HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-06-10 Workshop Meeting Agenda and Reports.pdf
District of Maple Ridge
1. ADOPTION OF THE AGENDA
2. MINUTES –May 27, 2013
3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL
3.1 Berris and Associates, Environmental Consultants – Catherine Berris
- Overview of the Stakeholder Workshop for the Environmental Management
Strategy
4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS
4.1 Amenity Zoning Study and Albion Area Plan Review Outcomes of Public
Consultation Process
Staff report dated June 10, 2013 recommending that the staff report titled
“Amenity Zoning Study and Albion Area Plan Review Outcomes of Public
Consultation Process” be received for information.
COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA
June 10, 2013
10:00 a.m.
Please Note Change in Time
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
June 10, 2013
Closed Council 9:00 a.m.
Committee of the Whole Meeting 1:00 p.m.
June 11, 2013
Council Meeting 7:00 p.m.
Council Workshop
June 10, 2013
Page 2 of 3
4.2 Amenity Zoning Study and Albion Area Plan Review
Staff report dated June 10, 2013 recommending that staff be directed to bring
forward an Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw, a Zoning Amending Bylaw
and the Amenity Reserve Fund Bylaw to implement Option #3 in the report
following input from Council.
4.3 Hospital Parking
Letter dated June 5, 2013 from Young Anderson providing a legal opinion on the
District of Maple Ridge’s authority to regulate the price of parking at the Ridge
Meadows Hospital.
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 Metro Vancouver – New Waste-to-Energy Capacity for Metro Vancouver – Potential
Site Identification
Letter dated May 15, 2013 from Greg Moore, Chair, Metro Vancouver providing
information and requesting feedback regarding the development of new Waste-to-
Energy Capacity for Metro Vancouver.
Recommendation: receive for information
6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL
7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
8. ADJOURNMENT
Checked by: ___________
Date: _________________
Council Workshop
June 10, 2013
Page 3 of 3
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 27, 2013
The Minutes of the Municipal Council Workshop held on May 27, 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 F. Quinn, Acting 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 C. Marlo, Manager of Legislative Services
Councillor B. Masse A. Gaunt, Confidential Secretary
Councillor M. Morden Other Staff as Required
C. Carter, Director of Planning
L. Benson, Manager of Sustainability and Corporate
Planning
D. Denton, Business Retention and Expansion Officer
D. Boag, Director of Parks and Facilities
C. Goddard, Manager of Development and Environmental
Services
R. Acharya, Planner
T. Thompson, Manager of Financial Planning
J. Bastaja, Director of Corporate Support
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:
4.7 Federation of Canadian Municipalities Committee Attendance
2.0
Council Workshop Minutes
May 27, 2013
Page 2 of 7
2. MINUTES
R/2013-205
Minutes It was moved and seconded
May 6, 2013
That the minutes of the Council Workshop Meeting of May 6,
2013 be adopted as circulated.
CARRIED
3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL – Nil
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.
The Manager of Sustainabilty reviewed the staff report. She spoke to the
success of the Town Centre Investment Incentive Program.
R/2013-206
Job Creation It was moved and seconded
Incentives
AMENDED
That a job creation incentive program be developed following
the public consultation phase of the Commercial and Industrial
Strategy process; and further
That the residential component of the Town Centre Investment
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.
Council Workshop Minutes
May 27, 2013
Page 3 of 7
R/2013-207
Job Creation It was moved and seconded
Incentives
AMENDMENT
That the words “reflective of Council’s comments at the May 27,
2013 Council Workshop Meeting” be added at the end of each
paragraph.
CARRIED
MOTION AS AMENDED CARRIED
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.
The Planner gave a PowerPoint presentation providing details on the tandem and off-
street discussion paper.
The Manager of Development and Environmental Services continued the
PowerPoint presentation and reviewed planning scenarios and options. He
outlined staff observations, resulting impacts of tandem parking to
developments and the preferred approach and recommendations of staff.
R/2013-208
Tandem and Off- It was moved and seconded
Street Parking
That the staff report dated May 27, 2013 titled “Tandem and
Off-Street Parking Discussion Paper” be received for
information and discussion and that the staff recommendation
in the PowerPoint presentation be forwarded to the May 28,
2013 Council Meeting.
CARRIED
Councillor Bell - OPPOSED
Council Workshop Minutes
May 27, 2013
Page 4 of 7
Note: Councillor Masse and Councillor Morden left the room at 10:44 a.m.
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.
The Manager of Financial Planning reviewed the staff report.
The General Manager of Corporate and Financial Services advised that the
final reading of the bylaw would be considered at the June 11, 2013 meeting.
R/2013-209
BL No. 6993-2013 It was moved and seconded
First, second and
Third readings
That Bylaw No. 6993-2013 be given first, second and third
readings.
CARRIED
Note: Councillor Masse returned to the meeting at 10:46 a.m. and Councillor
Morden returned to the meeting at 10:47 a.m.
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.
The Business Retention and Expansion Officer reviewed the staff report.
The Director of Parks and Facilities provided information on the closure of the
Maple Ridge Campground and the reasoning behind that closure. He spoke
to the safety issues of campfires at a potential campsite.
The Business Retention and Expansion Officer provided clarification
pertaining to the partnership between the District and WildPlay and spoke to
best practices with regard to camp fires.
Council Workshop Minutes
May 27, 2013
Page 5 of 7
R/2013-210
Use of District Land It was moved and seconded
Economic
Development
That the staff report dated May 27, 2013 titled “Use of
District Land for Economic Development Opportunities” be
forwarded to the May 28, 2013 Council Meeting.
CARRIED
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.
The Director of Corporate Support reviewed the staff report.
The General Manager of Corporate and Financial Services spoke to the
District’s policy regarding the wireless industry.
R/2013-211
Wireless Industry It was moved and seconded
Co-location
That staff be directed to undertaken a Request for Expression
of Interest process identifying certain Municipal lands that
may have the potential for the location of a telecom-
munications tower, and determine the best opportunity to
achieve construction of a tower(s).
CARRIED
Councillor Morden - OPPOSED
Note: The meeting was recessed at 11:44 a.m. and was reconvened at 3:44 p.m.
Councillor Bell acted as Chair when the meeting reconvened. Mayor Daykin
and Councillor Dueck were not in attendance when the meeting reconvened.
Council Workshop Minutes
May 27, 2013
Page 6 of 7
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.
The Director of Planning reviewed the staff report.
Note: Councillor Masse left the meeting at 3:52 p.m.
R/2013-212
Regional Growth It was moved and seconded
Strategy Amendment
City of Port Moody
That the Greater Vancouver Regional District be advised that
the District of Maple Ridge has no comments (at this time) on
the Proposed Amendment to the Metro Vancouver Regional
Growth Strategy – Type 3 RGS amendment to add three
special study in the City of Port Moody.
CARRIED
4.7 Federation of Canadian Municipalities Committee Attendance
Councillor Hogarth advised on his request for endorsement from Council to
apply for appointment to committees of the Federation of Canadian
Municipalities as a representative for the District of Maple Ridge.
R/2013-213
FCM Committee It was moved and seconded
Attendance
Forward to Council
Meeting
That discussion of Item 4.7 Federation of Canadian
Municipalities Committee Attendance be forwarded to the
May 28, 2013 Council Meeting.
CARRIED
Council Workshop Minutes
May 27, 2013
Page 7 of 7
5. CORRESPONDENCE
6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL
7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT
8. ADJOURNMENT – 4:10 p.m.
_______________________________
E. Daykin, Mayor
Certified Correct
___________________________________
C. Marlo, Corporate Officer
[1]
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: June 10, 2013
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2012-029-CP
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: Amenity Zoning Study and Albion Area Plan Review
Outcomes of Public Consultation Process
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
At the February 12, 2013 Council meeting, a public consultation process was approved by Council,
wherein staff were directed to hold a public open house to present the “Preliminary Albion Area Plan
Amenities List” and that a questionnaire be posted on the District’s website. The concept of Amenity
Zoning was raised by Council during the 2012 discussion on the potential density increases in the
Albion Area Plan.
On March 13, 2013 a public open house was held at Samuel Robertson Technical School to present:
information on Amenity Zoning as a pilot project in the Albion Area;
obtain input on whether there is support for increasing densities beyond those currently
shown in the Albion Area Plan; and
the preliminary list of amenity priorities for the area.
To garner public awareness of the open house, 2600 individual letters were mailed to residents in
the Albion Area. In addition, the open house was posted on the website and advertised in the local
newspapers. Over 140 people signed in at the event and it is estimated that approximately 175
people attended. This is a significant turnout and demonstrates a high level of awareness of the
event as well as a strong interest. A questionnaire was distributed at the open house and also
posted online after the event for 18 days. A total of 97 questionnaires were filled out and the results
showed that 75% of the respondents see park improvements as a priority for the area, followed by
67% who would like to see more multi-use trails. Out of the 97 total respondents, 84 responded to a
question on supportable forms of land use and 60 (71%) would support a density increase to small
lot single-family (371m2 min lot size under R-1 zone), followed by commercial development
(maximum 2 storeys) from 52 (62%) of the respondents.
This report presents a summary and the outcomes of the March 13th open house.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That the report, entitled “Amenity Zoning Study and Albion Area Plan Review Outcomes of Public
Consultation Process” be received for information.
4.1
[2]
DISCUSSION:
a) Consultation Program Summary:
Since the review of the Albion Area Plan began with the March 19, 2012 report to Council Workshop
regarding a density review of the northern portion of the Albion Area Plan, there have been two public
open houses. The first one held on May 30, 2012 focussed solely on obtaining input from the
community on several Official Community Plan amendments, including modest density increases in
two study areas of the northern portion of the Albion Area Plan. The second open house was held on
March 13, 2013 and included a list of potential amenities for the Albion Area and a range of land-
use options for public comment.
The Amenity Zoning discussion began with a resolution from the June 26, 2012 Council meeting
directing staff to include Amenity Zoning in the Albion Area Plan review and this resolution is
attached as Appendix B. At the November 27, 2012 Council meeting, a resolution was passed to
use the Albion Area Plan boundaries as a pilot project for Amenity Zoning and this resolution is
attached as Appendix C. On February 12, 2013, Council passed a resolution on a public consultation
process for the Amenity Zoning Study within the boundaries of the Albion Area Plan, which included
direction to present the preliminary Albion Area Plan list of amenities at the public open house. The
resolution is attached as Appendix D.
Summary of Consultation Program Notification
As mentioned earlier in this report, there have been two open houses for the Albion Area Plan study,
May 30, 2012 and March 13, 2013. The following table summarizes the notification and
consultation undertaken to date. Both open houses involved extensive public notification and were
well attended, as outlined in Table 1 below:
Table 1
May 30, 2012 Open House March 13, 2013 Open House
Venue Samuel Robertson Technical School in
Albion Area
Samuel Robertson Technical School in
Albion Area
Newspaper
Advertisements
May 11, 18, 25 and 29, 2012
Feb 22, March 1, 6, and 8, 2013
Mailout Notification Letter notifying of open house mailed to
all property owners located north of
108th Avenue within Albion Area.
Letter notifying of open house mailed to
all property owners within Albion Area
boundaries. 2600 letters were mailed in
total.
Online Notification On District website – link provided on
“What’s New?” tab on home page.
Reports, maps, and background info
provided on webpage.
On District website – link provided on
“What’s New?” tab on home page.
Reports, maps and background info
provided on webpage.
Online Questionnaire Paper format handed out at public open
house. Online version accessible for a
total of 13 days.
Paper format handed out at public open
house. Online version accessible for a
total of 19 days.
Number of Attendees at
Open House
Approximately 160 people attended Approximately 175 people attended
[3]
March 13, 2013 Public Open House:
As stated above, over 2,600 notification letters were mailed out. The open house was well received
with approximately 175 people in attendance. Of all the comments received, there were no
complaints about the process.
The information presented at the public open house provided an overview of the process,
commencing with the March 19th, 2012 Council Workshop report, and how it has evolved to date.
Input was requested on the amenity list that was presented to Council at the February 4 th, 2013
Council Workshop as well as input on the potential forms of density that the community might
support. A formal presentation entitled, “Amenity Zoning Study: Introduction”, was delivered by
Brent Elliott (MCIP, RPP), the lead planner from City Spaces Consulting, a number of times
throughout the evening providing a detailed explanation of the Amenity Zoning concepts. These
sessions were well attended with much discussion in between. For those that were not able to stay
and see the formal presentation, four information boards were prepared by City Spaces with
information from the presentation to read at their leisure. Fourteen District staff members were in
attendance to respond to questions and provide clarity where needed.
A questionnaire was distributed at the open house, along with an information brochure that included
potential Official Community Plan policies for implementing amenity zoning in the Albion Area, a list
and examples of the types of amenities presented at Council Workshop on February 4, 2013 as well
as a range of potential land-use options, discussed later in this report. Those attending the open
house were asked to provide input on amenity options and also on what type of building forms they
would support. The open house questionnaire, provided at the open house and online also
requested this input.
All presentation boards from the open house are attached to this report as Appendix E. The
questionnaire, the public open house presentation boards (including the four on amenity zoning),
and the amenity zoning presentation were all posted on the District’s website after the open house
event. Originally, the questionnaire deadline was set for March 22nd, however, it was extended to the
morning of April 2nd to ensure ample time was offered to the community for their input. The
questionnaire results are attached as Appendix F.
Outcomes of Open House
A total of 97 open house questionnaires were received by April 2nd. The results show that a vast
majority of the respondents (85%) live in the Albion Area. Also, a large maj ority (71%) either
attended the amenity zoning presentation at the public open house or were able to view the
presentation and related presentation boards online.
Amenity Rankings
The questionnaire respondents were asked to prioritize the following list of amenities and 96 of the
97 respondents answered this question. The results are as follows:
1. Park improvements (75%)
2. Expanded multi-use trail system (67%)
3. Civic facility (66%)
4. Affordable, social housing (25%)
5. Public art (9%)
6. None of the above (9%)
[4]
The results showed a clear desire for parks in Albion, with multi-use trails and then a civic facility
following fairly close behind.
Land-Use and Density Rankings
Out of 92 responses, 57% stated they support an increase in density in exchange for the provision of
amenities. Respondents were also asked “what form(s) of development would you support to help
achieve the priority amenities. From the range of land-use types that were presented, 87 of the
respondents provided a ranking and these are as follows:
1. Small lot single-family (min 371m2 lot size) (71%)
2. Commercial development (max 2 storeys) (62%)
3. Mixed-use commercial development (max 2-3 storeys) (54%)
4. Townhouse residential (2.5 to 3 storeys) (48%)
5. Intensive single-family (min 213m2 lot size) (42%)
6. 3-5 storey apartment residential (27%)
There was fairly strong support for an increase in small lot single-family, with the 371 m2 lot size
being the equivalent of the R-1 zoned lots, followed by two-storey commercial development and
slightly more than half of the respondents also support mixed-use commercial at two to three storeys
in height.
Public Comments and Concerns
Specific comments made by the public through the District’s questionnaire and also those recorded
at the public open house were itemized and ranked according to how often an issue was mentioned.
The top two concerns are:
1. Desire for commercial use/job opportunities;
2. Need for schools.
There was a tie for the third most predominant issue between a desire for more parks/recreation
and ensuring conservation of natural areas.
b) Implementation/Proposed Bylaw Amendments:
A companion report entitled “Amenity Zoning Study and Albion Area Plan Review”, which contains the
proposed amenity framework will also be presented to Council on June 10, 2013 that includes
recommendations on:
Approach and contribution rate;
Official Community Plan and Albion Area Plan policy amendments;
Zoning Bylaw amendments for Density Bonuses; and
Reserve Fund Bylaw.
