HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-05-27 Workshop Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdfDistrict of Maple Ridge
1.ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
2.MINUTES –May 6, 2013
3.PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
3.1
4.UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
4.1 Job Creation Incentives
Staff report dated May 27, 2013 recommending that a job creation incentive
program be developed, that the residential component of the Town Centre
Investment Incentive Program be allowed to lapse following expiry and that
enabling regulations be brought forward to extend the commercial component of
the program for another year.
COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
May 27, 2013
9:00 a.m.
Blaney Room, 1st Floor, Municipal Hall
The purpose of the Council Workshop is to review and discuss policies and
other items of interest to Council. Although resolutions may be passed at
this meeting, the intent is to make a consensus decision to send an item to
Council for debate and vote or refer the item back to staff for more
information or clarification.
REMINDERS
May 27, 2013
Closed Council 11:30 a.m.
Committee of the Whole Meeting 1:00 p.m.
May 28, 2013
Council Meeting 7:00 p.m.
Council Workshop
May 27, 2013
Page 2 of 4
4.2 Tandem and Off-Street Parking Discussion Paper
Staff report dated May 27, 2013 recommending that the “Tandem and Off-Street
Parking Discussion Paper” be received for information and discussion.
4.3 2013 Property Tax Rates Amending Bylaw No. 6993-2013
Staff report dated May 27, 2013 recommending that Maple Ridge 2013 Property
Tax Rates Amending Bylaw No. 6993-2013 be given first, second and third
readings.
4.4 Use of District Land for Economic Development Opportunities
Staff report dated May 27, 2013 recommending that staff be directed to proceed
with formal Requests for Expression of Interest for a privately operated, full service
campground and an outdoor adventure activity on District-owned land.
4.5 Wireless Industry Co-location – Follow Up Report
Staff report dated May 27, 2013 providing information on the next steps in
determining the degree of private sector interest in the utilization of District lands
for a telecommunications tower.
4.6 Proposed Amendment to the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy
- Type 3 Amendment to Add Three Special Study Areas in the City of Port Moody
Staff report dated May 27, 2013 recommending that the Greater Vancouver
Regional District be advised that the District of Maple Ridge has no comments on
the request from the City of Port Moody to amend the Regional Growth Strategy to
add three new special study areas.
5. CORRESPONDENCE
The following correspondence has been received and requires a response. Staff is
seeking direction from Council on each item. Options that Council may consider include:
a) Acknowledge receipt of correspondence and advise that no further action will be
taken.
b) Direct staff to prepare a report and recommendation regarding the subject matter.
c) Forward the correspondence to a regular Council meeting for further discussion.
d) Other.
Once direction is given the appropriate response will be sent.
5.1
Council Workshop
May 27, 2013
Page 3 of 4
6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL
7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
8. ADJOURNMENT
Checked by: ___________
Date: _________________
Council Workshop
May 27, 2013
Page 4 of 4
Rules for Holding a Closed Meeting
A part of a council meeting may be closed to the public if the subject matter being considered relates to one
or more of the following:
(a) personal information about an identifiable individual who holds or is being considered for a position as
an officer, employee or agent of the municipality or another position appointed by the municipality;
(b) personal information about an identifiable individual who is being considered for a municipal award or
honour, or who has offered to provide a gift to the municipality on condition of anonymity;
(c) labour relations or employee negotiations;
(d) the security of property of the municipality;
(e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that
disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality;
(f) law enforcement, if the council considers that disclosure might reasonably be expected to harm the
conduct of an investigation under or enforcement of an enactment;
(g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality;
(h) an administrative tribunal hearing or potential administrative tribunal hearing affecting the municipality,
other than a hearing to be conducted by the council or a delegate of council
(i) the receiving of advice that is subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for
that purpose;
(j) information that is prohibited or information that if it were presented in a document would be prohibited
from disclosure under section 21 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act;
(k) negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at
their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the council, could reasonably be expected to harm the
interests of the municipality if they were held in public;
(l) discussions with municipal officers and employees respecting municipal objectives, measures and
progress reports for the purposes of preparing an annual report under section 98 [annual municipal
report]
(m) a matter that, under another enactment, is such that the public may be excluded from the meeting;
(n) the consideration of whether a council meeting should be closed under a provision of this subsection of
subsection (2)
(o) the consideration of whether the authority under section 91 (other persons attending closed meetings)
should be exercised in relation to a council meeting.
(p) information relating to local government participation in provincial negotiations with First Nations, where
an agreement provides that the information is to be kept confidential.
District of Maple Ridge
COUNCIL WORKSHOP
May 6, 2013
The Minutes of the Municipal Council Workshop held on May 6, 2013 at 9:00 a.m. in
the Blaney Room of the Municipal Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British
Columbia for the purpose of transacting regular Municipal business.
PRESENT
Elected Officials Appointed Staff
Mayor E. Daykin J. Rule, Chief Administrative Officer
Councillor C. Ashlie K. Swift, General Manager of Community Development,
Councillor C. Bell Parks and Recreation Services
Councillor J. Dueck P. Gill, General Manager Corporate and Financial Services
Councillor A. Hogarth F. Quinn, General Manager Public Works and Development
Councillor B. Masse Services
Councillor M. Morden C. Marlo, Manager of Legislative Services
A. Gaunt, Confidential Secretary
Other Staff as Required
D. Pollock, Municipal Engineer
B. McLeod, Manager of Park Planning and Development
J. Charlebois, Acting Director of Planning
S. Blue, Manager Strategic Economic Initiatives
F. Armstrong, Manager of Corporate Communications
Note: These Minutes are posted on the Municipal Web Site at www.mapleridge.ca
1.ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was adopted with the addition of the following
4.3 Hospital Parking
2.MINUTES
R/2013-184
Minutes It was moved and seconded
April 22, 2013
That the minutes of the Council Workshop Meeting of April 22,
2013 be adopted as circulated.
CARRIED
2.0
Council Workshop Minutes
May 6, 2013
Page 2 of 5
3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
3.1 Metro Vancouver – Waste Flow Management
Presentation by Paul Henderson, General Manager, Solid Waste Services and
Esther Berube, Senior Project Engineer, Metro Vancouver
Mr. Henderson gave a PowerPoint presentation outlining Metro Vancouver’s
Waste Flow Management Project, highlighting the role of the participants in
the project, the location of regional facilities and the goals of the Integrated
Solid Waste and Resource Management Plan. He advised on public
expectations of the plan and key waste diversion tools currently in use.
Mr. Henderson spoke to a situation involving a major hauler bypassing
regional facilities and the potential consequences which could result from
such action. He provided information on the steps the Waste Management
Project is undertaking to address this situation.
Note: The meeting was recessed at 10:05 a.m. and reconvened at 10:15 a.m.
4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
4.1 Adopt-A-Block
Presentation by Nicole Driedger, Education and Volunteer Coordinator,
Alouette River Management Society and Maple Ridge Adopt A Block Society
Staff report dated May 6, 2013 recommending that staff work with the
Alouette River Management Society and the Adopt-A-Block Society on
appropriate changes to the Letter of Understanding and the Fee for Service
Agreement to reflect a merger between the two organizations.
Ms. Driedger gave a PowerPoint presentation providing information on the
Adopt-A-Block society, its vision, mission and values. She outlined what
Adopt-A-Block currently does, its plans for projects in the future and its
finances. She spoke to changes the Board of Adopt-A-Block would like to see
for the future and provided information on the proposed merger with the
Alouette River Management Society. She also provided information on the
Alouette River Management Society and where Adopt A Block will fit into the
organization.
Council Workshop Minutes
May 6, 2013
Page 3 of 5
R/2013-185
Adopt-A-Block It was moved and seconded
Merger with ARMS
Whereas a Letter of Understanding exists between the District
of Maple Ridge and the Alouette River Management Society;
and
Whereas a Fee for Service Agreement exists between the
District of Maple Ridge and the Adopt-A- Block Society; and
Whereas the Adopt-A-Block Society wishes to merge with the
Alouette River Management Society;
THAT staff be directed to work with the Alouette River
Management Society and the Adopt-A-Block Society on the
appropriate changes to the Letter of Understanding and the
Fee For Service Agreement to reflect the merger between the
Alouette River Management Society and the Adopt-A-Block
Society and that those changes be brought back to Council for
consideration.
CARRIED
4.2 Pedestrian Connectivity and Trails Strategy
The General Manager of Public Works and Development introduced the topic
of safe pedestrian communities.
The Municipal Engineer gave a PowerPoint presentation which reiterated key
issues coming out of a transportation plan presentation provided by John
Steiner with Urban Systems. He outlined recently completed pedestrian
projects, spoke to issues and constraints in growth areas and options
available to address gaps in pedestrian connectivity. He provided examples of
roads in Maple Ridge still requiring pedestrian infrastructure and outlined
options and costs for Silver Valley and the Albion area.
The Manager of Park Planning and Development advised on the goals and
objectives of the Parks Department in providing multi-purpose trails
throughout the community and trying to mitigate gaps in connectivity. He
displayed a multi-purpose trail map and outlined what the Parks Department
is working towards. He provided information on existing trail networks in
Silver Valley and the Albion area.
Council Workshop Minutes
May 6, 2013
Page 4 of 5
R/2013-186
Interim Pedestrian It was moved and seconded
Facilities
That staff be directed to consider design and development of
interim pedestrian facilities along 232 Street and 132 Avenue
to Silver Valley Road and at the same time pursue securing
volunteer contribution of property frontage to support full
development of such facilities.
CARRIED
4.3 Resident-Only Parking Policy No. 9.09
Staff report dated May 6, 2013 providing information on the adequacy of
Policy No. 9.09 – Resident-Exemption and Resident-Only Parking as well as
examples of where the policy has been applied since its adoption.
The Municipal Engineer reviewed the report and the policy.
R/2013-187
Resident-Only It was moved and seconded
Parking
Policy 9.09
That the staff report dated May 6, 2013 titled “Resident-Only
Parking Policy No. 9.09” be received for information.
CARRIED
4.4 Hospital Parking
Councillor Bell spoke to the issue of pay parking at the Ridge Meadows
Hospital and wished to explore the idea of having hospital parking for free in
the municipality.
R/2013-188
Free Hospital It was moved and seconded
Parking
WITHDRAWN
That staff be directed to explore various options with regard to
providing free hospital parking as done by some other
municipalities.
Council Workshop Minutes
May 6, 2013
Page 5 of 5
R/2013-189
Withdrawal of It was moved and seconded
motion
That the motion be withdrawn.
CARRIED
Councillor Bell, Councillor Masse,
Councillor Morden - OPPOSED
5. CORRESPONDENCE – Nil
6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL – Nil
7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT – Nil
8. ADJOURNMENT – 12:11 p.m.
_______________________________
E. Daykin, Mayor
Certified Correct
___________________________________
C. Marlo, Corporate Officer
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: May 27, 2013
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: Job Creation Incentives
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Economic development is a key priority of Council, with a focus on increasing the number of high-
value jobs in the community, and expanding the non-residential property tax base. Following up on
the $77 million in investments attracted through the Town Centre Investment Incentive Program,
Council has requested staff to explore the use of incentives to encourage employment opportunities
and non-residential investment.
The purpose of this report is to bring forward considerations around which a program could be
structured. Further, the Town Centre Investment Incentive Program expires on December 30, 2013
and Council direction is required on whether the commercial component of the program should be
extended.
RECOMMENDATIONS
That a job creation incentive program be developed following the public consultation phase of
the Commercial and Industrial Strategy process;
That the residential component of the Town Centre Investment Incentive Program be allowed
to lapse following expiry on December 30, 2013, and that enabling regulations be brought
forward to extend the commercial component for another year.
DISCUSSION
The District of Maple Ridge Corporate Strategic Plan and the Economic Development Strategy share
a common vision for a strong and vibrant local economy. The award-winning Smart Growth on the
Ground Plan for the Town Centre supports these strategic plans and embedded principles, and they
are further supported within the award-winning Town Centre Area Plan. Closely aligned with these
plans was the Our Spirit Our Town Initiative, and more recently, the Vibrant Downtown-Engaging
Business Task Force. These initiatives are partnerships with the Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows
Chamber of Commerce and the Downtown Maple Ridge Business Improvement Association. The
prime objectives are to create and maintain a safe, clean, lively and inviting downtown.
1 4.1
To this end, there have been significant achievements. After an initial investment of nearly $100
million in facilities and infrastructure in the Town Centre to support future growth, the District
launched the Town Centre Investment Incentive Program in January 2011. The program was based
upon fundamental principles and specific desired outcomes. The program can be summarized as
follows:
Qualifying Projects*
• New Commercial Development (Sub Areas 1 and 2)
- $1 million minimum
• New Residential Construction
- Sub Area 1 – 4 storeys and higher
- Sub Area 2 – 5 storeys and higher
• Commercial Renovations (Sub Areas 1 and 2)
- $20,000 minimum
• Façade Improvements (Sub Areas 1 and 2)
- $10,000 minimum
• Site Preparation/Contamination/Brownfield Remediation
* Subject to applicable land use and other regulations
Comprehensive Incentive Package**
• Fee Reductions and Rebates
• Municipal Property Tax Exemption
• Priority Processing
• Reduced Parking Standards
• Building Height Flexibility
• Comprehensive Development Guidelines
• Brownfield Redevelopment Support
• Façade Improvement Program
**For qualifying projects until December 30, 2013
Details of the program criteria are attached at the end of this report as Appendix A.
The program has been highly successful, and is recognized throughout Canada as a best practice.
Specifically, density in the Town Centre has increased significantly, with over 1,000 new residential
units occupied or underway, improving the business climate for expanded commercial development,
and enhancing safety by increasing pedestrian traffic and eyes on the street. The program has
generated over $77 million in new residential, commercial and mixed use developments, and
commercial renovations and façade improvements. The program kept the development momentum
going during a tough economic climate. The current Town Centre Investment Incentive Program
expires on December 30, 20131.
Council recognizes the important role that the private sector plays in providing citizens with a diverse
and affordable housing stock that protects their quality of life, and in creating a strong local economy
that offers employment opportunities for our citizens. The direction to create an incentive program to
support the creation of high-value local jobs comes from Council, and demonstrates Council’s
commitment to its citizens and the business community.
1 Applicants taking out a building permit by the end of the business day on Monday, December 30, 2013, and
meeting other program criteria and applicable land use regulations, qualify for the existing incentive program.
2
The purpose of this report is to bring forward considerations around which a program could be
structured, and to discuss timing issues in relation to the Commercial and Industry Strategy process.
Once Council has discussed the options and timing issues, staff can develop a strategy leading
toward an incentive program built upon a solid foundation of goals and desired outcomes.
OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION:
Program Goals and Principles
A focused incentive program can encourage certain types of development that will help to achieve
Council’s vision for the community. It is important to consider the goals first, prior to developing the
program, to ensure that the short-term cost of the program is more than offset by the longer-term
returns that result from a well-considered incentive program. This will ensure citizens are getting
value for their investment. The goals should be in alignment with Council’s Corporate Strategic Plan,
Official Community Plan, and other master plans and guiding documents. The Corporate Strategic
Plan has numerous high-level goals that would be considered in the development of this program:
• A strong and vibrant local economy
• Planning growth around multi-modal transportation routes
• Protecting the quality of life and diversity of residential options
• Densifying neighbourhoods
• A vibrant, pedestrian-friendly, accessible downtown that is the heart and gathering place for
the community
• Shopping, educational facilities and utility infrastructure that were developed concurrent with
the new or densified neighbourhoods
• Promotion of green building and innovative technologies in residential and commercial
construction and infrastructure
• Targeting businesses that fit within the context of the District’s many neighbourhoods
• Commercial ventures in the accessible, pedestrian-friendly downtown and at nodes along
major roads
• The many benefits of having the majority of its residents work in the community in which they
live
Going beyond high-level goals, a program focused on goals specific to Maple Ridge’s current
economic situation warrants consideration in order to maximize value for the community. The
Economic Development Strategy contains numerous goals and principles, and identifies four key
market sectors, around which an incentive program could be developed:
• Post secondary education
• Advanced technology
• Tourism
• Agriculture
3
More recently, the draft Commercial and Industrial Strategy 2012-2042 report contains
recommendations that have been developed to position the District for future growth and prosperity,
with a vibrant and diverse economy and quality local employment. An extension of the existing Town
Centre incentive program beyond December 30, 2013 2 is recommended in the strategy, with specific
mention of encouraging office, conference/meeting space and hotel development.
In developing a new program to encourage high-value job creation, Council may wish to consider a
program focused on commercial and industrial investment. The program should be aligned with our
Economic Development Strategy, which Council will be reviewing in the coming weeks, as well as our
Commercial and Industrial Strategy which is currently in development. The design of the program
should consider the following:
• Market sector(s)
• Location
• Form of development
• New business vs retention/expansion
• Timing of incentives
Council will be receiving an update on the Commercial and Industrial Strategy in July and the
development of a job creation incentive program should follow.
