Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2019-05-07 Workshop Agenda and Reports.pdf
City of Maple Ridge COUNCIL WORKSHOP AGENDA May 7, 2019 2:30PM or Immediately after the 1:30 PM Committee of the Whole Meeting Blaney Room, 1st Floor, City 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. The meeting is live streamed and recorded by the City of Maple Ridge. REMINDERS DATE Audit and Finance Committee 1. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES 2.1 Minutes of the April 23, 2019 Council Workshop Meeting 3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL 4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS 4.1 Review Purchasing Policy 5.45 4:00 p.m. Staff report dated May 7, 2019 recommending that Purchasing Policy 5.45 be revised as discussed in the staff report dated May 7, 2019 and brought back for Council Consideration. 4.2 Tandem Parking Staff report dated May 7, 2019 recommending that staff be directed to consult with residents residing in certain townhouse developments as listed in the report dated May 7, 2019, the Urban Development Institute and Homebuilders Association of Vancouver Municipal Advisory Committee, the Builders' Forum and Condominium Home Owners' Association to obtain feedback regarding tandem parking. Council Workshop Agenda May 7, 2019 Page 2 of 3 4.3 Downtown Security Update • Christina Crabtree, Chief Information Officer • Darrell Denton, Acting Director of Economic Development & Civic Property 4.4 UBCM and FCM Resolutions Process Staff report dated May 7, 2019 recommending that the process outlined in Attachment A of the report titled "UBCM and FCM Resolutions Process" be approved and that Council members submit UBCM resolution ideas to the Corporate Officer by 4:00 p.m. on May 14, 2019 for staff to prepare a list of resolutions for consideration at the May 21, 2019 Council Workshop meeting. 5. CORRESPONDENCE 5.1 Upcoming Events By Invitation to Mayor and Council: May 7, 2019 6:30 pm May 11, 2019 11:00 am -12:00 pm General Community Events: May 7, 2019 1:00 -2:30 pm May 10, 2019 1:00 -8:00 pm May 11, 2019 9:00 am -2:00 pm May 11 & May 12, 2019 10:00 am -4:00 pm May 11, 2019 10:00 am -12:00 pm May 12, 2019 1:00 -4:00 pm Summer Plan Slam/Bowling-GMYC & Revs Bowling May 1 -7 Youth Week -Various events are happening throughout the week, please visit our website for more information Haney Farmers Market -Opening Day Memorial Peace Park Elder Abuse Prevention & Personal Safety for Seniors Maple Ridge Public Library Garibaldi Secondary School Music Marathon Memorial Peace Park Haney Farmers Market Memorial Peace Park Art Studio Tour Maple Ridge & Pitt Meadows -various locations Walk for Alzheimer's (Walk in a Box) Memorial Peace Park Amazing Animal Moms Kanaka Creek Regional Park -Meet at 11450 256 Street 6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL Council Workshop Agenda May 7, 2019 Page 3 of 3 7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT 8. A~MENT Checked by: Date: /))g,{3 /t9 2.0 Minutes 2.0 City of Maple Ridge COUNCIL WORKSHOP MINUTES April 23, 2019 The minutes of the meeting held on April 23, 2019 at 1:33 p.m. in Blaney Room of City Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC for the purpose of transacting regular City business. PRESENT Appointed Staff Elected Officials K. Swift, Acting Chief Administrative Officer Mayor M. Morden Councillor J. Dueck Councillor Duncan Councillor C. Meadus Councillor G. Robson Councillor R. Svendsen Councillor A. Yousef F. Quinn, General Manager Public Works & Development Services D. Boag, Acting General Manager Parks, Recreation & Culture L. Benson, Director of Corporate Administration Other Staff as Required T. Thompson, Chief Financial Officer Note: These Minutes are posted on the City website at mapleridge.ca/AgendaCenter/ Video of the meeting is posted at http://media.mapleridge.ca/Mediasite/Showcase 1. APPROVAL OF THE AGENDA R/2019-238 It was moved and seconded That the April 23, 2019 Council Workshop agenda be amended by adding "Resolution Proposals for UBCM Consideration" as item 4.1, and that the agenda be adopted as amended. CARRIED 2. ADOPTION OF MINUTES 2.1 Minutes of the April 16, 2019 Council Workshop R/2019-239 It was moved and seconded That the Council Workshop minutes of April 16, 2019 be adopted. CARRIED Council Workshop Minutes April 23, 2019 Page 2 of 3 3. PRESENTATIONS AT THE REQUEST OF COUNCIL 3.1 Urban Development Institute -Building Communities • Hugh Carter, Chair of the UDI Fraser Valley Committee and General Manager of Pollyco Group • Tammy Ray, TD Bank, vice chair at large at large UDI Fraser Valley Committee • Jeff Fisher, vice pres Urban development institute • Mark Sakai, Director of Government Relations, Home Builders Association of Vancouver • Mike Cara, Street Side Development (townhouse developments in Maple Ridge), Pollyco Group • Jamie squires, 5th Avenue Real Estate, Marketing, Vice President, Managing Broker, Member of UDI Mr. Carter gave a PowerPoint presentation which included a background on the organization, the Maple Ridge context for the industry, and how municipalities, and the UDI Fraser Valley Committee can work together. 