The amenity framework incorporates additional case study information in the Albion Area, prepared
by G.P. Rollo & Associates as well as advice from the District’s solicitor.
[5]
c) Customer/Citizen Implications:
At the May 14, 2013 Council meeting, a resident submitted a presentation of a questionnaire he had
designed. He stated that he had gone door to door in Albion. The questionnaire was completed by
62 residents. Although the presentation was submitted after the deadline for comment, the
presenter asked that it be considered. While it is likely well-intentioned, the questionnaire may be
somewhat misleading and inaccurate in content.
The following discrepancies have been identified in the resident generated questionnaire:
Question #1
The first question on the questionnaire asked if respondents knew that there was an Open House on
March 13th. The names and addresses of respondents are written at the bottom of each of the 62
questionnaires received. Municipal records show that of the 62 questionnaire respondents, 60 were
property owners. Planning Department records show that all of the property owners of the 62
addresses provided in this door to door questionnaire were mailed an open house notification letter.
It is unclear from the questions asked in this questionnaire whether respondents who were aware of
the open houses held in March 2013 and May 2012 actually attended those open houses or
accessed any of the background information on the District’s website.
Question #2:
The wording of the second question is as follows: “Did you know what housing density district staff
recommended for the area last May 2012?” The review of the Albion Area Plan began in March
2012 and since that time no recommendations have been made by staff on densities or amenity
zoning for the Plan. Council was clear in directing that a public process be undertaken prior to any
decisions being made.
Question #3:
The third question lists the forms of development that “the district is now exploring”. It is true that a
number of forms of development were presented at the public open house and online for public
input (see section on “Consultation Summary” above), however, this questionnaire omits the small
lot single family form (minimum lot size of 371m2 under R-1 zone) from the list, which is the land use
form most supported by the respondents of the District’s open house questionnaire.
Question three also states that these housing options “could significantly increase the density in the
area”. The wording of this question could be misleading, in that without an analysis of the potential
unit count that a certain mix of land use forms would bring, it could not be known whether any
community supported density increase would be modest or significant.
Question #4:
In this final question, it is stated “…did you know that we could potentially generate 5-6 million more
dollars for north Albion by matching the Development Cost Charges that Langley, Chilliwack, and
Surrey would charge…”.
[6]
The funds collected through Development Cost Charges may only be applied to specific projects in
the Development Cost Charges Bylaw and cannot be used for newly identified projects without going
through the municipal and Provincial approval process. Alternatively, Amenity Zoning is only
permitted for projects ascertained through this process and cannot be used for projects already
identified in the Development Cost Charges Bylaw.
The District of Maple Ridge has reviewed its Development Cost Charges in 2009 and again in 2011.
In both cases, a comparison with all Metro Vancouver municipalities was taken into account as part
of Council’s review.
CONCLUSION:
The results of the public open house showed that the majority of respondents are supportive of an
increase in density to a small lot single-family form and residents would also like to see some
commercial development along with more parks and public trails. This information is incorporated,
along with information from consultants and legal review, in a proposed framework for an Amenity
Contribution program with the intent that as the Albion area of Maple Ridge continues to develop
and grow, the amenities that the majority of the Albion community want will be prioritized and
provided.
This report is intended to provide Council with an overview of the consultation program. A
companion report contains recommendations for implementation, along with the Amenity
Framework, the proposed Official Community Plan and Zoning Bylaw ame ndments and the
supporting Amenity Reserve Fund Bylaw.
“Original signed by Lisa Zosiak”_______________
Prepared by: Lisa Zosiak
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 - Albion Area Plan Boundaries
Appendix B – Council Resolution from June 26, 2012 Council meeting
Appendix C – Council Resolution from November 26, 2012 Council meeting
Appendix D – Council Resolution from February 12, 2013 Council meeting
Appendix E– March 13, 2013 – Public Open House Display Panels
Appendix F - March 13, 2013 – Public Open House Summary Results
Appendix G – Sample of Community Member Independent Survey
CORPORATION OFTHE DISTRICT OFMAPLE RIDGE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
110 AVE.
102 AVE.JACKSON RD.248 ST.244 ST.112 AVE.
104 AVE.
108 AVE.
´
N.T.S.
ALBION AREAPLAN BOUNDARY
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
November 26th 2012
Council Workshop
Amenity Zoning Update – Council Resolution
Process
March 19th 2012
Report to Council Workshop
Density Increase & in-stream applications process
Albion Area Plan Amenity Zoning
May 14th 2012 Council Workshop
Amenity Zoning Project Update
May 30th 2012
Public Open House
June 18th 2012
Council Workshop
Council Resolution to consider Amenity Zoning
February 4th 2013
Council Workshop
Preliminary Amenities List
March 13th 2013
Consultation
Bylaw Approval
Albion Area Plan & Amenity Zoning
Council Update
Recommendations
APPENDIX E
May 2012
March 2013
Council Resolution
November 27, 2012
Albion Area Plan
Public Process Outline
Focused on nor thern por tion of Albion Area Plan in May 2012
May 30th 2012 Public Open House
Summary of Outcomes
Modest density increases were proposed: to add RS-1 to Low Density Residential
designation and R-1 to Low/Medium Residential designation
Feedback
a) Verbal and questionnaire feedback suggested general support for proposed density increases
b) Community Concerns
i. Future Road Network capacity
ii. Pedestrian Connectivity
iii. Parks and Playgrounds
iv. Conservation and Natural Areas
v. Commercial uses
vi. Public Transit
vii. Need for Schools
PPrinciple Use Min Setback
Zone
Min
Width
Min
Depth
Min
Area
Height
Front
Rear
Exterior/
Interior
RS-1 18m 27m 668m2 11m 7.5m 7.5m 4.5m/*1.5m
In a 2.76 Hectare Lot
668m2
18m x
37.11m
You Can Subdivide
Into 30 RS-1 Lots
395m2
15m x
36.33m
Or up to 48 R-1 Lots
PPrinciple Use Min Setback
Zone
Min
Width
Min
DDepth
Min
Area
Height
Front
Rear
Exterior/
Interior
RS-1b 12m 24m 371m2 9m 5.5m 8m 3m/1.2m
Official Community Plan
Policy Options
Amend OCP Land-Use Designations Amend existing Zones
LLAND USE DESIGNATION ZONE
Residential Low Density RS-1d One Family Urban (Half Acre) Residential
RS-1 One Family Urban Residential
Residential Low – Medium
Density
SRS Special Urban Residential
RS-1b One Family Urban (Medium Density)
Residential
RT-1 Two Family Residential
R-1 Residential District
Medium Density Residential R-1 Residential District
CD-1-93 Amenity Residential District
RM-1 Townhouse Residential
RM-4 Multiple Family Residential
RMH Mobile Home District
Community Amenity Contributions Density Bonus
Eg. RS-1d Zone
RS-1b Zone
Include provisions to permit
increased Density within these zones
(Presented at May 2012 Open House)
Official Community Plan
Policy Options
Official Community Plan Policy Options:
To implement an Amenity Zoning Framework, amendments to the Official Community Plan (Bylaw No. 6425-2006) are
required.
Options Include:
•The District will establish an Amenity Zoning Framework as part of the methods Council may use to provide amenities
in a sustainable and economically viable approach.
•The Amenity Zoning Framework will identify the conditions under which Council may consider density bonuses and
Community Amenity Contributions for new development.
•The District will consider Density Bonuses and Community Amenity Contributions as part of the development review
process for all Official Community Plan and Zoning Bylaw amendment applications to help provide a variety of
amenities and facilities throughout the municipality.
•Density Bonuses and Community Amenity Contributions could form part of future area planning process as
determined by Council.
OOCP Section 10.2 Albion Area Plan
Chapter 10 of the Official Community Plan contains policies related to area planning and the formal area plans for Albion, the
Town Centre and Silver Valley. The Albion Area Plan is contained within Section 10.2 of the OCP. The following new policy
options are proposed amendments to the Albion Area Plan:
•The District will consider the use of Density Bonuses to provide non-market, seniors and/or rental housing within the
Plan Area boundaries.
•The District will consider the use of Density Bonuses to provide for the conservation or provision of community
amenities.
•Land assembly or lot consolidation proposed in conjunction with development, redevelopment, conversion or infilling
should meet the following conditions:
•That any residual lots or remaining land parcels are left
in a configuration and lot area to be suitable for a future development proposal, or can be consolidated with
other abutting residual lots or land parcels and complies with the applicable Land Use Designations and
policies of the Albion Area Plan;
•The use of any residual abutting lots or land parcels can continue to function in accordance with the applicable
Land Use Designations and policies of the Albion Area Plan;
•Residual abutting lots or land parcels are not isolated or left in a condition which is unsuitable for
redevelopment or unsuitable for the maintenance of the existing land use; and
•The land assembly proposal will incorporate adequate site design and impact mitigation measures such as
buffers, landscaping, building locations, arrangements and design to ensure compatibility with abutting existing
land or future land uses.
In addition to the above, the proposed amendments to the Albion Area Plan presented at the open house event on Wednesday
May 30, 2012 included deleting the density transfer policies 10-5 through 10-8.
QQuestion:
Do you support an increase in density in the Albion Area to achieve
community amenities?
Albion Area Plan
Density Options
Potential Land Use Options
If an increase in density is suppor table to achieve
community amenities, what form(s) of density would
you choose?
5) Mixed-use
1) Small lot single-family
2) Townhouse
3) 3 - 5 storey multi-family
4) Commercial development
The following preliminar y list of potential amenities
for the Albion Area was created through discussions
with the community and with Council.
1) Civic facility
2) Park improvements
3) Multi-use trail system
4) Affordable rental and social
needs housing
5) Public art
Albion Area Plan
Potential Amenities List
AApplications in Process
Albion Area Plan
Current Applications
DRAFTDRAFTDRAFTDRAFT
Potentiall additionall Conser vation iss Potentiall additionall Conser vation iss Potential additional Conser vation is
b dd il bll LIDARR d tt basedd onn availablee LIDARR dataa onn based on available LIDAR data on
SS Sll dd SS Sidd Steepp Slopess andd Streamm Sidee Steep Slopes and Stream Side p p
SetbacksSetbacksSetbacks
P t ti l Additi t C tiPotential Addition to ConservationPotential Addition to ConservationPotential Addition to Conservation
Albion Area Plan
108 AVE.
104 AVE.240 ST.
Albion Area Zoning
108 AVE.
104 AVE.240 ST.
Albion Area Plan
Multipurpose Trail Network
Park Amenities
Spatial Analysis of
Parkland in Albion
Albion
Park
Jackson
Farm
School
Park
S/P
S/P
FUTURE SEWER NETWORKFUTURE SEWER NETWORKFUTURE SEWER NETWORK
LAAAVE LA AVE
5 AVE
A STFERGUSON AVELANE
239AFERGUSON AVEL
T28 ST2483 AV ET0 STE¬«PS 1 1 3 AV
A ST240LAN¬«PS
241113 AVEST113A AVE
240ASSITT24SIPHOT52 ST43 ST2
4
6¬«PS HON3B ST252244
6
S
T
¬«NAVE 243246/112 ROAD 112 AVE
T
112 AVE 112 AVE112 AVE 112 AVE ¬«PSk¬«PS
n a k a C r e e k D STKanakaC r e e
WOODKa
CKWORTSTKLOCN CRT240 ERON48 ST110 AVE
110 AVE110 AVE CAME24¬«110 AVE 110 AVE
ST110 AVE C110 AVE ¬«PS ¬«PS
LANE41 ST¬«STLA24L240 109A AVE
ST109 AVE TE PL249 S108B ST¬«NAKA CRK RD SETT28 ST108B ST
A ST¬«PSNAKA CRK RD
ORRISNE248249AMORLAN108A ST2
108 AVE 108 AVELANE
ST108 AVE
T108 AVE
MCC
KIMOLA DR B
E
E NE STKI40 ST4MCCLUREDR
E
E
C
H
A SKINKIMOLA244DR
MCCLURE AVE
A
M
P ERSLA DRMCCLURE DR
4
TNEMCCLURE AVE
STDRLANEP
L
1RMCCLURE DR
ST4
106B
106B AVE
39 STLAN4STT10 47A SUREDLA1
0
6
B
AENE248 S6BAVE
2
4
423 244B ST107AVE 24CCLURLA WA Y
STA
V
E
A AVELAN2MCCLU4
4
ST
106
ADRANE106 AVE ET245BMCKIMOLA 249S248A AVE
CCLURED
R 06
AVECLUREDRLA106 AVE
2 LANEVEA STK 22SON AVER
M C C L U 243
S
LLANEONAVAAVE240A 106 AVEBERTSORDSTLA
ZERO1 0 5 AA
105 ROBEONRD 0 280 560140
Meters
BAKER PL TZ105 AVEST 105A
AV
E
R
ACKSO0 280 560140
BAKER PL
STAVE
0 SAV
E
TJACFUTURE WATER NETWORKFUTURE WATER NETWORKFUTURE WATER NETWORK
ALAA AVE
5AVE
STFERGUSON AVEANE5 AVE
39A SFERGUSON AVELA
23ST248 AV ESTE113AVE
A ST240 LANE241A113 AVELST113A AVE
2113 AVE
40AST24T2 ST3 ST2
4
B ST2522434
6
S
T
AVE 243B246/112 ROAD
112 AVE
T
112 AVE 112 AVE
AVE 246/112 ROAD 112 AVE112 AVE 112 AVE
knakaCreek STKanakaC r e e k
OOD SKa
KWOTSTKLOCKN CRTT240 SLRON8 ST2AMER248110 AVE 110 AVE
T110 AVE CA110 AVE
ANE1 STSTLA241240 S109A AVE
ST109 AVE E PL2449 ST109 AVE
ETTE24ST108B ST
STNAKA CRK RD
RRISEE248 S49A SMORLANE2108A ST24 M108 AVELANE
T108 AVE108 AVE ¬«PRV
M
KIMOLA DR B
E E ST0ST¬«PRV 4MCCLURED
B
E
E
C
H KINEKIMO240 4REDR
C
H
A
M
ERSKOLA D4
EMCCLURE AVE
TRANEM
P
L EDRMCCLURE DR
T4
106 106B AVE9STLANEST 7A STRE DRLAN1
0
6
BE48 ST106BAVE
106B AVE
2239 244SST107AVE 247CLUREW A Y T6
B
A
V
EAVELANE24MCE
2
4
4
ST10NE2245B AVE
MCCK IM O L A W A
49STE
48A ALE
MCCLUREDRT 106
AVEUREDRLAN106 AVE LANEEST2MKIM 24924N AVEEDR
VE
M C C L U R 243
LANENAVEAVE240A 106 AVERTSONDM43
ST LANE
ERON1 0 5 A A V24
1
106 AVE
ROBERTNRD Meters
ZE105 A
1 0
T105A
A
RO
KSON0 280 560140
BAKER PL ST105 AVE
0 STAVE
TJACKThe majority of service extensions are constructed through development LatecomerThe majority of service extensions are constructed through development. LatecomerThe majority of service extensions are constructed through development. Latecomer
agreements and DCC contributions are used to distribute the up front capital costs foragreements and DCC contributions are used to distribute the up-front capital costs foragreements and DCC contributions are used to distribute the up front capital costs for
community services which benefit multiple propertiescommunity services which benefit multiple properties.community services which benefit multiple properties.
Wt dSWater and SewerWater and SewerWater and Sewerate a d Se e
AMENIT Y ZONING GLOSSARY
WHAT IS AMENIT Y ZONING?
It is the use of existing planning power to help secure community
amenities at the time of change in land use or density.
WHAT IS LAND LIFT?
