) Fire Department:
A Statutory Right of Way is required on the proposed center lot of the subject subdivision, to provide
temporary access to the rear lane way. Use of the center lot will facilitate a natural hammerhead
turn around which is preferred for heavy truck traffic (i.e. emergency response vehicles). Temporary
access on the center lot is to be constructed to similar standard as the regular municipal lanes. A
sign stating ‘Fire Lane – No Parking’ is required to be posted on the lane.
- 5 -
CONCLUSION:
The proposed application is to permit future subdivision into three (3) single family lots in the North
View Precinct of the Town Centre Area Plan. As this proposal is in compliance with the OCP, it is
recommended that second reading be given to Zone Amending Bylaw No.7055-2014, and that
application 2013-117-RZ be forwarded to Public Hearing.
“Original signed by Therese Melser”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Therese Melser
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 - Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7055-2014
Appendix D – Subdivision Plan
Appendix E – Building Elevations
City of PittMeadows
District ofLangley District of MissionFRASER R.
^
DATE: Jan 22, 2014 2013-117-RZ BY: JV
CORPORATION OFTHE DISTRICT OFMAPLE RIDGE
P LA N NIN G DE P A R T M E N T
12115
12121
12169
12201
12243
2280622871229022291112140
12150
12160 2294012253
12140
12143
12147
12151
12160
12238
228722291112141
12183
12120 22833228822288322901229242293312131
12229
12276
228182282412157
12167
12185
1215522912 2291412151
12191
12194
12258
12274
1216122836
12150 228802287512145 229182294312203
12166
12128 22812228732288122882121352288822913 22923229212294112139
12182
12208
12240
12255
12140
12166
12258
228742288122891229222293612161
12211
12261
12154
12195
12180
12192
12224
22898229212290822934 22935
122 AVE.GREENWELL ST.EAGLE AVE.
STOREY AVE.228 ST.228 ST.122 AVE.P 11845
402
N 50' 5
BCS 569
P 82923
339
1
2
337
335
103
65
128
116
94
69
10
222
1
297
Rem. 1
P 44873
288
353
236
113
P 44292
215
104
129
106
130
107
119
P 11845
336P 14396S. 52.5' 2
A
AP 40082
BCP 21032
P 44858
340
3
338
4
6
237
225
213
P 44292
252
228
95
132
108
309
P 13667336P 57241214
127
114
102
P 41773
217
P 41774
131
231
*PP090
B
75' of 1
4
P 52578352
P 41774
227
93
67
229
P 44292
105
230
218 219
BCP 23946
Rem 2
2
401
294
341
P 4836
3
91
250
251
115
P 44292
96
255
LMP 4065
P 58171
P 45792
P 67081
8
RP 16335
A
295P 44214289
292
126
66 68 70
254
253
97
1
9
P 81396Rem. N
P 52578303 P 44396
P 13667
304
235
226
92
216
P 42872
117 118
71
Subject Property
228 St´
Scale: 1:1,500
12182-228 ST
APPENDIX A
City of Pitt
Meadows
District of
Langley District of MissionFRASER R.
^
DATE: Dec 17, 2013 2013-117-RZ BY: JV
CORPORATION OF
THE DISTRICT OF
MAPLE RIDGE
PLA NNING DE PARTM ENT
12139
12141
12203
12229
12185
12160
12211 2281212157
12180
12183
12140
12182
12151
12167
12195
12131
12191
12201 2280612224
12151
12154
12194
12208 2281812169
12161 12166 2283612166
1219222824
12161
122 AVE.
36
Rem 2
341
4
225
LMP 4065
1
Rem. N
213
113
2
339
289
6
22
1P 1439B P 81396303
Rem. 1
P 4836
1
2 1
P
102
P 23946
8
P 44396
P 13667
337P 11845S. 52.5' 2
13
P 52578288
235
BCS 569
A
BCP 21032
P 52578340
336
304P 44214126
58171
A
P 82923
9
75' of 1
338
335
21
10
District of Maple Ridge´
Scale: 1:1,000
12182-228 St
SKRWRJUDSK\LPDJH
APPENDIX B
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 7055-2014
A Bylaw to amend Map "A" forming part
of Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended
WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -
1985 as amended;
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple
Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1.This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7055-2014."
2.That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as:
Lot 1 Except: Firstly: The North 75 Feet and Secondly: Part Subdivided by Plan
44214; Section 20 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 4836
and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1607 a copy of which is attached hereto
and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby rezoned to R-3 (Special Amenity Residential
District).
3.Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 - 1985 as amended and Map "A" attached
thereto are hereby amended accordingly.
READ a first time the 11th day of February, 2014.
READ a second time the 12th day of January, 2016
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
12 12 1
12 16 9
12 20 1
12 24 3
2280622871229022291112 14 0
12 14 3
12 14 7
12 15 1 12 16 0
12 23 8
2287212 14 1
12 18 3
12 12 0 228332288212 13 1
12 22 9
228182282412 15 7
12 16 7
12 18 5
12 15 52291212151
12 19 1
12 19 4
12 16 122836
12 15 0 228802287512 14 5
12 20 3
12 16 6
12 12 8 22812228812288212 13 52288812139
12 18 2
12 20 8
12 24 0
12 14 0
12 16 6 22874228812289112 16 1
12 211
12 15 4
12 19 5
12 18 0
12 19 2
12 22 4
1 2 2 AVE .GREENWELL ST.1 2 2 AVE .
331
279
334
P 11845402
N 5 0' 5
BCS 5 69
P 8 292 3
339
1
2
337
335
103
128
116
338
P 6 257 8340
10
1
Rem. 1
288
353
236
113
215
104
129
P 11845336P 14396S. 5 2.5' 2
A
BCP 21 032
P 4 485 8
340
3
338
4
6
237
225
213
252
228P 11845P 13667336P 57241214
127
114
102
P 5 6987
S 1/2 10
N 1/2 10
6P 1 4396
P 5 760 7
*P P0 90
B
75' o f 1
P 52578P 4 177 4
227
105
S 1/2 9
280
2P 7 1970
339
BCP 23 946
Rem 2
2
401
294
341
P 4 836
3
250
251
115
N 1/2 9P 42772LMP 406 5
P 5 817 1
P 4 579 2
P 6 708 1
8
A
295P 44214289
126
P 6 2211
333
1
9
P 81396Rem. N
P 52578303 P 4 439 6
P 1 366 7
304
235
226
216
RW 45948
EP 42655
228 ST.GREENWELL ST.´
SCALE 1:1 ,50 0
MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDINGBylaw No. Ma p No. Fro m:
To:
RS-1 (One Fa mily Urban Residential)
R-3 (Spe cial Ame nity Residential District)
705 5-20 141607
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
- 1 -
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: March 7, 2016
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2014-003-CU
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: Second Reading
Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7064-2014
19975, 19989, 19997 Dunn Avenue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
An application has been received for a Temporary Use Permit to temporarily allow vehicle inventory
storage on the three subject properties, zoned RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential). The subject
properties are located at 19975, 19989, and 19997 Dunn Avenue (see Appendices A and B).
Council granted first reading to Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7064-2014 and
considered the early consultation requirements for the Official Community Plan (OCP) amendment on
March 25, 2014.
A text amendment to Appendix D - Temporary Use Permits of the OCP is proposed to allow a
Temporary Use Permit on the subject properties (see Appendix C). It is recommended that
application 2014-003-CU be granted second reading and be forwarded to Public Hearing.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1)That, in accordance with Section 477 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. 7064-2014 on the municipal website, and Council considers it unnecessary to provide any
further consultation opportunities, except by way of holding a Public Hearing on the bylaw;
2)That Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7064-2014, as amended in the March 7,
2016 staff report, 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. 7064-2014 is consistent
with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Waste Management Plan;
4)That Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7064-2014 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 properties to the list of Temporary Use Permit locations;
ii)Provision of a landscape security for fencing and perimeter hedge planting; and
iii)Issuance of a Highway Use Permit to restore the existing boulevard and provision of a
security as outlined in the permit.
1106
- 2 -
DISCUSSION:
1) Background Context:
Applicant: Maple Ridge Chrysler Dodge Jeep
Owner: BC Transit
Legal Descriptions: Lot 15 Except: Firstly; the West Half Secondly; Parcel 11 (Bylaw
Plan LMP34902) Thirdly Part in Plan BCP29640 District Lot
222 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 11194
West Half Lot 15 Except First: Parcel 7 (Bylaw Plan LMP34902)
Secondly; Part in Plan BCP29640 District Lot 222 Group 1 New
Westminster District Plan 11194
Lot 16 Except Firstly: Parcel 8 (Bylaw Plan LMP34902)
Secondly: Part in Plan BCP29640 District Lot 222 Group 1 New
Westminster District Plan 11194
OCP: Existing: Institutional
Proposed: Temporary Industrial Use Permit
Zoning: Existing: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Surrounding Uses:
North: Use: Highway Commercial
Zone: CS-1 (Service Commercial)
Designation: Commercial
South: Use: Off-Street Parking (Park and Ride)
Zone: RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential)
Designation: Institutional
East: Use: Vacant
Zone: RS-3 (On Family Rural Residential)
Designation: Institutional
West: Use: Vacant
Zone: CS-1 (Service Commercial)
Designation: Commercial
Existing Use of Property: Outdoor Vehicle Storage
Proposed Use of Property: Outdoor Vehicle Storage
Site Area: 0.74 ha (1.8 acres)
Access: Dunn Avenue
Servicing requirement: Urban Standard
Previous Applications: 2013-005-RZ
2) Project Description:
The applicant proposes to amend Appendix D - Temporary Industrial Use of the OCP to allow a
Temporary Use Permit on the three subject properties. The subject properties are currently being
used for outdoor storage of vehicle inventory for the adjacent Maple Ridge Chrysler Dodge Jeep car
dealership (see Appendix D), and this OCP amendment will bring the properties into compliance. The
long-term use of the subject properties is expected to be an expansion of the West Coast Express
Park-and-Ride facility on the south side of Dunn Avenue, once capacity of the existing parking lot is
reached, potentially in the next five to ten years.