4. UNFINISHED AND NEW BUSINESS 4.1 Resolution Proposals for UBCM consideration • Laura Benson, Director of Corporate Administration Council requested that a report come back on an annual process for establishing resolution submissions, ensuring that staff resources are not utilized until Council vets the ideas submitted by Council members. R/2019-240 It was moved and seconded Whereas Council passed Resolution No R/2019-180 urging BC municipalities and UBCM to support of Council's assertion that the Burnett Street decision of the Province undermines local government autonomy, That the Mayor be authorized to seek executive approval from the Lower Mainland Local Government Association for a resolution proposed to BC municipalities, and further, That if the resolution is not approved at LMLGA, that the Mayor be authorized to submit it directly to UBCM. CARRIED Councillor Duncan -OPPOSED I l Council Workshop Minutes April 23, 2019 Page 3 of 3 4.2 Fire Department Update • Howard Exner, Fire Chief Chief Exner provided a presentation covering: general overview of fire halls and staffing, performance statistics, and projects. He also acknowledged long-serving members who were celebrated at the 2018 awards ceremony. Chief Exner and Deputy Chief M. Van Dop answered questions from Council. 5. CORRESPONDENCE 5.1 Upcoming Events -Nil 6. BRIEFING ON OTHER ITEMS OF INTEREST/QUESTIONS FROM COUNCIL 7. MATTERS DEEMED EXPEDIENT 8. ADJOURNMENT -3:36 p.m. M. Morden, Mayor Certified Correct L. Benson, Corporate Officer MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia City of Maple Ridge mapleridge.ca TO: FROM: SUBJECT: His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer Review of Purchasing Policy 5.45 EXECUTIVE SUM MARY: MEETING DATE: May 7, 2019 FILE NO: MEETING: Council Workshop Our Purchasing Policy guides the procurement of goods and services by the City, so that best value can be obtained for the use of public funds. The existing Purchasing Policy was approved in 2004, met the needs of the City at that time, and has served us well. As procurement law changes, trade agreements and the City's requirement's evolve, policy revisions are required to keep the policy current and effective. Further, local government procurement has been a priority area for audits performed by the Auditor General for Local Government (AGLG). The release of Audit Topics Perspective Booklets has identified best practices that should also be incorporated into our policies and procedures. Given that the last policy update was conducted 15 years ago, compounded with the other driving forces noted above, a complete review of the Purchasing Policy and procedures is recommended. Key areas that need updating are discussed in this report. A copy of our existing policy is attached for ease of reference. RECOMMENDATION: That Purchasing Policy 5.45 be revised as discussed in the staff report dated May 7, 2019 and brought back for Council consideration. a) Background and Discussion: The City's Purchasing Policy 5.45 (attached as Appendix -A) was approved in 2004 and it guides staff in the procurement of goods and services for the City of Maple Ridge. A review of this policy has not been undertaken since its approval. Although the existing Policy has worked well for the City, it needs to be revised and made current. Page 1 of 5 4.1 r Here is a summary of the key areas that require review and updating: 1. Primary Objective The Purchasing Policy's current objective is to assist customers to achieve best value for dollars expended by the City and to conduct business with fairness, probity and respect for all parties. The scope and authorities within the policy should be clearly articulated. A review of the organizational objectives is also required to ensure that these objectives are relevant and continue to be met. In addition, a higher focus on sustainability, socio-economic priorities and risk management may be required. 2. Services Provided by the Purchasing Team This section outlines some of the services available through the Purchasing Team. It is important to reaffirm that regardless of whether the services of the team are used, the Purchasing Policy and processes are to be adhered to. 3. Authority & Responsibility The established limits try to strike a balance between operational efficiency and accountability. Our limits have not changed in some time; we will review the delegated authority in other like sized municipalities and an adjustment in our limits may be required. 4. Process or Tools This section outlines the principal procurement tools and processes. It may be prudent to review the structure of the existing policy to separate policy matters from those that are more procedural and cover processes. Although staff currently manage projects and vendor performance successfully, consideration will be given to establishing written procedures to further guide staff and increase efficiency. This is highlighted as a best practise in the AGLG Audit Topic 1. 