Key to understanding Amenity Zoning approaches is the concept of “land
lift”. This is the additional financial value a developer/ applicant might
realize from their property if its land use and/or densities are changed.
Any increase in before and after values presents a possible opportunity
between the municipality and the developer/applicant for the sharing of
the land lift towards offsetting the amenity needs associated with the
proposed development.
WHAT IS LAND USE CHANGE?
A change in an Official Community Plan land-use designation or zoning
WHAT IS DENSIT Y CHANGE?
A change in permitted floor space, but the land use designation may
remain the same.
Floor space measurements are often referenced as Floor Space Ratio
(FSR)
WHAT ARE AMENITIES?
ɿ Community centres ɿ Affordable Housing
ɿ Libraries ɿ Endowment/reserve fund
ɿ Child care facilities ɿ Recreation facilities
ɿ Heritage conservation ɿ Visible measures of sustainability
ɿ (i.e. green buildings, GHG reductions)
AMENIT Y ZONING STUDY - BACKGROUND
MAPLE RIDGE: A GROWING COMMUNIT Y
•Between 2006 and 2011, according to Stats Can the population of Maple
Ridge grew to 76,052.
•This represents a 10.3% change – a significant change compared to the
national average growth of 5.9%.
AMENIT Y ZONING KEY QUESTIONS
•Based on OCP policy, Council directed that a high-level amenity zoning study
be undertaken to explore the potential for Amenity Zoning across the District.
•In November 2012, Council directed that the Albion Area be used as a pilot
project.
•The study was undertaken to assist in answering two important questions:
•Is there potential for the District to secure amenities through Amenity
Zoning? and
•If so, what level of amenity contribution is viable in Maple Ridge?
•Today we are looking for the community’s input on how to balance growth,
liveability and needed amenities.
•Continuing growth is expected.
•Growth puts pressure on existing community services.
•Many municipalities facing increasing growth look for ways to provide
amenities not attainable through other regulatory powers, or without
increasing municipal taxes.
OPTIONS FOR DELIVERING AMENITIES
MUNICIPAL INFRASTRUCTURE POWERS
It is the use of existing planning power to help secure community amenities at the time of
change in land use or density.
In British Columbia municipalities have a number of powers to obtain infrastructure
contributions from development projects. The more common tools include:
•Density Bonusing
Section 904 of the Local Government Act
establishes the authority for municipalities to
establish through zoning a base density (e.g.
1.0 FSR) as well as a bonus density (e.g. 0.5
FSR), which is permitted if certain conditions
that are set out under the same bylaw are met.
•CCommunity Amenity Contributions (CAC)
A municipality uses its discretionary authority in
considering an Official Community Plan
amendment and/or rezoning request to
AMENIT Y ZONING APPROACHES
In British Columbia there are two Amenity Zoning approaches: Density Bonusing and
Community Amenity Contributions.
•Direct Provision of Lands
Can secure a maximum of 5% of site area, through multiple-lot subdivision, to be
dedicated to parks and open space. Additionally, municipalities may require land for
road widening purposes.
•Direct Provision of Improvements
Used to secure off-site infrastructure improvements adjacent to or required by a
development.
•Development Cost Charges
Collectively used to fund area-wide projects and may only be collected for water,
sewer, roads, and drainage improvements as well as park land acquisition.
With their limitations, municipalities have to look for other ways to deliver amenities that are not
attainable through these tools.
determine if a proposed change is in the public’s interest. In implementation, these
programs can be administered on a site-by-site basis or through an area-wide
approach.
Comparing Amenity Zoning Approaches
The two Amenity Zoning approaches appear similar in terms of intent and outcome, but there
are differences between density bonusing and community amenity contributions.
Amenity Zoning Applied Across the Region
In British Columbia there are two Amenity Zoning approaches: Density Bonusing and
Community Amenity Contributions.
Q: What level of amenity contribution is viable in Maple Ridge?
A: Amenity Zoning should provide consistency, clarity and viability and taken into
consideration the market complexities and community interests. In other
municipalities across the Metro Region, levels of amenity contributions often range
from 50% to 75% of the land lift.
WHAT WE’VE LEARNED
Q: Is there potential for the District to secure
amenities through Amenity Zoning?
A: In terms of land lift: Yes, but it is modest and
gradual and there are considerable market
complexities involved. As well, the District
currently uses Amenity Zoning to secure rental
housing and has density bonusing in place for
the Town Centre area creating familiarity within
the local development community.
1
Summary Report
(Completion rate: 100.0%)
Question 1: Do you live within the boundaries of the Albion Area Plan?
Response Chart Percentage Count
Yes 85% 82
No 15% 14
Total Responses 96
Question 2: Did you attend/view the presentation of the March 13, 2013 open
house entitled “Amenity Zoning: Introduction” by Brent Elliott of City Spaces
Consulting and/or read the presentation boards that explain Amenity Zoning?
Response Chart Percentage Count
Yes 71% 69
No 29% 28
Total Responses 97
The 40 response(s) to this question can be found in the appendix.
APPENDIX F
2
Question 3: Funds raised through Amenity Zoning Contributions must be
allocated to a specific amenity or combination of amenities in order to comply
with the conditions of the Local Government. Please check your top 3.
Response Chart Percentage Count
civic facility 66% 63
park improvements 75% 72
affordable, social housing 25% 24
public art 9% 9
expanded multi-use trail system 67% 64
none of the above 9% 9
Total Responses 96
The 35 response(s) to this question can be found in the appendix.
Question 4: Do you support higher residential densities in the Albion Area in
exchange for the provision of amenities?
Response Chart Percentage Count
Yes 57% 52
No 43% 40
Total Responses 92
The 41 response(s) to this question can be found in the appendix.
3
Question 5: What form(s) of development would you support to help achieve
the priority amenity(ies)? Please put a check mark next to any and all forms
that you support.
Response Chart Percentage Count
small lot single-family (minimum
371m2 lot size)
71% 60
intensive single-family (minimum
213m2 lot size)
42% 35
townhouse residential (maximum
2 ½ to 3 storeys)
48% 40
3-5 storey apartment residential 27% 23
commercial development
(maximum 2 storeys)
62% 52
mixed-use commercial
development (maximum 2-3
storeys)
54% 45
Total Responses 84
The 51 response(s) to this question can be found in the appendix.
The 53 response(s) to this question can be found in the appendix.
4
Appendix
#1 Do you live within the boundaries of the Albion Area Plan?
Response
1. Own property
2. Some concerns about the lack of acknowledgement on the drawings regarding the many
areas of creeks and the conservation areas in need of protecting, other than Kanaka Creek.
There are many tributaries entering Kanaka in this area.
3. Well done. Prefer higher density without car change. At least to what was proposed during
the zoning matrix report proposed in May 2012. Over and above that sure charge the
developer a bit but make it worth while for them to develop.
4. Very helpful.
5. Presentatin very confusing. What are the questions being asked?
6. Didn't live in area at that time.
7. Nothing now!
8. Amenity zoning is acceptable, as long as it does not reach a ridiculous amount, which would
discourage devlopers from purchasing properties.
9. No, but I had a staff person explain it to me. He was very helpful!
10. A little cramped given the amount of people that attended. Especially the small presentation
room. Most feedback probably gained from the voal minority.
11. Yes - I did not see anything to address the over crowding at SRT & Albion especially with
new townhomes and development of the quarry. Plans for 104th Ave which is a hazard to
all kids walking to & from school/after school sports/evening sports at SRT. Poory lit (no
lights) and no sidewalks.
12. Lisa and Bruce were awesome!
13. Brent Elliott report said "we need mor studies". He would say that because it keeps him
employed.
14. The District appears to be selling zoning to developers so they can build more lots. After
they hae finished they leave & don't have to put up with extra traffic, etc.
15. Do not live in Albion but own land. The Vancouver model will not work in MR. They should
look at Surrey/Langley models.
16. It's kind of unclear, the purpose of this is very unclear.
17. I'd like to see some crative planning for development that doesn't just allow a ton of
"skinny" houses on tiny lots. Along 240th there could be some of the Mixed-use housing to
incorporate amenities we need in the area. I am especially concerned abou the increased
traffic, encroaching on the existing parks like Kanaka Creek. By the way, where's our
shopping for all this proposed density increase. Schools? Vary the density instead of
5
making it all the same!
18. Informative
19. Well thought out.
20. Only limited amenities. I do not not not, did I say not want to pay more property tax.
21. Some landowners seemed to have objections to "having a say" for amenities. They ignore
the fact that the value of the properties will increase because of the amenities.
22. More informative thatn the last meeting. Consultant's presentation was excellent.
23. I had the understanding from Engineering they do not have a good planning regarding
street coridors and traffic. This department needs to be reviewed and changes need to be
made with staffing.
24. Arrived at end or near end. What I saw I don't like. We moved to area to avoid the clutter &
noise. If I wanted to live ina subdivision we would of stayed in town or Pitt Meadows.
25. BAD IDEA! People will not pay more for housing in an "amenity zone" for future amenities
(maybe). Developers won't pay more than market value for land. The landowner is the
loser after living for years on it and having no amenities, thinking of faining some money for
retirement.
26. This presentation only showed part of the OCP Plan.
27. Very deceptive (misleading) Presentation only showed what you wanted us to know - not
the real picture. Amenity Zoning in Albion - Bad Idea. The land-owner is the loser.
28. Lives close by - family lives in Albion.
29. I own property in Area 2 but now live on Vancouver Island and was, for several reasons,
unable to attend.
30. Although I am always supportive of more amenities in our communities I feel somewhat
threatened by this latest proposal. As a resident in Silver Valley i have watched all but one of
the so called hamlets in silver valley develope. Horse Hamlet in Silver valley remains un-
developed and next to no amenities have sprouted in the area. Now after the district of
Maple Ridge has received a large grant from our provincial government to install a new
sewer main cutting right through the heart of Horse Hamlet, the district is proposing
charging more money for development to pay for amenities in Thornhill. The bottom line is
....land owners in horse hamlet will now be forced to net less profits from the development
and sale proceeds of their lands than all the other hamlets because the district of Maple
Ridge needs more money for amenities in Thornhill ! This is very unfair to landowners in
Horse Hamlet that have been waiting for development of the area for 25 plus years ! I am
definitely opposed to the new proposal...it is soon for that. To be fair to all the residents of
Silver Valley this new " Amenity Contributions Proposal " should not be brought into affect
until AFTER Silver Valley has been COMPLETELY re - developed. To bring in added cost
charges now is unfair to those in silver valley who are still waiting...like my mum for
example !
31. Great opportunity to speak to city planners and city employees to discuss proposed canges
tothe Albion area. Very informative.
6
32. due to a family issue i missed the meeting
33. Forgot the day of it at the time
34. I work professionally in the industry but was out of town the day of the open house.
35. Read the ad in the newspaper and the info but did not attend
36. We were planning to attend but were out of town.
37. I found that there was a lack of specifics. I would like to know what the proposed density of
each specific lot would be and what specific amenities would be available if that proposal
was accepted and rezoned.
38. This report is flawed at best. At it's worst it is unclear...which of course is against Provincial
Legislation that ensures that the reading of the report MUST be understandable by the
general public. The report controdicts itself. Absolutely whould be trashed as a report and
go back and get the taxpayers monies back. If you want new developement to set aside
funds for infrasctructure within it's area...then just say so...put on a flat unit fee...the same as
DCC are. But to even suggest...as the author did...that it would be acceptable to the public
for the Municipality to TAX/SHARE in a "lift" in value from people who have paid taxes on
their properties...supported their communities...invested their life savings into their homes,
property and life styles...and for the priviledge of COLLECTING those taxes...the Municipality
now wants to share in their investments...up as high as 75%...I would suggest it would be
folly to even allow this to be considered any further. Are you going to pay their Federal
gain tax bills or just take a % ...which could actually...after Fed Taxes...leave some
historic/long time residences in a negative position? Are you going to relieve these new
homes from paying a portion of the Arts Centre...Municipal Hall complex...the Recreation
Centre? If not...why not? Are you going to "lift" when people put in a legal suite for their
parents to help with daycare? Or will you drive people underground with those suites...or
granny housing...by taxing them into going undercover? This report doesn't even
PROPERLY discern between "proposed zoning" and "rezoning" to calculate lift value.
There is very little value in this report as it stands today. To think that anyone in City Hall
should be deciding what the value of "lift" is makes me shake my head. Afterall...just for an
example of City Hall deciding value. When the Hall is involved in calculating costs for a
neighbourhood improvement levy. They calculate in the costs of engineering, geotech,
hydro, telephone impacts/moves, design, inspection fees,etc. BUT...when they calculate
costs to determine a latecomer agreement...somehow those same ACTUAL costs never get
put into the formula. HMMMM I wonder why not? They seem to be able to add up the costs
when it is city hall employee time used...but can't seem to actknowledge that all of those
costs are ACTUAL costs when the private sector does a project.
39. I did not attend personally but my spouse attended.
40. I dont live in the area but own property in the area.
#2 Did you attend/view the presentation of the March 13, 2013 open house entitled
“Amenity Zoning: Introduction” by Brent Elliott of City Spaces Consulting and/or
read the presentation boards that explain Amenity Zoning?
7
Response
1. Free educational interpretive centres to educate new residents about the local
environmental and wildlife concerns and how they can participate in protecting the natural
beauty & health of the area they have chosen to live in. We have a very beautiful and unique
natual landscape that desperately needs protecting in the midst of development. Especially
in North Albion!
2. Would like to see water and sewer on eastside of 110 Avenue and 248 Street. Would like to
see 248 connected North to 110 ave at Kanaka Creek.
3. Understanding schools aren't within the realm of Maple Ridge's power (it is Victoria). I
don't understand why council doesn't restrict further development until Victoria approves
more schools?! It is completely unacceptable for us to even consider more density prior to
knowing where our children will go to school.
4. Elementary schools.
5. Improved public transportation to Maple Ridge High Schools - namely the only french high
school MRSS! Also easier transportation to Pitt Meadows theatre. Post office!!
6. With an increase density there is a need for the below; -schools -sidewalks I would like to
see some increase in local shops and businesses
7. Off leash dog park
8. An expanded OFF ROAD multi-use trail system would be a fantastic addition, liking various
sections fo Kanada creek park to residential areas, possibly through conservation areas.
9. With the growing seniors population, we need more affordable housing.
10. Enjoy the natural beauty of parks & trails, do not need more supposed art as in the wire
sculpture downtown that is awful. Improvements should cater to the people that pay for
them and are not affected. Social housing is a separate issue. Lots of great affordable
basement suites in Albion. Sadly these are illegal according to council.
11. School(s)stores - groceries
12. School and stores (grocery)
13. We need to build family neighborhoods that are child/teen friendly.
14. We teach our children to not litter yet most public spaces in the Albion & Maple Ridge area
are lacking garbage cans. Put it out and it will be used.
15. Garbage cnas at park area are greatly needed.
16. I believe affordable social housing should be located closer to down town core to minimize
transportation barriers for families that require social housing.
17. How about an Albion Hall.
18. I think the District is moving way too fast and not taking enough time to think about the
repercussions. Who is going to pay for upkeep of the additional roads, services etc. the
taxpayers!!
19. As above, some sore of comercial venture that would offer places like they ahve on 102nd.
8
(Video/pizza/grocery/etc. or a coffee shop etc.
20. Albion hall needed!
21. This area nees Elementary Schools - too many people/houses & no schools - needs parks
22. Schools - area needs schools!!! Also parks - Albion park is at the back, near bushes, away
from the road & is unsafe.
23. Public art
24. Putting in more parks and playground areas into new subdivisions. More schools, they
should put in before developing the housing.
25. 1) More shopping 2) More turf fields, complex areas for sporting events or greater
development of the Albion Flats ball parks - develop the gravel field into a turf field, lighting
already there. 3) Recreational facilities for teen-agers, children too!