Incentive Tools
Municipalities in BC are limited in the financial incentives they can provide. The 2006 incentive
program for the downtown was a Revitalization Tax Exemption Program, taking advantage of existing
legislative authority granted to local governments. The financial incentives were limited to tax
exemptions only, providing relief annually to property owners.
A year after the 2006 program was established, legislation was changed to broaden municipal
authority in this area. Council asked staff to review the program and look for ways to utilize this new
authority to create a more comprehensive program, and specifically look for ways to provide to
provide financial incentives at the front-end that would benefit developers who wouldn’t necessarily
benefit as property owners in subsequent years. Following that direction, the Town Centre
Investment Incentive Program was created. The program includes both front-end and downstream
financial incentives, and non-financial incentives such as priority processing and an expanded
boundary for reduced parking standards. The program also includes a higher level of incentives for
innovative energy solutions and green building certification.
Selection of the appropriate incentive tools will most effective once goals have been established.
Even more informative will be hearing from industry representatives and property owners directly.
The findings from focus group workshops related to the Commercial and Industrial Strategy will be
brought to Council on June 17, and will help to inform the development of an incentive program. An
open house scheduled for June 27 will also provide public input on the strategy, and may address
the issue of incentives.
2 Applicants taking out a building permit by the end of the business day on Monday, December 30, 2013, and
meeting other program criteria and applicable land use regulations, qualify for the existing incentive program.
4
Eligibility Criteria
Over the coming months, staff will research the eligibility criteria that could be used in a job creation
incentive program. The current incentive program’s eligibility criteria can largely be checked against
development permit information, and in the case of renovation projects, against building permit
information. High quality local employment as an eligibility condition is more difficult, as the
employment phase of a development comes much later in its lifecycle, potentially long after a front-
end financial incentive has been granted. In addition, employment numbers tend to vary with time
and economic conditions, and an incentive clawback provision may prove difficult for Council if it is
exercised during a time of economic strife for local employers. Latter-stage eligibility would be easier
managed with tax exemptions, a downstream incentive for which the District would require annual
qualification.
Council may also wish to address other goals, such as effective transportation flow and community
greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets, by encouraging car-pooling or alternate modes of
transportation for employees and/or residents. Again, these latter-stage programs are better
addressed with tax exemptions rather than front-end incentives.
Another consideration is whether site preparation to create investment-ready lands would be eligible
for incentives. Site preparation would include such things as site clearing and clean-up and provision
of advanced infrastructure such as fibre connectivity and district energy systems. Within the Town
Centre, properties exist where the tear-down of existing building(s) and clean-up of the site would
immediately improve the area and would help to express an atmosphere of future investment
potential. Brownfields (idle, abandoned or underutilized land that may have been formerly in
industrial or commercial use) can be less attractive to developers due to real or perceived
contamination issues. This unknown risk can make it difficult to obtain financing because of the
potential loss of value and potential liability surrounding contamination. Incentives, combined with a
District liaison to assist with the Provincial Brownfield Redevelopment Program and related funding
and tools, currently in place with the Town Centre incentive program, will broaden the scope of a new
incentive program.
A combination of land and employment, such as jobs per land area, may be a way to encourage land
efficiency to make the most of existing industrial lands. There are many possibilities, and again,
considering eligibility criteria in light of established goals and informed by industry representatives,
land owners and citizens will result in a program that focuses financial resources on projects with the
greatest potential to position Maple Ridge for future growth and prosperity.
As already stated, establishing the eligibility criteria for a job creation incentive program will be
challenging and staff will research best practices.
DESIRED OUTCOME
An incentive program that provides value to citizens and the community, by encouraging the types of
employment and development that is required to position the District for future growth and
prosperity, with a vibrant and diverse economy and quality local employment.
5
STRATEGIC ALIGNMENT
The District of Maple Ridge Corporate Strategic Plan and the Economic Development Strategy share
a common vision for a strong and vibrant local economy. The Commercial and Industrial Strategy
2012-2042 has not yet been endorsed by Council, and in the next month Council will hear input from
industry representatives, land owners and the public. Council may wish to align the timing of the
development of an incentive program to correspond with this valuable input.
BUSINESS AND FINANCIAL PLAN IMPLICATIONS
Incentive Tool: Property Taxation Exemption
If the exemption program generates development, then the District achieves downstream tax
revenue, and forgoes revenue in the short term. A key point to consider is that the 5-year financial
plan includes an estimate of each year’s tax revenue growth from new construction. Each new
development or improvement contributes toward meeting these revenue targets. If the District
achieves the growth target despite having exempted qualifying investment, there is no budget
repercussion.
Incentive Tool: Permit Revenue Reductions
Permit fees are designed to help cover the costs of providing services. Applications will still need to
be processed and inspections will need to be carried out, regardless of whether or not the full fee is
collected. This concern has to be weighed against the community benefits that will accrue from the
additional investment.
Current Situation
Currently, property tax revenue is below budget, due in part to tax exemptions granted to Town
Centre incentive projects, but primarily due to global economic conditions. Permit revenues have
been discounted and accumulated surplus has been utilized to fund upfront incentives. In exchange,
the Town Centre is thriving, with increased residential density and an enhanced business climate.
The Maple Ridge experience is quite unique in this global economic situation. An incentive program
is intended to provide long-term community benefits that more than compensate for the initial
financial implications. Further into the development of a new incentive program, financial
implications will be brought forward for consideration.
6
CONCLUSION
Council has a desire to build on the momentum of development and enhancements that have
already occurred in the Town Centre, and to encourage high-value local employment opportunities
through the use of incentives.
Staff recommends that incentive program development be guided by the Commercial and Industrial
Strategy, built on a solid foundation of goals and input from industry representatives, property
owners and the public. Staff is further recommending that the Town Centre Investment Incentive
Program be allowed to lapse following the December 30, 2013 expiry date for residential-only
projects, and that enabling regulations be brought forward to extend the incentives for non-
residential elements of the program for another year, to be replaced by a new job-creation incentive
program.
“Original signed by Laura Benson”____________________
Prepared by: Laura Benson, CMA
Manager of Sustainability and Corporate Planning
“Original signed by Paul Gill”_________________________
Approved by: Paul Gill, BBA, CGA
General Manager: Corporate and Financial Services
“Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule______________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
Attachments:
Appendix A: Town Centre Investment Incentive Program – summary and map
Appendix B: Commercial-Industrial Incentive Program Examples
7
Appendix A: Town Centre Investment Incentive Program – summary and map
Criteria: 1
Residential/Mixed Use Commercial Site Prep Façade
Improvements
Building permit must
be issued by
Monday, December
30, 2013
New
Construction:
Minimum 5
storeys
New
Construction:
Minimum 4
storeys
New
Commercial
Construction:
≥$1,000,000
Commercial
Renovations:
≥$20,000
On Council
approval
Renovations to
commercial façade
≥$10,000
See Map Sub Area 2 Sub Area 1 Sub Areas 1
and 2
Sub Areas 1
and 2
Sub Areas
1 and 2
Sub Areas 1 and 2
Incentive Package 1
Priority Processing Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Partnering
Incentive 2
10% of DCCs
to a max. of
$50,000
($75,000 for
LEED/energy)
10% of DCCs
to a max. of
$50,000
($75,000 for
LEED/energy)
25% of DCCs
to a max. of
$25,000
($37,500 for
LEED/energy)
n/a n/a n/a
Property Tax
Exemptions 3
3 years 3 years 3 years 3 years (on
renovation
portion)
3 years 3 years (on
renovation
portion)
Additional Property
Tax Exemption
(LEED-Silver or
renewable energy)
Additional
3 years
Additional
3 years
Additional
3 years
Additional
3 years
n/a n/a
Building Permit Fee
Discount 4
50% plus
additional
$6,000
50% plus
additional
$6,000
50% plus
additional
$6,000
50% plus
additional
$1,200
50% 50%
Reduced Parking
Standards
n/a Yes Sub Area 1
only
n/a n/a
n/a
Brownfield Support -
potential grants
Yes Yes Yes n/a Yes n/a
Building Height
Flexibility
Yes Yes Yes Yes n/a n/a
Comprehensive
Development
Guidelines
Yes Yes Yes Yes n/a Yes 5
Façade Improvement
Program (in
partnership with BIA)
n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a DMR portion
$75,000
over 3 years
1. Must also comply with all land use regulations; may require development variance applications; if a
conflict exists between existing bylaws/regulations and this program, the former will prevail.
2. Fulfilment of agreed-upon Town Centre goals and objectives, to be negotiated on a project-by-project
basis; maximum $500,000 program funding available as at March 14, 2011.
3. Property tax exemption from general municipal tax portion, on non-market change in assessed value of
improvements
4. Building permit discount not to exceed total building permit fee.
5. Development permit required for alterations ≥$25,000 if not consistent with DP guidelines.
8
Appendix A: Town Centre Investment Incentive Program – summary and map
9
Appendix B: Commercial-Industrial Incentive Program Examples
Following are some examples of incentive programs to encourage commercial-industrial activity. It is
important to note that we have gone beyond British Columbia in our initial search for incentive
ideas, and the District may not have the legislative authority to enable some of the examples
presented here.
City of Surrey, BC
Clean Energy Incentives to create a “clean energy hub” to encourage clean energy companies to
build and operate their business in Surrey:
• Eliminate property taxes for 3 years
• Reduce building permit fees by 50%
• Reduce business license fees to $1 for the first three years of company operation.
Innovation Boulevard created by Mayor Watts to spur growth in the health technology sector. Key
companies and organizations in this sector are headquartered in this location:
• To spur growth in this sector, Mayor Watts created the Mayor’s Health Technology Working
Group. The Working Group will be Co-Chaired by Mayor Watts and Dr. Ryan D’Arcy, an SFU
Neuroscientist and newly appointed Research Chair for Multimodal Technology at SMH.
Not an incentive, but the eight business parks in Surrey are featured in a section under Economic
Development on Surrey’s website. Business park overviews provide specifics on each of the areas
with respect to amenities, development cost charges and other information such as land use plans
and maps.
Also not an incentive, but Surrey’s Key Sectors are profiled on Surrey’s website. Profiles contain:
• A high-level overview
• Leading companies and organizations
• Innovative research and expertise at SFU Surrey and Kwantlen Polytechnic University
• Relevant City of Surrey initiatives
• Sector specific support such as industry associations, government funding opportunities and
financial incentives.
Corporation of the City of Sault Ste. Marie, ON
Industrial Development Financial Incentive Program to develop or redevelop industrial sites
identified in the Industrial Community Improvement Policy Area, or determined by Council. A
minimum project investment of $1 million is required; development must create new or protect
existing jobs (excluding jobs solely associated with construction).
Incremental rebate of up to three years, the amount determined by Council, on the increase in
the municipal portion of the property tax that is as a result of development or redevelopment.
Properties may also be eligible for a brownfield property tax cancellation.
10
Appendix B: Commercial-Industrial Incentive Program Examples
Resort Municipality of Miniota, MB
Tax Incentive Program to to attract new residents and businesses to the area and encourage existing
residents to remain in the area, and to encourage new residential development:
• New Resident(s) to the Municipality—maximum of $1,500 per year towards the balance of the
residential portion of property taxes for the first 2 years.
• First Time Homeowner(s) of the municipality—maximum of $1,500 per year towards the balance
of the residential portion of property taxes for the first 2 years.
• New Urban Business within any town site in municipality—maximum of $2,500 per year on
commercial property taxes for the first 2 years.
• New Rural Business in the municipality—may make application to council to determine if an
incentive program tax credit will be approved.
Lot Incentive Program to attract new development. Designated vacant municipal owned property can
be purchased for $1.00 per parcel. Currently there are no vacant lots for $1.00 available.
City of Williams Lake, BC
North End Industrial Revitalization Tax Exemption Program to encourage revitalization of industrial
use properties, increase the industrial tax base and sustainable job creation, and encourage green
building practices:
• Tax Exemptions applicable to the amount of property tax payable on the lesser amount of the
incremental increase in assessed value and the project building permit value for five years.
o Exemption is broken down into three classes.
o A point based assessment is used to rate application, with the point score determining what
class of exemption the property owner will be eligible for.
Class 1: Class 2: Class 3:
• Year 1, 100% exemption
• Year 2, 90% exemption
• Year 3, 70% exemption
• Year 4, 50% exemption
• Year 5, 30% exemption
• Year 1, 100% exemption
• Year 2, 80% exemption
• Year 3, 60% exemption
• Year 4, 40% exemption
• Year 5, 20% exemption
• Year 1, 100% exemption
• Year 2, 70% exemption
• Year 3, 50% exemption
• Year 4, 30% exemption
• Year 5, 10% exemption
Town of Assiniboia, SK
Commercial Incentive Policy to stimulate commercial expansion and new commercial development,
increase the long term commercial assessment in Assiniboia and job creation:
• New Business Construction:
o Five year tax incentive
Years 1 and 2, 100% land and building tax exemption (municipal and school portions)
Years 3 to 5, 50% land and building tax exemption (municipal and school portions)
• New Business Established in an Existing Building:
o Three year tax incentive
Year 1, 50% land and building tax exemption (municipal and school portions)
11
Appendix B: Commercial-Industrial Incentive Program Examples
Years 2 and 3, 25% land and building tax exemption (municipal and school portions)
• Business Expansion Incentive:
o Three year tax incentive for new construction which increases the physical space of the
commercial improvement. Incentive includes addition to exciting commercial building or
replacement of an existing commercial building:
Year 1 to 3, 50% exemption of incremental increase of improvement assessment
resulting from expansion
• Business Renovation Incentive:
o Rebate to a business completing a $5,000 minimum in renovations of commercial
improvements. Rebate based on cost of renovations at a rate of 10% of the costs to a
maximum rebate of $1,000.
• Job Creation Incentive:
o New or expanded businesses are eligible. For each new or additional permanent or full time
equivalent job (1,800 hours per year) (excluding management), a credit of $200 per
employee per year for 3 years. The credit is applied against the municipal levy in the fourth
year.
Residential Incentive Policy to increase the capacity for residential accommodation, fostering an
environment for resident retention/attraction of new residents, and to increase the long term
residential assessment in Assiniboia.
• Year 1, 100% land and building tax exemption
• Year 2, 50% land and building tax exemption
• Year 3, 25% land and building tax exemption
Municipal Tax Levy Cap. The municipal tax levy payable on residential property, excluding multi-unit
residential properties, is set at $3,000.00 annually in the year 2007. The maximum municipal tax
levy to be indexed annually as per the cost of living rate.
County of Maui, HI
The Enterprise Zone Program is a joint state-county effort intended to stimulate-via tax and other
incentives-certain types of business activity, job preservation, and job creation in areas where they
are most appropriate or most needed. Up to six zones can be designated per county.
Businesses or a branch of a business located in an Enterprise Zone (EZ) can be eligible for reduced
state taxes and can receive other county benefits for up to seven years by satisfying the EZ hiring
and gross receipts requirements.
Hiring Requirements: Eligible businesses must also increase their average annual number of full-
time employees (fte’s). Businesses must already employ at least one full-time worker at their EZ
establishment before beginning participation. (Full-time = 20 or more hours per week.) Specific
requirements that must be satisfied by existing and new businesses are:
• Existing Businesses in an EZ must increase their average annual number of fte’s by at least 10%
by the end of the first year. The average annual number of fte’s must also increase by at least
10% annually in years 2 to 7.
• New Businesses that start up in or move to an EZ must increase their average annual number of
fte’s by at least 10% by the end of the first year.
• The average annual number of fte’s at the end of years 2 to 7 can fluctuate, but cannot be less
than the number of employees required at the end of the first year. (Note: "New" businesses will
be considered new throughout their seven years of eligibility.)
12
Appendix B: Commercial-Industrial Incentive Program Examples
• Increase their gross sales year to year by 2%.
Incentives
STATE: Businesses which satisfy all requirements will qualify for the following state tax benefits for
up to seven consecutive years:
• 100% exemption from the General Excise Tax (GET) and Use Tax every year. (The GET exemption
applies only to gross revenues from EZ-eligible business categories within an EZ.)
• Licensed contractors are also exempt from GET on construction done within an EZ for an EZ-
qualified business.
• An 80% reduction of state income tax the first year. (This reduction goes down 10% each year for
6 more years.)
• An additional income tax reduction equal to 80% of annual Unemployment Insurance premiums
the first year. (This reduction goes down 10% each year for 6 more years.)
NOTE: The two income tax reductions combined cannot exceed 100% of income tax due.
COUNTY: Each county will offer eligible businesses additional benefits that may include one or more
of the following:
• Priority permit processing
• Zoning or building permit waivers or variances
• Property tax adjustments
• Priority consideration for federal job training or community development funds.
New York City, NY
New York City Economic Development Corporation has a number of incentive programs in their NYC
Business Incentives Guide, including:
Business Incentive Rate (BIR), an energy discount program to encourage economic growth in
manufacturing and industrial sectors by offering a discount off of electric delivery charges. The BIR
reduces the delivery components of electricity bills by 30-35 percent. The program has a term of five
years.
The Commercial Expansion Program (CEP) to increase tenant occupancy in commercial offices and
industrial/manufacturing spaces.