- 3 -
3) Planning Analysis:
i) Official Community Plan:
The subject properties are located in west Maple Ridge and are currently designated Institutional.
An OCP amendment is required to add the subject properties into Appendix D – Temporary Use
Permits of the OCP. Appendix D of the OCP states the following:
1. Lands in the District 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.
6. A Temporary Use Permit is issued in accordance with the provisions of Section 492 of the Local
Government Act.
The subject properties are currently owned by BC Transit and are anticipated to be used for an
expanded West Coast Express Park and Ride facility in the future; therefore, a Temporary Use Permit
as outlined in points 1 and 2 above is more appropriate than a rezoning application.
Furthermore, as outlined in points 2 and 3 above, the Temporary Use Permit may have conditions
and guidelines for the use to occur, as well as removal and restoration requirements once the permit
terminates. These conditions and guidelines are similar to rezoning conditions such as engineering
servicing improvements, landscaping, and fencing.
It is important to note that the Temporary Use Permits are now valid for a period of up to three years,
and may be renewed and extended only once. The main difference between rezoning and temporary
use permits is the duration of time that the use is permitted on the property.
ii) Zoning Bylaw:
The subject properties are zoned RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) and this zoning will remain in
place over the duration of the Temporary Use Permit.
iii) Development Information Meeting:
A Development Information Meeting was held at Meadow Garden Golf Club on February 10, 2016.
There were no attendees at the meeting, and no concerns were raised with the applicant.
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. At this time, the Ministry has
reviewed the proposal and has no concerns.
- 4 -
5) Interdepartmental Implications:
The Temporary Use Permit has been reviewed by the Engineering, Fire, and Licenses, Permits and
Bylaws Departments. The Engineering Department requires that the boulevard be reinstated and
remain free of vehicles. The Fire Department requires that the lot surfacing can support the weight
of a fire truck, and that a minimum six metre (20 ft) manoe uvring aisle is maintained to provide
emergency vehicle access.
6) School District No. 42 Comments:
Pursuant to Section 476 of the Local Government Act, consultation with School District No. 42 is
required at the time of preparing or amending the OCP. A referral was sent to School District No. 42
on January 26, 2016.
7) 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 OCP is proposed to allow a Temporary Use Permit on the subject properties, 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.
CONCLUSION:
This Temporary Use Permit application is to bring the existing vehicle storage use into compliance.
The subject properties are currently owned by BC Transit and are anticipated to be used for an
expanded West Coast Express Park-and-Ride facility in the future; therefore, a Temporary Use Permit
is more appropriate than a rezoning application. It is recommended that second reading be given to
OCP Amending Bylaw No. 7064-2014, and that application 2014-003-CU be forwarded to Public
Hearing.
“Original signed by Amelia Bowden” “Original signed by David Pollock” for
______________________________________ _________________________________________
Prepared by: Amelia Bowden Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
Planning Technician GM: Public Works & Development Services
“Original signed by Christine Carter” “Original signed by E.C. Swabey”
__________________________________________ _________________________________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Concurrence: E.C. Swabey
Director of Planning Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A – Subject Map
Appendix B – Ortho Map
Appendix C – OCP Amending Bylaw No. 7064-2014
Appendix D – Site Plan
Appendix E – Landscape Plan
City of Pitt
Meadows
District of
Langley District of MissionFRASER R.
^
DATE: Jan 13, 2014 FILE: 2014-003-CU BY: PC
CORPORATION OF
THE DISTRICT OF
MAPLE RIDGE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTIES
´
Scale: 1:2,500
19975/89/97 DUNN AVENUE
APPENDIX A
City of Pitt
Meadows
District of
Langley District of MissionFRASER R.
^
DATE: Jan 13, 2014 FILE: 2014-003-CU BY: PC
CORPORATION OF
THE DISTRICT OF
MAPLE RIDGE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTIES
District of Maple Ridge´
Scale: 1:2,500
19975/89/97 DUNN AVENUE
APPENDIX B
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 7064-2014
A Bylaw to amend Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014
_______________________________________
WHEREAS Section 882 of the Local Government Act provides that the Council may revise the
Official Community Plan;
AND WHEREAS it is deemed desirable to amend Schedule "A" to the Official Community Plan;
NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge, in open meeting assembled,
ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1.This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending
Bylaw No.7064-2014."
2. Appendix D. Temporary Use Permits, Section TEMPORARY USE PERMIT AREA is amended by
the addition of the following:
“TEMPORARY INDUSTRIAL USE PERMIT AREA LOCATION No. 4 ”
Purpose:
To permit outdoor storage of vehicles.
Location:
Those parcels or tracts of land and premises shown on Temporary Industrial Use Permit Area
Location No. 4 map, and known and described as:
Lot 15 Except: Firstly; the West Half Secondly; Parcel 11 (Bylaw Plan LMP34902)
Thirdly Part in Plan BCP29640 District Lot 222 Group 1 New Westminster District
Plan 11194
West Half Lot 15 Except First: Parcel 7 (Bylaw Plan LMP34902) Secondly; Part in
Plan BCP29640 District Lot 222 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 11194
Lot 16 Except Firstly: Parcel 8 (Bylaw Plan LMP34902) Secondly: Part in Plan
BCP29640 District Lot 222 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 11194”
are hereby designated to permit a temporary industrial use for outdoor storage of
vehicles, for a three-year period, effective upon adoption of this bylaw.
APPENDIX C
4. Appendix D. Temporary Use Permits, Section TEMPORARY USE PERMIT AREA is amended
by the addition of the attached Temporary Industrial Use Permit Area Location No. 4 map
in sequential numeric order after Temporary Industrial Use Permit Area Location No. 3:
5. Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 6425-2006 is hereby amended accordingly.
READ A FIRST TIME the 25th day of March, 2014.
READ A SECOND TIME the day of , 20 .
PUBLIC HEARING HELD the day of , 20 .
READ A THIRD TIME the day of , 20 .
ADOPTED the day of , 20 .
______________________________ ______________________________
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
DATE: Feb 19, 2015 BY: DT 2008611830 200972003511919
11911 WEST ST.
1177020070119502001911979 WEST ST.
11810 200702001011870 200782008519989(COMMUTER RAIL STN.)
11850
11890
11900 200832008211901
199751999711790
11940
MAPLE MEADOWS WAY20
0
S
T
.WEST ST.MAPLE MEADOWS WAYWEST ST.MAPLE
L
A
N
E
DUNN AVE.
LMP 43275
Rem
Rem. Pcl. 'ONE'
Rem 10
2
2
2
LMP 38773
P 11194
LMP 2183P 68232
1
LMP 38773
LMP 37906
1
1
PARK
8
Rem E 1/2
P 67774
10
1
2
2
BCP 3423A
of 15 of 15
LMP 31913
Rem 18
P 80527
P 73373
LOT A
W 1/2 Rem 16
3
LMP 3877311
9
P 83667
LMP 47486P 78861P 7890522
LOT B
LOT 1
Rem 17
P 11194
3
1
1
A
BCP 6872
3
´
Scale: 1:2,000
TEMPORARY INDUSTRIAL USE PERMIT AREALocation No. 4
CORPORATION OFTHE DISTRICT OFMAPLE RIDGE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: March 7, 2016
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2014-054-DVP
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: CoW
SUBJECT: Development Variance Permit
23627 and 23598 Dogwood Avenue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Development Variance Permit application 2014-054-DVP has been received in conjunction with
rezoning and subdivision applications 2014-054-RZ and 2014-054-SD to permit future subdivision
into 12 single family lots. The requested variances are to:
1.Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw No. 4800-1993, Schedule A, to waive road
construction standards on Dogwood Avenue east of the entrance to the subdivision.
2.Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw No. 4800-1993, Schedule C, Section 3.5 Roads,
SD-R1 Urban Local Street to reduce the road carriageway width around the ‘parkette’ from 8.6
m (28.2 ft) to 7.3 m (24 ft).
3.Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985, to reduce the exterior side yard setback for
proposed lots 1 and 12 from 9 m (29.5 ft) to 4.5 m (14.7 ft).
Council will be considering final reading for rezoning application 2014-054-RZ on March 8, 2016. It
is recommended that Development Variance Permit 2014-054-DVP be approved.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2014-054-DVP respecting property located
at 23627 and 23598 Dogwood Avenue.
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context
Applicant: Damax Consultants Ltd.
Owner: AFN Enterprises Inc.
Legal Descriptions: Parcel One (Exp. Plan 8154) of Parcel “B” (Reference Plan
8155) of the Southeast Quarter of Section 28, TWP 12 NWD;
Lot 1 Except: Firstly: Part on Plan 7806, Secondly: Part
Subdivided by Plan 38973, Section 28 TWP 12 NWD Plan 1105
OCP:
Existing: Estate Suburban Residential
Proposed: Estate Suburban Residential, Conservation, Forest
1107
- 2 -
Zoning:
Existing: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential)
Proposed: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential), with a site specific
Zoning Bylaw text amendment
Surrounding Uses:
North: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential)
Designation: Estate Suburban Residential
South: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential)
Designation: Estate Suburban Residential
East: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential)
Designation: Estate Suburban Residential
West: Use: Single Family Residential
Zone: RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential)
Designation: Estate Suburban Residential
Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Proposed Use of Property: Single Family Residential
Site Area: 3.3 ha (8.2 acres)
Access: Dogwood Avenue
Servicing requirement: Urban Standard
Concurrent Applications: 2014-054-RZ, 2014-054-DP, 2014-054-SD
b) Project Description:
The applicant proposes to subdivide the subject properties into 12 single family lots with a density
bonus to the RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) zone to allow lot sizes equivalent to the RS1-c
(One Family (Low Density) Residential). The proposed lots range in size from 1,200 m2 – 2,323 m2
(12,917 ft2 -25,000 ft2). The lots will be accessed via a new local road running north-south.
Dogwood Avenue will be extended to a local urban standard from the western property line to the
new north-south road. To the east of the new road, a 4 metre (13 ft) vehicle access lane will be
constructed to facilitate maintenance of a new stormwater outfall.
c) Variance Analysis:
The Zoning Bylaw establishes general minimum and maximum regulations for single family
development. The Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw establishes regulations for the
subdivision and development of property. A Development Variance Permit allows Council some
flexibility in the approval process. The requested variances and rationale for support are described
below (see Appendix C).
1. Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw No. 4800-1993, Schedule A - Services and
Utilities, to waive road construction standards on Dogwood Avenue east of the entrance to
the subdivision.
- 3 -
In discussions between the Engineering, Fire, and Parks Departments, the desired final design of
Dogwood Avenue east of the subdivision’s local road connection is to support an emergency and
maintenance vehicle access only. The Strategic Transportation Plan identifies the Dogwood Avenue
right-of-way as a potential corridor for emergency vehicle and pedestrian access across the South
Alouette River into Silver Valley as an alternate to the 240 Street bridge, given the high cost of the
proposed 240 Street crossing. The developer has taken this requirement into consideration for the
servicing design, which includes a 4 metre (13 ft) gravel access road that allows preservation of the
existing trees.
2. Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw No. 4800-1993, Schedule C, Section 3.5
Roads, SD-R1 Urban Local Street to reduce the road carriageway width around the ‘parkette’
from 8.6 m (28.2 ft) to 7.3 m (24 ft).
This variance is required because the new local road has been designed to maintain a large isolated
stand of mature trees through the creation of a 1,158 m2 (12, 464 ft2) ‘parkette’ within the road
allowance. The ‘parkette’ feature is land in excess of the road allowance requirement; however, a
variance is required for the width of the carriageway around the ‘parkette’. Similar road designs
have been used in Silver Valley Eco-Cluster developments, and in Albion. On-street parking will not
be permitted around the ‘parkette’ due to the reduced width.
3. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985, Part 6 RESIDENTIAL ZONES, Section 601, C.
REGULATIONS FOR THE SIZE, SHAPE AND SITING OF BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES, 15) d)
iii) to reduce the exterior side yard setback for proposed lots 1 and 12 from 9 m (29.5 ft) to
4.5 m (14.7 ft).
The current setback for a side yard adjacent to a street in the RS -1C zone is 9 metres (29.5 ft). As
Dogwood Avenue will not be constructed adjacent to proposed lot 12, a reduced side yard setback is
supportable as the northern property line will appear and function as an interior side yard. The
developer has also requested a reduced side yard setback of 4.5 m (14.7 ft) for the exterior side
yard for proposed lot 1, across from lot 12. This will create better symmetry with lot 1 across the
street. The proposed setback of 4.5 m (14.7 ft) will still maintain privacy and separation between
the future home and Dogwood Avenue. It is noted that the reduced setback is equivalent to the
current RS-2 (Suburban Residential) exterior side yard setback on the property, and for the
residences to the north, south, east and west of the subject properties.
d) Citizen Implications:
In accordance with the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999, notice of Council
consideration of a resolution to issue a Development Variance Permit was mailed to all owners or
tenants in occupation of all parcels, any parts of which are adjacent to the property that is subject to
the permit.
- 4 -
CONCLUSION:
The requested variances reflect site specific design considerations such as tree preservation and
alternative road design in discussion with city staff. It is therefore recommended that this
application be favourably considered and the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal
Development Variance Permit 2014-054-DVP.
“Original signed by Amelia Bowden”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Amelia Bowden
Planning Technician
“Original signed by Christine Carter”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
GM: Public Works & Development Services
“Original signed by 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
City of Pitt
Meadows
District of
Langley District of MissionFRASER R.
^
DATE: Jun 16, 2014 FILE: 2014-054-RZ BY: PC
CORPORATION OF
THE DISTRICT OF
MAPLE RIDGE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTIES
´
Scale: 1:2,500
23598 & 23627 DOGWOOD AVENUE
128 AVE
FERN CR
APPENDIX A
City of Pitt
Meadows
District of
Langley District of MissionFRASER R.
^
DATE: Jun 16, 2014 FILE: 2014-054-RZ BY: PC
CORPORATION OF
THE DISTRICT OF
MAPLE RIDGE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
SUBJECT PROPERTIES
District of Maple Ridge´
Scale: 1:2,500
23598 & 23627 DOGWOOD AVENUE
128 AVE
FERN CR
SKRWRJUDSK\LPDJH
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
Page 1 of 3
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: March 7, 2016
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: COW
SUBJECT: Billy Miner Pub Liquor License Amendment Application – Change to liquor service
hours
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (LCLB) have received an application from B. Miner
Hospitality Ltd. located at 22355 River Road for a permanent change to their liquor service hours.
(Appendix I).
The applicant is seeking a change to the start time, not the closing time. Currently the hours are
11:00 am to Midnight Sunday through Thursday, 11:00 am to 1:00 am Friday and Saturday. The new
hours will change the opening time to 9:00 am every day. This does not mean that the pub intends to
open every day at 9:00 am but it would provide the flexibility to open earlier when needed.
One of the considerations utilized by the LCLB in reviewing an application for occupancy increases of
a liquor primary license is a resolution from the local government. A number of regulatory criteria
must be addressed in the Council resolution as well as comments pertaining to the views expressed
by area residents. Council may choose to support the application, not support the application or
indicate they do not wish to comment.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
1.That the application by B. Miner Hospitality Ltd. at 22355 River Road Maple Ridge, BC a
change of opening hours to 9:00 am every day as an amendment to Liquor Primary Licence
No. 035096, be approved based on the information contained in the Council report dated
March 7, 2016.
2.That a copy of the resolution be forwarded to the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch in
accordance with the legislative requirements.
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context:
On January 13, 2016, B. Miner Hospitality Ltd. through the Liquor Control and Licensing
Branch submitted a structural change application to their Liquor primary Licence #035096.
The LCLB guidelines request a specific Council resolution commenting on the application in
terms of community impacts which may occur as a result of the proposed change to the
establishment operations as a result to the proposed change. Part of the process requires
1108
Page 2 of 3
Council to gather views of the residents who may be affected by the establishment of the
liquor primary license in their neighbourhood.
In following the public input requirement, 514 letters were sent to owners and occupants of
property within approximately 300 metres of the subject site with the vast majority of the
recipients being residents and the rest of the property owners showing as registered
companies. There were 0 responses to the 514 letters sent to surrounding property owners
and occupants.
The City also posted a public notice in the local newspaper running in two separate editions
the week of January 22, 2016 and then again the week of January 29, 2016.
The Maple Ridge RCMP Detachment was asked for their input on this matter and they have
confirmed they do not have any operational issues with this application.
The three closest liquor primary licensed premises to the subject property are:
Chances Maple Ridge – 22710 Lougheed Highway
The Wolf Bar – 22336 Lougheed Highway
Haney Motor Hotel – 22222 Lougheed Highway
b) Desired Outcome(s):
That Council supports the application from B. Miner Hospitality Ltd. to change the opening
time of the establishment.
c) Intergovernmental Issues:
Both local government and the provincial government have an interest in ensuring that liquor
regulations are followed and that licensed establishments listen to the needs of the
community.
d) Citizen/Customer Implications:
The review of this application has taken into consideration the potential for concerns from
surrounding properties in terms of parking, traffic and noise generation as well as the
proximity of schools and similar establishments.
e) Interdepartmental Implications:
The Licences, Permits and Bylaws Department has coordinated in the review process and
solicited input from the public, other municipal departments as well as the RCMP.
f) Alternatives:
To not approve the application and provide conditions to the approval in the form or
recommendations to forward to the LCB.
Page 3 of 3
CONCLUSIONS:
That Council passes the necessary resolution supporting the application from B. Miner Hospitality
Ltd. as submitted based upon the staff findings set out in this report.
“Original signed by R. MacNair”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: R. MacNair
Manager of Bylaws and Licencing
“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
/jd
Attachments:
Appendix I –LCLB application for a permanent change to a liquor licence
APPENDIX I
Page 1 of 3
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: March 7, 2016
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: COW
SUBJECT: Planet Ice Breakaway Bar & Grill (Maple Ridge) Liquor License Amendment
Application – Increase in Seating Capacity
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (LCLB) have received an application from Planet Ice
Breakaway bar & Grill (Maple Ridge) located at 23588 105 Avenue for an increase in their seating
capacity (Appendix I). Currently they hold a Food Primary Licence for 200 occupants and a Liquor
Primary Licence for 100 occupants however they wish to cancel the Food Primary Licence and
increase the occupant load on their Liquor Primary Licence. Operationally they wish to keep things
the same but have one licence instead of two.
One of the considerations utilized by the LCLB in reviewing an application for occupancy increases of
a liquor primary licence is a resolution from the local government. A number of regulatory criteria
must be addressed in the Council resolution as well as comments pertaining to the views expressed
by area residents. Council may choose to support the application, not support the application or
indicate they do not wish to comment.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
1.That the application by Planet Ice Breakaway bar & Grill (Maple Ridge) at 23588 105 Avenue
Maple Ridge, BC for an increase in their seating capacity as an amendment to Liquor License
No. 185930, be approved based on the information contained in the Council report dated
March 7, 2016.
2.That a copy of the resolution be forwarded to the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch in
accordance with the legislative requirements.
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context:
On January 20, 2016, Planet Ice Breakaway Bar & Grill (Maple Ridge) through the Liquor
Control and Licensing Branch submitted a structural change application to their Liquor
primary Licence #185930.
The LCLB guidelines request a specific Council resolution commenting on the application in
terms of community impacts which may occur as a result of the proposed change to the
establishment operations as a result to the proposed change. Part of the process requires
Council to gather views of the residents who may be affected by the establishment of the
liquor primary license in their neighbourhood.
1109
Page 2 of 3
In following the public input requirement, 535 letters were sent to owners and occupants of
property within approximately 300 metres of the subject site with the vast majority of the
recipients being residents and the rest of the property owners showing as registered
companies. There were 0 responses to the 535 letters sent to surrounding property owners
and occupants.
The City also posted a public notice in the local newspaper running in two separate editions
the week of February 12, 2016 and then again the week of February 17, 2016.