26. Some limited public art
27. Affordable, social housing doesn't make sense without proper transit and cycling
infrastructure. With creeks/conservation areas throughout whole area it would be ncie to
have trails/bridges/cut-throughs to make it easier to get around on foot and by bike. Direct
routes need tob e safe and comfortable for biking as well.
28. I don't understand the relationship of the above questions if a person does not want the
higher density.
29. Water drinking source at Albion Park.
30. Community Hall - Community Gardens - Children's Play Areas - Post Office - Parks linked by
walking trails/bike paths.
31. Sports amenities - fields & lacrosse box near schools.
32. If the new people moving into the area want amenities let them pay for them, not the people
who have lived here for many years with no amenities and have to pay for these for the new
people moving in.
33. Most people listening to the presentation would not get a clear picture of what you are
proposing....amenities should be paid for by our taxes - not by the developer or landowner -
This is very wrong.
34. Very misleading - We all would like more if asked. You first should be asking - How are we
gooin to pay for these Amenitys...Where is the money going to come from?
35. It depends on the location of the amenity. Would it be like the development cost charge - ie
transferred to an othe area than the proposed developments? This is not the right location
for any of the above.
#3 Do you support higher residential densities in the Albion Area in exchange for the
provision of amenities?
Response
9
1. There isn't a relationship between the incremental increases in density and the ability to
pay for expensive amenities. Incereased densities - yes. Reasonable amenity fees for
acheivable goals - yes.
2. No amenities make up for more residents putting stresses on environment and many
waterways and wetlands in this particular area that need protecting.
3. Would like to see 110th zoned high density.
4. Maybe. You are requesting citizens to confirm our ability & desire to support higher density
however in my mind we need to know what additional amenties will be available BEFOR we
confirm what density we are confortable with. How can we say we are OK with more
people when we don't know what will be there to support them? It is backwards.
5. Preserving a balance between residential & rural. South Albion is already very dense.
6. To a extent, yes, but not as much as proposed.
7. Traffic congestion is already too much
8. Higher residential density regardless, provision of amenities should not be too high for
developers.
9. We need the housing units!
10. Within reason. Additional infrastructue & amenities must go hand in hand with more
development. I can't even get my kids into Albion Elementary and I live within 5 minutes
walking distance. It feels like the area is currently saturated with residential sprawl, so any
addition has to bring substantial benefits.
11. The density is curretnly too high to accomodate the current residents in the Albion area.
Amenities are needed now - not when there is a higher influx of people & the existing
infrastructure and balance is damaged due to overuse.
12. Need roadways to connect to Lougheed Hwy with Albion area (ie Jackson). Too much
dependence on 240th.
13. Yes if you can garenty SHCOOLS being build in the area.
14. This is the last place to grow so yes move forward.
15. But not higher than 20 UPA
16. Not unless it is done with a lot of careful planning taking into account what I've already
mentioned. Greedy developers love to cram as many houses into what had 1 house on it.
Trees are lost, animals are forced out of their habitat. We do have several bears living in our
area - do they get a voice?
17. How else can it be economical?
18. Needs shopping
19. Need shopping in the area!
20. Enough already!
21. Density is already overdeveloped.
10
22. Only some (corner store type) commercial development
23. It all depends on how much density is needed to get which amenities. Density also only
makes sense if the neighbourhood is "complete" and has proper transit.
24. We are not interested in the increased residential growth in Albion. While we recognize
some has already been approved, why does the residential continue to explode in growth
without any commercial?
25. I hate to think what the higher densite will do to traffic
26. But if higher densities are approved, then improved and sufficient amenities are essential.
27. I am sorry to say, that I am unable to support your Albion Community Plan. Our sole
purpose for moving from Vancouver to beautiful Maple Ridge 50 yrs ago was to live in a
rural area. We have lived in our present home - which we built ourselves - for 40 yrs. We
only cleard what we needed to build our home & garden replacing Alder & blackberries
with other trees & shrubs. Where there were no birds originally - we have now an
abundance of several species all year round. There are bears, deer, coyotes, raccoons,
squirrels (also the native Douglas squirrel) in the area and they have created no problem for
us, but we enjoy watching them. Since the subdivisions went in East (uphill) and south of us
- 248 St, 249 St & 108 Ave - the waterlevel in our well has gone down drastically - where we
had once sufficient water for a family of four - we now have to have our 2000 gall tank filled
3X in the summer. Be we enjoy living here and we would not exchange it for more
amenities or conveniences. I just cannot call it "progress" when nature is destroyed and
covered with blacktop. We humans are the only creatues on this eart, who are destroying
their own habitat. Nature is very forgiving - but there is only so much to go around. Man is
capable to ruin the earth to his own detriment!
28. A mix of density and other zoning changes (commerical use, etc.) would enhance the area
without compromising the quality of life concerns that many have. One thing I would avoid
is continuing with the strip mall mentality, which has made much of the rest of Maple Ridge
ugly and undesirable. Instead, look at the examples of places like Port Moody, Whistler and
other areas that have gone with attractive and innovative mixes of commercial, residential
and public amenity models that are integrated and seamless.
29. Not at this point in time.
30. Will enable shopping, better transit etc to be viable.
31. Again the wording of the question is clearly steering the data toward a predetermined
outcome. I support increased density and ammenities in North Albion and they should be
achieved through the current DCC revenue stream.
32. I would like to see a broader plan on how the areas would be developed so that we don't
experience urban sprawl, and still retain some of the reason that Maple Ridge is a desirable
area, and not just an extension of Vancouver.
33. Need higher density to maximize usage of parks and amenities
34. ONLY IF M.Ridge recvs 75% of the resulting increase in value in the form of amenities. Also,
that money should be placed in trust until the amenities appear. I OPPOSE HIGHER
DENSITIES ON LAND ON KANAKA CREEK SIDE OF 110 OR 112! People who have lived on
creek front property have enjoyed that privilege and the creek has not been
11
environmentally affected due to low density.
35. Associated services should follow; hub commercial zones, transit, SCHOOLS!!
36. We would support it only if it meant more shopping amenities would be available.
37. I cannot support higher density without knowing exactly what is meant by "higher density"
(where and how dense), and I cannot make an informed decision on amenities without
knowing which amenities are being offered for which exact proposal.
38. This report suggest that "higher residential densities" are TWO things. It doesn't specify
that higher should or would be from the existing "proposed zoning" of a property. It could
be that or it could be from existing zoning. That is why this report is so flawed as to be
useless.
39. I can not make such a decision without knowledge of what amenities, in what density ratio
and location IE: what is the solid plan, specifically which amenities are being offered in
exchange for what densities in which areas. In addition the OCP must not be encroached
upon without forethought. Care must be taken to preserve the existing rural nature of
Maple Ridge that has drawn so many of us to live here. Lower Jackson Farm must be
preserved and designated a park before development encroaches it completely and/or
pollutes it even more than they already have and are currently. We were there on the
weekend and noticed that they have routed new run off pipes into the lower portion of the
park.
40. I support the density without the amenities
41. Area is hard to service and riddled with sensitive creeks and gullies. The first push for
density increases was to address this reality. The second push is to make up for a lack of
detailed planning and funding for the rest of Albion. It's not the worth the force fit.
#4 Please provide additional comments or suggestions you may have.
Response
1. Commercial & mid-rise development is too marginal for Albion.
2. Only along 240th street not near Kanaka Creek or parkland. I also have questions regarding
what is identified as parks. A wood chip area with a slide and/or monkey bar is not in my
mind a park and should not be identified as park. It is a neighbourhood play area for
toddlers. That's all it is! Regarding expansion of existing trails in particular the horse trail
coming down from Thornhill along 100th and down Jackson Road. On the diagram the
desired trail crosses 100th halfway down the hill then continues on what is Jackson "farm" -
(S/B Jackson Park)and then crosses 102nd near the roundabout to continue behined the
SPCA. BAD IDEA!! Why would you not continue on the north side of 100th to the
roundabout and only cross one road to link up behind SPCA. Horses and traffic are a
dangerous mix. Add people with dogs and 2 major road crossings and you are creating a
potentially deadly scenario. Say NO!
3. Need to have a small-medium community commercial space within walking distance. Do
not want to have to get in a car for every time you need to do something. Current proposal
12
has missed this zoning and area designation.
4. Would like to see a bridge connecting 110 Avenue
5. I would not support higher density development.
6. We need stores, shops and accesible community commercial. We need a balance of
development - family & residential with commercial development to support the new
residents to the area.
7. Post office!
8. More areas for parking - wider streets for traffic.
9. I have several cncerns re: this proposal. 1)increased density in many other municipalities
would be limited to smaller land assemblies or tear downs, as there is limited developable
land - not true in Maple Ridge. 2) The appearance of the district is that of selling zoning
3)There really is not enough info to make a good decision.
10. 104th Ave has become a raceway
11. Build mountain bike park & water park in Albion.
12. Would be good to see potential timelines for development, rezoning, amenities etc.
13. I like the mixed-use option that will provide some jobs along with housing! I like the multi-
facet approach to developing the area with lots of amenities close by!
14. It just needs to be a reasonable mix. Doesn't need to become a ghetto. In reality will be
mostly familys so needs appropriate facilities. Has to stop being a developers free for all.
Major infrastructure and amenitie improvements need to happen for whos of us that are
living here and paying for it.
15. We are already too dense in this area. An amenity plan needs to be put forth before any
more high density residential plans are put in place. See all previous notations. I/we are
against a straight thru expansion of 104th. Traffic is already awful - speeding & congestion.
Straight thru will increase this. Road should continue only by rutning onto Jackson via a
different entrance. Safety issues for SRT students on 104th.
16. It would be nice to see people out of their cars spending time in our community. Provide a
place to work and play rather than commute to other places to do it.
17. Commercial development similar to Kanaka Coffee.
18. A mix of single-family with some townhouses - some commercial - food store - loundry
pizza etc.
19. Just move on & approve the plan or is it better for you pocket to change the zoning of each
plot to suit the OCP.
20. I don't support any of these amenities. I think the District should concentrate on getting
more of an Industrial & Commercial tax base instead of the property owners.
21. What this area needs is a real shopping mall - too late now, Mission has it, etc. You know the
story. A rec centre would be good but we do have the Planet Ice. There should be no
change to the existin Kanaka Creek area. Land Lift - isn't that the same as saying - the
developer made more $ than he spent & now he owes some back to cover the "amenities"?
13
Developers need to be kept accountable for what is expected. Charges should be gradual -
rather than flooding the area with a ton of homes - want to have more traffic issues in a big
way?
22. People who have moved into current development should not have any say with respect to
future development. They are benefitting from development that has severly impacted our
life-style.
23. Shopping. Area desperately needs elementary school & safe parks - Albion park is unsafe &
people don't feel comfortable taking their kids there - its secluded, in the back surrounded
by forest & away from parking & road. *Unsafe
24. *Please build schools*
25. We need more schools.
26. We need other school.
27. Build more schools!
28. More shopping facilities are needed for the amount of people living in this area. We have
very little shopping areas. It is time for this to happen. We need more commercial
29. All of the above are viable options. I think a mix of land sizes are needed. Smaller lot sizes
or townhomes are more affordable for young families. This is the next area in Maple Ridge
that should be developed. Nice area with lots of grenbelt and very close to downtown
Maple Ridge.
30. I think it is time to develop some shopping and supportive community structures (i.e. art
gallery, parks, trails, recreational centre) to support the many many families who already
live here. We also need sidewalks on all roads and better lighting on connecting roads. (i.e.
105 Ave which goes past SRT). Please make sure in hiring these developers that you hold
them to developing sidewalks and lighting - crucial!!
31. Concentrated effort is required by the Muni. to close - decertify the ILLEGAL SECONDARY
SUITES - that are in existence NOW. Decertify illegal suites in R-3 zones. EMAIL:
suitewatcher@telus.net
32. Make 240th St & 112th Ave intersection a big intersection with left turn lanes in all 4
directions.
33. The biggest concern is the massive icrease in traffic already occuring. the existing street
network doesn't support major residential growth.
34. There should be a box for "none of the above" in question 5 above. A person who does not
want the higher densities may feel obligated to tick one of the boxe in Q5 jsut because there
is no other alternative. I therefore feel this questionnaire is loaded and unfair.
35. Let's do it and not spemd years of studies (tax payers dollars being wasted).
36. Density should reflect location, i.e. higher density around commercial zones, low density in
environmentally more sensitive areas. A mix of all of the above would be sensible & provide
for various residential needs.
37. We just did a bunch of big renovations & we don't want to move. We like the area as it is. It
14
is quiet & we don't like subddivision living. I like having my park in my yard.
38. We need some stores and shopping areas not to be paid for by municipal funding. The
smaller the lots, the more people, the more amenities wanted. Three story plus basement
houses on small lots don't make sense. Municipal requirements make developers spend as
much on roads & services to develop of course they want more density. Real Estate people
see more $$ so they agree. Council are elected by residents not real estate people &
developers. (Start listening).
39. We do not have proper shopping and industry in Maple Ridge, bring in industry for a proper
tax base. We have to drive out of this area. More density does not make sens, this is a nice
area. Build homes if you like, bu do not cramp them in...Found out that the studie says that
you want to pay for the amenities on the backs of landowners - How unfair. This was not
clearly indicated by your team. I am very much against this plan. No No No. You ask but
will you listen to the taxpayers???
40. We need more stores & shopping - like when Wallmart wanted in. Instead Mission, got the
store. We wanted a theater - Pitt Meadows got the theater. So on and so on. Do not agree
that municiple shoud be funding this. Developers and the private sector are willing to pay if
alloud. Suggest you stop using our taxes on studies and more studies. Stop gouging the land
owner...it is our porperty we pay taxes for amenity(ies) already. If used wisely we would
have the money you are asking the land owner/developer - if we sell to tak our retirement
profits and pay for amenity(ies). This is not fair, to landowners. I feel very strongly
agasinst this study and plan.
41. None of the above in the proposed development area in North Albion. It is the wrong
location. The topography is not suitable. It continues sprawl and ignores consultant report
and OCP. Rather than Amenity Zoning Contribution the developer should provide a meeting
hall club house* in every sizeable development of small houses - like Country Lane - also a
park big enough to kick a ball around not a tot lot. Also bring back the corner store - owners
living above. Every neighbourhood needs a Bruce's Market. *This would aid in
neighbourhood development.
42. If Maple Ridge is to grow, denser residential development is needed, along with walkable
commercial amenities. Driving into town from Albion should be an option, not a necessity.
43. Don't thik putting houses on small plots of land looks very nice, better to have townhouses.
Commercial space is needed.
44. This is a cleverly crafted questionaire which will provide data to support an outcome that
staff wish to achieve. To be clear, I support increased density and good land use and
community building in Albion, but I do not support the ammenity zoning contribution
concept. This is an egregious cash grab which will push more buyers out of the housing
market and ensure an elevated annual maintenance budget for generations.
45. Need commercial to grow jobs, build a Albion commercial core
46. I would like to see higher density on smaller lots such as mine which is 16,000sq. feet for a
developer willing to build small ranchers of 1200 to 1500 sq. feet. This would make it
possible for seniors who have lived in the area many years to downsize, remain
independent and continue to remain active members of Albion. Building ranchers will
create housing suitable for seniors and also result in an overall higher quality
15
neighbourhood for residents because these lots will be easier to maintain.
47. Too much density will destroy the tapering out to larger lots. Larger lots attract wealthier
homeowners building larger homes, wealth draws spending, spending creates jobs, etc, the
cycle continues.