Benefits
Lease Term Abatement
Period Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5
3 - 4 Years 3 Years
Property tax
liability or
$2.50 per sq.
ft. whichever
is less
2/3 of initial
abatement
1/3 of initial
abatement
Abatement
Expires
Abatement
Expires
5 Years
(Commercial) 5 Years
Property tax
liability or
$2.50 per sq.
ft. whichever
is less
Property tax
liability or
$2.50 per sq.
ft. whichever is
less
Property tax
liability or
$2.50 per sq.
ft. whichever is
less
2/3 of initial
abatement
1/3 of initial
abatement
13
Appendix B: Commercial-Industrial Incentive Program Examples
5 Years+
(Manufacturing) 5 Years+
Property tax
liability or
$2.50 per sq.
ft. whichever
is less
Property tax
liability or
$2.50 per sq.
ft. whichever is
less
Property tax
liability or
$2.50 per sq.
ft. whichever is
less
Property tax
liability or
$2.50 per sq.
ft. whichever is
less
Property tax
liability or
$2.50 per sq.
ft. whichever is
less
Exempt Facilities Bond Program: Companies developing facilities on publicly-owned docks and
wharves or developing solid waste recycling facilities can access triple tax-exempt bond financing.
Reductions in mortgage recording and sales taxes may also be available.
• Benefits: Triple Tax-Exempt Financing. Requests for other benefits, including waivers of mortgage
recording and sales taxes, will be evaluated based on need.
INDUSTRIAL INCENTIVES FOR DEVELOPERS. DEVELOPERS OF INDUSTRIAL SPACE IN DESIGNATED AREAS CAN SEEK A
MORTGAGE RECORDING TAX WAIVER AND SALES TAX EXEMPTIONS ON PURCHASES OF MATERIALS USED TO CONSTRUCT,
RENOVATE OR EQUIP FACILITIES.
Developers seeking to acquire, construct or renovate facilities located within Empire Zones and
Empowerment Zones that will be leased by manufacturers, distributors, warehousers and other
industrial companies are eligible to apply for the benefits listed below.
• Benefits:
Sales Tax Exemption.
Mortgage Recording Tax Waiver
THE JOB CREATION AND RETENTION PROGRAM (“JCRP”) PROVIDES DISCRETIONARY GRANTS TO ELIGIBLE COMPANIES
COMMITTING TO CREATE A MINIMUM OF 75 NEW JOBS IN DESIGNATED AREAS, AS WELL AS TO EMPLOYERS MAKING A
COMMITMENT TO RETAIN AT LEAST 200 JOBS IN DESIGNATED AREAS.
• Benefits: Up to $4,000 per new full-time job based on fiscal and economic impact of the
proposed job creation and an assessment of the need for grant funds to move the project ahead.
14
Appendix B: Commercial-Industrial Incentive Program Examples
City of Woonsocket, RI
Job Creation Incentive Program to encourage economic development by providing a strong local
financial incentive to new and existing businesses to construct/substantially renovate industrial and
commercial facilities.
The financial incentive comes in the form of a "phase-in schedule" of new or additional municipal
property tax assessments. The length of the "phase-in" period ranges from five to ten years based
upon the type of development, and begins with a first year tax percentage as low as 0% for major
renovation and 50% for new construction projects.
The Program, as detailed in the attached program description, contains eight tables listing the
various levels of tax abatement for different types of construction. A major factor in the final
calculation of tax benefits is the total number of new jobs to be created as a result of the proposed
construction. Businesses are encouraged to hire Woonsocket residents for at least 40% of the new
jobs to be created, targeting low to moderate income residents.
15
Appendix B: Commercial-Industrial Incentive Program Examples
16
1
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: May 27, 2013
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: Tandem and Off-Street Parking Discussion Paper
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Planning Department 2013 Business Plan directed staff to prepare a report on tandem and off-
street parking in Maple Ridge, based on concerns with tandem parking in multi-family (townhouse)
developments in the District. This was triggered by several recent townhouse development
applications proposing all or a significant percentage of the units with tandem parking. Tandem
parking is currently permitted in a few single family zones, duplex zone and the RM-1 (Townhouse
Residential District) zone. Given that recent discussion has noted concerns with tandem parking in
townhouse projects, the focus of this report is on tandem and off-street parking in the RM-1
(Townhouse Residential District) zone.
Townhouse units with tandem parking are a fairly common form of housing in many jurisdictions
within the region. Typically the tandem parking arrangement results in a taller, narrower unit with a
minimal driveway apron in front of the tandem garage. The perception is that tandem townhouse
units typically sell for less, than the units with a double car garage and it is often a preferred option
with developers to maximize the unit yield. Staff discussions with some of the private sector
stakeholders suggest that tandem units are more affordable, however, there is no concrete evidence
that tandem units sell for less in the market. General discussions with staff from other jurisdictions
and the private sector stakeholders indicated that while there is a general perception of overall
acceptance of tandem townhouse units in the market, there are concerns with a 100% tandem
townhouse developments across the region.
This report focuses on the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone and includes the following:
Review of the existing regulations for tandem and off-street parking and loading regulations;
Review of tandem parking regulations in other jurisdictions within the region;
Identification of concerns/issues with tandem parking;
Review of scenarios/ options for the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone with graphic
examples of each scenario;
Review of the recommended option for tandem parking in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential)
zone.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the “Tandem and Off-Street Parking Discussion Paper” dated May 27, 2013 be received for
information and discussion.
BACKGROUND:
The Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990 permits tandem parking in
specific single family zones, duplex zone and the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone.
Tandem Parking has not been a concern in single family zones where the roads meet the municipal
standards and the driveways may be wider. In some cases, there is parking along the streets as well.
4.2
2
However within the townhouse zone it appears to be a concern. The District has seen a steady rise in
townhouse development projects with all tandem parking units.
DISCUSSION:
A) Review of the existing tandem and Off- Street Parking and Loading regulations:
The Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw provides for tandem parking in certain single family zones,
duplex zone and the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone. The bylaw reads:
PART IV, Section 4.1(iii)(b)(iv), of Maple Ridge off-Street Parking & Loading Bylaw No. 4350-
1990, “the RS-1 (one Family Urban Residential) zone, RS-1a (One Family Amenity
Residential) zone, RS-1b (One Family Urban Residential- Medium Density) zone, R-1
(Residential District) zone, RT-1 (Two Family Urban Residential) zone and RM-1 (Townhouse
Residential District) zone, may have obstructed access where the primary parking space is a
carport or garage and the obstruction is an intervening parking space”.
Out of the above noted zones, the RS-1, RS-1b, R-1 and RT-1 are single family or duplex zones. Each
of the above mentioned zones require a minimum of two parking spaces per unit and an additional
parking space for a permitted Accessory Residential use such as a Home Occupation, Secondary
Suite or Detached Garden Suite (if permitted in the zone). For the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential
District) zone, two spaces per unit plus a 0.2 space per unit for visitors is required.
It is important to note that out of all the available multi-family zones in the District, only the RM-1
(Townhouse Residential District) zone permits tandem parking.
B) Review of tandem parking regulations in other jurisdictions within the region:
The following identifies the tandem regulations used in other municipalities within the region
(Appendix A):
i. City of Pitt Meadows: allows tandem parking in the townhouse zone. The townhouse zone
requires a ratio of 1.75 spaces per unit for residents and 0.2 spaces per unit for visitors.
ii. City of Port Coquitlam: does not have tandem parking regulations in the Zoning Bylaw,
but permits it on a site by site basis. Recently their Council has expressed concerns with
tandem parking in the townhouse zones and the City staff has been encouraging a
balanced proportion of double and tandem garages on a project by project basis.
iii. City of Coquitlam: does not have tandem parking regulations in the Zoning Bylaw, but
permits it on a site by site basis. In most cases, tandem spaces may be provided as extra
spaces and are not included in the parking calculations. They are sometimes proposed in
addition to the minimum parking spaces required in the zone, as a marketing tool.
iv. Township of Langley: permits tandem parking in the townhouse zone but requires a
higher ratio i.e. in the townhouse zone, units with tandem parking garages require a ratio
of 2.5 spaces per unit instead of 2.0 spaces per unit for a double garage unit. The
Township requires a Restrictive Covenant on the tandem space, to discourage
conversion of it to a habitable space. The bylaw is silent on permitting tandem parking in
any other zones.
3
v. City of Burnaby: does not permit tandem parking except for specific projects on site by
site basis through a Comprehensive Development zoning. It forms a part of specific site
design with a Restrictive Covenant registered on title to ensure that the tandem space is
not converted in to a habitable space. The required minimum parking ratio for ground-
oriented townhouse zones is 1.75 spaces per unit (including 0.25 spaces per unit for
visitor parking) except for a specific zone permitted in the business district where it is
reduced to 1.0 space per unit. These ratios are much lower parking ratios than Maple
Ridge and other jurisdictions and tandem parking is in general discouraged.
vi. Corporation of Delta: permits tandem parking in single family zones, duplex zone, strata
house and townhouse zones. There are more than one townhouse zones with varying
densities from 25 to 40 units per net hectare, depending on the specific zone. Visitor
parking ratio is similar to Maple Ridge’s requirements.
vii. City of Abbotsford: permits tandem parking in single family and townhouse residential
zones. The townhouse residential use is required to provide two spaces per unit, of which
one is located in a garage or under-ground parking and 20% of the total parking is
required to be for visitors, which is same as the Maple Ridge’s requirements.
viii. District of Mission: permits tandem parking for ground-oriented townhouse zones, but
with a restriction on the percentage of tandem units in two zones. These zones permit up
to 50% tandem units which are limited to internal units only. The densities vary in the
three townhouse zones they offer and parking ratios are comparable to the District’s
requirements.
ix. City of Richmond: has four sub-zones with the townhouse form and tandem parking is
permitted within certain geographical locations in site-specific zones. These zones are
permitted in the city centre and other busy areas that have fairly good connectivity by
public transit. Standard minimum lengths and widths of the parking spaces are specified
and densities vary in the various townhouse zones. It is interesting to note that the
amenity space is expressed as a floor space ratio of 0.1.
x. City of Surrey: permits tandem parking in ground oriented multiple unit residential use
with a greater apron length on the driveway. The bylaw states “In a tandem parking
arrangement where the second vehicle is parked outside a garage in the driveway a
minimum length of 6.0 metres (19.7 feet) shall be provided for each parking space”.
The City has recently been dealing with enforcement issues with tandem parking in
Clayton Heights area. The tandem spaces have become living spaces and there are
renters with cars on the same site.
City of Surrey has some additional regulations with respect to tandem parking permitted
in the ground-oriented multiple unit residential zones, such as: restrictions on location of
tandem parking spaces on an arterial road; restriction that both the tandem spaces be
enclosed and attached to the unit; requirement that both tandem spaces be held by the
same owner and that tandem parking is not permitted for units located within 6.0 metres
from lot entrances/exits.
In reviewing other municipal parking bylaws it is clear that approaches vary by community with some
not permitting tandem parking, some permitting tandem parking on a project by project basis, some
permitting tandem parking by requiring a higher parking ratio or limiting the amount of tandem;
requiring additional common amenity area and/or driveway aprons. Discussion with some of the
staff from other municipalities confirms that several jurisdictions are expressing concerns over 100%
tandem unit developments.
4
C) Identification of concerns/issues with tandem parking:
The following section of the report notes the issues and preferences relating to tandem parking, that
were identified through research and consultation with developers, architects, Building and Fire
departments. The issues have been organized into the following categories:
i. BC Building Code requirements:
Often the tandem or double parking garages on townhouse sites are built to meet the minimum B.C.
Building Code requirements for width, depth and height. A driveway apron is the area in front of a
tandem garage. It may or may not be adequate to park one vehicle. Under the bylaw, the RM-1
(Townhouse Residential District) zone does not require the driveway apron length to accommodate a
parking space. If it is not adequate to park one vehicle, this may result in individual vehicles possibly
encroaching into the 6.0 metre wide strata road.
ii. Unit sizes, architectural design and streetscape:
Townhouse units with a tandem garage are typically narrower (12.5 to 15 feet wide) and taller (3 or
3.5 storey) in form. The architectural form for tandem and double garage units differ significantly,
one being a two storey massing while the other with tandem parking is a taller, narrow three-storey
massing. The tandem units offer a denser, compact, taller form. The townhouse form is often
envisioned and encouraged as a transition between single family and apartment building forms. A
100% tandem development maximizes on the density or the unit count on site which can at times be
at the expense of creating interesting, pedestrian-friendly streetscapes. A combination of tandem
and double garage units have greater potential to create an interesting streetscape with staggered
units and inter-linking green spaces. Block sizes that exceed six units can create a monotonous
façade. Smaller blocks of units create well-articulated facades separated with green buffers in
between the blocks that promote natural light, ventilation and views.
iii. Restrictive Covenant on the tandem space; enforcement of tandem spaces and visitor
parking spaces:
The Licences, Permits and Bylaws Department respond to formal written complaints seeking
enforcement. However, they cannot enforce parking regulations on strata property. The District
prefers the Strata Councils to try to resolve their own parking disputes. Units with a tandem garage
often lose a parking space due to conversion into a habitable area, after the owner moves in.
Complaints are received by the District about the lack of parking on site and in the streets, after this
happens. Sometimes the visitor parking stalls are used by residents or cars are parked within the 6.0
metre wide strata road. In such instances, Strata Councils are responsible for enforcing parking on
the property; however they are not always successful. For the District it becomes a safety concern,
yet enforcement is a challenge.
Long-term preservation of tandem parking space cannot necessarily be secured through the use of a
Restrictive Covenant. A covenant however, can be informative to the unit owners but the District
would be required to undertake enforcement and/or legal action. However, the District is under no
obligation to enforce such a covenant even if in place.
5
D) ANALYSIS:
Review of scenarios/options for the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone with graphic
examples of each scenario:
As explained earlier the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone permits a townhouse
development with ground-oriented units that have 100% tandem parking spaces. The density
permitted is a floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.6 times the net lot area, with an additional 50m2 per unit
basement habitable space. To review the impact of tandem parking spaces on a townhouse
development, several factors need to be considered. Some important factors are: density (floor
space ratio), usable open space, common activity area, setbacks, size of the block of units, driveway
apron length, on-site parking for residents and visitors. The graphic examples attached as
appendices help to illustrate the potential impacts of tandem parking along with recommended
measures to minimize impacts.
For the purpose of this review, four categories were analysed for the various scenarios:
a) A townhouse development with 100% tandem parking spaces (currently permitted);
b) A townhouse development with up to a maximum of 70% tandem parking spaces;
c) A townhouse development with up to a maximum of 50% tandem parking spaces;
d) A townhouse development with no tandem parking spaces (100% double garages).
To assist in this review graphic illustrations have been provided utilizing some fixed and variable
elements. These have been applied to a hypothetical piece of land. It should be noted that for
simplification purpose, the development site is assumed to be a flat, one acre rectangular shaped
piece of land with road frontage on one side.
The following fixed elements included are:
1) Lot Size: 4047 m2 (1 acre or 43562.97 ft2)
2) FSR: 0.6 (50 m2 extra for habitable basement area per unit)
3) Unit sizes: 2 bedroom =1000 ft2 and 3 bedroom=1500 ft2 (50% of each type)
4) Setbacks: 7.5 m from all property lines
5) Parking: 2 spaces per unit (residential) and 0.2 spaces per unit (visitor)
6) 6.0 m wide strata road (no parking along strata road)
7) Max lot coverage: 40%
8) Units in one block: 2 minimum and 6 maximum (2-6 units)
Some variable elements that could have a potential impact on addressing previously identified
concerns with tandem parking are:
1) Percentage (%) of tandem parking spaces on site
2) Usable Open Space Area for units with tandem parking spaces
3) Common Activity Area for units with tandem parking spaces
4) Visitor parking ratio for units with tandem parking spaces
5) Driveway apron length for units with tandem parking spaces
6) Setback variances
A total of 18 scenarios were considered in the review of tandem parking; however, one scenario
clearly resulted in a reasonable mix of tandem and double wide units, maximization of green
6
space/useable open space and a well-articulated, livable design, while maintaining a viable unit yield
(refer to item i on page 7).
Concern has been expressed with the 100% tandem parking (i.e. category a), which is what is
currently permitted. In reality no tandem parking (i.e. category d) is not realistic, as most
developments prefer to maximize on the number of units on site. Therefore, a mix of tandem and
double wide parking scenarios are explored in greater detail (Appendix C-J). In each of the four
scenarios, one variable was introduced to see the overall impact (see Appendix C-J). It was evident
that introducing one variable in each of the scenarios did not help mitigate the potential impacts of
units with tandem parking spaces. However, when three variables such as requiring a driveway
apron, increasing the useable open space and limiting the amount of tandem parking, the overall
improvements to the site design were clearly visible.
Included below is an illustration of 100% units with tandem parking spaces, as permitted today.