The Maple Ridge RCMP Detachment was asked for their input on this matter and they have
confirmed they do not have any operational issues with this application.
b) Desired Outcome(s):
That Council supports the application from Planet Ice Breakaway Bar & Grill (Maple Ridge) to
increase their seating capacity as requested.
c) Intergovernmental Issues:
Both local government and the provincial government have an interest in ensuring that liquor
regulations are followed and that licensed establishments listen to the needs of the
community.
d) Citizen/Customer Implications:
The review of this application has taken into consideration the potential for concerns from
surrounding properties in terms of parking, traffic and noise generation as well as the
proximity of schools and similar establishments.
e) Interdepartmental Implications:
The Licences Permits and Bylaws Department has coordinated in the review process and
solicited input from the public, other municipal departments as well as the RCMP.
f) Alternatives:
To approve the application and provide conditions to the approval in the form or
recommendations to forward to the LCB.
CONCLUSIONS:
That Council pass the necessary resolution supporting the application from Planet Ice Breakaway Bar
& Grill (Maple Ridge) as submitted based upon the staff findings set out in this report.
“Original signed by R. MacNair”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: R. MacNair
Manager of Bylaws and Licencing
Page 3 of 3
“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
/jd
Attachments:
Appendix I – Licence Primary Structural Change application
APPENDIX I
Page 1 of 3
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: March 7, 2016
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: COW
SUBJECT: Witch Craft Beer Market & Bistro Liquor Primary Licence Amendment Application
–Change to liquor service hours
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Liquor Control and Licensing Branch (LCLB) has received an application from Witch Craft Beer
Market & Bistro located at 22648 Dewdney Trunk Road for a permanent change to their liquor
service hours.
The applicant is seeking a change to the start time, not the closing time. Currently the hours are
10:00 am to Midnight Monday through Thursday, 11:00 am to Midnight Sunday and 11:00 am to
1:00 am Friday and Saturday. The new hours will change the opening time to 9:00 am every day.
This does not mean that the pub intends to open every day at 9:00 am but it would provide the
flexibility to open earlier when needed.
One of the considerations utilized by the LCLB in reviewing an application for occupancy increases of
a liquor primary license is a resolution from the local government. A number of regulatory criteria
must be addressed in the Council resolution as well as comments pertaining to the views expressed
by area residents. Council may choose to support the application, not support the application or
indicate they do not wish to comment.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
1.That the application by Witch Craft Beer Market & Bistro at 22648 Dewdney Trunk Road
Maple Ridge for a change of opening hours to 9:00 am every day as an amendment to Liquor
Primary Licence No. 033021 be supported, based on the information contained in the
Council report dated March 7, 2016.
2.That a copy of the resolution be forwarded to the Liquor Control and Licensing Branch in
accordance with the legislative requirements.
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context:
In January 2016 Witch Craft Beer Market & Bistro submitted an application (Appendix I) to
the LCLB for a permanent change in hours to their Liquor Primary Licence for their facility at
22648 Dewdney Trunk Road. The proposed change would allow the pub to open at 9:00 am
every day with no change to their closing hours. This does not mean that the pub intends to
open every day at 9:00 am but it would provide the flexibility to open earlier when needed.
1110
Page 2 of 3
In following the public input requirement, 445 letters were sent to owners and occupants of
property within approximately 300 metres of the subject site. There was one response to the
445 letters sent to surrounding property owners and occupants.
The City also posted a public notice in the local newspaper running two separate editions the
week of January 27, 2016 and then again the week of February 3, 2016. There were no
enquiries in response to this advertisement.
The Maple Ridge RCMP Detachment was asked for their input on this matter and they have
confirmed they do not have any operational issues with this application.
There is adequate parking, on the subject property to satisfy municipal parking requirements
for this proposed additional use.
b) Desired Outcome(s):
That Council support the application from Witch Craft Beer Market & Bistro to change the
opening time of the establishment.
c) Intergovernmental Issues:
Both local government and the provincial government have an interest in ensuring that liquor
regulations are followed and that licenses establishments have the support of their
communities.
d) Citizen/Customer Implications:
The review of this application has taken into consideration the potential for concerns from
surrounding business and residential properties in terms of parking, traffic and noise
generation as well as the proximity of schools and similar establishments.
e) Interdepartmental Implications:
The Licences, Permits and Bylaws Department has coordinated in the review process and
solicited input from the public, other municipal departments as well as the RCMP.
f) Alternatives:
To not approve the application or to provide conditions to the approval.
CONCLUSIONS:
That Council pass the necessary resolution supporting the application from Witch Craft Beer Market
& Bistro as submitted based upon the staff findings set out in this report.
“Original signed by R. MacNair”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: R. MacNair
Manager of Bylaws and Licencing
Page 3 of 3
“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
/jd
Attachments:
Appendix I – Liquor primary licence change application
APPENDIX I
Page 1 of 2
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: March 7, 2016
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: COW
SUBJECT: Maple Ridge Ticket Information Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 7210-2016
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The purpose of this report is to present the Maple Ridge Ticket Information Utilization Amending
Bylaw No.7210-2016 (Appendix I) to bring forward specific sections in one Maple Ridge Bylaw that
has been amended and therefore an update to the Municipal Ticketing Bylaw must made to match
these changes.
The Maple Ridge Ticket Information Utilization Amending Bylaw No.7210-2016 has been prepared to
update and coordinate the bylaw with other City bylaws. With the adoption of a new tree protection
bylaw, the bylaw number has been changed and must be reflected in the MTI bylaw. There is also a
fine in the amount of $5000.00 which needs to be changed as the maximum fine for an MTI is
$1000.00 as well as some section numbering issues.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
That Maple Ridge Ticket Information Utilization Amending Bylaw No.7210-2016 be given first,
second and third readings.
DISCUSSION:
Background Context:
A new Tree Protection and Management Bylaw was adopted in January 2016 with a new
bylaw number. This new number must be added to the MTI bylaw so that both bylaws
coincide. A new fine schedule was also added. One of the fines was in the amount of $5000.
Under the legislation for Municipal Ticket Information Bylaws, no fine can exceed $1000 so
this change is required to coincide with provincial legislation. There is also a housekeeping
change regarding changing a section number to align with the new tree bylaw.
The MTI Bylaw needs to be updated to reflect these changes so that issued tickets will
include the correct wording and refer to the applicable sections.
CONCLUSIONS:
Maple Ridge Ticket Information Utilization Amending Bylaw No.7210-2016 ensures coordination and
compliance with other City bylaws.
1111
Page 2 of 2
“Original signed by R. MacNair”
___________________________________________
Prepared by: R. MacNair
Manager, Bylaws and Licencing
“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
RM/
Appendix I - Maple Ridge Ticket Information Utilization Amending Bylaw No. 7210-2016
APPENDIX I
City of Maple Ridge
Maple Ridge Ticket Information Utilization Amending Bylaw No.7210-2016
A bylaw to amend Maple Ridge Ticket Information Utilization Bylaw No. 6929-2012
WHEREAS the Council of The City of Maple Ridge deems it expedient to amend the Maple Ridge
Ticket Information Utilization Bylaw No. 6929-2012
NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows:
1. This bylaw may be cited as Maple Ridge Ticket Information Utilization Amending Bylaw
No. 7210-2016
2. Maple Ridge Ticket Information Utilization Bylaw No. 6929-2012 is amended by changing
the fine amount in Schedule 25 Section 4.4 to $1000.00
3. Maple Ridge Ticket Information Utilization Bylaw No. 6929-2012 is amended by changing
the numbering in Schedule 25 for “cut replacement tree without Permit” from Section
9.4 to Section 9.5
4. Maple Ridge Ticket Information Utilization Bylaw No. 6929-2012 is amended by changing
the number of the Maple Ridge Tree Protection Bylaw in Schedule 1 to read Maple Ridge
Tree Protection Bylaw No. 7133-2015.
READ A FIRST TIME this ____ day of ______________, 2016.
READ A SECOND TIME this ____ day of ______________, 2016.
READ A THIRD TIME this ____ day of ______________, 2016.
ADOPTED this ____ day of ______________, 2016.
PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: March 7, 2016
and Members of Council FILE NO: 11-5460-01
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: Speed Reader Boards Strategy
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Vehicular speeding is a concern in all jurisdictions, not just at the municipal level, but on the
provincial system also. Concern around vehicle speeding in the City was raised in the Business
Planning presentations in December 2015 and staff were asked to provide information on the
effectiveness of speed reader boards, potential costs and to evaluate options for a strategy to install
additional speed reader boards in the community.
Staff undertook a literature review of nineteen existing studies and papers pertaining to the use and
effectiveness of speed reader boards and found that generally there is evidence of speed reduction
by having the speed reader boards in place albeit short term unless it is accompanied by police
enforcement.
In conjunction with the RCMP Traffic Section and ICBC, a Three Strike strategy is proposed, where at
agreed locations on corridors where there is systematic speeding concerns the City will install
additional speed limit signs, mount speed reader boards and the RCMP will ensure regular
enforcement. ICBC has indicated their willingness to share in the capital costs of the speed reader
boards as well as being open to consider participation in the promotion of the strategy through social
media.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
THAT the creation of a Three Strikes Strategy to address concerns pertaining to systematic vehicle
speeding be endorsed; and
THAT $150,000 from the Police Services Reserve be authorized to fund the Three Strikes Strategy,
as outlined in the March 7, 2016 staff report and these changes be included in the next Financial
Plan Bylaw amendment.
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context:
Even though vehicle speed limits are applied consistently throughout the Province, the effective
management of vehicle speed is a challenge in all municipalities. Enforcement of speed limits
falls under the jurisdiction of the RCMP but there are a number of educational tools that the City
and its partners such as ICBC can utilize in a supportive role such as awareness campaigns or
remedial engineering design for roadways.
Concern around vehicular speeding in the City was raised in the Business Planning presentations
in December 2015 and staff were asked to provide information on the effectiveness of speed
reader boards, potential costs and evaluate options for a strategy to install speed reader boards
in the community. 1112
Literature Review
The first task was to undertake a literature review of existing studies in both Canada and the
United States related to the use and effectiveness of speed reader boards. Nineteen reports and
papers were reviewed and while the general sentiment was that the use of speed reader boards
did reduce vehicle speed, the effectiveness over an extended period was noted to vary. A
number of studies and articles indicated short term effectiveness such as the BC Ministry of
Transportation and Infrastructure that stated “the effectiveness of speed reader boards is
limited and decreases shortly after drivers pass the board. Longer term effectiveness has not
been determined.”