48. The population of Albion is already beyond the capacity of its amenities. Specifically, we are
experiencing overcrowding at Albion Elementary, we no longer have a neighbourhood hall
for meetings and our parks do not have adequate trails/benches/etc. We could also use
some more businesses/jobs in this immediate area. I would like to see a building for
professionals, like doctors, health therapists, lawyers, accountants, etc. We could use a
pharmacy or some other kinds of professional services.
49. The above categories suggest that the lift would be from the existing zoning of today. Which
contradicts part of the report.
50. Maple Ridge needs a larger local job base. The municipality must draw more sustainable
businesses that create skilled positions that draw wages high enough to sustain a family.
For example, a professional building geared to draw businesses that would offer skilled
positions offering decent wages.
51. neighbourhood commercial
[1]
District of Maple Ridge
TO: His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin MEETING DATE: June 10, 2013
and Members of Council FILE NO: 2012-029-CP
FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop
SUBJECT: Amenity Zoning Study and Albion Area Plan Review
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The February 4, 2013 report to Council Workshop discussed key information required in considering
the next steps in the Amenity Zoning Study and Albion Area Plan Review. This included obtaining
input from the community through a public open house, which was held on March 13, 2013, as well
as receiving a case study analysis of development sites located in the Albion Area prepared by G.P.
Rollo & Associates. The outcomes of the March 13, 2013 public open house are summarized in the
accompanying report to Council entitled “Amenity Zoning Study and Albion Area Plan Review –
Outcomes of Public Consultation Process”, dated June 10, 2013. Additionally, the Engineering
Department was asked to comment on the impacts of increased density on the servicing needs of
the Albion Area and these comments are included in this report.
In November 2012, a report was received from City Spaces Consulting entitled “Amenity Zoning:
Analysis and Options” and it included a preliminary case study report from GP Rollo & Associates,
dated October 2012. The case study analysis looked at five development sites from different areas
of Maple Ridge and reported on their potential “lift value” if rezoned from a low density zone to a
range of higher density zones.
The purpose of this June 10, 2013 Council report is to discuss the synthesis of the new information
received since February 4, 2013 and present options for Council’s consideration.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
That:
Following Council’s input, staff be directed to bring forward Official Community Plan
Amending Bylaw, Zoning Amending Bylaw, and the Amenity Reserve Fund Bylaw to
implement Option #3, identified in the Council report, dated June 10, 2013, entitled
“Amenity Zoning Study and Albion Area Plan Review” to the next appropriate Council
meeting.
BACKGROUND:
a)Amenity Zoning Background Information Summary:
Much of the lands in the boundaries of the Albion Area Plan (see Appendix A) have been developed
according to the densities laid out in the Plan. In a March 27, 2012 Council report the lands south of
108th Avenue were identified as largely built out and the lands to the north of 108th Avenue were
identified for a density review (see Appendix B). It was estimated that a modest density increase
4.2
[2]
permitting smaller single-family lots than currently shown in the northern portion of the Albion Area
Plan would result in approximately 250 additional single-family lots in the Albion Area.
In March of 2012, Amenity Zoning was not part of the Albion Area Plan review discussion. The
Amenity Zoning discussion began in the summer of 2012, as Council passed a resolution at the June
26, 2012 Council meeting (see Appendix C) directing staff to “include a discussion of the potential to
achieve Community Amenity Contributions in the northern portion of the Albion Area Plan”.
At the November 27, 2012 Council meeting, a resolution was passed to use the Albion Area Plan
boundaries for an amenity contribution pilot project (see Appendix D). Included in the Council report
was a consultant’s report, prepared by City Spaces and entitled “Amenity Zoning: Analysis and
Options”. The consultant’s report discussed the potential and capacity for Amenity Zoning in Maple
Ridge and included a case study analysis prepared by G.P. Rollo & Associates of five development
sites located in various areas of Maple Ridge.
Amenity Zoning: Analysis and Options Study
The City Spaces’ Amenity Zoning report, dated November 2012, discussed the following:
Legislative authority in the Local Government Act for amenity contributions;
Options available to Council to secure amenities through development;
Overview of the ease and clarity of implementation for each option;
Approach taken by other municipalities across the region; and
What level and approach would be suitable for amenity contributions within Maple Ridge.
City Spaces concluded in their report that amenity zoning is a viable option in Maple Ridge and
emphasized that a clear and consistent approach is optimal for the development community.
The case studies report, discussed above, concluded that Amenity Zoning is a viable option in Maple
Ridge and that further research would be beneficial for a pilot project in the Albion Area.
The City Spaces Amenity Zoning report also included recommendations on the following:
Undertaking additional analysis of land-lift yields of development sites located in the Albion
Area to identify market complexities specific to this pilot project area;
Establishment of a detailed policy framework to support expansion of amenity zoning,
particularly on an area-wide basis.
Since receiving Council direction in February 2013 (see Appendix E) to proceed with a public open
house for March 2013, work has been underway on the above recommendations and are discussed
further in this report.
Outcomes of March 2013 Public Open House
While the details are in the companion report, the results indicate support for:
Increased density in exchange for amenities in the Albion Area;
Increased density in a small lot single family (371m2) form; and
Two-storey commercial uses in the area.
[3]
DISCUSSION:
a) Amenity Zoning Tools
Section 904 of the Local Government Act lays out the legislation for Amenity Zoning and this was
discussed in the November 2012 City Spaces Amenity Zoning report and the November 26, 2012
Council report. At that time two approaches of Amenity Zoning: 1) Density Bonus and 2) Community
Amenity Contributions were discussed.
1. Density Bonus
In the Density Bonus approach, density increases and developer contributions for such increases are
clearly laid in out the Zoning Bylaw, within applicable zones and may identify specific areas within the
community, such as the Albion Area. The Density Bonus approach involves establishing the density
regulations within specific zones of the Zoning Bylaw. A base density is defined within the zone
along with one or more increases to the base density that would be permitted for a specific per lot or
per m2 financial contribution or in-kind contribution. The zone also clearly lays out what the financial
contribution will fund (i.e. park improvements, multi-use trail, etc.). There is no municipal
discretionary authority with Density Bonuses, as the permitted density increases and corresponding
amenity contributions are specified in the zone.
2. Community Amenity Contributions (CACs)
As stated in the City Spaces report, a Community Amenity Contributions (CACs) approach is
established by municipalities to respond to requests by developers/applicants who want “to make a
land use change and includes the provision of a community amenity contribution (CAC) by the
developer-applicant”. A key difference between a CAC and a Density Bonus is that a CAC is
discretionary with the trigger being a request for an amendment to the Official Community Plan or
Zoning Bylaw. CACs may be established and implemented with a high level of clarity that is
equivalent to Density Bonuses, however, consistency cannot be guaranteed due to the discretionary
nature of a CAC approach.
Preferred Approach
The need for a clear and consistent approach for Amenity Zoning was emphasized in the City Spaces
report and the February 4, 2013 Council report. This is in keeping with the nature of a Density
Bonus and is therefore, a logical approach to take. Both City Spaces and the District’s legal counsel
have identified a Density Bonus approach as the one most clearly laid out in S. 904 of the Local
Government Act and therefore, the most defendable. While Community Amenity Contributions are
widely used across the Metro Vancouver region, it is not the recommended approach for the District.
Legal counsel has also advised that the amenity contribution fund may be utilized for maintenance
of the amenities constructed through the program. The ability to apply Amenity Contributions on
both the construction and maintenance of a specific amenity can help alleviate concerns about
maintaining new amenities over time. Additionally, the maintenance portion may be utilized as an
endowment fund and the maintenance work paid for with the interest off the endowment. As this
question was raised at the February 4, 2013 Council workshop, maintenance of amenity items is
proposed for the Amenity Zoning program.
[4]
Density Bonus Approach
As discussed in Section (a) above, the Amenity Contribution approach recommended by City Spaces
consulting and the District’s legal counsel is to establish a Density Bonus structure within the Zoning
Bylaw. The standard approach is to retain a base density within the zone that also includes a clearly
defined “bonus” density. This “Density Bonus” is permitted in exchange for an Amenity Contribution
that is also clearly defined.
From the feedback received through the March 13th public open house questionnaire, an R-1 zone
single-family development form is supported by the majority of respondents. Currently, the lands
north of 108th Avenue in the Albion Area Plan are designated “Low Density Residential” and
“Low/Medium Density Residential”. These two land use designations correspond with the RS1 -d
(single-family half-acre lots) and the RS-1b (557m2 single-family lots) zones, respectively. Feedback
from the questionnaire also showed support for mixed-use commercial, with the majority of
respondents preferring the two-storey form, similar to the existing development located at 102nd
Avenue and 241A Street, which is designated “Village Commercial” and zoned C-5 (Village Centre
Commercial).
Based on the Amenity Zoning background information and the outcomes of the March 13, 2013
public open house and legal counsel review, the Density Bonus structure proposed is to be
integrated into the Zoning Bylaw, through the restructuring of the RS-1d, RS-1b, and RM-1 zones.
Density Bonus Structure in Zoning Bylaw
Table 1 below shows the Density Bonus Structure proposed for specific zones within the Zoning
Bylaw. In this structure, the existing base densities of each zone remain the same and the Density
Bonus proposed for each are shown below (also see Attached Appendix F).
Table 1 – Albion Area Plan Density Bonus Structure for Zoning Bylaw
Albion Area Plan Land Use
Designation
Corresponding Zone
Existing
Density Bonus
Low Density RS-1d (single-family half-acre lots
equivalent to 2023m2)
Max lot size equal to RS-1b zone
(557m2 single-family lots)
Low/Medium Density RS-1b (557m2 single-family lots) Max lot size equal to R-1 (371m2
single-family lots)
Medium Density RM-1 (townhouse with floor space
ratio of 0.6 times net lot area and
max 3 storeys)
Max density equal to RM-41
(townhouse/apartment) with floor
space ratio of 0.75 times net lot
area, max 3 storeys, and
underground parking required)
1 The RM-4 zone currently permits 2 ½ storeys in height, however, the maximum 3 storey height shown above for the RM-4
zone reflects the height shown in the draft Zoning Bylaw.
Note that the Density Bonus proposed for the RM -1 zone would allow for developments with a three-
storey apartment form. However, the RM-4 (townhouse/apartment) zone is currently located in the
Albion Area Plan Zoning Matrix, under the Medium Density land-use designation and it is proposed
that the RM-4 zone be removed from the Zoning Matrix and provided only as a Density Bonus option.
To date, there has been no demand for the housing form that is permitted under the RM -4 zone and
this may be due to the underground parking requirement for either the townhouse or apartment use.
[5]
Further, it is proposed that the Official Community Plan amendment include a policy for the Albion
Area Plan that supports consideration of a small scale commercial development (similar to the one
currently located on 102nd Avenue in Albion, which is two-storeys in height), for the areas north of
108th Avenue. Such a proposal would require an Official Community Plan amendment to change the
residential land-use designation to “Village Commercial” and a rezoning to C-5 (Village Centre
Commercial). This is similar to the approach used in the Official Community Plan for “Neighbourhood
Commercial” and “Rural Commercial” uses, where each application is reviewed on its own merit,
with consideration to traffic, land-use, access and compatibility.
In the March 27, 2012 Council report, it was estimated that the density increase proposed at that
time would result in an additional 250 single-family lots in the Albion Area. With the above proposed
potential density, it is estimated the area north of 108th Avenue in the Albion Area Plan could realize
an additional 280 single-family lots. It remains uncertain as to whether any demand will occur for
densities greater than what is currently permitted in the RM -1 townhouse zone before build-out of
the Albion Area Plan.
b) Case Studies
A follow-up study to the original case study analysis was prepared by G.P. Rollo & Associates and
dated June 4, 2013, which was a recommendation from the November 2012 City Spaces report.
This follow-up study looked at ten development sites located within the Albion Area Plan boundaries
(see Appendix G). The consultants removed three of the sites from their final analysis , because they
were unrepresentative of typical sites, or demonstrated unnaturally high lift values that would skew
the results.
In the final analysis of seven single family sites, there was an average land -lift value of $15,900 per
unit (at 100% of lift value). In their October 2012 study, G.P. Rollo & Associates ad vised that a
50/50 split in lift value contribution rate is a conservative approach to apply. Based on the average
lift value per unit identified in this more recent report, the 50% contribution rate per unit would be
$7,950. However, the consultants note that since two of the case studies show much lower lift value
than the others, they recommend a rate of a 50% lift value per unit of the lowest valued case. That
land lift value per unit is $10,313 and 50% of this value results in a recommended Amenity
Contribution Rate of $5,100 per lot/unit (rounded out).
c) Proposed Bylaw Amendments
Based on the above information received to date, it can be concluded that there is support for
amenities in the Albion Area and an increase in density. It can also be concluded through the case
studies analysis that Amenity Zoning is viable in the Albion Area. In order to implement an Amenity
Zoning program for this area, the preparation of three bylaws will be necessary: 1) amend the
Official Community Plan and Albion Area Plan; 2) amend the Zoning Bylaw; and 3) create an Amenity
Reserve Fund.
Upon Council direction to proceed with Bylaw preparation, these policies will be revised and brought
forward to a future Council meeting for First and Second Reading.
[6]
Official Community Plan and Albion Area Plan Proposed Amendments
Implementing a framework for Amenity Zoning will require policy amendments to the Official
Community Plan Bylaw 6425-2006 and the Albion Area Plan. Proposed draft policies were
presented in the November 27, 2012 and February 4, 2013 Council reports (see the latter Council
report attached as Appendix E) and were also presented at the March 13, 2013 public open house.
These include:
establishing policies in the Official Community Plan for Amenity Zoning as an option for
Council to expand in other areas of the District,
Replacement of the density transfer policies in the Albion Area Plan, with policies specific to
the Amenity Zoning program;
Amending the Zoning Matrix in the Albion Area Plan.
Zoning Bylaw Amendment
Integrating the Density Bonus structure into the Zoning Bylaw will be necessary for the RS-1d, RS-1b,
and RM-1 zones, as discussed above in Section (a) “Amenity Zoning Tools” and Table 1. The Zoning
Bylaw amendment will establish the specific bonus structure within each of the above zones, include
the Amenity Contribution Rate and identify the amenities that will be funded through the Amenity
Contribution Fund.
Reserve Fund Requirements
An Amenity Reserve Fund is required, in the manner laid out in Part 6, Division 4 of the Community
Charter, as discussed in the November 26, 2012 Council report. Generally speaking, this Bylaw will
establish the Amenity Reserve Fund, for receiving Amenity Contributions specifically on the following
amenities:
Park construction;
Park maintenance;
Multi-use trail construction;
Multi-use trail maintenance;
Civic facility construction; and
Civic facility maintenance.
The Finance Department will track the funds received in the Amenity Reserve fund over time.
d) Preferred Amenity:
Through the results of the public open house questionnaire, it is clear that the majority of those who
provided input on this project would like to see more useable park space. The number one ranked
response was “park improvements” (at 75%), followed by support for a multi-use trail system (67%)
and then a civic facility (66%).
It is estimated that the cost of construction a neighbourhood level park, similarly identified in the
Parks Master Plan, would cost approximately $500,000. This cost does not include land acquisition
costs. Multi-use trails are estimated to cost approximately $130 - $145 per lineal metre and
therefore, these are estimated to cost $130,000-$145,000 per kilometre to construct. A civic
facility is estimated to cost $5 million to construct, for one that is similar to the South Bonson
Community Centre in Pitt Meadows, not including any land purchase. It is proposed that some of the
[7]
amenity contribution funds be utilized for maintenance of any asset constructed through this
program.