7
It is clear in the site plan above, 21 units can be achieved on a one acre parcel. It is important to
note that this scenario maximizes the unit count, density, gross floor area and provides minimal
articulation to the streetscape for the residents. The required useable open space and common
activity area are met by including all the setback areas and not permitting any setback reductions via
a Development Variance Permit.
i) Scenario 2E: maximum of 70% units with tandem parking spaces with a driveway apron
of 5.5 metres required for units with tandem spaces; usable open space increased by 15
m2 per unit and all the other regulations in the RM-1 zone permitted currently.
The graphic example above shows 65% of the units have tandem garages. It is clear in the site plan
above that, by introducing a requirement that permits a maximum of 70% units with tandem parking
spaces and by requiring a driveway apron length of 5.5 metres only for units with tandem parking
8
spaces, and by increasing the usable open space by 15m2 per unit only for units with tandem
parking spaces, 17 to 18 units can be achieved on a one acre parcel.
The following can be inferred from scenario 2E above:
A combination of the three variables i.e. driveway apron requirement for units with tandem
parking spaces; proportionate increase in the usable open space for units with tandem
parking spaces and permitting up to a maximum of 70% of the total number of units to have
tandem parking spaces; the density is not significantly compromised, yet a more
architecturally attractive development may be achieved.
Note that setback variances have not been shown.
It should be noted that with setback variances the unit yields are very similar to those achieved
under the current bylaw (refer to Appendix K). It is clear from Appendix K that when setback
variances are granted for scenario 2E, three more units can be achieved, increasing the unit count to
20 (instead of 17 units in scenario 2E above).
E) PREFERRED APPROACH:
Based on the above analysis it is clear that limiting the amount of tandem parking, and offsetting it
with other requirements results in a development that can achieve densities similar to the current
bylaw (with variances) and at the same time address the on-site congestion, form, streetscape, and
parking concerns.
Recognizing that each site is different and that the Development Community prefers flexibility, it is
recommended that staff prepare amending bylaws that will limit the amount of tandem parking as
stated below:
A maximum of 70% units with tandem parking spaces may be permitted with the following required
for each unit having tandem parking spaces, except in the Town Centre Area:
Block size not to exceed six attached units;
Driveway apron length of 5.5 metres; and
Usable open space of 65 m2 for each three bedroom or bigger units and 50m2 for each two
bedroom or smaller units.
Note that 100% tandem parking in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone would still be
permitted in the Town Centre Area, due to access to transit and policy support for a dense housing
form.
It is important to note that setback variances would be considered on a site specific basis and are
subject to Council approval.
Should Council wish to explore the above noted changes to the bylaws, the following resolution
would provide staff with direction to prepare the required amending bylaws:
That Council direct staff to prepare the relevant bylaw revisions to the RM -1(Townhouse Residential
District) zone and the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw, as described in Section E of the
“Tandem and Off-Street Parking Discussion Paper” dated May 27, 2013.
9
CONCLUSION:
Tandem parking has been permitted in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone and a few
others single family zones as mentioned in this report. For most of the single family zones that
permit tandem parking, it has not been a concern due to wider road standards and longer driveway
apron lengths. The biggest impact is seen in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone that is
serviced by a 6.0 metre wide strata road and there is no requirement for a driveway apron. It is
important to maintain the primary intention of the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone, which
is to provide for a low-density multi-family housing option.
A review of other jurisdictions shows that there are similar concerns about developments with 100%
units that have a tandem parking arrangement on site. There needs to be a functional balance of
both; tandem and double garage units, to achieve a financially feasible, safe and good quality
development. The recommended option (scenario 2E) has been discussed in section E of the report.
“original signed by Rasika Acharya”
____________________________________________________
Prepared by: Rasika Acharya, B-Arch, M-Tech, UD, LEED® AP, MCIP, RPP
Planner
“original signed by Christine Carter”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
“original signed by Frank Quinn”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
GM, Public Works & Development Services
“original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule”
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
The following appendices are attached hereto:
Appendix A – Regional review- matrix showing tandem regulations in other jurisdictions;
Appendix B – Scenario Comparison Chart
Appendix C – Scenario 2A
Appendix D – Scenario 2B
Appendix E – Scenario 2C
Appendix F – Scenario 2D
Appendix G – Scenario 3A
Appendix H – Scenario 3B
Appendix I – Scenario 3C
Appendix J – Scenario 3D
Appendix K – Scenario 2F
Regional Overview- tandem parking regulations in various jurisdictionsMUNICIPALITY TANDEM PARKING LOT COVERAGE DENSITYRESIDENT PARKING RATIO VISITOR PARKING REQUIRED USABLE OPEN SPACEPERMITTEDPER UNIT GROSS FLOOR AREAPitt Meadows yes40% 0.55 FSR1.75 per unit0.220% of the total gross floor areaPort Coquitlam No (project basis)1 unit/220 m2 of lot area1.5 -2BR unit/2.0-3BR unit0.2CoquitlamNo (project basis)45% 0.9 FSR1.0 -studio unit/ 1.5- 2BR unit0.237m2 per unit plus 5m2 per unit amenity areaTownship of Langley yes30% 1 unit/ 335 m2 of lot area (or 30 UPNH) 2.0 per unit (2.5/unit if tandem)0.246m2-2BR, 28 m2-2BR, 19m2-1BR, 9m2-studioBurnabyNo (project basis)40% 1 unit/ 334.4 m2 of lot area1.75 per unit (incl 0.25 for visitor)0.2546m2 per unitDeltayesN/A 40 PPNH (min fl areas of units defined) 2.0 per unit0.250m2-2BR, 27.5 m2-2BR, 19m2-1BR & studioAbbotsfordyes40% 60 UPNH2.0 per unit (incl 20% visitor)20% of residential parking 15m2 per unit (excluding balconies)Missionyes (up to 50%)50% 52 UPNH and 0.6 FSR2.0 per unit0.250 m2 per unit=outdoorRichmondyes40% 0.6 FSR (0.1 additional for Ame- space) 2.0 per unit0.20.1 FSR for amenity spaceSurreyyes45% 0.6 FSR and 37 UPNH 2.0 per unit (reduced by 20% in the0.2 (reduced by 20% in outdoor=3.0 m2 per unitSurrey City Centre area)the Surrey City Centre area) indoor-3.0 m2 per unitNote: It is important to note that some jurisdictions such as Richmond, Surrey, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Mission and Abbotsford have moret han one townhouse zones to allow for varyingdensity and housing form within various geographical locations within their jurisdictions. Based on the location, the parking ratios may vary for each of these zones.APPENDIX A
SCENARIO COMPARISON CHART- APPENDIX B
APPENDIX B
Usable Open
Space
ROAD6m10m
20D 19C 18C 16C
15D
14C
13D
9C
10D
11C
12D
7C
8C
5A4B3B2B1B
6B
17C
Front Lot LineRear Lot LineInterior Side Lot Line
Interior Side Lot Line
7.5m7.5m
7.5m7.5m75m
53.96mScenario 2A - Site Plan
Scale: 1:500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 m
Site Plan Reconciliation
Provided Required
# Units 20 Units Site Area 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft
# of 3 Bedrooms 10 Units GFA 2,323 m2 = 25,000 sq ft
# of 2 Bedrooms 10 Units Road Area:579 m2 = 6,236 sq ft
% of tandem stall to units 70 %Driveway Area:173 m2 = 1,860 sq ft
% of double stall to units 30 %Site Coverage:1,146 m2 = 12,337 sq ft
Usable Open Space 1,972 m2 750 m2 Unit / Ha:49.421
Common Activity Area 100 m2 100 m2 Road Site Coverage:14.3 %
Visitor Parking @ 0.2 4 stalls 4 stalls Driveway Site Coverage:4.3 %
FSR:0.574 0.600 Total Hard Surface Coverage:18.6 %
Building Site Coverage:28.3 %40.0 %
7.5.Scenario 2A - 70% tandem units as the RM-1 zone permits today
VariablesVariablesVariablesVariables
1)Parking Type:70% of Tandem & 30% of Double Wide parking stalls
2)Usable Open Space:45 m2 / 3 Bedroom & 30 m2 for 2 Bedroom
3)Common activity area:5 m2 / unit
4)Parking:0.2 visitor stalls / unit
5)Driveway Apron:1.0m unit driveway
17 May, 2013 8:48 AM
Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture !Page 12 of 34
APPENDIX C
Site Plan Reconciliation
Provided Required
# Units 20 Units Site Area 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft
# of 3 Bedrooms 10 Units GFA 2,323 m2 = 25,000 sq ft
# of 2 Bedrooms 10 Units Road Area:579 m2 = 6,236 sq ft
% of tandem stall to units 70 %Driveway Area:173 m2 = 1,860 sq ft
% of double stall to units 30 %Site Coverage:1,146 m2 = 12,337 sq ft
Usable Open Space 1,972 m2 850 m2 Unit / Ha:49.421
Common Activity Area 200 m2 200 m2 Road Site Coverage:14.3 %
Visitor Parking @ 0.2 4 stalls 4 stalls Driveway Site Coverage:4.3 %
FSR:0.574 0.600 Total Hard Surface Coverage:18.6 %
Building Site Coverage:28.3 %40.0 %
Usable Open
Space
ROAD6m10m
20D 19C 18C 16C
15D
14C
13D
9C
10D
11C
12D
7C
8C
5A4B3B2B1B
6B
17C
Front Lot LineRear Lot LineInterior Side Lot Line
Interior Side Lot Line
7.5m7.5m
7.5m7.5m75m
53.96mScenario 2B - Site Plan
Scale: 1:500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 m
7.6.Scenario 2B - 70% tandem units with increased UOS & CAA
VariablesVariablesVariablesVariables
1)Parking Type:70% of Tandem & 30% of Double Wide parking stalls
2)Usable Open Space:50 m2 / 3 Bedroom & 35 m2 for 2 Bedroom
3)Common activity area:10 m2 / unit
4)Parking:0.2 visitor stalls / unit
5)Driveway Apron:1.0m unit driveway
17 May, 2013 8:48 AM
Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture !Page 13 of 34
APPENDIX D
Usable Open
Space
ROAD6m10m
20D 19C 18C 16C
15D
14D
13D
9C
10C
11C
12C
7C
8C
5A4B3B2B1B
6B
17D
Front Lot LineRear Lot LineInterior Side Lot Line
Interior Side Lot Line
7.5m7.5m
7.5m7.5m75m
53.96mScenario 2C - Site Plan
Scale: 1:500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 m
Site Plan Reconciliation
Provided Required
# Units 20 Units Site Area 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft
# of 3 Bedrooms 10 Units GFA 2,323 m2 = 25,000 sq ft
# of 2 Bedrooms 10 Units Road Area:674 m2 = 7,250 sq ft
% of tandem stall to units 70 %Driveway Area:165 m2 = 1,777 sq ft
% of double stall to units 30 %Site Coverage:1,146 m2 = 12,337 sq ft
Usable Open Space 1,893 m2 750 m2 Unit / Ha:49.421
Common Activity Area 100 m2 100 m2 Road Site Coverage:16.6 %
Visitor Parking @ 0.5 10 stalls 10 stalls Driveway Site Coverage:4.1 %
FSR:0.574 0.600 Total Hard Surface Coverage:20.7 %
Building Site Coverage:28.3 %40.0 %
7.7.Scenario 2C - 70% tandem units with increased visitor parking ratio
VariablesVariablesVariablesVariables
1)Parking Type:70% of Tandem & 30% of Double Wide parking stalls
2)Usable Open Space:45 m2 / 3 Bedroom & 30 m2 for 2 Bedroom
3)Common activity area:5 m2 / unit
4)Parking:0.5 visitor stalls / unit
5)Driveway Apron:1.0m unit driveway
17 May, 2013 8:48 AM
Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture !Page 14 of 34
APPENDIX E
Usable Open
Space
12C
11C
5C 6C
7C
8C
9C
10C
3D2D1D
6mROAD
17m4D
14C
13C18B17B16B15B19BFront Lot LineRear Lot LineInterior Side Lot Line
Interior Side Lot Line
7.5m7.5m
7.5m7.5m75m
53.96mScenario 2D - Site Plan
Scale: 1:500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 m
Site Plan Reconciliation
Provided Required
# Units 19 Units Site Area 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft
# of 3 Bedrooms 9 Units GFA 2,183 m2 = 23,500 sq ft
# of 2 Bedrooms 10 Units Road Area:554 m2 = 5,967 sq ft
% of tandem stall to units 74 %Driveway Area:416 m2 = 4,482 sq ft
% of double stall to units 26 %Site Coverage:1,083 m2 = 11,654 sq ft
Usable Open Space 1,699 m2 705 m2 Unit / Ha:46.95
Common Activity Area 95 m2 95 m2 Road Site Coverage:13.7 %
Visitor Parking @ 0.2 5 stalls 3.8 stalls Driveway Site Coverage:10.3 %
FSR:0.539 0.600 Total Hard Surface Coverage:24.0 %
Building Site Coverage:26.8 %40.0 %
7.8.Scenario 2D - 70% tandem units with increased apron length
VariablesVariablesVariablesVariables
1)Parking Type:70% of Tandem & 30% of Double Wide parking stalls
2)Usable Open Space:45 m2 / 3 Bedroom & 30 m2 for 2 Bedroom
3)Common activity area:5 m2 / unit
4)Parking:0.2 visitor stalls / unit
5)Driveway Apron:5.5m unit driveway
17 May, 2013 8:48 AM
Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture !Page 15 of 34
APPENDIX F
ROAD6m10m
Usable Open
Space
3B2B1B
11A
4B 5B
12A13A
14A
15A16D17D18D19D
7C
6C
8C
9C
10C20D
Front Lot LineRear Lot LineInterior Side Lot Line
Interior Side Lot Line
7.5m7.5m
7.5m7.5m75m
53.96mScenario 3A - Site Plan
Scale: 1:500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 m
Site Plan Reconciliation
Provided Required
# Units 20 Units Site Area 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft
# of 3 Bedrooms 10 Units GFA 2,323 m2 = 25,000 sq ft
# of 2 Bedrooms 10 Units Road Area:581 m2 = 6,253 sq ft
% of tandem stall to units 50 %Driveway Area:188 m2 = 2,019 sq ft
% of double stall to units 50 %Site Coverage:1,125 m2 = 12,110 sq ft
Usable Open Space 1,993 m2 750 m2 Unit / Ha:49.421
Common Activity Area 100 m2 100 m2 Road Site Coverage:14.4 %
Visitor Parking @ 0.2 4 stalls 4 stalls Driveway Site Coverage:4.6 %
FSR:0.574 0.600 Total Hard Surface Coverage:19.0 %
Building Site Coverage:27.8 %40.0 %
7.13.Scenario 3A - 50% tandem units as the RM-1 zone permits today
VariablesVariablesVariablesVariables
1)Parking Type:50% of Tandem & 50% of Double Wide parking stalls
2)Usable Open Space:45 m2 / 3 Bedroom & 30 m2 for 2 Bedroom
3)Common activity area:5 m2 / unit
4)Parking:0.2 visitor stalls / unit
5)Driveway Apron:1.0m unit driveway
17 May, 2013 8:48 AM
Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture !Page 20 of 34
APPENDIX G
ROAD6m10m
Usable Open
Space
3B2B1B
11A
4B 5B
12A13A
14A
15A16D17D18D19D
7C
6C
8C
9C
10C20D
Front Lot LineRear Lot LineInterior Side Lot Line
Interior Side Lot Line
7.5m7.5m
7.5m7.5m75m
53.96mScenario 3B - Site Plan
Scale: 1:500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 m
Site Plan Reconciliation
Provided Required
# Units 20 Units Site Area 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft
# of 3 Bedrooms 10 Units GFA 2,323 m2 = 25,000 sq ft
# of 2 Bedrooms 10 Units Road Area:581 m2 = 6,253 sq ft
% of tandem stall to units 50 %Driveway Area:188 m2 = 2,019 sq ft
% of double stall to units 50 %Site Coverage:1,125 m2 = 12,110 sq ft
Usable Open Space 1,993 m2 850 m2 Unit / Ha:49.421
Common Activity Area 200 m2 200 m2 Road Site Coverage:14.4 %
Visitor Parking @ 0.2 4 stalls 4 stalls Driveway Site Coverage:4.6 %
FSR:0.574 0.600 Total Hard Surface Coverage:19.0 %
Building Site Coverage:27.8 %40.0 %
7.14.Scenario 3B - 50% tandem units with increased UOS & CAA
VariablesVariablesVariablesVariables
1)Parking Type:50% of Tandem & 50% of Double Wide parking stalls
2)Usable Open Space:50 m2 / 3 Bedroom & 35 m2 for 2 Bedroom
3)Common activity area:10 m2 / unit
4)Parking:0.2 visitor stalls / unit
5)Driveway Apron:1.0m unit driveway
17 May, 2013 8:48 AM
Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture !Page 21 of 34
APPENDIX H
ROAD6m10m
Usable Open
Space
3B2B1B
11A
4B 5B
12A13A
14A
15A16D17D18D19D
7C
6C
8C
9C
10C20D
Front Lot LineRear Lot LineInterior Side Lot Line
Interior Side Lot Line
7.5m7.5m
7.5m7.5m75m
53.96mScenario 3C - Site Plan
Scale: 1:500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 m
Site Plan Reconciliation
Provided Required
# Units 20 Units Site Area 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft
# of 3 Bedrooms 10 Units GFA 2,323 m2 = 25,000 sq ft
# of 2 Bedrooms 10 Units Road Area:718 m2 = 7,731 sq ft
% of tandem stall to units 50 %Driveway Area:205 m2 = 2,205 sq ft
% of double stall to units 50 %Site Coverage:1,125 m2 = 12,110 sq ft
Usable Open Space 1,819 m2 750 m2 Unit / Ha:49.421
Common Activity Area 100 m2 100 m2 Road Site Coverage:17.7 %
Visitor Parking @ 0.5 10 stalls 10 stalls Driveway Site Coverage:5.1 %
FSR:0.574 0.600 Total Hard Surface Coverage:22.8 %
Building Site Coverage:27.8 %40.0 %
7.15.Scenario 3C - 50% tandem units with increased visitor parking ratio
VariablesVariablesVariablesVariables
1)Parking Type:50% of Tandem & 50% of Double Wide parking stalls
2)Usable Open Space:45 m2 / 3 Bedroom & 30 m2 for 2 Bedroom
3)Common activity area:5 m2 / unit
4)Parking:0.5 visitor stalls / unit
5)Driveway Apron:1.0m unit driveway
17 May, 2013 8:48 AM
Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture !Page 22 of 34
APPENDIX I
Usable Open
Space
3B2B1B 4B
13D14D15D16D17D 12C
11C 10C 9C 8A
7A6A5A
ROAD6m17m
Front Lot LineRear Lot LineInterior Side Lot Line
Interior Side Lot Line
7.5m7.5m
7.5m7.5m75m
53.96mScenario 3D - Site Plan
Scale: 1:500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 m
Site Plan Reconciliation
Provided Required
# Units 17 Units Site Area 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft
# of 3 Bedrooms 9 Units GFA 1,997 m2 = 21,500 sq ft
# of 2 Bedrooms 8 Units Road Area:438 m2 = 4,713 sq ft
% of tandem stall to units 53 %Driveway Area:437 m2 = 4,707 sq ft
% of double stall to units 47 %Site Coverage:969 m2 = 10,427 sq ft
Usable Open Space 2,016 m2 645 m2 Unit / Ha:42.008
Common Activity Area 85 m2 85 m2 Road Site Coverage:10.8 %
Visitor Parking @ 0.2 4 stalls 3.4 stalls Driveway Site Coverage:10.8 %
FSR:0.494 0.600 Total Hard Surface Coverage:21.6 %
Building Site Coverage:23.9 %40.0 %
7.16.Scenario 3D - 50% tandem units with increased apron length
VariablesVariablesVariablesVariables