ICBC undertook a study in 2011 that evaluated the performance of speed reader boards in a
number of cities in British Columbia, including the City of Maple Ridge and the review indicated
“that motorist speeds were reduced in areas where the speed reader boards were located; the
85th percentile speeds were reduced on average by 5.2 km/h. The average speed reduction was
greater within 2 months of the installation of the speed reader boards (6.8 km/h reduction)
compared to after 2 months from installation (2.6 km/h). These trends appear to be consistent
with studies conducted throughout North America.”
ICBC has requested that only the Executive Summary of their report be made public for reasons
of confidentiality, and a copy is appended to this report.
The majority of speed reader boards have the ability to record the speed of oncoming vehicles
and for the ICBC study, most municipalities recorded traffic speed data upon placement of the
speed reader boards but before they went into use (“dark” mode) as a benchmark to compare to
the data collected when in operation (‘active” mode).
In Maple Ridge the test location for the ICBC study was on Dewdney Trunk Road around 205
Street and the 85th percentile speed in dark mode, measured over one week was 61 km/h.
From March to December 2010, data was collected on six occasions, each for one week
duration. The recorded 85th percentile speed averaged 60.2 km/h when the speed reader board
was active, a less than 1 km/h reduction, which is significantly less than the study’s average
measured speed reduction of 5.2 km/h.
One study, for the City of Bellevue does report ongoing success using speed reader boards to
reduce speed but it is not clear whether the benefits are directly from the use of the speed
reader boards or through more external influences such as land use changes and increasing
densification in the study area.
In considering the results of the various studies and papers reviewed, it is reasonable to state
that the use of speed reader boards results in decreased speeding, at least in the short term. It
is believed that regular enforcement by the RCMP is necessary to ensure the long term goal of
lowering the speed of vehicles on an on-going basis.
Existing Equipment
The City currently utilizes four speed reader boards that were purchased between 2009 and
2010, one of which was funded by ICBC. Two of the existing reader boards are hard wired, the
other two are powered by a solar array and battery. The two solar boards are permanently
installed at locations on River Road and 224 Street; the other two are moved as needed in
support of traffic calming initiatives – they are currently located on 123 Avenue and Creekside
Street.
A speed reader board unit has recently been installed on the Memorial Peace Park Ring Road by
Community Development, Parks & Recreation which is appropriate for its location but it is a
basic, low specification item that is not deemed suitable for application along roadways.
The challenge with the solar powered units is the amount of ultra-violet light required to power
the units, especially in the winter season. The manufacturers have stated that it is not necessary
that the units are in direct sunlight but they will not guarantee that the solar units will function
through the winter. When a unit is to be in a permanent location it is more effective to have
them hard-wired, thereby guaranteeing their continual operation.
The manufacturers have stated that the life span of a unit can range between 7 and 15 years so
it is reasonable to assume that the existing units are approaching the latter part of their
operational life.
Replacement or Additional Speed Reader Boards
The existing speed reader boards are an all-digital display that displays text in a standard speed
sign format, as well as flashing warning beacons. Drivers are not informed of the speed they are
driving, rather that they are advised of the regulatory speed limit with the request to slow down.
In addition, the existing speed reader boards have the ability to record the speed of oncoming
vehicles for data evaluation which is very useful in comparing the effectiveness of the units and
recording the “before” and “after” speeds. Data can be collected even when the unit display is
not active.
It is recommended that should additional speed reader boards be purchased that they be similar
in features to the models currently in use. The cost of such units is approximately $11,000 per
unit with installation costs between $1,000 and $4,000 depending upon the location. The cost
of moving a unit and hard-wiring it on a street light is estimated at approximately $2,000.
Proposed Strategy
Staff have met with representatives from the RCMP and ICBC to consider what would be an
effective implementation strategy moving forward to best utilize the speed reader board
technology. Through those discussions, and the review of traffic operations in the City, a two part
approach has been developed that would not require large numbers of speed reader boards
throughout the City but rather utilizing a smaller number of units, placed strategically at problem
areas.
The Engineering Department has a regular traffic count program that measures both vehicle
speed and volume at a number of locations throughout the City each year as well as deploying
the counters as required in response to concerns from residents. The RCMP Traffic Branch
noted also that they receive calls from residents concerned about speeding but have limited
resources. Excessive speeding may occur along certain road corridors on an infrequent basis but
it may also be an ongoing concern at locations along some corridors, especially major corridors
such as Dewdney Trunk Road, or the City’s portion of Lougheed Highway and different strategies
may be considered accordingly.
Where speeding is not a persistent problem along a corridor but there are complaints about
excessive speeding it is suggested that RCMP would liaise with Engineering to determine the
degree of speeding by deploying traffic counters at a loca tion than sending out limited RCMP
staff resources. Upon determining that vehicles were driving at excess speed in the area,
Engineering staff would liaise with RCMP to see if traffic resources could be dispatched to
address the concern and undertake enforcement as required. An alternative to the RCMP
members going out would be to have Speed Watch volunteers go out to the sites in question,
although they cannot issue tickets, only warnings in the form of letters sent directly to the
address of the Registered Owner of the vehicle on RCMP letterhead . As locations may vary it is
not a requirement that speed reader boards would be used, but they could be installed on a
short term basis if needed which lends itself to the use of speed reader boards that are solar
powered.
Along corridors where there ongoing excessive speeding, a more permanent solution may be
considered, and this is the second component of the two-part approach. The Community Policing
and Crime Prevention sections of the RCMP currently have a program to deal with systematic
speeding that is sponsored and supported by ICBC Road Safety called the “Three Strikes
Program” that utilizes Speed Watch volunteers and portable speed reader boards. It is suggested
that the City, in conjunction with the RCMP and ICBC, could establish a variation on that existing
initiative. At any location on a corridor the ICBC program considers speeding by the speed limit
sign as the first strike, the Speed Watch volunteers and reader board as the second with the
RCMP as the third and final strike, issuing tickets as appropriate. ICBC has indicated that they
wish that this initiative to remain in place but are open to a slightly different interpretation should
pole-mounted speed reader boards be installed which would be:
Strike One : Speed Limit Sign
Strike Two: Speed Reader Board
Strike Three: RCMP Enforcement
The expectation is that the speed reader boards would stay in place on corridors with consistent
speed issues but there would be periods where the boards would be dark (still collecting data),
then in the active mode for periods of time. When the speed reader boards would be active the
RCMP may or may not be in attendance, the intent being to make the drivers uncertain if there
is indeed enforcement up ahead thereby hopefully influencing their driving behaviour.
In discussions with the RCMP Traffic Division it was confirmed that there are certain road
corridors, largely arterials where there is systemic concerns around vehicle speeds and it is
recommended that on such corridors that speed reader boards be permanently installed. It is
expected that there would be up to six locations where the boards would be installed.
To deal with intermittent speed concerns it is recommended that up to four speed reader boards
be purchased that would in time replace the existing units. Two of these units could be solar
powered to provide flexibility.
b) Desired Outcome:
The goal of implementing an integrated strategy with the RCMP would be to reduce the
incidences of excess speeding and make the City roads a safer environment for all users.
c) Strategic Alignment:
Reducing excessive vehicle speeds would assist in creating desirable corridors for all modes of
transportation and improve livability within neighbourhoods.
d) Citizen/Customer Implications:
Speeding is a concern in all municipalities and the intent is to initiate a program that would not
impinge upon residents driving throughout the City in a responsible manner but set in place a
process that would dissuade drivers, residents or not, from dri ving at excessive speeds
throughout the City.
e) Interdepartmental Implications:
The Transportation Section of the Engineering Department works closely with the Operations
Department to install traffic control devices throughout the City and liaise with the RCMP on
seeking to resolve speeding issues. A strategy such as outlined in this report will require all
three parties to work cooperatively to ensure its success, but past experiences have proved that
there is a high degree of collaboration already in place.
f) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
As previously noted, the cost to purchase a suitable speed reader board is approximately
$11,000 with installation costs up to $4,000 and subsequent relocates estimated at $2,000
including power.
Should Council endorse the strategy as laid out, it is recommended that up to ten speed reader
boards be purchased at an installed cost of approximately $110,000 to $150,000.
Upon consultation with the Finance Department it is recommended that the purchase and
installation be funded from the Police Services Reserve Account. ICBC has indicated that they
will be willing to cost share up to 50% of the capital costs of the speed reader boards, but not
the installation or subsequent costs to relocate.
g) Alternatives:
Should a strategy to address systematic vehicle speed concerns not be pursued , then staff
would continue to work with the RCMP on a case by case basis to resolve vehicle speed
concerns.
CONCLUSIONS:
The use of speed reader boards is seen as a way to affect driver behaviour, but recent studies
indicate it to be a short term behavioural modifier unless it is accompanied by RCMP enforcement.
Vehicle speeding is a concern in all jurisdictions, not just in the City of Maple Ridge. The initiation of
a speed reader board strategy, targeting areas where speeding is a concern utilizing the “Three
Strikes” principles is seen as a way to reduce excessive vehicle speeding. The strategy would focus
on known areas of concern.
“Original signed by David Pollock” “Original signed by Trevor Thompson”
Prepared by: David Pollock, PEng Financial Trevor Thompson, BBA, CPA, CGA
Municipal Engineer Concurrence: Manager of Financial Planning
“Original signed by David Fleugel”
Reviewed by: David Fleugel, Superintendent
Ridge Meadows RCMP Detachment
“Original signed by David Pollock” for:
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, PEng.
GM: Public Works & Development Services
“Original signed by E.C. Swabey”
Concurrence: E.C. Swabey
Chief Administrative Officer
DP:dp
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: March 7, 2016
and Members of Council FILE NO: 11-5380-01
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C of W
SUBJECT: Contract Award: Recycling Trucks
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The City of Maple Ridge is a leader in the Metro Vancouver Region in the provision of recycling
services and a strong partnership with the Ridge Meadows Recycling Society is the basis for the
City’s ability to provide a collection and processing system that results in high quality recyclable
products.