OPTIONS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF AMENITY ZONING PROGRAM IN ALBION AREA:
The following three options are presented below for implementation of an Amenity Zoning program in
the Albion Area:
1. Density Bonus Amenity Rate applied to bonus lots/units only @ $5,100 per lot/unit;
2. Density Bonus Amenity Rate applied to all lots/units where a Density Bonus is applied @
$5,100 per lot/unit; and
3. Reduced Density Bonus Amenity Rate applied to all lots/units where a Density Bonus is
applied.
Each of the above options has advantages and disadvantages and the option selected will depend
on determining the most reasonable approach for the development community that will also meet
the needs of the Albion community.
OPTION #1: AMENITY CONTRIBUTION RATE APPLIED TO “BONUS” LOTS/UNITS ONLY
This option would apply the Amenity Rate of $5,100 to only the bonus lots (i.e. not all of the lots).
Applying Standard Units Per Net Hectare
In this scenario, the base density currently permitted in the Official Comm unity Plan is calculated
using standard units per net hectare density values. Densities calculated under “units per net
hectare” have existed in various District planning policy documents since the 1990’s. The “units per
net hectare” for the zones affected by the proposed Density Bonus program are shown in Table 2
below.
Table 2 – Densities Per Net Hectare of Existing Zones Proposed in Density Bonus Program
Existing Zone Units Per Net Hectare (UPNH)
RS-1d (One Family Urban Half-Acre Residential) 5
RS-1b (One Family Urban Medium Density Residential) 18
R-1 (Residential District) 30
RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) 40
RM-4 (Multiple Family Residential District) 60
The number of units are calculated through analysis of the gross lot area, minus the un developable
areas (such as roads, sidewalks, park space, steep slopes, creek setbacks, etc.) to get a “net
developable area” measured in hectares. The net developable area is then multiplied by the
relevant units per net hectare to determine the number of permitted units on the site. For example,
for a one hectare parcel, the calculation would be as follows:
1 hectare parcel
- 0.25 conservation, park, roads, etc. @ 25% of parcel size
0.75 net hectares remaining
x 40 units per net hectare
30 units (density permitted on site)
[8]
Table 3 below provides three examples of how a Density Bonus and Amenity Contribution Rate would
be applied using the densities in the existing zones, which correspond with the “units per net
hectare” above. The standard “units per net hectare” would be applied to the net developable area
of the development site under application for calculating the base density development potential.
This lot total/unit count would then be used to determine the difference between the base density
and the Bonus Density. Under this option, the Amenity Contribution Rate is only applied to the
additional lots or units achieved and not on the number of lots or units that would have been
realized under the permitted base density.
Table 3 – Example of Amenity Contribution Rate for a Density Bonus
Development Parcel
Size and Area Plan
Land-Use
Designation
Zone Permitted
in Albion Area
Plan Zoning
Matrix
Base Density
Permitted in Zone
Bonus Density
Permitted
Additional
Lots/Units Gained
Amenity
Contribution Rate
@ 50% of
Lift-Value Per Unit
3 ha (7.4 acres/
30,000m2) in
Residential Low
Density Designation
RS-1d Zone
5 upnh
Min lot size of
2,023 m2
Approx 15 SF lots
@ 5 upnh*
Min lot size of
557 m2 (RS-1b zone)
Approx 54 SF lots
@ 18 upnh*
54 – 15 = 39
Density Bonus lots
39 lots x $5100 =
$198,900
in Amenity
Contribution
3 ha (7.4 acres/
30,000m2) in
Residential Low-
Medium Density
Designation
RS-1b Zone
18 upnh
Min lot size of
557m2
Approx 54 SF lots
@ 18 upnh*
Min lot size of
371 m2 (R-1 zone)
Approx 90 SF lots
@ 30 upnh*
90 - 54 = 36
Density Bonus lots
36 lots x $5100 =
$183,600
in Amenity
Contribution
3 ha (7.40 acres/
30,000m2) in
Residential Medium
Density Designation
RM-1 Zone
40 upnh
Floor Space Ratio
0.6
Max gross building
area 18,210m2
Approx 120 units
@ 40 upnh*
Floor Space Ratio
0.75 (RM-4 zone)
Max gross building
area 22,763m2
Approx 180 units
@ 60 upnh*
180 - 120 = 60
Density Bonus
units
60 x $5100 =
$306,000
in Amenity
Contribution
* Note: that the original parcel size would likely have been reduced by at least 25% to account for roads, sidewalks and
other undevelopable areas, such as steep slopes and creek habitat areas (i.e. units per “net” hectare). Therefore, this
development parcel would have likely been 4 hectares at the outset. Actual developable area of each development site
will vary from one development site to the next and may be greater or less than 25% undevelopable area.
Applicants who are seeking a Density Bonus structured within one of the above zones will have an
alternative approach to utilize should they not want to use the units per net hectare approach
outlined above. Instead, they would be required to provide a base density plan showing the number
of lots or units they would have achieved by not pursuing a Density Bonus, without any variance
requests. The base density plan will be compared with the Density Bonus plan to determine the
number of additional lots or units gained and the Amenity Contribution Rate applied accordingly.
Should a discrepancy occur, the base density would be set according to the higher number of
estimated lots/units achieved if no Density Bonus were applied.
Under Option #1, this total anticipated contribution to the Amenity Fund would be approximately
$1,428,000. This is calculated by using the recommended $5,100 Amenity Contribution Rate and
applying it to the additional 280 lots/units that are estimated to be realized through the proposed
Density Bonus program.
Advantages:
Least financial burden to developer.
Disadvantages:
Fairly complicated calculation that may lead to confusion;
Does not generate as much amenity funds as other options.
[9]
OPTION #2: AMENITY CONTRIBUTION RATE APPLIED TO ALL DENSITY BONUS LOTS/UNITS
In Option #2, the $5,100 Amenity Contribution Rate recommended by the consultant could be
applied to all lots/units developed under the Amenity Zoning program. Under this option, instead of
the Amenity Contribution Rate being applied to approximately 280 “bonus” lots/units in total, the
Contribution Rate is applied to all of the lots/units developed under the Density Bonus provisions in
one of the proposed zones. The District’s legal counsel provided an opinion that this is an
appropriate option to take.
It is possible that most or all of the future development applications in the Albion Area Plan will take
advantage of the Density Bonus provisions. If this were to happen, it is estimated that the number of
lots that could be developed under the current permitted densities in the Area Plan would be 1,172
(note this number does not include potential townhouse development, only single-family lots). Based
on this information and adding the 280 estimated additional lots/units anticipated through the
proposed Amenity Zoning program, the Amenity Contribution Rate in Option #2 would be applied to
approximately 1,452 lots/units, as shown in Table 4 below.
Table 4 – Amenity Contribution Rate Applied to All Density Bonus Lots/Units
% of Lift Rate Per Unit Total at Build-Out
50% $5,100 1,452 lots/units x $5100 = $7,405,200
This would result in all the anticipated 1,452 lots/units constructed under the Amenity Zoning
program, which would result in approximately $7,405,200 at buildout of the Albion Area Plan.
Advantages:
Easy for District and developer to understand and apply;
Large Amenity Fund at buildout.
Disadvantages:
Higher financial burden on developer.
OPTION #3: REDUCED AMENITY CONTRIBUTION RATE APPLIED TO ALL DENSITY BONUS LOTS/UNITS
A third option is to apply a reduced Amenity Contribution Rate to all of the lots/units obtained
through the Density Bonus program, similar to Option #2 above. Therefore, the following may be
considered for Option #3, as outlined in Table 5 below.
Table 5 –Potential Reductions of Amenity Contribution Rate for Option #2
% of Lift Rate Per Unit Total at Build-Out
40% $4,100 1,452 lots/units x $4100 = $5,953,200
30% $3,100 1,452 lots/units x $3100 = $4,501,200
25% $2,575 1,452 lots/units x $2,575 = $3,738,900
Advantages:
Easy for District and developer to understand and apply;
Medium to large Amenity Fund at buildout.
Disadvantages:
Medium to higher financial burden on developer.
[10]
Applying Option #3 is very straightforward, as the Amenity Contribution Rate is applied based on the
actual development proposal. This option provides much less potential confusion for the
development community, resulting in less time and money being spent on determining potential
lot/unit yield under the base density. However, Option #3 will most likely result in developers
contributing more amenity funds than in Option #1, due to it being applied to all lots/units being
developed under the Density Bonus program (but contributing less than in Option #2). In
consideration of this consequence, it is recommended that the Amenity Contribution Rate for Option
#3 be reduced to 30% of the lift value, which is $3,100 per lot/unit and would result in
approximately $4,501,200 at buildout.
RECOMMENDATION:
Option #3, as presented in Section (e) above, “Options for Implementation of Amenity Zoning
Program in Albion Area”, is recommended for implementation of the Amenity Zoning program, due to
the ease in which it can be applied and understood. By applying an Amenity Contribution Rate to all
lots/units developed under the Amenity Zoning program and not just the “bonus” lots/units, the
application is straightforward and requires no additional work on the part of District staff or the
developer. Further, it is recommended that the reduced 30% Amenity Contribution Rate of $3,100
per unit be applied in recognition of the financial burden of an Amenity Zoning program on the
development community. This would result in an Amenity Contribution Fund of approximately
$4,501,200 at buildout.
f) Albion Area Engineering Servicing Constraints:
The Engineering Department has advised that an increase in density in the Albion Area will impact
long-term servicing capacity and the following is the Department’s comments on our discussions:
The provision of infrastructure servicing throughout the District is guided by utility master plans that
outline what level of servicing for water, sanitary, and drainage is required in developing areas as
well as any requisite upgrades in the existing utility systems. The master plans are based upon the
land use as outlined in the District’s Official Community Plan (OCP) and should changes in the OCP
be contemplated through additional density those master plans should be reviewed to determine the
impact on both future and existing infrastructure.
In locations where significant developments are contemplated and additional density is envisioned
then the proponents will be required to undertake an analysis of the existing downstream system to
a limit determined by the District. Where capacity constraints within the existing infrastructure
system are identified, such improvements would be incorporated into the District’s Development
Cost Charges program.
g) In-Stream Applications:
Pursuant with Council direction, applications seeking an amendment to the Official Community Plan
to enable an increase in density have been awaiting outcomes of the Albion Area Plan review. Upon
Third Reading of the proposed Amenity Zoning program, the applications currently on hold would be
able to proceed through the development approval process.
[11]
ALTERNATIVES:
Three alternatives are available to Council on next steps towards implementation of an Amenity
Zoning program in the Albion Area Plan:
1. Selecting Option #1 in Section entitled, “Options for Implementation of Amenity Zoning
Program in Albion Area”;
2. Selecting Option #2 in Section entitled, “Options for Implementation of Amenity Zoning
Program in Albion Area”; or
3. Choosing not to proceed with Amenity Zoning in the Albion Area Plan.
CONCLUSION:
Much of the land located in the Albion Area Plan has already been developed. The application of an
Amenity Zoning Program within the Plan will not result in a significant increase in density, with an
estimated potential of an additional 280 single-family lots north of 108th Avenue. The small number
of existing land-use designations and related zones involved in the Albion Area Plan review make this
area suitable for an Amenity Zoning program and would result in the Albion community receiving
some of the amenities that they feel are lacking in their neighbourhood.
“Original signed by Lisa Zosiak”
________________________________________
Prepared by: Lisa Zosiak
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
ATTACHMENTS:
Appendix A: Map of Albion Area Plan
Appendix B: Map of Albion Area Plan showing north Albion areas 1 & 2
Appendix C: Council Resolution from June 26, 2012 Council meeting
Appendix D: Council Resolution from November 26, 2012 Council meeting
Appendix E: Council Resolution from February 12, 2013 Council meeting
Appendix F: Draft RS1-d Zone Showing Density Bonus Structure
Appendix G: Case Study Analysis, G.P. Rollo & Associates, dated June 4, 2013
CORPORATION OFTHE DISTRICT OFMAPLE RIDGE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
110 AVE.
102 AVE.JACKSON RD.248 ST.244 ST.112 AVE.
104 AVE.
108 AVE.
´
N.T.S.
ALBION AREAPLAN BOUNDARY
APPENDIX A
Albion Area Plan
Study Areas - Area 1 & Area 2
(March 2012)
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX C
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
601 ZONE: RS-1D SINGLE DETACHED URBAN (HALF ACRE)
RESIDENTIAL
608.1 PURPOSE
1. This zone provides for single detached and two-unit residential uses on large lots
within the urban area boundary that may have community water service but which
are not connected to the community sanitary sewer system.
608.2 PRINCIPAL USES
1. The following principal uses shall be permitted in this zone:
(a) single detached residential use; and
(b) two-unit residential use.
608.3 ACCESSORY USES
1. The following uses shall be permitted as accessory uses to one of the permitted
principal uses in this zone:
(a) boarding use;
(b) home occupation use;
(c) temporary residential use;
(d) bed and breakfast use;
(e) secondary suite residential use;
(f) neighbourhood daycare;
(g) hobby beekeeping use;
(h) urban agricultural use; and
(i) detached garden suite residential use.
608.4 DENSITY, LOT AREA & DIMENSIONS
1. Minimum net lot area and dimensions shall not be less than:
(a) in net lot area 2,000.0 square metres
(b) in width 30.0 metres
(c) in depth 40.0 metres.
APPENDIX F
608.5 FLOOR AREA
1. Where the principal use is single detached residential use, floor space ratio shall not
exceed 0.25 times the net lot area.
2. Where the principal use is two-unit residential use, the floor space ratio shall not
exceed 0.3 times the net lot area.
608.6 LOT COVERAGE
1. Buildings and structures for single detached residential uses shall not exceed a lot
coverage 15%.
2. Buildings and structures for two-unit residential uses shall not exceed a lot coverage
25%.
608.7 SETBACKS
1. Minimum setbacks for principal buildings and structures shall not be less than:
(a) from a front lot line 9.0 metres
(b) from a rear lot line 9.0 metres
(c) from an interior side lot line 2.5 metres
(d) from an exterior side lot line 9.0 metres.
2. Minimum setbacks for accessory buildings and structures shall not be less than:
(a) from a front lot line 3.0 metres
(e) from a rear lot line 1.5 metres
(f) from an interior side lot line 1.5 metres
(g) from an exterior side lot line 3.0 metres.
(h) from a building used for residential use 1.5 metres.
608.8 HEIGHT
1. No principal building or structure shall exceed a height of 9.5 metres.
2. No accessory building or structure shall exceed a height of 4.5 metres.
608.9 LANDSCAPING & SCREENING
1. Landscaping and screening shall be provided in accordance with Section 405.
608.10 PARKING & LOADING
1. Off-street parking and off-street loading shall be provided in accordance with Maple
Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350 – 1990, as amended.
608.11 DENSITY BONUS AMENITY CONTRIBUTION REGULATIONS
DENSITY BONUS AMENITY CONTRIBUTIONS
Density Bonus Amenity Contributions are permitted in the RS-1d zone on properties located within
the boundaries of the Albion Area Plan (see Schedule F). Amenity Contribution funds for the Albion
Area Plan will be allocated to the following:
Park Construction;
Park Maintenance;
Multi-Use Trail Construction;
Multi-Use Trail Maintenance;
Civic Facility/Community Gathering Place Construction;
Civic Facility/Community Gathering Place Maintenance.
1. Despite Section 608.4, the minimum net lot area and lot dimensions may be
reduced and thereby incurring a Density Bonus, if an Amenity Contribution per
additional lot gained is provided according to the table below.
Bonus Density Amenity Contribution
Net Lot Area 557.0 square metres $_________
15.0 metres
27.0 metres
2. Despite Section 608.2 “Principal Uses”, only single detached residential use
shall be permitted where this Density Bonus provision is applied.