1)Parking Type:50% of Tandem & 50% of Double Wide parking stalls
2)Usable Open Space:45 m2 / 3 Bedroom & 30 m2 for 2 Bedroom
3)Common activity area:5 m2 / unit
4)Parking:0.2 visitor stalls / unit
5)Driveway Apron:5.5m unit driveway
17 May, 2013 8:48 AM
Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture !Page 23 of 34
APPENDIX J
ROAD
Usable Open
Space
17m6m11D
17A
2B1B
19B
18B
13D
10C9C8C
12D
7C6C
15D 14D
5C
20B
4C3C
16CFront Lot LineRear Lot LineInterior Side Lot Line
Interior Side Lot Line
6m4.5m
6m6m75m
53.96mScenario 2F - Site Plan
Scale: 1:500
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 m
Site Plan Reconciliation
Provided Required
# Units 20 Units Site Area 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft
# of 3 Bedrooms 10 Units GFA 2,323 m2 = 25,000 sq ft
# of 2 Bedrooms 10 Units Road Area:635 m2 = 6,831 sq ft
% of tandem stall to units 70 %Driveway Area:331 m2 = 3,560 sq ft
% of double stall to units 30 %Site Coverage:1,146 m2 = 12,337 sq ft
Usable Open Space 1,703 m2 1150 m2 Unit / Ha:49.421
Common Activity Area 100 m2 100 m2 Road Site Coverage:15.7 %
Visitor Parking @ 0.2 4 stalls 4 stalls Driveway Site Coverage:8.2 %
FSR:0.574 0.600 Total Hard Surface Coverage:23.9 %
Building Site Coverage:28.3 %40.0 %
7.11.Scenario 2F - 70% tandem units with variances
VariablesVariablesVariablesVariables
1)Parking Type:70% of Tandem & 30% of Double Wide parking stalls
2)Usable Open Space:65 m2 / 3 Bedroom & 50 m2 for 2 Bedroom
3)Common activity area:5 m2 / unit
4)Parking:0.2 visitor stalls / unit Visitor parking complies with setbacks
5)Driveway Apron:5.5m unit driveway, tandem garage only
6)Variances:Front Yard Setback 4.5m, all other setbacks 6.0m
17 May, 2013 8:48 AM
Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture !Page 18 of 34
APPENDIX K
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin DATE: May 27, 2013
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: 2013 Property Tax Rates Amending Bylaw No. 6993-2013
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The 2013 Property Tax Rates Bylaw was adopted May 14, 2013 and did not reflect the amount set
by the GVRD on April 26, 2013. The property tax rates bylaw can be amended any time up until
December 31 as long as it was initially adopted before the statutory deadline of May 15. It is
desirable to amend the GVRD rates prior to the property tax notices being mailed.
RECOMMENDATION:
That Bylaw No. 6993-2013 be given first, second and third readings.
DISCUSSION:
An amendment to the property tax rate charged for the GVRD is required as the 2013 GVRD levy has
been updated. The updated amount was approved on April 26, 2013 and is not reflected in the
bylaw adopted on May 14.
CONCLUSIONS:
This amendment will allow the District to collect the correct amount requested by the GVRD.
“Original signed by Trevor Thompson”_________________
Prepared by: Trevor Thompson, BBA, CGA
Manager of Financial Planning
“Original signed by Paul Gill”_________________________
Approved by: Paul Gill, BBA, CGA
General Manager, Corporate & Financial Services
“Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule______________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer 4.3
CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE
BYLAW NO. 6993-2013
A Bylaw to amend property tax rates for
Regional District purposes for the year 2013
__________________________________________________________________________
WHEREAS pursuant to provisions in the Community Charter Council has, by bylaw, established
property tax rates before May 15.
AND WHEREAS, Council may amend this bylaw any time within the calendar year.
AND WHEREAS, the amount of the Greater Vancouver Regional District levy has changed.
The Council of the District of Maple Ridge ENACTS AS FOLLOWS:
1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as “Maple Ridge 2013 Property Tax Rates
Amending Bylaw No. 6993-2013”.
2. Schedule “B” attached to and forming part of Maple Ridge 2013 Property Tax Rates Bylaw
6989-2013 is deleted in its entirety and replaced by Schedule “B” attached and forming part
of Maple Ridge 2013 Property Tax Rates Amending Bylaw No. 6993-2013.
READ a first time the day of 2013
READ a second time the day of 2013
READ a third time the day of 2013
RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED the day of 2013.
PRESIDING MEMBER
_________________________ ______
CORPORATE OFFICER
ATTACHMENT: SCHEDULE “B”
District of Maple Ridge
Schedule 'B' to Bylaw No. 6993-2013
Tax Rates (dollars of tax per $1,000 taxable value)
1 2 4 5 6 8 9
Major Light Business/ Rec/
Residential Utility Industry Industry Other Non-profit Farm
A Greater 0.0624 0.2184 0.2122 0.2122 0.1529 0.0624 0.0624
Vancouver
Regional
District
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: May 27. 2013
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: Use of District Land for Economic Development Opportunities/Full Service
Campground
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Along with advanced technology, post-secondary education, and agriculture, tourism has long been
identified and targeted as an economic development priority for the District of Maple Ridge. With the
community’s abundance of natural outdoor amenities and ready access from all part of the Lower
Mainland, Maple Ridge has the potential to leverage its existing natural assets in order to attract
new tourism-related operators. Currently, and in consultation with industry stakeholders, Maple
Ridge staff are exploring opportunities to enhance the existing inventory of both tourism attractions
(product) and accommodations options.
In 2010, Maple Ridge established a business relationship with WildPlay Element Parks that
transformed an under-performing and antiquated public campground into an aerial tree top
adventure playground that hosted 14,000 guests in its first year of operations. WIldPlay invested
upwards of $750,000 into construction of the park and it continues to generate increased guest
traffic year over year. Delivering more than twice the revenues from its previous usage (as a
campground), WildPlay lease revenue is used to offset operating costs and support other Parks &
Leisure programs and initiatives.
The District currently has considerable land holdings including large tracts of land (over 20 acres) in
the central north and eastern regions of the community. All District-owned lands exist as assets of
the taxpayers of Maple Ridge and are carefully managed to ensure that the maximum value is
extracted from them over time. While these lands are currently designated for a variety of uses
including residential development, conservation, parks and industrial uses, some are these parcels
are not expected to be utilized in a productive capacity for many years until sufficient demand is
realized. The recommendation of staff is to more effectively utilize these lands through the use of
temporary commercial use or occupancy permits in order to attract new tourism-related businesses.
In turn, these businesses will generate lease revenue for the District over the medium to long term
while not compromising the intended future use or sale-ability of the lands, nor creating negative
impacts within the existing neighbourhood context. With the support of Council, the goal of staff is to
explore the market potential for two specific uses of District-owned land; a full service campground
and an additional family-friendly outdoor adventure activity to complement the existing WildPlay
facility.
The desired outcomes from this initiative include the following:
•Council approval to proceed with formal Requests for Expression of Interest for:
1
4.4
o a privately operated, full service campground to be located on District-owned land
adjacent to Whonnock Lake.
o a privately operated, family-friendly outdoor adventure activity to be located on Fern
Crescent near the entrance to Alouette Lake
In general, the desired outcome is for the greater leverage of a taxpayer-owned resource that
delivers both financial and ancillary economic development benefits to the community at large.
In summary, given the District’s land holdings, coupled with Council’s desire to expedite economic
development activities that generate both jobs and an increase in general revenues, there exists the
opportunity in the medium to long-term to proactively seek out business opportunities that leverage
existing District land assets and support its economic development sectors and priorities.
RECOMMENDATION(S):
That staff proceed with Requests for Expressions of Interest for a privately operated, full service
campground on District-owned land adjacent to Whonnock Lake and a family-friendly outdoor
adventure activity to be located on District-owned land on Fern Crescent near the entrance to Golden
Ears Provincial Park.
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Tourism has long been identified and targeted as an economic development priority for the District of
Maple Ridge and is a key sector that aligns directly with the Invest North Fraser initiative and the
Province’s BC Job’s Plan. With the community’s abundance of natural outdoor amenities and easy
access from all part of the Lower Mainland, Maple Ridge has the potential to leverage its existing
natural assets in order to attract new tourism-related operators. To be considered a tourism
destination, Maple Ridge needs to significantly increase both its tourism attractions (product) and
accommodations options. As any local tourism ‘industry’ will benefit exponentially from a ‘clustering’
effect, the need to attract a wide variety of attractions and accommodations options within the
community remains paramount.
In 2010, Maple Ridge established a business relationship with WildPlay Element Parks that
transformed an under-performing and antiquated public campground into an aerial tree top
adventure playground. WIldPlay invested upwards of $750,000 into construction of the park and it
continues to generate increased guest traffic year over year. Delivering more than twice the
revenues from its previous usage (as a campground), WildPlay lease revenue is used to offset
operating costs and support other Parks & Leisure programs and initiatives. In 2012, WildPlay
attracted and hosted in excess of 15,750 guests to its facility.
While Maple Ridge derives considerable tax revenues from businesses operating in the community,
staff and Council should also be aware of significant ancillary benefits that accrue as a result of new,
tourism-related businesses. In general, tourism-related businesses are unique in that they are
usually destination-based, meaning they draw customers often from well beyond the community’s
borders – customers that support many other local businesses In addition, the tourism operators
themselves invariably invest significant resources in constructing their respective facilities, creating a
municipal ‘asset’ that the community residents as a whole benefit directly from. Lastly, Maple Ridge
benefits from the marketing exposure that is created by these operators and the economic multiplier
effects that occur from guest visits to these businesses.
2
To better understand the multiplier effect and using WildPlay as a example, of the 15,750 guests
that visited the facility in 2012, approximately 80% of these (12,500) were from outside of Maple
Ridge & Pitt Meadows. As these visitors are spending upwards of three hours at the facility, the
expectation is that they will also spend additional dollars for such things as food and beverages, fuel
for their vehicles or general retail merchandise from any number of local stores. Visitors are also
exposed to the other attributes and assets of the community, such as real estate and cultural
amenities, which may have a positive financial impact later on, should they choose to return. By
clustering or aggregating a wide variety of high quality, tourism-related businesses, communities can
build synergy between the attractions themselves and in turn, create demand for additional hotel,
motel, food service and other hospitality businesses, which creates ancillary revenues for the District
and cash inflows and investments to other businesses in the community.
In 2011, the District engaged Grant Thornton to undertake a Non-Hotel Accommodations Study to
determine any gaps in the current supply of non-fixed roof accommodations options for Maple Ridge.
While the report noted that Maple Ridge was underserved in virtually all forms of tourist
accommodations, a core finding was the identification of strong demand for a full service
campground for the area.
As well, in early 2011, the District was approached by a UK-based owner/supplier of world-class,
family-friendly paintball facilities, an adventure-based tourism product that would complement the
existing WildPlay facility offering. This supplier has facilities throughout the UK, Australia and New
Zealand and is only now exploring the North American market. Well regarded as the ‘Disneyland’ of
paintball facilities, they are interested in opening a flagship facility in Maple Ridge and would also
consider locating their Canadian head office operations here. Over the eighteen months, District
staff has met with company principals on a number of occasions and have toured various properties
to help determine if there is a site that would work for them.
Given the District’s considerable underutilized land holdings in the central north and eastern regions
of the community, coupled with the economic development goals and the potential market demand
for temporary use of these lands, staff believes that there is the potential to generate revenue from
these lands over the medium to long term, while not compromising their intended future use or sale-
ability, nor creating negative impacts within the existing neighbourhood context.
Using the two opportunities identified earlier to guide their efforts, District staff has identified two
vacant parcels of land that may be suitable and appropriate for use as a full-service campground
and as a base for a family-friendly outdoor adventure activity. One is a 51 acre parcel located
adjacent to Whonnock Lake (currently zoned RS-3) and the other, an assembled collection (10 – 20
acres) of RS-3 zoned properties fronting Fern Crescent near the entrance to Alouette Lake.
In consideration of the District’s existing land-holdings, coupled with Council’s goals of attracting
investment and increasing the economic base of the community, it would appear prudent for District
staff to determine how to more effectively leverage these assets. As such, the desire of District staff
is to undertake formal Request for Expressions of Interest (RFEI) processes for both uses
(campground and family-friendly outdoor activity) to determine private market interest and potential.
In general, the desired outcome is for the greater leverage of a taxpayer-owned resource that
delivers both financial and ancillary economic development benefits to the community at large.
3
b) Strategic Alignment
The 2012 Citizen’s report identified the desire of the community at large for a greater focus on
creation of high value jobs and identification of incremental investment and commercial
development opportunities. Expanding the tax base was also identified as a critical objective. These
goals are further echoed in the Economic Advisory Commission’s strategic plan and by the Province’s
BC Jobs Plan which includes a direct focus on industry sectors such as tourism, advanced
manufacturing and post-secondary education. In addition, the use of partnerships with private
enterprise for community service provision remains a concept that has demonstrated many positive
attributes.
In general, there is a direct strategic alignment with the community at large, both local and regional
levels of government, and the short, medium and long term business plans of District departments
provided that the business case is sound and the municipality’s interests are well protected.
c) Citizen/Customer Implications:
District-owned land is an asset of the taxpayers of Maple Ridge. More proactive utilization of this
asset can only serve to positively enhance the community as a whole, generating new jobs, greater
tax revenues, supporting complementary businesses, and producing greater overall awareness of
the community, its amenities and its proximity within Metro Vancouver. Any potential contentious
issues as related to any of the proposed land use initiatives would be managed through a full public
consultation process.
d) Interdepartmental Implications:
This initiative will require cooperation and direct interaction between Parks & Leisure Services,
Planning, Bylaws & Licensing, Financing and Economic Development as well individuals from senior
management. Economic Development will serve as the lead department, coordinating the
interactions and deliverables from each of the respective departments and the initiative as a whole.
e) Business Plan/Financial Implications:
There will direct business plan implications for the 2013/2014 planning cycles for the various
departments. As lead department, these implications will mostly affect the staff resources of
Economic Development. This initiative is not expected to generate any negative financial
implications (i.e direct costs) unless specific feasibility studies (or the like) are deemed warranted.
The overall objective is to generate incremental cash flow to the District and create a positive
community-wide economic impact.
f) Policy Implications:
Through this initiative, it should be expected that new policy initiatives and bylaw amendments will
be required in order facilitate the land-use leases and/or occupancy permits and to develop the
various operating protocols and procedures. These initiatives and amendments would come as a
result of collaborative efforts between the various departments and would be presented to Council
for consideration and approval.