There are eleven recycling trucks in the City’s fleet that collect recyclable materials at curbside for
single family dwellings and townhouses as well as apartments. The funding for the City’s recycling
collection and processing is funded in part through Multi Materials British Columbia with a portion
funded through a per household levy. The City is in the middle of a five year contract with Multi
Materials British Columbia that expires in 2018 at which time the City may elect to continue the
current model or turn the curbside collection over to MMBC. At this time a large number of
municipalities are still maintaining a wait and see approach with regards to what to do after the
current contract expires.
The ability to provide high quality recycling services is in part a result of having a well maintained
vehicle fleet. Of the eleven recycling vehicles there are three vehicles due for replacement and a
Request for Proposal (RFP-OP15-70) was recently issued for the supply of three single axle trucks.
The results of the detailed evaluations concluded that the best value proposal for the City was
submitted by First Truck Centre Vancouver, Inc.
Assuming that the City continues with the current business model to collect recyclable materials
from curbside and apartments in partnership with the RMRS, it would seem prudent to proceed with
the purchase of the three trucks to ensure that the current business model and high level of service
is maintained. However, there are alternative business model scenarios that may be considered
including:
Option One – Status Quo
This is the current business model and continuance of this model would include regularly
scheduled vehicle replacements as needed, as well as adding potential additional vehicles to
the fleet as the City continues to develop and the service areas increase. This would mean
extending the contract with MMBC past the current contract end in 2018.
Option Two
Transition to having MMBC take over curbside collection at the end of the current contract in
2018 but purchase the new vehicles as identified in the replacement schedule for 2016 (but
not 2017) and have RMRS continue to collect all recyclables until MMBC takes over in 2018.
1113
Option Three
As in Option Two, there would be a transition to MMBC in 2018 although in this case it does not
allow for the replacement of all the trucks but the City may choose to purchase a partial quota of
new vehicles and/or seek to extend the life of the existing vehicles. In this case it is expected
that there would be a need to rent vehicles to cover breakdowns.
Option Four
This option would require the collapse the current Request for Proposal (RFP) and issuance of a
new RFP to lease up to six vehicles for a two year period through to the end of the current
contract with MMBC. It is expected that any such short-term lease vehicles would be used, and
specifications may vary from truck to truck.
In considering the four options, Option One (to purchase the new trucks) and Option Four (to lease
up to six trucks) are the only ones that provide some degree of cost certainty – with Option Two and
Three the cost impacts may vary considerably depending upon the amount of maintenance and
repairs needed to keep the fleet on the road, and in the case of Option Two, the capital loss when
selling the newer vehicles.
The purpose of this report is to provide Council with information on the issues pertaining to the
recycling operations, especially the supply of vehicles for curbside collection.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
THAT the Request for Proposal (RFP-OP15-70) be collapsed; and
THAT a new Request for Proposal be issued for the supply of up to six recycling trucks, suitable for
curbside collection, for a minimum two-year lease.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Curbside collection in the City is undertaken by Ridge Meadows Recycling Society (RMRS), using
a fleet of eleven purpose-built trucks that are run as part of the City’s vehicle fleet. The funding
for the recycling efforts – curbside, apartments and Depot – is funded in part through Multi
Materials British Columbia (MMBC), with the remainder funded through a per household levy.
Ridge Meadows Recycling Society (RMRS)
The Ridge Meadows Recycling Society has been providing recycling services since the 1970’s
and was officially created as a society in 1980. RMRS provides recycling services for the City
under a fee for service agreement. In addition to the collection of recyclables at curbside and
apartments, RMRS operates the Recycling Depot and includes among their staff complement a
unique Supported Work Program for approximately thirty people with developmental disabilities.
The comprehensive multi-stream curbside pick-up and the resulting high-grade materials
collected and processed at the depot ensure that recycling services in the City are a leader in
Metro Vancouver, if not the Province.
Since 1991 when records were first kept RMRS has advanced from removing 2,900 tons
annually of recyclable materials from the waste stream to 10,500 tons removed in 2015. Over
the past decades Maple Ridge residents have come to rely on and appreciate all of the services
provided by RMRS.
Multi Materials British Columbia (MMBC)
MMBC is the not-for-profit industry association that delivers a province-wide Extended Producer
Responsibility (EPR) program for Packaging and Printed Paper (PPP), on behalf of producers, as
required under the BC Recycling Regulation with the goal of increasing the overall recycling rate
from the current estimated rate of 50-57% to 75%. The EPR model, regulated by the Provincial
Government, shifts the burden and cost for the management of a wide range of product-related
wastes including packaging and printed paper. The basic tenet of this model is to hold producers
responsible for recyclable materials that they produce. This is consistent with the regional Zero
Waste goals.
In May 2014, following a number of detailed reports and presentations to Council, the City
commenced a five-year contract with MMBC, under which MMBC provides financial incentives to
the City for the services currently provided by RMRS on behalf of the City.
Through the development of the MMBC Stewardship Plan and subsequent contract documents
in 2013 and 2014, all local regional governments had concerns around the methodology that
MMBC utilized and their somewhat heavy-handed approach. There were, and continue to be
concerns around the possible reduction in levels of service as well as financial stability of the
MMBC PPP model, although those concerns have diminished somewhat over the first eighteen
months of the contract as some issues have been resolved.
The vast majority of local governments in Metro Vancouver and throughout BC signed up with
MMBC; at that time the City of Coquitlam was the largest municipality to cede the responsibility
of curbside recycling collection to MMBC. In recent months Vancouver and Pitt Meadows are
the most recent examples of cities passing the curbside collection role to MMBC, although their
rationales for doing so differ.
MMBC & Disentangling of Curbside Recycling from Solid Waste Contracts
Prior to MMBC, solid waste (garbage and organics) and recycling collection was typically
tendered as a package, with contractors bidding on all three elements and awarded to a single
operator. With the advent of MMBC this is no longer the case. Previously the contractor would
collect the recyclable material and seek to sell it on the open market, in essence subsidizing the
cost of collection. Now, MMBC control the sale and revenue of the recyclable materials so the
municipality pays the full cost of collection, with the MMBC subsidy offsetting some of the cost.
So as noted in Vancouver and Pitt Meadows, the most recent examples, th e local governments
are passing the curbside recycling collection over to MMBC. Pitt Meadows is in the process of
preparing a tender package for solid waste collection but it does not include curbside recycling;
Vancouver notes that the MMBC program funding does not cover the cost for the City to offer
curbside collection, whereas if MMBC assumes full responsibility for those services then the City
receives largely the same level of service for the recycling function but at no cost.
Vehicle Fleet Management
The City supplies and maintains a significant fleet of trucks and mechanical equipment to
facilitate the wide range of tasks that City Departments undertake. Vehicles all have a lifespan
that varies depending upon the class of equipment; that lifespan is determined through
consideration of industry standards as well as experience within the City. Once a piece of
equipment is purchased, an established annual rental fee is paid into the City’s Fleet
Replacement Reserve for the duration of the equipment’s lifespan so that when it comes time to
dispose of the vehicle and replace it with a new vehicle there are adequate funds in place.
Fleet managers will typically review the use and condition of vehicles to see if their lifespan may
be extended past the established lifespan – sometimes a vehicle may have lower than expected
mileage, or light usage that makes it practical to extend the life of the vehicle without
compromising the required functionality or reliability. Extending the lifespan of an industrial or
municipal vehicle is somewhat different to a personal decision to defer, say a roof replacement
on a home. A working vehicle is undertaking a function at a certain level of service to customers
or residents and may involve several employees, whereas on the personal level a leaking roof
may be seen as an inconvenience – impactful, but manageable without reducing the
functionality of the dwelling.
Request for Proposal (RFP-OP15-70) for Replacement of Recycling Trucks
There are eleven trucks used by RMRS to collect recyclable materials from single family curbside
as well as apartments. Through 2016 Business Plan presentations, Council was informed that
the replacement of three recycling trucks was pending. These are replacement units for recycling
trucks that have eight years of service. A condition assessment in 2014 allowed extension of one
additional year of service before replacement was required. Normally these trucks would have
been up for replacement in 2014; however a further two years of useful life has been extracted
from the vehicles. An additional three vehicles are scheduled for replacement next year.
A Request for Proposals (RFP-OP15-70) for the supply of three single axle recycling trucks was
publicly advertised and closed January 05, 2016. Two (2) proposals were received and the
tender prices are listed below. Upon evaluation it was determined that the best value proposal
for the City was submitted by First Truck Centre Vancouver, Inc.
First Truck Centre Vancouver Inc. $716,400.00, exc. Taxes ($238,800.00 each)
Peterbilt $784,914.00, exc. Taxes ($261,638.00 each)
The Financial Plan includes $1,022,000 in the Equipment Replacement Reserve Fund to fund
the purchase of the three recycling trucks. The vendor will honour the submitted vehicle bids to
March 31, 2016.
POSSIBLE SERVICE DELIVERY OPTIONS
Assuming that the City continue with the current business model to collect recyclable materials
from curbside and apartments in partnership with the RMRS it would seem prudent to proceed
with the purchase of the three trucks to ensure that the current business model and high level
of service is maintained. However, this is not the only model that could be considered as there
are alternatives including:
Option One – Status Quo
This is the current business model, where RMRS collects the recyclable materials and MMBC
provides funding for the curbside collection, apartments and Depot. Continuance of this model
would include regularly scheduled vehicle replacements as needed, as well as potential
additional vehicles as the City continues to develop and the service areas increase. This would
mean extending the contract with MMBC past the current contract end in 2018.
Option Two
Transition to having MMBC take over curbside collection at the end of the current contract in
2018 but purchase the new vehicles as identified in the replacement schedule for 2016 and
have RMRS continue to collect all recyclables. The vehicles used for curbside collection would
then be sold off upon transference to MMBC – the two trucks servicing the apartments would be
retained should the City choose to retain that role. It is not likely that the trucks could be sold to
MMBC as their methodology includes automated collection and totes.