3. Despite Section 608.7 “Setbacks”, where the regulations in Section
608.11(1) above are applied, the following setbacks shall be permitted:
(a) Minimum setbacks for principal buildings and structures shall not be
less than:
i. From a front lot line 6.0 metres
ii. From a rear lot line 6.0 metres
iii. From an interior lot line 1.5 metres
iv. From an exterior side lot line 3.0 metres
v. Where a high pressure gas right-of-way is located within any
portion of the required setback areas from a rear lot line, the
setback shall be not less than 5.0 metres from the right-of-way for
all lots created after October 31, 1986.
(b) Minimum setbacks for accessory buildings or structures shall not be less
than:
i. From a front lot line 6.0 metres
ii. From a rear lot line 1.5 metres
iii. From an interior lot line 1.5 metres
iv. From an exterior side lot line 3.0 metres
v. From a building used for residential use 1.5 metres
4. Despite Section 608.5 “Floor Area”, where the regulations in Section
608.11(1) above are applied, a maximum floor space ratio of 0.6 times the
net lot area shall be permitted.
5. Despite Section 608.6 “Lot Coverage”, where the regulations in 608.11(1)
above are applied, a maximum lot coverage of 40% for all buildings and
structures shall be permitted.
1
Maple Ridge Albion Amenity Strategy Case Study
Analysis
10191 Amethyst Avenue, Richmond, B.C. V7A 3A8 * Tel. 604-895-7659 * Fax. (604) 275-8943
www.RolloAssociates.com
E-Mail: justin.barer@rolloassociates.com
June 4th 2013
Jim Charlebois
Manager of Community Planning
District of Maple Ridge
11995 Haney Place
Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9
Re: Maple Ridge Albion Amenity Strategy Case Study Analysis
The District of Maple Ridge has retained G.P. Rollo & Associates to prepare a
study outlining the potential for amenity charges for residential development in
the Albion Area. To this end, GPRA has prepared financial analyses of case study
sites to inform the study in order to provide some rough estimates of potential
fees that could be collected for amenities from the lift in land values that is
created from rezoning.
The District provided GPRA with 10 Case Studies1 for analysis that would be
indicative of the types of rezoning applications the District typically sees:
The analysis consisted of preparation of residual land value analyses for each
parcel to establish the estimated maximum value that a developer could afford to
pay for the site, assuming it already had the new zoning, under the current
market conditions. GPRA used standard developer proformas for each case to
model the economics of typical development as proposed and permitted under
the new zoning.
The residual land values determined from this analysis were then compared to
the estimated values of the sites under current zoning to establish a ‘lift’ in value
arising from rezoning. This lift in value is the total potential monies that are
available for amenities or other public works not considered as part of the
1 Case study site 6 is complicated by a variety of factors which makes it unrepresentative of typical
rezonings the District might see. The application on this site has a mix of townhouse and single
family development, downzoning of some portions of the site and upzonings on other portions.
Furthermore, the site has existing conditions to do with grade that may carry the potential to make
the development as proposed entirely unfeasible. As such, GPRA has not used this site in drawing
any conclusions.
Case Studies Acres Zoning Proposed Zoning Proposed # Units
1 24086 24108 104 Avenue & 10336 240A St.6.7 RS-2 & RS-3 RM-1 101
2 24315/31*69/89 110 Ave 10.2 RS-3 RS-1b 41
3 24426 1020 Ave 3.1 RS-3 R-3 32
4 10150 Jackson Road 10.0 RS-3 R-1 50
5 11219 243 St 2.0 RS-3 R-1 16
6 10480/10640 248 St, 24891 104 Ave, 24860 106 Ave 14.1 A2, R1, RM-1 R-1 64
7 24152 112 Ave 11.0 RS-3 R-1 21
8 10412/50 10500/01 Jackson Rd 15.3 RS-2, RS-3, A-2 R-3 129
9 11282 243 St & 11291 243B St 13.5 RS-2 & RS-3 R-1 46
10 10501 & 10601 Jackson Rd & 10578 245b St 11.4 RS-2 & RS-3 R-1 61
APPENDIX G
2
Maple Ridge Albion Amenity Strategy Case Study
Analysis
10191 Amethyst Avenue, Richmond, B.C. V7A 3A8 * Tel. 604-895-7659 * Fax. (604) 275-8943
www.RolloAssociates.com
E-Mail: justin.barer@rolloassociates.com
analysis. Typically there is some sharing of the lift value between the
Municipality/District and the developer, but the percentage shared varies by
community and by project.
METHODOLOGY & ASSUMPTIONS
As indicated above, GPRA prepared proforma analyses for each of the Case Study
sites, the specifics of which were provided by the District including new zoning
and number of proposed units.
GPRA determined revenues used in the analyses from a review of recent sales and
offerings for sale of newly developed single family dwellings; for case study #1
(proposed RM-1 zoning), sale and offering prices of newly developed townhouses
were used. Project costs were derived from sources deemed reliable, including
information readily available from quantity surveyors on average hard
construction costs for the District. Development or soft costs have been drawn
from industry standards, and from District sources.
The analyses were created using a standard developer proforma wherein
estimates of revenues and costs are inputs and the remaining variable is the
desired output. In typical proformas this output is usually profit, following a
formula of revenues less costs equals profit. For a residual land valuation,
however, an assumption on profit is included as an input, allowing the land value
to be the variable that is solved for. In the seven case study analyses which
evaluated the economics of single family development (R-1, R-3 and RS-1b), GPRA
has assumed 10% profit on total project costs; for the one multi-family
townhouse project (RM-1), GPRA has assumed 15% profit on cost. The results of
the analyses are the maximum supported land value a developer could pay for
the site (under new zoning) while achieving an acceptable return for their project
under the conditions tested.
For the purposes of this preliminary analysis GPRA has determined base land
values for case study sites using as a starting point the current BC Assessment
assessed values and making adjustments as deemed necessary on a case-by-case
basis based on our evaluation of the degree to which assessed values are truly
reflective of the parcel(s) value under current zoning in their unique locations
under current levels of servicing and development potential.2 The ‘lift’ for each
test site is then determined by comparison of land value under existing zoning to
the residual or supported land value under the new zoning. Although market
values may fluctuate by neighbourhood and as the market changes, establishing a
base value allows for GPRA to illustrate the principle of lift and how the District
can leverage this lift for community benefits.
2 Conversations with BC Assessment for Maple Ridge indicate that they do not generally distinguish
between various single family zones, but rather rely entirely on comparable sales in the
neighbourhood. As such, if there is a trend toward subdivision of larger parcels and rezoning to
denser single family uses in a neighbourhood this would be captured in the assessment on other
properties in the neighbourhood, and may not truly indicate the value under current zoning.
3
Maple Ridge Albion Amenity Strategy Case Study
Analysis
10191 Amethyst Avenue, Richmond, B.C. V7A 3A8 * Tel. 604-895-7659 * Fax. (604) 275-8943
www.RolloAssociates.com
E-Mail: justin.barer@rolloassociates.com
CASE STUDY ANALYSIS
The following table outlines the estimated starting values for each site under
current zoning, the supported land values after rezoning, land lift on a per-acre
and per-additional unit basis, and the value of 50% of the land lift. Details of each
case follow.
Case Summaries
Case 1: This is the only case study site where the proposed rezoning is from single
family to multi-family use. GPRA has inferred average unit size from high-level
market research (1700-1900 sq.ft.). Selling prices have been set at $220 per
square foot.
Case 2: This case involves a rezoning of four distinct RS-3 parcels totaling 10.24
acres for the purpose of developing a 41 lot subdivision under RS-1b zoning.
Based on lot layout documentation received from the District of Maple Ridge,
GPRA has conducted a land lift assessment using an average lot size of 7,000
square feet on which it is assumed the average house size will be 3,750 square
feet. Home pricing is expected to be approximately $190 per square foot of
buildable area. GPRA has calculated a land lift per additional unit of just over
$24,000.
Case 3: This case involves a rezoning of 3.14 acres of land from RS-3 to R-3 for the
purpose of developing a 32 lot subdivision. Of the 3.14 acres of gross site area,
GPRA has assumed a net useable (saleable) area of 2.2 acres (70% of gross) after
accounting for roads and parks, yielding lots averaging 3,000 square feet. The
average built area of dwelling units constructed on these lots is estimated at
2,700 square feet, with average sales prices of $201 per square foot based on
current market conditions. Base land value of just over $442,000 per acre is the
figure provided by BCAA for roll year 2012; GPRA believes this is an appropriate
base valuation for this lot under RS-3 zoning given site conditions and location.
GPRA has calculated a land lift per additional unit of nearly $18,200.
Case #Gross Site Area
(acres)
Estimated Current
Land Value per
Developable Acre*
Supported Land
Value Per Acre After
Rezoning
Lift per Acre # Units
Proposed
Lift per
Additional
Unit
50/50 Split
1 6.7 $559,992 $916,701 $356,709 101 $24,882 $12,441
2 10.2 $173,912 $258,861 $84,949 41 $24,271 $12,136
3 3.1 $442,228 $618,055 $175,827 32 $18,173 $9,087
4 10.0 $350,000 $500,213 $150,213 50 $16,717 $8,359
5 2.0 $515,825 $592,846 $77,020 16 $10,313 $5,156
6 14.1 $538,686 $605,706 $67,020 64 $14,801 $7,401
7 11.0 $450,000 $541,167 $91,167 21 $16,304 $8,152
8 15.3 $366,014 $486,183 $120,169 129 $15,500 $7,750
9 13.5 $350,000 $450,620 $100,620 46 $18,240 $9,120
10 11.4 $240,363 $315,003 $74,640 61 $15,899 $7,949
*GPRA has made adjustments to starting land values based on assessment of each site's unique attributes and requirements.
4
Maple Ridge Albion Amenity Strategy Case Study
Analysis
10191 Amethyst Avenue, Richmond, B.C. V7A 3A8 * Tel. 604-895-7659 * Fax. (604) 275-8943
www.RolloAssociates.com
E-Mail: justin.barer@rolloassociates.com
Case 4: This case involves rezoning of 10 acres from RS-3 to R-1 for the purpose of
developing a 50 lot subdivision. Based on site plan information received from the
District, GPRA has assumed 50% site dedication for parks and roadways, leaving 5
acres of net saleable area within the land use budget. This yields lots averaging
4,400 square feet, on which GPRA assumes there will be homes averaging 2,800
square feet selling for $203 per sq.ft. GPRA has adjusted the base lot value from
the BCAA assessed value to more accurately reflect the per-acre value of
developable RS-3 zoned lands in the area. The assessed value was, in our opinion,
artificially lowering the true base value of the developable portion of the
property, which ultimately would lead to a higher lift being generated than would
seem logical. Using the adjusted base value, GPRA calculates a land lift per
additional unit of approximately $16,700.
Case 5: This case evaluates the rezoning of a 2 acre parcel from RS-3 to R-1 for the
purpose of developing a 16-lot subdivision. Based on information received from
the District, GPRA has set an average lot size of 4,172 square feet on which we
assume homes of 3,000 square feet will be constructed. Average home prices are
set at $200 per square foot based on comparable research. GPRA has calculated
a land lift per additional unit of nearly $10,300.
Case 6: Not considered for analysis due to development conditions deemed
unrepresentative of the types of rezoning applications the area will receive. Refer
to footnote 1 for additional detail.
Case 7: This case evaluates rezoning of an 11 acre site from RS-3 to R-1 for the
purpose of developing a 21 lot subdivision. Given R-1 lot size limitations
prescribed in the District zoning bylaw, and in the absence of receipt of any
proposed site plan, GPRA has assumed that only 25% of the 11 acre gross site
area will be used as saleable lot area. This would yield lots of approximately
5,700 square feet, on which we assume construction of homes at 3,000 square
feet selling at an average of $209 per square foot. In this case study, the
assessment authority has ascribed a very low per-acre land value to the site; this
is likely a function of the site having an OCP designation of Institutional and
Conservation uses, neither of which yields any significant land value. In order to
more realistically assess land lift through rezoning, GPRA has adjusted the base
land value to more accurately reflect the RS-3 zoning designation. GPRA
calculates a land lift per additional unit of nearly $16,300.
Case 8: This case involves three parcels totaling 15.31 acres currently zoned A2,
RS-2, and RS-3, with the rezoning seeking to create 129 R=3 lots and 2 RS-1b lots.
The site plan provided by the District indicates that approximately 80% of the site
will remain for development after roads and park dedications. The average home
for the R-3 lots has been assumed at 2,450 square feet in size with a selling price
of $211 per square foot. The 2 RS-1b lots have been assumed to have the same
size and price as those in Case 2 (3,750 square feet at $190 per square foot). The
land lift has been calculated at $15,500 per additional unit.
5
Maple Ridge Albion Amenity Strategy Case Study
Analysis
10191 Amethyst Avenue, Richmond, B.C. V7A 3A8 * Tel. 604-895-7659 * Fax. (604) 275-8943
www.RolloAssociates.com
E-Mail: justin.barer@rolloassociates.com
Case 9: This case involves two parcels – one zoned RS-3, the other RS-2 – rezoned
to R-1 for the purpose of developing a 46 lot subdivision. Of the total combined
site area of the parcels (13.54 acres), approximately 6.86 acres or just over 51% of
total site area is set aside as a conservation area according to documentation
received from the District. Of the remaining 6.54 acres, 24% is deducted for on-
site roadways, yielding a net saleable site area of nearly 5.1 acres. Average
proposed lot sizes are 4,800 square feet, and GPRA has assumed an average
home size of 2,900 square feet selling for $203 per square foot. As in Case 6
above, GPRA has made an adjustment to the base land value to more realistically
reflect the per-acre pricing of comparable RS-2 and RS-3 lots. GPRA has
calculated a per additional unit lift of just over $18,000.
Case 10: This case involves four parcels, three zoned RS-2 and the fourth RS-3, all
rezoned to R-1 for the purpose of developing a 61 lot subdivision. GPRA has
assumed that 70% of the area will be net saleable, resulting in lots of nearly 5,700
square feet on which we assume homes of 3,000 square feet selling at $204 per
square foot. GPRA calculates a per-unit lift value of $15,900.
Case Summary & Analysis
As indicated above, Case 6 was eliminated from the analysis due to conditions
that made it an unrepresentative example that could be used to draw inferences
and conclusions from for this work. Case 1 deals with a rezoning from single
family to multiple-family, and is the only such example in the group of case
provided. As such, we again cannot draw firm conclusions from this case for
building policy. It does, however, provide some general guidelines of what sort of
rates could be charged for similar rezonings after additional study has been
conducted to verify the initial findings. Case 2, while being a rezoning to single
family use, differs from the other single family rezonings in that it is the only one
to RS-1b, and as such, presents somewhat different results than the other 7 single
family cases.
Of the 8 case studies pertaining only to single family rezoning, the average lift per
unit is $16,900. Further, discounting the property being rezoned to RS-1b leaving
only the 7 properties being rezoned to R-1 or R-3, the average lift per unit is
$15,900. Amongst these latter 7 case studies, lift values range from a low of
$10,300 per unit (Case 5) to a high of $18,200 per unit (Case 9).
On a per-acre basis, in the latter 7 single family rezoning case studies the lift
amount ranges from a low of $74,600 to over $175,000. This variability can be
ascribed to the varying ability for greater utility to be ‘unlocked’ from smaller sites
under current zoning vs. larger sites. Indeed, prior to making base value
adjustments, the variability in per-acre lift between small and large lots was much
more extreme, ranging from $350,000 to $450,000 per acre in larger lots vs.
under $100,000 for smaller lots. In making base value adjustments that more
accurately reflect what we believe to be current lot utility under current zoning,
we take some of the extremes out of lift calculations and are able to arrive at
more realistic and rational figures.