4
CONCLUSIONS:
Given the District’s current land holdings, coupled with Council’s desire to expedite economic
development activities that generate both jobs and an increase in taxation revenue, by proactively
identifying the potential commercial opportunities, the potential property sites and establishing the
procedures by which they can be processed, District staff will be in a much stronger position to
efficiently identify and capitalize on new business opportunities and economic development benefits
as they arise.
“Original signed by David Boag”______________________
Prepared by: David Boag
Director, Parks & Facilities
“Original signed by Darrell Denton”____________________
Prepared by: Darrell Denton
BRE Officer
“Original signed by J. L. (Jim) Rule______________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
Attachments:
a) Map of location of proposed full service campground
b) Map of location of proposed family friendly outdoor recreation activity
5
DATE: May 23, 2013 FILE: Untitled BY: SP
Proposed Full Service
Campground Site
City of Pitt
Meadows
District of
Langley District of MissionFRASER R.
CORPORATION OF
THE DISTRICT OF
MAPLE RIDGE
PARKS & LEISURE SERVICES DEPT.´284 ST110 AVE
112 AVE
FERGUSON AVE
HYNES STGRAHAM ST113 AVE272 ST116 AVE
112 AVE112 AVE 112 AVE 276 ST116 AVE
280 ST272 ST272 ST276 ST280 ST112 AVE
284 ST280 ST110 AVE
110 AVE 284 ST284 ST272 STThe Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge
makes no guarantee regarding the accuracy
or present status of the information shown on
this map.
Scale: 1:8,000
Proposed Full
Service Campground
Whonnock Lake
DATE: May 23, 2013 FILE: Untitled BY: SP
Proposed Family Friendly
Outdoor Recreation Site
City of Pitt
Meadows
District of
Langley District of MissionFRASER R.
CORPORATION OF
THE DISTRICT OF
MAPLE RIDGE
PARKS & LEISURE SERVICES DEPT.´FERN CRES251 STALOUETTE RD237A ST239B ST239 ST130A AVE
235 ST339B ST238 STMILL ST128 CRES236A ST251A STR
O
C
K
R
I
D
G
E
D
R
MCCAULEY CRESBOULDER
P
L
132 AVE
132 AVE
132 AVE
24
8
A
S
T
130 AVE
FE
R
N
C
R
E
S
133 AVE
249 ST130 CON
NE
CT
O
RGRANITE WAYLANELANE
238 ST237 ST250 ST128 AVE249 ST
128 AVE
129 AVE
128 AVE240 ST126 AVE
128 AVE
129 AV
E
130A AVE
126 AVE
130 AVE
128 AVE236 ST132A AVE
SHELDRAKE CRTSHOESMITH CRESSHOESMITHLOOP24
6
S
T
246 ST128 AVE
12
8
C
R
E
S
130 AVE237A ST132 AVE
132 AVE244 STALOUETTE RD24
9
S
T
248 STALOUETTE RD240 ST239B STLANEB
R
Y
A
N
T
D
R
248 STFERN CRESFERN CRESFERN
CRES236 ST133 AVE133 AVE235A STThe Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge
makes no guarantee regarding the accuracy
or present status of the information shown on
this map.
Scale: 1:8,000
Proposed Family Friendly
Outdoor Rectreation
Activity Site
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: May 27, 2013
and Members of Council
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: Wireless Industry Co-Location – Follow Up Report
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In March, a staff memorandum addressed the results of market research on the issue of
constructing a second Municipal telecommunications tower. This memo addresses the next steps in
determining the degree of private sector interest in District lands for a tower by requesting Council
support for a Request for Expression of Interest (RFEI) process. This memo also addresses two other
issues that came up in discussions about the potential tower: that of sharing existing tower space 1,
and the other on the need for building permits for tower construction.
Telecommunications Tower on District Lands
That earlier staff memo identified the results of market research that concluded there was interest
from some wireless service providers in a limited selection of District properties. An extract from the
March 04, 2013 memo summarizing the wireless industry interests is included in Appendix 1
attached.
Staff concluded there was insufficient justification for the District to invest in the building of a
telecommunications tower, but rather the focus should be on alternative business arrangements
that would have the industry finance and build a tower on District land. The objective would be to
forestall tower construction on private property in areas of industry interest, to promote colocation
opportunities, and to generate secondary revenue for the District.
To provide the wireless industry and other tower builders an equal opportunity to utilize District lands
for a tower, staff are recommending a Request for Expression of Interest (RFEI) process be
undertaken.
Colocation1
With respect to colocation, the District has limited options to require sharing of existing tower
structures. In the approval and review process for new tower construction, Industry Canada requires
proponents to identify and document their tower sharing opportunities before they get approval to
build new infrastructure. A tower proponent has to identify the sharing opportunities nearby, if any,
and to state their efforts to determine if sharing is feasible, and the conclusions they came to 2.
1 ‘Colocation’ is the term used to refer to the ability to share existing telecommunication tower space, or other
infrastructure, between different wireless service companies.
2 See item 3, CPC-2-0-03, http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf08777.html#sec3 .
1 4.5
Similarly, our recently adopted District tower consultation protocol likewise requires a proponent to
provide written evidence of colocation opportunities, the discussions that took place, the outcome,
and reasons for that outcome. However, we would be limited in our ability to second-guess industry
conclusions on colocation feasibility. At times, colocation onto existing structures does not address
the business or technical needs of various service providers. At other times, due to the nature of the
tower and it’s location, sharing is desirable by the industry and technically feasible (eg – Grant Hill).
Nonetheless, we may be able to have some impact on the number of towers being constructed by
locating a tower on District lands in a good location, and thereby promoting colocation amongst
service providers.
Building Permits
Not all telecommunication towers or antenna installations require building permits. Nor are they
controlled by the Zoning Bylaw.3
Freestanding towers are exempt from local control because they are federally regulated. Industry
Canada, the Federal authority tasked with administering the wireless industry, only requires drawings
by a structural engineer to demonstrate a tower is designed appropriately, and an attestation by the
proponent that “…the installation will respect good engineering practices including structural
adequacy”4. It is our understanding they do not inspect the final installation.
Building permits are required, however, for towers or antenna systems attached to a building. The
District can, at that point, control the installation in terms of safety and building integrity. Typically,
this type of installation occurs in more dense areas of a community where there are taller buildings.
Next Steps
Staff are seeking Council support to undertake an RFEI process, the goals and objectives of which
are outlined in Appendix 4. The purpose would be to determine which of the selected District
properties may attract commercial interests willing to build a tower and lease space, rather than
having the District undertake the build, and thereby achieving some measure of the community
objective to better manage the location and impact of telecommunication towers. Once the process
is complete, staff would be returning with recommendations for Council consideration.
RECOMMENDATION:
THAT Council direct staff to undertake a Request for Expression of Interest process identifying
certain Municipal lands that may have the potential for the location of a telecommunications tower,
and determine the best opportunity to achieve construction of a tower(s).
3 In the Zoning Bylaw, telecommunications towers are considered a “Public Service” use and are permitted in all zones.
Such structures are also exempt from siting and height restrictions on a lot (see Zoning Bylaw No 3510-1985, pg. 9,
Definitions, and S.403(4)(d)). This is in recognition of Federal authority over telecommunications.
4 See item 8, Appendix 2, CPC-2-0-03: http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf08781.html#seca2 .
2
DISCUSSION:
a) Background Context:
Council directed staff, as part of our work on developing a tower consultation protocol, to investigate
the feasibility of building another Municipal communications tower to promote the utilization of
District lands, and encourage colocation.
The conclusions of our industry research and follow-up preliminary meetings with some wireless
industry service providers on the topic of a second tower determined that:
- there was interest in 5 different Municipal properties, and these properties are identified
in Appendix 2 attached;
- no one site would meet collective needs;
- tower locational decisions were based upon finding an appropriate location that would
improve coverage in service areas;
- technical considerations affect preferred locations and may limit the degree of sharing
and collective use possibilities;
- some of the larger cellular service providers prefer to build and operate their own towers,
but are not averse to co-location with other providers once their needs are assured;
- the demand for wireless voice and data services from citizens is increasing significantly
and it is expected many new towers need to be built over the coming years;
- there is some interest from the cellular industry to try innovative “microcell” and
“minicell” installations but that more research is necessary on the applicability to the
Maple Ridge context (eg – see examples in Appendix 3).
To further define the best opportunities to meet Council interests, staff are recommending an RFEI
process be undertaken to determine the location for a shared tower site focusing on District sites of
strong interest to the wireless industry.
The District sites identified are typically in more rural or developing areas of the District (Appendix 2).
As such, they may not off-set demand for large tower installations in other areas, and may not reduce
demand for infill towers or antenna installations in established neighbourhoods where there are
identified wireless service deficiencies.
In these other situations (ie - infill demand, or demand in areas of Maple Ridge that have no District
lands of interest) there are three other mechanisms that can be employed to potentially reduce
community impact:
- promoting the use of smaller District assets such as park facilities, street light
infrastructure or pump stations, if any, rather than private property to host antennas;
- utilizing the new District telecommunications tower consultation policy to potentially
influence locational and design decisions of proposals that do come forward; and
- as a longer-term solution, identify tower sites in consultation with industry ahead of
urbanization.
The first two mechanisms can only be employed on a case-by-case basis, while the last one could be
considered as a proactive option in conjunction with an Official Community Plan review.
However, despite Council’s attempt to balance the improvement of wireless services to citizens,
while minimizing community impacts, the final decision on tower installations still rests with Industry
3
Canada. If a tower proposal arrives at an ‘impasse’, in that if Council opposes a location while a
proponent is not willing to change it, Council can appeal to Industry Canada for a review and
decision. If there is no strong technical reason to oppose a location, then it may be best to employ
conflict resolution tactics or arbitration rather than appealing to Industry Canada.
Colocation
The District has limited options to require the sharing of existing tower structures. In the approval
and review process for new tower construction, Industry Canada requires proponents to identify and
document their tower sharing opportunities before they get approval to build new infrastructure. A
tower proponent has to identify the sharing opportunities nearby, if any, and to state their efforts to
determine if sharing is feasible, and the conclusions they came to5.
Similarly, our recently adopted District tower consultation protocol likewise requires a proponent to
provide written evidence of colocation opportunities, the discussions that took place, the outcome,
and reasons for that outcome. However, we would be limited in our ability to second-guess industry
evaluations of colocation feasibility. At times, colocation onto existing structures does not address
the business or technical needs of various service providers. At other times, due to the nature of the
tower and it’s location, sharing is desirable by the industry and technically feasible (eg – Grant Hill).
Nonetheless, we may be able to have some impact on the number of towers being constructed by
locating a tower on District lands in a good location, and thereby improving the opportunity to
promote colocation amongst service providers. However, we need to undertake a more formal
market review process to determine specific interests. This is the subject of the recommendation of
this memorandum.
However, a brief review of the opportunity to address District issues through the building permit
mechanism is next.
Building Permits
Not all telecommunications towers or antenna installations require building permits. Nor are they
controlled by the Zoning Bylaw.3
Freestanding towers are exempt from local control because they are federally regulated. Industry
Canada, the Federal authority tasked with administering the wireless industry, only requires
engineered drawings to demonstrate a tower is designed appropriately, and an attestation by the
proponent that “…the installation will respect good engineering practices including structural
adequacy”4. It is our understanding Industry Canada does not inspect the final tower installation.
Building permits are required, however, for towers or antenna systems attached to a building. The
District can, at that point, control the installation in terms of safety and building integrity. Typically,
this type of installation occurs in more dense areas of a community where there are taller buildings.
5 See item 3, CPC-2-0-03, http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/smt-gst.nsf/eng/sf08777.html#sec3 .
4
Possible Tower Locations and the RFEI Process:
Many of the respondents to our investigation of wireless industry tower demand were awaiting
further market development, or more research, before committing to any large tower colocation site.
Several market representatives identified their specific areas of interest, but the broader appeal of
the identified areas was unclear. However, staff feel the sites noted below are worthy of going to
market to determine the specifics of the interest (see Appendix 2):
- Approximately 248 St and 108 Avenue;
- 232 St south of Dewdney Trunk Road;
- Rock Ridge;
- Kanaka Industrial Park; and
- the Operations Centre.
From staff discussions with industry representatives, it became obvious there is no easy way to
gauge commitment to any particular site. Given the various interests, from wireless industry
representatives, to wireless data service providers, to government agencies, to private sector tower
builders, it made sense to characterize the opportunities for tower construction in Maple Ridge and
to let the service providers define their interests in Municipal lands through a Request for Expression
of Interest (RFEI) process.
Furthermore, some limited interest has been expressed in small scale cellular antenna installations
along street infrastructure. These installations typically involve an antenna installed as an extension
to a street light pole, or a small antenna attached to intersection mast arms (Appendix 3). These
types of installations will require significantly more review and discussion before a process could be
finalized to allow their installation in the District. However, the RFEI contemplated for the second
tower also requests proposals for these types of innovative installations of next generation wireless
technologies.
The sites contemplated for the RFEI represent the urban, to the urbanizing, and to the rural areas of
Maple Ridge. Each site will have it’s own unique characteristics and limitations, and these need to
be evaluated by the industry. There would be little justification to invest District resources to build a
tower that would not be in full demand, but some of the industry representatives may be willing to
fund the building of a tower. This is the justification for the RFEI process.
Staff are seeking Council support to undertake that RFEI process, the goal and objectives of which
are outlined in Appendix 4, to determine which of the selected District properties or rights-of-way may
attract commercial interests willing to build a tower or lease space, rather than having the District
undertake the build, and thereby achieving some measure of the community objectives defined
earlier. Once the process is complete, staff would be returning with recommendations for Council
consideration.
Conclusion:
Council has tried to balance wireless industry interests with protecting community values and has
developed a regimen of options in an attempt to limit community impacts of tower siting decisions.
However, it does need to be recognized that local government authority is severely limited in this
area.
5
The first option, imperfect as it is, was to adopt a community consultation protocol (November 2012)
to define a process that Industry Canada and the service providers will hopefully follow. The protocol
will provide the District with a review process and conflict resolution options on the siting of new
tower proposals.
A second option involves research into innovative installations of wireless antennas that are installed
on public infrastructure. There have been pilot projects in other communities (see Appendix 3) that
appears to limit the visual and siting impacts. It is hoped this area may yield benefits as the new
wireless services are implemented in our area. Staff have included these types of innovative
installations into the RFEI request and we hope to get a proponent willing to pilot such new
developments in Maple Ridge. However, supporting the older wireless technologies will still require
large unsightly towers to be built.
Finally, an option for Council consideration is to steer new tower construction, where possible, to
District lands where impacts can be managed. Our recent market research has identified 5 locations
where there is some interest from the industry. It is recommended that Council support undertaking
an RFEI process to determine which site is the most feasible from a business and community
perspective.
“Original signed by John Bastaja”_____________________
Prepared by: John Bastaja
Director Corporate Support
“Original signed by Paul Gill”_________________________
Approved by: Paul Gill
General Manager, Corporate and Financial Services
“Original signed by Frank Quinn”_____________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn
General Manager, Public Works and Development Services
“Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule_____________________
Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
6
Appendix 1:
Extract From: Wireless Industry Co-Location Research, Council Workshop Memo, March 04, 2013
In summary, although the existing Grant Hill tower is in demand, there is strong or some interest in
four areas of the Municipality, and at the Operations Centre, for a co-location tower. However, many
of the respondents in the wireless industry were awaiting further market development, or more
research, before committing to any large tower co-location site. Several market representatives
identified their specific areas of interest, but the broader appeal of the identified areas was unclear.
There would be little justification to invest District resources to build a tower that would not be in full
demand.
To further define the future opportunities and constraints, staff will be following up with industry
representatives to determine the location and need for a shared tower site particularly focusing on
the sites of strong interest. As well, staff are investigating other business models that would require
no, or minimal, District investment in funding a tower build that would be located on District property
and that would yield a revenue stream.
The mobile phone industry were also interested in ‘infill’ situations, to address areas of poor cellular
reception. There was an obvious preference to locate on District lands or infrastructure in these
situations, but it looked to be more on a case-by-case basis. Staff plan on working our way through
these site specific interests as demand warrants.
This process of reviewing specific site needs with industry representatives has begun as District staff
have had meetings with Telus staff about colocation opportunities at the Operations Centre and on
District infrastructure along rights-of-way. These discussions are continuing.
7
Appendix 2:
Potential District Sites For A Telecommunications Tower
Water Reservoir Site – 248 St and 108 Ave
Water Reservoir Site - Rock Ridge, Silver
Valley
Old Landfill – 232 St south of Dewdney
Trunk
Kanaka Industrial Park
Operations Centre
8
Appendix 3:
Microcell and Minicell Technology Examples
Vancouver – Minicell
Integrated street light pole and 4G antenna system near
Fraserview Golf Course
Vancouver – Microcell
Low impact installation of microcells on Granville St. for
4G cellular service infill
Surrey – Minicell
Proposed installation of street light antenna in Surrey
at 152nd St and 84th Ave
9
Appendix 4:
Goals and Objectives of Request For Expression of Interest (RFEI)
Goal
The intent of the District is to encourage the use of appropriate District lands to host larger tower
infrastructure where possible and to promote colocation onto such infrastructure. As well, the District
would be interested to entertain proposals to undertake pilot programs for the use of District rights-
of-way to accommodate new wireless technologies.