Option Three
As for Option Two, there would be a transition to MMBC in 2018 - continue to have RMRS collect
all recyclables for the remainder of the current contract with MMBC, but then transition to have
MMBC collect the curbside recyclables. Option Three though does not include the replacement
of all the trucks but the City may choose to:
3.1 Purchase one or two new vehicles in 2016 to improve the fleet stock but do not
proceed with the purchase of the three currently scheduled trucks in 2017.
3.2 Not purchase any new vehicles to refresh the fleet and seek to extend the life of th e
existing vehicles to the end of the MMBC contract in 2018
In the case of both Options 3.1 and 3.2, in order to minimise down time it may well be necessary
to rent vehicles for short durations to maintain service levels while existing vehicles are under
repair.
Other concerns with the Option Three variations are the ability to maintain the current level of
service as well as the potential to reduce confidence in the City’s recycling “brand” that has
been established over decades.
When seeking to extend the life of vehicles past their scheduled replacement there is a range of
mechanical issues that could arise although the extent may vary considerably. Each mechanical
failure results in two consequences, namely repair expense and lost productivity. Safety is
foremost and some repairs are critical safety issues; each unit is inspected three times per year
and a formal Motor Vehicle Inspection (MVI) is required annually. Potential failures may range
from brake or electrical wiring failure that would typically result in down-time of one to two
weeks through to engine failure or structural body issues that could have a truck out of service
for up to two months. The cost of bringing in a rented truck from a private hauler is
approximately $125 (including a driver) per hour, greater than the approximately $92 per hour
cost of a City truck and driver.
Option Four
This option would require the collapse the current Request for Proposal (RFP) and issuance of a
new RFP to lease up to six vehicles for a two year period through to the end of the current
contract with MMBC. It is expected that any such short-term lease vehicles would be used, and
specifications may vary from truck to truck.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
Option One: Status Quo
This option represents maintenance of the status quo – MMBC would continue to contribute a
per household amount for curbside and apartment collection but whether the amounts for
future contracts would be the same as the current is unknown and thus the amount of the per
household levy may vary also from the current. The annual cost of operating a City fleet vehicle
for recycling is approximately $180,000, including the driver. In 2016, should the vehicle
purchase proceed the capital cost for the year is approximately $717,000, with a similar
amount expected in 2017.
Option Two: Maintain Current Operations Through to 2018 - Purchase New Vehicles
In this instance the operating and capital costs will be the same as Option One, except that the
trucks originally scheduled for purchase in 2017 would probably not proceed. Upon completion
of the contract the vehicles used for curbside collection would be sold. The depreciation rate for
this type of vehicle is approximately 15% of the original cost per year, although this may not
reflect the actual market value. It may be reasonable to expect that there would be some
additional vehicle repairs needed towards the end of the term that would require the rental of
trucks, although the severity of the repair, amount of time out of service and cost to remedy may
vary considerably.
Option Three: Maintain Current Operations Through to 2018, but Limited New Vehicles
Purchased
The challenge with this option is trying to forecast the costs of maintaining the full complement
of vehicles on the road at all times to preserve the current high level of service. Purchasing one
or two new vehicles would alleviate the reliability risk somewhat but there is always a risk of
breakdowns and a considerable range cost and loss of availability.
Option Four: Collapse Current RFP and Issue RFP to Lease Vehicles for Two Years
This option should lessen the risk of a reduction in the level of service due to mechanical
breakdowns as the onus to ensure vehicles would be available would shift to the contractor
supplying the vehicle. The cost of leasing a vehicle would be approximately thirty-five percent
higher than a City-owned vehicle. The unknown in this case is the availability of compatible
vehicles as well as the actual condition of the vehicles, assuming they would be used given the
short term lease. The City would seek to enforce determined levels of service but depending
upon the commitment and quality of the contractor it may be a challenge to meet the requisite
performance standards.
It is estimated that the cost to lease a vehicle is approximately 35% higher than to finance a
vehicle through the City fleet; therefore if the monthly charge for a new City recycling truck is
$5,300 then the cost to lease a similar vehicle would be approximately $1,900 higher, so for six
trucks the additional annual leasing cost would be approximately $140,000.
Selecting Option Four will allow the City flexibility to pursue different options in the future:
selecting a short term lease while retaining the current allocation in the Equipment
Replacement Reserve Fund allows for purchasing of trucks in the future should the City decide
to retain the curbside collection function past 2018. Alternatively if the decision is to have
MMBC collect the curbside function then the leased vehicles would be returned to the vendor.
Selecting either Option One or Four provides a level of cost certainty but for the other options,
and especially Option Three it is not possible to forecast costs with any degree of confidence.
SUMMARY OF REVIEW
If the City’s desire is to continue to provide a high level of service for curbside collection it is
prudent to refresh the vehicle fleet in accordance with the established lifecycles. That said
there will be a need for the City to decide whether or not it wishes to turn the curbside collection
over to MMBC upon the conclusion of the current five year contract and if that is the intent then
the purchase of new vehicles would seem less beneficial. There are financial implications
related to seeking to extend vehicles well beyond their lifecycle but the magnitude can’t really
be established given the uncertainty around the potential severity of breakdowns.
b) Desired Outcome:
The goal of the PPP Stewardship Plan is to contribute to the increased overall diversion of
recyclables from the currently estimated 50-57% up to 75% in a reasonable time frame.
c) Strategic Alignment:
The Region’s goal to increase the amount of recyclable materials diverted out of the solid waste
stream is in alignment with the City’s goals of sustainability.
d) Citizen/Customer Implications:
The residents in Maple Ridge benefit from a high quality curbside recycling collection that is
source separated and that results in high-grade recyclable materials. The challenge over the
next two to three years is to maintain the current high level of service, and similar high degree of
commitment of residents toward recycling in the City until a decision is made whether or not to
transition to having MMBC take over the curbside collection.
e) Interdepartmental Implications:
The Operations Department currently maintain the City’s vehicle fleet. If a decision is made to
extend the existing vehicle lives further that will likely create additional workload for the Garage.
The City has a strong relationship with RMRS and it is not desirable to do anything that would
impact the strong commitment that the residents of Maple Ridge have towards recycling.
f) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
Depending upon the choice of option there will be impacts to the Financial Plan that would need
to be considered in the next cycle of Business Planning and the development of the 2017 -2021
Financial Plan.
CONCLUSIONS:
The City provides a high level of recycling services to its residents whether that be at t he curbside for
single family dwellings and townhomes, in apartments or at the Depot in Albion. That high level of
service is obtained in large part through having a well maintained fleet of trucks. Moving forward,
the City will need to decide whether it continues to collect curbside materials under contract with
MMBC or if it is more beneficial to let MMBC take over the collection with their own contractor. The
challenge is how best to provide the curbside recycling service in the intervening period. There are a
number of alternatives as to how that can be achieved, each with their own complexitie s and varying
financial impacts.
“Original signed by David Pollock”
Prepared by: David Pollock, PEng.
Municipal Engineer
“Original signed by Russ Carmichael”
Concurrence: Russ Carmichael AScT, Eng. L.
Director of Operations
“Original signed by David Pollock” for:
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, PEng.
GM: Public Works & Development Services
“Original signed by E.C. Swabey”
Concurrence: E.C. Swabey
Chief Administrative Officer
DP:dp
1
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: March 7, 2016
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: COW
SUBJECT: Downtown Security Patrols
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
On September 21, 2015, Municipal Council received a presentation on the review that was
conducted for city funded security services in the downtown. The review identified that by blending
funding envelopes, coordinating security efforts and some additional funding, a more visible security
presence could be provided. The additional funding required to provide enhanced mobile security is
available through the end of March, 2016.
The purpose of this report is to seek funding to allow the enhanced level of mobile security to
continue until December 31, 2016. Funding for future years will be addressed as part of the 2017-
2021 Business Plans.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the enhanced security coverage in the downtown core as outlined in the staff report dated
March 7, 2016 be approved, noting that the 2016 cost of $60,000 be funded from the Police
Services Reserve and that these changes be included in the next Financial Plan Bylaw amendment.
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context:
On September 21, 2015, Council received a presentation on the city funded security services in
the downtown. Council heard that while Warrington Properties, the City and the Business
Improvement Area were providing security patrols, there was duplication and gaps in their
services. The total cost of these services was about $203,000, largely funded through taxation.
The staff presentation highlighted that with increased coordination and additional funding for 6
months of $32,000 we could enhance mobile security coverage in the key service areas in the
Downtown. This was scheduled to coincide with the operation of the temporary shelter.
1151
2
Here is a summary of the enhanced delivery model that was implemented in September, 2015.
Since the new delivery model was implemented, communication has been enhanced, information
sharing has improved and there has been a greater security presence in the service areas.
A survey was also conducted after implementing the new model. A total of 120 surveys were handed
out to businesses in the downtown area and 85 responses were received. Out of the 85 responses,
74 or 87% rated the services as good or excellent. These surveys were distributed in December
2015 and collected early in January 2016.
Eight businesses adjacent to the temporary shelter were also contacted. All of the adjacent business
rated the services as good or excellent.
46 28
5 3 2
Downtown Core Service Providers, Business & Residents
Overall satisfaction of service provided
Excellent Good Acceptable Needs Improvement Unsatisfactory Not Applicable
Enhanced Mobile Security B.I.A + City of Maple Ridge
Mobile Security Patrol
Annualized Cost $282,000
1 year cost for extended security coverage and random
early morning patrols to continue to support business,
service providers, local residents and identified
hotspots in the Downtown Core.
Program Administrator - Gatekeeper City of Maple Ridge Staff + BIA Administration
Centralized Billing and Reporting City of Maple Ridge
Hours of Coverage - 7 Days Week 16Hrs/day (7:00AM - 11:00PM)
Random Patrols -Early Morning hours Move from 3 to 6 random patrols (12:00AM - 6:00AM)
Area Covered: Downtown Core Business
Community Parks
Rental Properties
Safe Walk Program
Identified Hotspot Areas
85
Total
3
Respondents were asked for their suggestions on improvements and it has been pointed out that
random patrols from 11:00 pm to 7:00 am would help. We estimate the annual costs of this to be
about $15,000 a year.
b) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
The annualized costs of the enhanced security, including the random patrols is estimated at
$79,000. For nine months, the prorated 2016 costs would be about $60,000. The Police
Services Reserve has the capacity to pay for this. If approved by Council, the Financial Plan will
be amended at the next opportunity. Future years' funding will be addressed as part of the
2017-2021 Financial Plan.