6
Maple Ridge Albion Amenity Strategy Case Study
Analysis
10191 Amethyst Avenue, Richmond, B.C. V7A 3A8 * Tel. 604-895-7659 * Fax. (604) 275-8943
www.RolloAssociates.com
E-Mail: justin.barer@rolloassociates.com
Amongst the 7 case studies of single family rezoning to either R-3 or R-1, the land
lift expressed as a percentage ranges from a low of 15% (case 5) to 43% (case 4).
DISCUSSION & CONCLUSIONS
The results from GPRA’s analysis indicate that there is potential for amenities to
be secured through rezoning, either through ad hoc negotiations, or through a
formal flat amenity contribution fee. It is important to note that the lift indicated
from GPRA’s analysis represents 100% of the potential increase in value from the
change in use for a parcel of land, and typically communities seek only a portion
of that total lift value. GPRA has presented the 50/50 split of lift value in the final
column of the table on page 3 to illustrate a potential amenity contribution
amount based on that split.
As the case study analyses have shown, there is significant variability in terms of
land lift per unit from case to case. This is a reflection of the uniqueness of, and
variability between, developments in terms of site configuration, dedications,
servicing costs (both off and on-site), hard construction costs, selling prices, and
size of homes. This variability is much more pronounced in the single family
marketplace than is the case for multi-family product, thus making the process of
establishing lift (and by extension fair levels of amenity contribution) difficult and
invariably inexact.
It is also important to keep in mind that these analyses have used order of
magnitude servicing costs that are believed to be typical for the Albion area.
GPRA stresses that there could be the potential for higher servicing costs for any
given case, the result of which could be reduced land lift potential.
Given the inherently complex nature of the single family development
marketplace, and in the interest of ensuring fairness and certainty to the
development community, GPRA believes that, should the District consider
pursuing a Community Amenity Contribution strategy that sets a flat ‘per unit’ or
‘per-square-metre’ rate for contribution (cash or in-kind), that rate should be set
based on the foregoing analysis while also taking into consideration the
limitations and inherent dangers of drawing conclusions from a limited number of
unique case studies with at times limited site-specific cost information.
Of the case studies for single family development, average lift per additional unit
was $15,900; an amenity contribution based on a 50/50 split of this lift would be
$7,950. However, it is notable that for case studies 5 and 8, 50% of their lift per
additional unit is less than the average of the 50/50 split, and almost 3/4 of the
total lift on site 5. This reality points to the inherent risks in setting an amenity
contribution rate based purely on averages. In these cases, the result of setting
an amenity charge of nearly $8,000 per unit could be to make these development
proposals unviable.
It is also worth noting that a per-door amenity charge may be more punitive
toward small lot, small home developers than to those building larger homes on
larger lots, a prospect that would work against creating affordability in the
7
Maple Ridge Albion Amenity Strategy Case Study
Analysis
10191 Amethyst Avenue, Richmond, B.C. V7A 3A8 * Tel. 604-895-7659 * Fax. (604) 275-8943
www.RolloAssociates.com
E-Mail: justin.barer@rolloassociates.com
housing market for Maple Ridge residents. For larger lot/larger home developers,
there is likely to be greater revenue from each unit sold with which to pay
amenity charges while small lot developers may struggle to do so.
In order to create an amenity policy that does not result in unintended side
effects such as slowing development, reducing variability in sizes/types of
developers providing housing in the community, and possibly creating long-term
imbalance between supply and demand (resulting in higher land/housing prices
for residents), GPRA recommends the following:
• Pursuing an amenity policy based on a 50/50 split of land lift of the lowest
returned case study lift value. This would result in a per-unit charge of
approximately $5,100.
• Consider acquiring amenity fees on a per-square-metre of GBA basis
rather than on a per-unit basis. This approach would be less punitive
toward small lot and small home developers. Taking the $5,100 per
additional unit charge as an example, dividing this by the average size of a
recently built home on an R-1 lot would yield an equivalent charge of
$19.49 per square metre of GBA.
Should the District choose to pursue an amenity policy based on a 50/50 split of
the average case-study lift value rather than 50/50 of the lowest observed lift
value as recommended above, the rates would be approximately $7,800 per
additional unit or approximately $29.80 per square metre of GBA.
I trust that our work will be of use in the continued formulation of an Amenity
Strategy for the District of Maple Ridge. We look forward to further discussion on
these analyses.
Sincerely,
Justin Barer, M.Pl |Associate, Planner
G.P. Rollo & Associates Ltd., Land Economists
T 604 895 7659 | M 778 229 4755
E justin.barer@rolloassociates.com
Gerry Mulholland |Vice President
G.P. Rollo & Associates Ltd., Land Economists
T 604 277 1291 | M 778 772 8872 |
E gerrymul@telus.net| W www.rolloassociates.com
4.3
2
Accordingly, if Fraser Health Authority is a Crown agent, a bylaw regulating parking fees at the
hospital would not apply to it.
In our opinion it is unlikely Fraser Health Authority would be considered a Crown agent. An
entity will be a Crown agent if its authorizing legislation declares it a Crown agent or if it meets
the common law test of agency, a test which is essentially an examination of the degree to
which the Crown exercises control over the entity. The Health Authorities Act does not
expressly declare regional health boards to be agents of the Province. Accordingly, regional
health boards will be Crown agents only if they meet the common law test. In our opinion they
do not.
We have not conducted a thorough examination of the Crown agency issue because to do so
would involve a lengthy examination and comparison of the cases, some involving entities
found to be Crown agents and others involving entities in respect of which Crown agency was
denied. In such cases, the courts typically review the authorizing legislation to determine the
degree to which the entity exercises discretion independently of the Crown and then compares
that level of discretion with the levels found to exist in respect of other entities about which
previous court decisions have been reached. That is obviously a fairly complex exercise which
we have not been instructed to perform. We have, however, reviewed some relevant cases,
including Westeel-Rosco Ltd. v. South Saskatchewan Hospital Centre, [1977] 2 S.C.R. 238, a
Supreme Court of Canada decision holding that the Board of Governors of the South
Saskatchewan Hospital Centre was not a Crown agent, and Eldridge v. British Columbia
(Attorney General), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624, a Supreme Court of Canada decision holding that British
Columbia hospitals were not "government" for the purpose of the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms. On the basis of these cases and our review of the measure of discretion
conferred on regional health boards in British Columbia under the Health Authorities Act, we
are satisfied that Fraser Health Authority is likely not a Crown agent. Accordingly, in our view it
is subject to applicable municipal bylaws. The remaining question is whether the District has
the statutory authority to regulate parking fees at the hospital.
Concurrent Authority (s.9 of Community Charter)
Section 9(3) of the Community Charter provides that a municipality cannot adopt a bylaw to
which section 9 applies, except in accordance with a regulation under subsection (4), an
agreement under subsection (5) or with approval of the responsible minister. Section 9 applies
to bylaws made under s.8(3)(i) in relation to "public health," unless the bylaw could also have
been made under another provision of the Community Charter or another Act (see s.9(2)). If the
only authority for the bylaw is s.8(3)(i), then provincial approval is required.
In relation to bylaws relating to public health, the Province has enacted the Public Health
Bylaws Regulation, B.C. Reg 4212004, which provides approval for some types of bylaws and
expressly indicates that ministerial approval is required for others. Section 2(2)(d) of the
regulation provides that a municipality cannot adopt a bylaw in relation to "any matter that
may affect the personnel, financial or other resources of a regional health board" unless the
Q,\00039\0040\Correspondence\Mario-Ltr-Gc-Parking Fees-Revised.Docx Jun 05, 201311!50 AM/MW
3
bylaw is approved by the Minister of Health. The contemplated bylaw is clearly in relation to a
matter that might affect the "financial or other resources' of the Fraser Health Authority.
Accordingly, unless the authority for the bylaw can be found in a provision other than s.8(3)(i)
of the Community Charter, Council cannot adopt the bylaw without the approval of the Minister
of Health.
We have considered whether a bylaw prohibiting a health board from charging for parking (or
limiting the price it may charge) might be authorized under another section of the Community
Charter or another Act. in this regard, we considered in particular whether such a bylaw might
be authorized under s.8(3)(b) as a bylaw regulating a "public place," under s.8(6) as a business
regulation, under s.903 of the Local Government Act as a zoning regulation or under s.906 of
the Local Government Act as an off-street parking requirement. We will deal with each of these
potential sources of authority.
Authority to Regulate "Public Places" (Charter s.8(3)(b)1
In our opinion, the parking lot at the hospital would be considered a "public place" for the
purpose of s.8(3)(b) of the Community Charter. There is ample case authority indicating that
parking lots to which the public is ordinarily invited are "public places" for many purposes. For
example, there are a number of cases indicating private parking lots may be "public places" for
the purpose of Criminal Code offences that are applicable to acts occurring in a public place.
We do not see any reason why the term "public place" in s.8 would be read more narrowly.
Accordingly, as a general proposition, we think Council's power to regulate in relation to public
places does extend to parking lots, such as the hospital parking lot, to which the public is
ordinarily invited. However, while we are unaware of case law dealing with the issue, we think
it is very unlikely that the power to regulate in relation to public places would be read as
authorizing a municipality to specify the actual terms under which the private party invites
public access to the place. In other words, once a place becomes a public place, a municipality
may regulate conduct that occurs there, but it may not prevent the private property owner
from restricting or specifying the terms on which the public may enter and use its private
property. Accordingly, we do not think a bylaw controlling fees payable for the use of private
property is authorized as a public place regulation under s.8(3)(b).
Regulation of Business (Charter s.8(6))
We also do not think the business regulation power in s.8(6) would provide authority for the
bylaw. The Fraser Health Authority is a non-profit entity. In our view it does not become a
"business" for the purpose of the Community Charter merely because it charges for parking.
Accordingly, we do not think the Fraser Health Authority would be subject to a business
regulation that prohibits or restricts parking fees.
We considered whether the District might enact a business regulation bylaw directed at the
parking company that provides the actual parking service at the hospital, but in our view that
would not be a valid business regulation, since the real purpose of the bylaw would be to
control the price the non-profit Health Authority charges for parking.
Q:\00039\0040\Correspondence\Marla-Ltr-6c-Parking Fees -Revise d. Doa Jun 05, 201311:50 AM/MW
13
Zoning Regulation (LGA s.903)
We next considered whether the District could amend its zoning bylaw to make the permission
for hospital use conditional upon the provision of free parking for hospital users. In our
opinion, it is doubtful that such a provision could be enacted under s.903. The Local
Government Act expressly authorizes municipalities to require off-street parking spaces under
s.906. We will deal with s.906 more fully below. For present purposes, however, we note that
s.906 only allows a municipality to require the provision of off-street parking spaces in respect
of buildings constructed or uses established after adoption of the off-street parking bylaw.
Given those protections in s.906, we think it is unlikely that a court would construe the general
zoning power in s.903 as authorizing the regulation of off-street parking.
In any event, even assuming that s.903 authorizes the regulation of off-street parking despite
s.906, we do not think an amendment of the zoning bylaw would be an effective way to deal
with the current issue, since the current use of land by the Fraser Health Authority would have
non -conforming use protection under s.911 of the Local Government Act. Accordingly, even if
the District were to adopt a zoning amendment prohibiting charging for parking at the hospital,
the Fraser Health Authority could continue to charge for parking.
Off-street Parking Requirements (LGA s.906)
Finally, we considered whether, under s.906 of the Local Government Act, the District could
regulate the price that may be charged for off-street parking spaces that are required to be
provided under that section. Under s.906, a municipality can adopt a bylaw that requires off-
street parking spaces for different uses. One of the purposes of 5.906 is to allow a municipality
to provide an alternative to on street parking, a purpose that might be frustrated if owners are
permitted to charge for access to the off-street spaces they have been required to provide.
Accordingly, we think a relatively strong argument could be made that a municipality may
specify in its s.906 bylaw that an off-street parking space is not "provided" for the purpose of
the bylaw unless it is both constructed, maintained and freely accessible for parking purposes
associated with the use to which the parking requirement relates.
In this regard, we did locate an oral decision of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice,
Coinamatic Canada Inc. v. Toronto, [2003] O.J. No. 3906, upholding a provision of a City bylaw
that prohibited the charging of parking fees for visitor parking at residential apartment
buildings. The Court held that avoiding the increase in on street parking that might result from
permitting charging for visitor parking was a proper planning rationale and that the power to
restrict such charging was authorized under s.34(1) of the Ontario Planning Act. We have
reviewed, s.34(1) of the Ontario Planning Act and while the language is different from the Local
Government Act, it does not appear to be materially different. Both Acts authorize
municipalities to require off-street parking spaces. Given this case and the purpose of s.906,
we think a strong argument could be made that a bylaw under s.906 could restrict the price
that may be charged for spaces required to be provided under the bylaw.
4:\00039\0040\Correspondence\Mario-Ltr-Gc-Parking Fees-Revised.Docx Jun 05, 2013 11:50 AM/MW
9
However, we don't think s.906 could be used to restrict the price of parking at the hospital.
First, even if s.906 can be read as authorizing a municipality deal with the fees charged for off-
street parking spaces provided under the bylaw, we doubt whether many, if any, of the hospital
parking spaces are spaces that were required under the bylaw. Section 906 parking
requirements do not apply to buildings constructed prior to the adoption of the off-street
parking bylaw, unless the use of the building is changed. We suspect that the hospital building
was constructed prior to adoption of the first off-street parking bylaw and that the spaces that
are provided by the hospital are therefore spaces to which the bylaw does not apply. Second,
while a municipality may have the authority under s.906 to specify that an owner cannot charge
for parking spaces required to be provided under that section, the municipality must have a
proper planning purpose for the restriction. While we think avoiding on street parking is proper
planning purpose, we doubt a court would consider the desire to ensure cheaper access to
health care a proper planning purpose. Accordingly, we do not think a bylaw restricting parking
fees at the hospital could be adopted under s.906 for the latter purpose.
Conclusions
Our conclusions are as follows;
1. Fraser Health Authority is not a Crown agent and is therefore subject to municipal
bylaws.
2. The only power under the Community Charter to regulate parking fees at the hospital is
by a "public health" bylaw adopted with the approval of the Minister of Health under
s.8(3)(i). We considered, but rejected, the possibility that such a bylaw might be
adopted as a public place regulation under s.8(3)(b) or as a business regulation under
s.8(6).
3. It is arguable (but unlikely) that a zoning bylaw under s.903 of the Local Government Act
could prohibit the use of land for hospital purposes unless adequate free parking is
provided. However, even if such a provision could be included in the Zoning Bylaw it is
not an effective way to deal with the current situation because Fraser Health Authority
would have non -conforming use protection against the bylaw.
4. It is probable that a bylaw that requires off-street parking under s.906 of the Local
Government Act may specify that spaces provided under the bylaw must be freely
available for public parking, but such a bylaw would only apply to spaces required as
part of a future expansion of the hospital.
5. Given the above conclusions, the only way the District might effectively regulate parking
fees at the hospital is by a public health bylaw adopted with the approval of the Minister
of Health under s.8(3)(i) of the Community Charter. To our knowledge no local
government in British Columbia has adopted a public health bylaw regulating hospital
parking fees and we doubt the Minister would approve such a bylaw.
Q:\00039\0040\Correspondence\Mario-Ltr-Gc-Parking Fees-Revised.Docx Jun O5, 201311:51 AM/MW
5.1
[1
We would be pleased to discuss our comments with you at your convenience.
Sincerely,
YOUNG AND ISO
Gregg Co rill
cockrill @ you n g an derson. co
GC/mw
Q:\00039\0040\Correspondence\Mario-Ltr-Gc-Parking Fees -Revised. Docx Jun 05, 2013 11:51 AM/M W