This initiative is intended to open the lines of communication between industry service providers and
the District to plan the orderly improvement of services while respecting community values, and to
investigate the innovative use of rights-of-way to accommodate industry needs while gaining
community benefit.
The District will be looking for proposals from service providers to achieve best value in meeting the
District’s objectives in either, or both, initiatives.
Project Objectives
The following are the District’s overarching objectives:
• to identify the most appropriate District lands that would be suitable to
accommodate a telecommunications tower to improve services to citizens from the
provision of wireless voice and data services;
• to promote colocation onto the proposed tower for other wireless services providers;
• to develop an approach to more efficiently utilize District rights-of-way lands to
accommodate next generation technologies; and
• to identify the most appropriate business arrangement to achieve either, or all, of
these objectives.
10
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: May 27, 2013
and Members of Council FILE NO:
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer ATTN: Council Workshop
SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment to the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy –
Type 3 Amendment to Add Three Special Study Areas in the City of Port Moody
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On May 1, 2013, the District of Maple Ridge received notification that Metro Vancouver has received
a request from the City of Port Moody to amend the Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) to add three new
RGS Special Study Areas (Appendix A attached).
The purpose of this report is to provide an overview of the proposed amendment and to provide
Council with an opportunity to submit written comments to Metro Vancouver. Type 3 amendments
are considered to be minor amendments and require a majority vote of the Metro Vancouver Board,
but do not require a Public Hearing. The District of Maple Ridge has 30 days to comment on the
amendments, and therefore any commentary must be submitted to the Region by May 30, 2013. If
comments are not provided, the Region will determine that the District had no concerns with the
proposed amendments. Based on a review of the requested amendments, it is noted that they do
not negatively impact on the District of Maple Ridge, or the District’s RGS Special Study Area.
RECOMMENDATION
That the Greater Vancouver Regional District be advised that the District of Maple Ridge has no
comments on the Proposed Amendment to the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy – Type 3
RGS amendment to Add three Special Study Areas in the City of Port Moody.
DISCUSSION
a)Background Context
The City of Port Moody has requested an amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy to create three
additional Regional Growth Strategy Special Study Areas. This request is considered to be a Type 3
Amendment which requires a 50% +1 weighted vote of the Board, but no Public Hearing is required.
Pursuant with the Legislation, all member municipalities have 30 days to provide commentary to the
Region, which translates into a May 30, 2013 deadline. In the absence of a written submission to
the Region, the municipality will be deemed to have no concerns or objections to the amendments.
The three Special Study Areas are for the Petro Canada Refinery Lands; the Mill and Timber Site; and
the Imperial Oil Lands (refer to last page of Appendix A). The rationale provided notes that the
4.6
2
identification of these areas as Special Study Areas would provide a clear indication to Metro
Vancouver that these areas have been contemplated for development by their community for some
time. The Port Moody OCP Amendment includes text stating that the City intends to do further
planning around the potential development of the lands, and are contemplating a variety of land
uses, including residential, commercial, light industrial, institutional and recreational. The recently
adopted City of Port Moody Official Community Plan amendment contains text noting the City’s
intention to do further planning work, however the land use designations remain unchanged.
With regards to the proposed amendment, it is noted that the amendments could result in the
removal of 980 acres of industrial land from the Regional supply at some point in the future.
However the future land use will not be determined until Port Moody have prepared an area plan to
determine the most suitable land use for each area. In reading the recently adopted OCP policies, it
is noted that Port Moody does not preclude light industrial as a future land use in two of the areas.
In looking at the background materials provided, it is interesting to note that during the Regional
Growth Strategy Review, Port Moody requested that these lands be identified as a special study area,
yet was not successful (early 2010). In March 2011, Port Moody Council accepted the RGS with the
condition that Map 12: Special Study Areas and Sewerage Extension Areas would not apply to the
City of Port Moody.
Next Steps:
May 30, 2013 Deadline for submission of Municipal Comments
July 5, 2013 Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee
July 12 0r 26, 2013 Metro Vancouver Board consideration of Metro Staff Report and RGS
Amendment Bylaw (Type 3 amendment allows for all Bylaw readings to
occur at once)
b) District of Maple Ridge:
The District of Maple Ridge has one Special Study Area designated in the Regional Growth Strategy,
which acknowledges Maple Ridge’s commitment to collaborate with Metro Vancouver, the Greater
Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District, and the Agricultural Land Commission to determine the
future of the Albion Flats.
The designation of additional Special Study Areas in Port Moody does not impact the District’s ability
to pursue employment opportunities in the District’s Special Study Area.
c) Desired Outcome
As the proposed Type 3 amendment represents a local issue for the City of Port Moody, and does not
negatively impact the District of Maple Ridge’s land use designations or application of the Regional
Growth Strategy, it would seem appropriate to advise Metro Vancouver that the District of Maple
Ridge has no comments on the proposed Type 3 Amendment.
d) Citizen/Customer Implications
The proposed Type 3 Amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy does not appear to impact
residents of this community. Should Maple Ridge residents have any objections or concerns, they
may contact Metro Vancouver directly to discuss them.
3
e) Alternatives
Should Council have concerns with the proposed amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy, it
should advise Metro Vancouver of its concerns. The success of the proposed Bylaw will be based
upon a 50%+1 weighted vote of the Metro Vancouver Board. In the absence of a written submission
to the Region, the municipality will be deemed to have no concerns or objections to the
amendments.
CONCLUSION:
The Type 3 Minor Amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy has been forwarded for comment to
member municipalities by the Metro Vancouver Board at a July meeting. Member municipalities
have 30 days (May 30, 2013) to respond. It is recommended that Council advise the Metro
Vancouver Board that it has no comments.
“original signed by Christine Carter”
_______________________________________________
Prepared by: Christine Carter, M.Pl., MCIP, RPP
Director of Planning
“original signed by Frank Quinn”
_______________________________________________
Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng
GM: Public Works & Development Services
“original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule”
_______________________________________________
Concurrence: J. L. (Jim) Rule
Chief Administrative Officer
Appendix A – Notification letter dated April 26, 2013 from Metro Vancouver and attachments
APPENDIX A
��. metrovancouver
_MAYOR
4330'King sway, Burnaby, BC, Canada VSH 4G8 604432-6200 www.met rovancouvecorg
R EIV" ourd secretariat and Corporate Information Department
TeL604432-6250 Fax604-451-6686
MAY 13 2013
April 26, 2013 A1aPLE aIOGE File: CR-04-01-RD
t ?L0.NMNu 0[PACTJ,IF.NT
Mayor Ernie Daykin
and Members of Council
District of Maple Ridge
11995 Haney Place
Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A6
Dear Mayor Daykin and Members of Council:
Re: Notification of a Proposed Amendment to the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy -
Type RGS 3 Amendment to Add Three Special Study Areas in the City of Port Moody
This letter provides notification to affected local governments and other agencies, in accordance with
section 857.1(2) of the Local Government Act, and sections 6.4.2 and 6.4.5 of the Regional Growth
Strategy. As per these sections, the Metro Vancouver Board is to provide a minimum of 30 days for all
affected local governments and appropriate agencies to comment on proposed amendments.
Metro Vancouver received a Council resolution from the City of Port Moody requesting a Type 3
amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy. The City of Port Moody made this request in order to
add three new RGS Special Study Areas in their municipality. For more details on the proposed
amendment, please see the attached report. A Type 3 minor amendment requires an affirmative
majority weighted vote of the Metro Vancouver Board to proceed; no regional public hearing is
required. For more information about Special Study Areas and amending the Regional Growth
Strategy, see RGS Sections 6.3, 6.4, 6.10, and 6.12.
On April 26, 2013, the Metro Vancouver Board initiated the RGS amendment process. Following the
comment period, the Metro Vancouver Board will consider an amendment bylaw along with
comments from the Regional Planning Advisory Committee and affected local governments.
You are invited to provide written comments on the requested amendment to the Regional Growth
Strategy. Please provide comments in the form of a Council/Board resolution, as applicable, and
submit to paulette.vetleson@metrovancouver.org by May 30, 2013. If you have any questions with
respect to the proposed amendment, please contact Eric Aderneck, Senior Regional Planner, at 778-
452-2626 or eric aderneck@metrovancouver.orz. More information and a copy of the Regional
Growth Strategy can be found on our website at www.metravancouver.org.
Notification of a Proposed Amendment to the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy -
Type RGS 3 Amendment to Add Three Special Study Areas In the City of Port Moody
Page 2 of 2
Sincerely,
uu
Paulette Vetleson'
Director, Board and Information Services
PV/aM/ea
Attachment:
Report to the Metro Vancouver Board meeting on April 26, 2013, titled 'Request by the City of Port Moody
for Three Additional Regional Growth Strategy Special Study Areas', dated March 27, 2013.
7155997
metrovancouver
_ 11 Ij 1l � N` )R AI LI%Aat1 RE1;lnN
5.1
Greater Vancower Regional District • Greater Vancouver Water District • Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District . Metro Vancouver Housing Corporation
To: Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee
From: Heather McNeil, Regional Planning Division Manager
Planning, Policy and Environment Department
Date: March 27, 2013 Meeting Date: April 5, 2013
Subject: Request by the City of Port Moody for Three Additional Regional Growth Strategy
Special Study Areas
RECOMMENDATION
That the Board:
a) Initiate the process for a Type 3 amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy in accordance
with section 857 of the Local Government Act for the amendment requested by the City of
Port Moody to create three additional RGS Special Study Areas; and
b) Direct staff to provide written notice of the proposed Type 3 amendment to all affected local
governments and appropriate agencies.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this report is to respond to a request from the City of Port Moody to create three
additional Regional Growth Strategy (RGS) Special Study Areas. This report initiates the proposed
RGS amendment and notification process.
BACKGROUND
Below is a concise summary of the timeline as well as key issues leading to the current situation and
request by City of Port Moody for the addition of three RGS Special Study Areas. See Attachments 1,
2 and 3 for full details of the City of Port Moody's RGS amendment application.
Timeline
• In early 2010, the City of Port Moody Council resolved that: "Metro Vancouver include the Petro
Canada Refinery lands, the Mill and Timber site, and the Imperial Oil lands as Special Study
Areas in the RGS". However, at the time, the subject lands were not designated in the OCP as
special study areas, and as such, these Special Study Areas were not added to the RGS.
• In March 2011, the City of Port Moody accepted the RGS, however, with the condition that Map
12: Special Study Areas and Sewerage Extension Areas would not apply to the City of Port
Moody.
as In November 2012, the City of Port Moody initiated a process to amend its OCP to add
municipal special study area land use designations. On January 22, 2013 the Port Moody OCP
bylaw received final reading by council.
• In January 2013, the City of Port Moody Council also resolved that "Metro Vancouver include
the Petro Canada refinery lands, the Mill and Timber site, and the Imperial Oil land as Special
Study Areas in the RGS". The rationale for this change to the RGS, according to the city staff
report, is that "the identification of these areas as Special Study Areas in the RGS would provide
a clear indication to the Metro Vancouver Board that these areas have for some time been
RPA-10--
Request by the City of Port Moody for Three Additional Regional Growth Strategy Special Study Areas
Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: April 5, 2013
contemplated for redevelopment by the community at the time of any required future
amendments".
Context —City of Port Moody Proposal
• The City of Port Moody Council has requested three Special Study Areas be added in the RGS,
covering an area of approximately 1,225 acres (496 hectares), most of which is designated as
RGS Industrial (980 acres) and RGS Urban (168 acres) (Attachment 3).
• There are two smaller areas currently designated as either RGS Rural (76 acres) and RGS
Conservation and Recreation (4 acres).
• The three sites in Port Moody represent large historic industrial areas (3.9% of the RGS
Industrial designated lands in the region) with.some ongoing industrial uses.
• The OCP bylaw amendment includes the addition of the new OCP special study areas, and
additional text in the OCP Industrial Policies Section provides direction and states that further
planning for potential development for these sites, with a variety of land uses contemplated,
including residential, commercial, light industrial, institutional, and recreational.
Analysis
Further analysis of the proposed RGS amendment, along with comments from the Regional
Planning Advisory Committee, affected local governments, and agencies, will be included in a
separate future report to the Board. This will include Metro Vancouver staff recommendations and
an associated draft RGS Amendment Bylaw.
RGS Amendment Process
A RGS Special Study Area is an overlay in the RGS and does not impact the underlying RGS land use
designation, only the process for amending a RGS land use designation. The intent of the RGS
Special Study Area was to acknowledge lands for which municipalities had contemplated a possible
future need for urban types of development, and consequently, to change the RGS amendment
thresholds for these lands. All initial Special Study Areas in the RGS were for Rural, Conservation
and Recreation and Agricultural lands.
Section 6.12.4 of the RGS states that "the Special Study Areas depicted on Map 12 are not to be
expanded nor are new areas to be created". Notwithstanding this, a District of West Vancouver
proposed RGS amendment to expand their Special Study Area was successful after the adoption of
the RGS and included the addition of RGS 6.12.5. This amendment was made only to include lands
designated RGS General Urban within the Urban Containment Boundary and therefore had no
material effect on the implementation of the RGS.
Adding a RGS Special Study Area overlay for the Industrial and Urban lands identified by Port Moody
would be a Type 3 amendment to the RGS, requiring a 50°%+ 1 vote at the Board and adoption of an
amending bylaw. No public hearing would be necessary. There is some concern that adding a
Special Study Area to Rural or Conservation and Recreation lands- would trigger a Type 1
amendment to the RGS under sections 857.1 (2) and (4) of the Local Government Act. This is
currently being considered by Metro Vancouver's legal counsel. Responding to the request would
also necessitate the addition of a second RGS notwithstanding clause, 6.12.6 to explain the addition
of these Special Study Areas. In addition, the 2011 Port Moody resolution adopting the RGS stated
that RGS Map 12 did not apply to the municipality. If the requested Special Study Areas are added
RPA-11-
Request by the City of Port Moody for Three Additional Regional Growth Strategy Special Study Areas
Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: April 5, 2013
to RGS Map 12, the City of Port Moody would most likely need to rescind part of their original
resolution to accept the RGS.
Creating a RGS Special Study Area overlay for RGS Industrial, Mixed Employment or General Urban
designations would have no material impact on the RGS land use re -designation process in the
future. For example, a RGS Type 3 amendment, requiring a 50%+1 weighted vote of the Board and
no regional public hearing, would be required to re -designate from Industrial to General Urban with
or without the Special Study Area overlay. However, a Special Study Area overlay would have an
impact on the process and voting threshold to amend RGS Rural and Conservation & Recreation
lands to Urban. Without a Special Study overlay, this would require an RGS Type 2 amendment,
requiring a 2/3 weighted vote of the Board and a regional public hearing. With a Special Study
overlay, amending the land use designation to Urban would be a Type 3 amendment, requiring a
5091+1 weighted vote at the Board and no public hearing.
Along with the Board adoption of the Regional Growth Strategy in July 2011, the Regional Growth
Strategy Procedures Bylaw No 1148, 2011, established procedures for the consideration of Regional
Growth Strategy amendment requests. The Procedures Bylaw requires that Metro Vancouver refer
the requested amendment to the Regional Planning Advisory Committee (previously called the
Technical Advisory Committee) for comment. The Regional Planning Advisory Committee comments
will be considered by Metro Vancouver staff in preparing recommendations to the Regional
Planning and Agriculture Committee and Board on the proposed amendment.
A Type 3 RGS amendment also includes the following notification by Metro Vancouver
• Provide written notice of the proposed amendment to all affected local governments and
appropriate agencies, such as Port Metro Vancouver, with an opportunity to comment within
30 days.
• Post the notification of the proposed amendment on the Metro Vancouver website.
Timeline
Staff intend to follow the following process and timeline in processing the proposed RGS
amendment (alternative possible schedule shown in brackets):
• March 22, 2013 — Report to Regional Planning Advisory Committee for consideration
• March 22— Receive comments from the Regional Planning Advisory Committee
• April 5— Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee
• April 12 — Metro Vancouver Board initiates the proposed RGS amendment process and refers it
to affected local governments and agencies for comment within 30 days.
• May 16— Deadline for comments from affected local governments and agencies.
• June 7—Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee
• June 14 — Board considers Metro Vancouver staff report on amendment request, with
comments from Regional Planning Advisory Committee, affected local governments, agencies
and the public, and RGS Amendment Bylaw (a Type 3 amendment allows for all bylaw readings
at once).