The on-going administration of this security, including improved reporting to the RCMP and BIA,
has been dealt with by existing staff. We are experiencing some pressures that suggest
additional staff support estimated at $10,000 is required. We will continue to monitor this and
see what staff resources can be reallocated. A request for addition resources may have to be
considered as part of the 2017-2021 budget deliberations.
CONCLUSIONS:
This program is working well and we recommend its continuance on the basis outlined. If funding is
not approved, mobile patrols will be reduced to eight hours per day and some efficiencies will be lost.
“Original signed by Brian Patel”
Prepared by: Brian Patel, Recreation Coordinator Core Area
“Original signed by Kelly Swift”
Approved by: Kelly Swift, General Manager, Community Development
Parks & Recreation Services
“Original signed by Trevor Thompson”
Approved by: Trevor Thompson, Manager Financial Planning
“Original signed by Ted Swabey”
Concurrence: E.C. (Ted) Swabey
Chief Administrative Officer
:bp
4 4
Businesses surrounding the Interim Shelter
Overall satisfaction of service provided
Excellent Good Acceptable Needs Improvement Unsatisfactory Not Applicable
8
Total
City of Maple Ridge
TO: Her Worship Mayor Nicole Read MEETING DATE: March 7, 2016
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: COW
SUBJECT: Joint Leisure Services Agreement - Arts & Recreation Programming
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In the Joint Leisure Services Transition Plan report dated January 18, 2016, staff recommended a
report be brought back to Council on the implications and costs associated with continuing the arts
and recreation programming function as a joint service until December 31, 2016. The following
report provides Council with the estimated cost implications to provide the City of Pitt Meadows
(CPM) with joint programming through December 31, 2016.
RECOMMENDATION:
A. That staff be authorized to continue joint program delivery to the City of Pitt Meadows through to
December 31, 2016; AND,
B. That staff work with the City of Pitt Meadows to explore an approach and costs for the City of Pitt
Meadows continued involvement in the Arts & Recreation Guide for registered program content;
AND,
C. That staff work with the City of Pitt Meadows to explore interest and an approach for City of Pitt
Meadows to subsidize access to Maple Ridge facilities for Pitt Meadows families who face
financial barriers to access recreation opportunities.
DISCUSSION:
a)Background Context:
On October 31, 2016 the Joint Leisure Services Agreement between the City of Maple Ridge
and the City of Pitt Meadows will conclude and following that date each community will
deliver parks and recreation services separately to their citizens. In the Joint Leisure
Services Transition Plan report dated January 18, 2016, staff recommended a report be
brought back to Council on the implications and costs associated with continuing the arts
and recreation programming function as a joint service until December 31, 2016.
Joint Programming
The Fall programming season runs from September until December with multiple lesson sets
available ranging from 4 lessons – 10 lessons per set, depending on the service area and
activity; this model is the general practice for Parks and Recreation departments.
Staff reviewed 2015 Fall programming and have based 2016 cost implication assumptions
on a comparable service delivery which included 31 programs; 18 offered through Parks &
Leisure Services and 13 through the Arts Council at the Pitt Meadows Family Recreation
Centre, South Bonson Community Centre and Highland Park Elementary.
1152
The work associated with program development and delivery begins months before course
start dates. Staff research best practices, analyze programming trends, review facility
allocations and liaise with contract service providers to finalize the course offerings. All of
this occurs approximately four months prior. As well, the production of the Arts & Recreation
Guide will begin in June for Fall programming and this work includes components such as
program inputting, facility booking, and guide development. As a result the “heavy lifting” for
program delivery happens well before participants attend their classes.
Staff reviewed costs associated with arts and recreation programming and identified the
following: payment processing charges, brochure print costs, instructor costs, programmer
administration time, registration staff time and administration support time. As previously
mentioned, the majority of staff time dedicated to program development occurs prior to
October 31; therefore, programmer administration costs are relatively low for the period of
November 1 – December 31.
Program revenue $(15,700)
Payment processing, marketing, supplies $ 1,100
Administrative support (registration,
customer service, program management)
$ 7,200
Program instructor costs $ 14,200
Net cost $ 6,800
Staff estimate the cost implications related to continuing joint programming until December
31, 2016 to be approximately $7,000. This projection is based on 2015 actuals; therefore,
staff recommend that the accounts be reconciled in December 2016 to determine actual
costs in order to bill the CPM appropriately.
It should be noted that this does not include birthday parties at the Pitt Meadows Family
Recreation Centre, which will not be offered by Parks & Leisure staff for the Fall session due
to the minimal parties booked (5) in 2015 and to provide the CPM with access to the PMFRC
gymnasium for other purposes. In addition the Active Kids Club (AKC) program at Highland
Elementary is not included in the cost assumptions as separate discussions are underway
with School District No. 42 to continue to provide the AKC program after the dissolution of
the joint leisure services agreement.
Joint Program Planning
Community Development Parks and Recreation (CDPR) staff meet annually with local
program agencies such as Continuing Education and the Fraser Valley Regional Library to
discuss the complimentary programming needs of the community and to avoid duplication of
services. In addition, CDPR program staff are part of a regional municipal program team
which meets to discuss trends and best practices. As the CPM moves towards delivering
recreation services their staff groups will be invited to join these existing teams to ensure
communication and collaboration at the local and regional programming level. Staff
recognize the value of the two municipalities working together to provide citizens with high
quality, barrier free programming at a local level.
Skating Lessons
Skating lessons are offered at Planet Ice and Pitt Meadows Arenas (PMA). The contract for
skate lesson services expires on June 30, 2016. Parks & Leisure staff will be re-negotiating
with the current provider for lessons beginning in the fall of 2016 and recommend to
continue managing this service on behalf of CPM at the PMA until December 31, 2016. This
will provide CPM with time to determine the best model for future skate lesson delivery
beginning January 2017. The CPM could enter into a contract for service with the current
skate lesson provider for example, for January 2017.
Recreation Software
The CPM is currently determining their needs for service delivery which includes a robust
registration software system. These systems include components such as registration,
facility bookings, point of sale, membership sales, customer relations and financial
integration and marketing integration. CDPR staff are working closely with the CPM through
this process to ensure the needs of customers, stakeholders and future staff are met. The
industry standard currently has the majority of municipalities utilizing the same system;
however, this may change in the future with the end of life for the CLASS registration system
pending (November 2017).
Staff have heard from some stakeholders that a joint registration system between the two
communities may eliminate duplication of resources from a staff perspective and streamline
the process for customers who participate in programs across borders. Unfortunately due to
the sophistication of the software systems, it is not possible to treat the registration
component as a stand-alone function. The facility bookings and registration modules work in
conjunction with one another and double bookings of space would occur under this solution
causing frustration and potential disappointment for users. In addition, challenges could
arise from scheduling facilities that CDPR staff don’t directly operate. However, staff have
collaborated on a solution that will deliver the same end goal to users.
Although an ongoing joint program delivery model is not feasible, there is potential to
participate in joint marketing campaigns for the Arts & Recreation Guide. This would allow
residents from both communities to stay informed on opportunities in both communities and
also provides the CPM with access to pre-existing marketing tools. CDPR staff would manage
the integration of information, printing services, and design in a manner that protects the
integrity of both the CMR and CPM brands. This model supports the mandate of recreation
by encouraging residents to participate in activities benefiting their personal well-being and
the overall health of our community.
Staff recommend that CMR and CPM enter into an agreement whereby CMR will continue to
provide marketing services for registered programs to CPM in the form of an insert in the Arts
& Recreation Guide.
Barrier Free Access
The current Participation Program offers reduced admissions and program fees to Maple
Ridge and Pitt Meadows residents who meet eligibility, to ensure that cost is not a barrier to
accessing our services. As of December 31, 2015 this program had 847 families
participating. The make up of this as a percentage of users is 85% CMR residents and 15%
CPM residents.
A Framework for Recreation in Canada 2015 states that high quality, accessible recreation
opportunities are integral to a well-functioning society and that all people and communities
deserve equitable access to recreational experiences. Recreation must be accessible and
welcoming to all. Staff recognize this as an important consideration that was embedded in
the joint leisure services transition Guiding Principles developed by Council(s). Therefore, it is
likely that CPM will look at a similar subsidy program for their residents.
With this in mind, staff recommend that staff work with CPM to explore the option to
maintain subsidy access for its citizens for admittance to the Maple Ridge Leisure Centre
under the existing Participation program; which would have CPM reimbursing CMR for the
discounted admissions of residents.
b) Desired Outcome:
To provide citizens of Maple Ridge and Pitt Meadows a seamless and streamlined
registration process and program delivery throughout the Fall programming season.
c) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
The estimated net cost to provide the CPM with joint programming service up to December
31, 2016 is $7,000. If CPM agrees to this proposal, staff will reconcile near year end to
determine the actual recovery cost. It should be noted that the projection is based on 2015
fall programming.
d) Alternatives:
To conclude the arts & recreation programming function in tandem with the conclusion of the
Joint Leisure Services agreement on October 31, 2016.
CONCLUSIONS:
The benefits related to continued joint programming through December 31 include seamless and
efficient registration methods, a standard level of service through the Fall season and providing the
CPM with the appropriate time to determine a service delivery model and build a team. As well,
customers that register in programs in CMR and CPM facilities tend to be residents of both
communities, therefore by continuing services CDPR fosters trust and confidence in customers
through arts and recreation program delivery.
“Original signed by Danielle Pope”
Prepared by: Danielle Pope, Business Operations Manager
“Original signed by Don Cramb for”
Approved by: Wendy McCormick, Director Recreation and Community Services
“Original signed by Kelly Swift”
Approved by: Kelly Swift, General Manager,
Community Development, Parks & Recreation Services
“Original signed by Ted Swabey”
Concurrence: E.C. Swabey
Chief Administrative Officer
:dap