RPA-12-
Request by the City of Port Moody for Three Additional Regional Growth Strategy Special Study Areas
Regional Planning and Agriculture Committee Meeting Date: April S, 2013
Paee 4 of 4
ALTERNATIVES
That the Board:
1. a) Initiate the process for a Type 3 amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy in
accordance with section 857 of the Local Government Act for the amendment requested
by the City of Port Moody to create three additional RGS Special Study Areas; and
b) Direct staff to provide written notice of the proposed Type 3 amendment to all affected
local governments and appropriate agencies; or
2) Provide alternative direction
SUMMARY / CONCLUSION
The City of Port Moody has requested that the RGS be amended to add three new RGS Special
Study Area overlays. Staff recommend Alternative 1 to initiate the RGS amendment process,
proceed with notification, and return to the Board as soon as feasible with staff analysis informed
by input from the Regional Planning Advisory Committee, affected local governments and
appropriate agencies and a draft Bylaw.
Attachments:
1. Letter dated January 30, 2013, titled "Special Study Areas in Official Community Plan" from
the City of Port Moody addressed to Paulette Vetleson, Corporate Secretary, Metro
Vancouver (Doc. # 7031052).
2. City of Port Moody Official Community Plan — Overall Land Use Plan - Map 1 (Doc. # 7031343).
3. Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy Land Use Designation Map - Proposed Port
Moody Special Study Areas (Doc. # 7034114).
7196911
RPA-13-
5.1 Attachment 1
PORT NiC3)DY
January 30, 2013
File: 2660-0816970-07
Paulette Vetleson
Corporate Secretary
Metro Vancouver
4330 Kingsway, Burnaby, BC VSH 4G8
Dear Ms. Vetleson:
100 Newport Drive, P.O.8m 36, Port Moody, B.C., V31-1 3E1, Canada
Tel 604.469.4500 Fax604.469.4550
www.pottmoody.ta
Re: Special Study Areas in Official Community Plan
On January 22, 2013, at a Regular meeting of Council, the Council of the City of Port Moody
approved the adoption of the City of Port Moody Official Community Plan, 2010, No. 2849,
Amendment Bylaw No. 9, 2012, 2950 (see attached bylaw and associated Council report). This
bylaw designates Special Study Areas in the Port Moody Official Community Plan.
On March 23, 2010 Port Moody Council had passed the following motion with respect to the
Special Study Areas identified in Bylaw No. 2950:
THAT Metro Vancouver include the Petro Canada refinery lands, the Mill and Timber
site, and the Imperial Oil land as Special Study Areas in the RGS.
As this request was not reflected in the final RGS and with the recent adoption of Bylaw No.
2950, the City of Port Moody now requests that Metro Vancouver amend the Regional Growth
Strategy to include the 3 Special Study Areas identified in Bylaw No. 2950 as Special Study
Areas in the RGS Regional Land Use Designation map.
Yours truly,
o e n Ro de
City Clerk
Encl.
cc: Kevin Ramsay, City Manager, City of Port Moody
Heather McNeil, Regional Planning Division Manager, Metro Vancouver
Mary De Paoli, Manager of Planning, City of Port Moody
RPA -14 - Document 216042
City of Port Moody
Z Report/Recommendation to Council
Date: December 19, 2012 File No. 6970-07 / BL2950
Submitted by: Development Services — Planning Division
Subject: OCP Amendment to Include Special Study Area Designations
Purpose
To bring forward an amendment to the Official Community Plan (OCP) to designate the Mill and
Timber site, the former Petro Canada (now Suncor) refinery lands, and the Imperial Oil lands as
special study areas.
Background
At the February 6, 2010 Committee of the Whole meeting, Council passed the following motion
in relation to the draft OCP under review at that time:
THAT Draft Chapter 8 — Housing and Draft Chapter 15 — Neighbourhood Plan Areas be
held in abeyance and that these chapters be replaced with the existing 2000 OCP
chapters and housing and neighbourhood plan areas;
AND THAT the residential growth policies in the existing OCP remain unchanged;
AND THAT the special study area designations be removed in the draft OCP,-
AND THAT staff prepare these changes and report back to Council.
The current OCP (2011) reflects this direction and does not include any special study area land
use designations. Special study area OCP designations had previously existed for the Mill and
Timber site, the former Petro Canada (now Suncorp) refinery lands, the Imperial Oil lands, and
the remaining undeveloped Section 286 lands on Heritage Mountain. The purpose of the OCP
special study area designation is to identify those areas where more detailed land use plans will
be required by way of an area plan or a site specific development plan.
In 2010, Metro Vancouver was in the process of developing a new Regional Growth Strategy
(RGS) and consulting municipalities on their draft Strategy. In their review of the draft RGS at
the March 23, 2010 Regular Council meeting, Council passed the following motion regarding the
designation of special study areas in Port Moody:
THAT Metro Vancouver include the Petro Canada refinery lands, the Mill and Timber
site, and the imperial Oil lands as Special Study Areas in the RGS.
The final version of the RGS which followed did not include any special study areas in Port
Moody. At the March 15, 2011 Special Council meeting, Council provided clarification on the
#211689
RPA-15-
Report/Recommendation to Council
OCP Amendment to Include Special Study Area Designations
December 19, 2012
motions related to Council's consideration of acceptance of the Metro Vancouver RGS and
passed the following motion:
THAT Council refuses to accept the Metro Vancouver Regional growth Strategy entitled
Metro Vancouver 2040 — Shaping Our Future (Regional Growth Strategy Bylaw No.
1136), specifically with regard to the following provisions:
(5) The City of Port Moody objects to Map 12 on the basis that the Petro Canada
Refinery lands, Mill and Timber site and Imperial Oil lands should have been
included as Special Study Areas as requested by resolution of Council on March
23, 2010.
The Regional Growth Strategy that was adopted by the Metro Vancouver Board on July 29,
2011 does not include any special study area designations in Port Moody. The RGS refers to
Special Study Areas as "locations where, prior to the adoption of the Regional Growth Strategy,
a municipality has expressed an intention to alter the existing land use, and is anticipating a
future regional land use designation amendment" Although policy 6.12.4 of the RGS currently
prevents any expansion of or addition of new Special Study Areas, this policy is not considered
applicable to the Port Moody Special Study Area designations which were clearly identified to
Metro Vancouver prior to the adoption of the RGS.
City Staff have been in discussion with Metro Vancouver staff recently regarding Council's
previous motions related to the RGS and the identification of special study areas in Port Moody
within the regional plan. It was suggested that these changes would most appropriately be
addressed though an amendment to the current OCP: Metro Vancouver would consider these
changes to be a Type 3 — Minor amendment to the RGS requiring 50%+1 Board vote and no
regional public hearing.
At the November 13, 2012 Regular Council meeting, Council passed the following motion
regarding the re -designation of these areas as special study areas in the OCP:
THAT staff be directed to prepare an amendment to the OCP to designate the Mill and
Timber site, the Petro Canada refinery lands, and the Imperial Oil lands as special study
areas.
Attachment 1 includes a map showing the three areas proposed to be designated as special
study areas.
Process for Amendments to the Regional Growth Strategy
Given that the Mill and Timber site, the former Petro Canada (now Suncor) refinery lands and
the Imperial Oil lands are all located within the RGS's Urban Containment Boundary,
amendments from their current regional Industrial designation to any other regional land use
designation would involve a Type 3 — Minor amendment to the RGS requiring 50%+1 Board
vote and no regional public hearing. Should these lands be designated as Special Study Areas
in the RGS, any future regional designation changes would also be considered Type 3 minor
amendments subject to the same approval requirements. The identification of these areas as
RPA-16-
Report/Recommendation to Council
OCP Amendment to Include Special Study Area Designations
December 19, 2012
Special Study Areas in the RGS would provide a clear indication to the Metro Vancouver Board
that these areas have for some time been contemplated for redevelopment by the community at
the time of any required future amendments.
Analysis
Given the potential changes to the Mill and Timber site and the long term redevelopment
potential of other larger sites, staff were considering including special study area designations
for the Mill and Timber site, the former Petro Canada (now Suncorp) refinery lands, and the
Imperial Oil lands as part of the broader OCP update underway. In response to Council's
direction on November 13, 2012, an immediate change separate from the broader OCP update
underway is being brought forward at this time for consideration.
At the November 27. 2012 Committee of the Whole meeting, Council passed the following
motion with respect to the proposed draft changes to the OCP:
THAT the old Barnet Hotel, Craftsman Collision, Fred Soofi property, the property
between Clarke and Vintner border by Douglas on the east, and the Andres Wine
property be identified as a Special Study Area.
The areas identified for designation as special study areas in this report, however, are limited to
those specified in previous Council motions passed on March.23, 2010, March 15, 2011 and
November 13, 2012. These motions were intended to re-establish these specific areas as
special study areas and to have this designation reflected in the RGS according to Council's
previous direction in 2011. New special study areas identified as part of the current OCP
update process would be brought forward as part of more comprehensive revision to the OCP
which would be considered for acceptance by Metro Vancouver at a later time.
The proposed OCP amendment was revjewed on December 4, 2012 by Land Use Committee
and the following motion was passed:
THAT the proposed OCP amendment to designation the Mill and Timbersite, the former
Petro Canada (now Suncor) refinery lands, and the Imperial Oil lands as Special Study
Areas be supported.
Attachments
1. Location Map
2. Proposed Bylaw No. 2950
Communications
Should the proposed OCP amendment to designate the Mill and Timber site, the former Petro
Canada (now Suncorp) refinery lands, and the Imperial Oil lands as special study areas proceed
to Public Hearing, notification and advertisements will occur in accordance with notification
requirements set out in the City's Development Approval Procedures Bylaw and Section 892 of
the Local Government Act.
RPA-17-
ReportlRecommendation to Council
OCP Amendment to Include Special Study Area Designations
December 19, 2012
Budgetary Impact
There are no budgetary impacts anticipated as part of the proposed OCP amendment.
Council Strategic Plan Objectives
The proposed OCP amendment is consistent with the Planning for the Future goal of the 2012
Council Strategic Plan which includes medium and long term planning that anticipates changes
in the community overtime.
Sustainability Implications
The purpose of the OCP special study area designation is to identify those areas where more
detailed land use plans will be required by way of an area plan or a site specific development
plan. It is anticipated that these plans will address a number of sustainability concerns including
environmental protection, efficient land use practices, infrastructure and transportation planning
as well as opportunities to enhance cultural sustainability.
Policy Implications
Designating the Mill and Timber site, the former Petro Canada (now Suncor) refinery lands and
the Imperial Oil lands as special study areas is consistent with previous Council motions passed
March 23, 2010, March 15, 2011 and November 13, 2012. The proposed amendment includes
policy changes to the OCP to correspond to the proposed new special study area land use
designations.
Alternatives
THAT Bylaw No. 2950 not be given first and second reading and not proceed to public hearing.
Recommendations
THAT Bylaw No. 2950 be now read a first time.
THAT Bylaw No. 2950 be now read a second time.
AND THAT Bylaw No. 2950 be referred to a Public Hearing to be held on January 22, 2013 at
City Hall, 100 Newport Drive, Port Moody.
RPA-18-
Report/Recommendation to Council
OCP Amendment to Include Special Study Area Designations
December 19, 2012
Prepared by:
Ma' ry De Paoli, MCIP
Manager of Planning
Approvals
Supervisor (initials):
Approved for Submission to Council:
Kevin Ramsay
City Manager
Department Head (initials):
Tim Savoie, MCIP
Corporate Review Initials
Administration/Legislative Services/Human
Resources/Mayor's Office
Communications/Finance AT
Culture/Enviro nment/Facilities/Parks/RecreaLon
Engineering/Operations
Fire & Rescue
Library
Development/Building, Bylaw & Licensing
Police
Council Agenda. Information -
Regular Council Meeting Date: January 8, 2012
Committee Review
List relevant committees
5
RPA-19-
Im
Lo
arn,
s
�
i.
u
RPA-20-
"JCity of •rt Mood
City of Port Moody Official Community Plan, 2010, No. 2849,
Amendment Bylaw No. 9, 2012, 2950
A bylaw to designate Special Study Areas in the Official Community Plan.
The Council of the City of Port Moody enacts as follows:
Citation
1.1 This Bylaw may be cited as City of Port Moody Official Community Plan, 2010, No.
2849, Amendment Bylaw No. 9, 2012, 2950.
Amendment
The City of Port Moody Official Community Plan 2010, Bylaw No. 2849, is hereby
amended as follows:
2.1 By designating as Special Study Areas the lands identified on the attached map
marked "Certified True Copy of Map Referred to in Section 2 of Bylaw No. 2950";
2.2 By adding the following Section 4.2.12 to Chapter 4: Overall Land Use Strategy:
4.2.12 Special Study Area
The Special Study Area designation applies to lands where more detailed
planning is required by way of an area plan or a site specific development plan.
2.3 By adding the following policy to the Industrial Policies section of Chapter 9:
Economic Development:
13. A local area or development plan should be prepared for each of the following
lands in order to determine the most appropriate uses for these areas should
they become available for redevelopment provided that adequate capacity for
traffic and utility services can be provided and all environmental issues and other
community impacts have been satisfactorily addressed:
(a) Former Petro Canada Lands (now Suncor) in the Glenayre Neighbourhood
Land uses may include residential, commercial, institutional and recreational
uses, as well as clean industrial/business activities, provided that such
development is compatible with adjacent uses. Green building technologies will
be encouraged.
(b) loco Lands
It is envisioned that a significant portion of this site will eventually be used for an
innovative combination of uses including single family residential, multi -family
# 11726
RPA-21-
residential of varying densities, and mixed use commercial/residential. It is
intended that this plan include strategies for heritage conservation of the IOCO
Townsite as well as consideration of potential employment generating activities
such as businesses that reflect the area's heritage values.
Potential traffic impacts to loco Road would be addressed as part of this plan as
well as the possible western extension of David Avenue. Green building
technologies will be encouraged. Additional policies related to the potential
redevelopment of the IOCO Lands can be found in Chapter 15 — Neighbourhood
Plan Areas.
(c) Mill and Timber Lands
The Mill and Timber Products Ltd. wood processing site shall be considered for
redevelopment uses other than general industry if it ceases to be used for its
current purpose. It is envisioned that a plan would be prepared for the site that
provides for:
• the integration of multiple uses such as commercial, light industrial,
recreational, and residential in keeping with the concept of an urban village
• a strong emphasis being placed on public accessibility to the waterfront in the
form of public open spaces and a continuation of the current
walkway/bikeway from Rocky Point Park provided that environmental
features are adequately enhanced and protected
• land uses that are compatible with adjacent land uses
• preservation of N-S view corridors
• varying building heights up to 12 storeys stepped back from the waterfront
• residential land uses should be sited and organized to minimize conflict with
adjacent industrial uses
• live/work and work/live opportunities
• an emphasis on creating intensive employment generating activities
• the consideration and mitigation of any heritage or environmental concerns
for this site
• an emphasis on the creation of a complete community serving the needs of
local residents as well as drawing visitors from elsewhere in the region
• consideration of eco-industrial networking to capitalize on synergies between
compatible businesses
• integration of green building technologies e.g. district energy heating, waste
and water recycling) and transit oriented development principles
• an enhanced pedestrian and cycling oriented environment reducing reliance
on vehicle use
• vehicle, pedestrian, and cyclist linkages over the CPR right of way
connecting this site with the historic commercial area on Clarke Street, the
Moody Centre commercial area and any future rapid transit station'
• consideration of incorporating an artificial nesting area on the water to
substitute for the log booms which currently provide roosting and nesting
areas for wildlife
2.4 By adding the following text to the beginning of Policy 28 in Section 15.5.3 loco
Area of Chapter 15: Neighbourhood Plan Areas:
"The IOCO area is designated as a Special Study Area subject to further analysis."
City of Port Moody OfSclal Community Plan. 2010, No.2549, Amentlment Bylaw No. 5, 2012. 2950
RPA-22-
I Attachments and Schedules
3.1 Certified True Copy of Map referred to in Section 2 of Bylaw No. 2950 attached.
4. Severability
4.1 If a portion of this bylaw is found invalid by a court, it will be severed and the
remainder of the bylaw will remain in effect.
Read a first time the Sin day of January , 2013.
Read a second time the &h day of January , 2013.
Public Hearing held the 22nd day of January , 2013.
Read a third time the 22ntl day of January , 2013.
Adopted the 22n0 day of January , 2013.
Mayor City Clerk
I hereby certify that the above is a true copy of Bylaw No. 2950 of the City of Port Moody,
Colleen Rohde
City Clerk
City of Port Moody OffGal Community Plan, 2010. No, 2649, Amendment Bylaw No. 5, 2012. 2950
RPA-23-
ef e, '6_
�,ciuiiiii,
7031052
City of Pod Moody Of ici-I Community Plan, 2010, No. 2849, Amendment Bylaw No. 5, 2012, 29M
RPA-24-
MAP l: OVERALL LAND USE PLAN 5.1 Attachment 2
)031303
RPA-25-
■
m m
m —
m° _
0
m
u
m
pmm�nm'rmrmnnnmm�niiyyyyurrnnnariiirirrrriinnnrrrrr innninwnnn,minnnu yCL
1� 9
IL
13
a a
m 6
Q N
a N
r
O
Y
`A
` C
9�
$m
E
c Z �
� c m
_ 5m �