5. Prohibitions This section outlines the activities that are prohibited under the policy, such as the division of contracts, as well as those that may result in a conflict of interest. These prohibitions continue to be relevant, however the AGLG has recommended that an Employee Code of Conduct, that explicitly requires compliance with all relevant policies, including the Purchasing Policy, be implemented. A review of the code of conduct policies and conflict of interest statements of other like sized municipalities will be undertaken. 6. Cooperative Ventures The City participates with other government agencies, public authorities or private organizations in cooperative acquisition ventures. Currently the City participates in the Vancouver Regional Cooperative Purchasing Group for multiple group purchases such as stationery products, auction Page 2 of 5 services, the B.C. Petroleum Products Buying Group for fuel purchases and the Provincial Government supply arrangements for Procurement Card Services and Cellular Devices. The value in participating in joint or cooperative purchasing continues to be of great benefit to the City. By combining the City's procurement volumes with other organizations the City is able to leverage, through increased economies of scale, the higher volumes to achieve lower costs for the product and/or services as well as increased efficiency in utilizing its limited human resources. The City should continue to support and participate wherever it is beneficial to do so. 7. Preference to Local Suppliers The City supports local merchants by encouraging the use of local suppliers and by purchasing locally, where all things are equal. This mechanism was established to balance fiscal responsibility with open and fair procurement while encouraging local economic development. 8. Items not Requiring the Involvement of Purchasing Subject to other City policies and procedures, the involvement of Purchasing Team is not required for some items (ie: small cash transactions, training activities, utilities, etc.). This section should be reviewed for necessary adjustments. 9. Purchasing Cards The purpose of the Purchasing Card Program was to establish a more efficient, cost effective method of purchasing and paying for small dollar transactions of goods and services within the limits prescribed. Purchasing cards continue to be an effective tool for purchases of this nature. The Purchasing Section oversees the program and administers it jointly with the Finance Department and the Purchasing Card procedures are periodically reviewed and updated, with the most recent update completed in February 2018. The involvement of purchasing staff is not directly required for these day to day purchases and individual card holders are required to follow established processes and obtain more than one quote where prudent and sensible. 10. Contingency and Scope Changes Contingency allowances, approved in advance, are typically in the range of 10 to 15% and provide Project Manager's with discretion to meet a requirement which is not perfectly defined. Additional scope changes may arise for work that is not anticipated and the pre-approval of the contingency reduces the instances of project delays and provides an established flexible spending limit to work within to prevent over budget spending. 11. Sole Source Procurement There are occasions when products or services (valued over $20,000) may only be purchased from one specific source or manufacturer. Personal preference for certain brands or products does Page 3 of 5 I ~· f not justify limiting competition. The approval of a Sole Source Justification form, using pre-established criteria, is required in advance of the purchase. The Sole Source Procurement section of the Policy currently requires approval of both the Manager of Procurement and the CAO prior to contracting. This mechanism has served the City well, however does need to be reviewed to ensure it remains in line with current best practices, applicable trade agreements and recommendations from the AGLG Audit Topic 1. 12. Consulting and Professional Services Contracts Consulting and professional services contracts will be awarded on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications for the type of services to be rendered. Staff are required to evaluate proposals by pre-established criteria with the recommendation of award to the firm that presents the best value to the City. Consulting and professional service fee costs and project complexity have risen since 2004. A review of this limit is required, as the threshold may no longer meet operational needs and efficiencies. 13. Schedule A -Acquisition Dollar Amount Approval Threshold Schedule A refers to the approvals required for various dollar values of procurement. Other than in the case of emergencies, budget approval is required before procurement begins. In addition to the Policy, Council Resolution dated July 22, 2014 applies to an amendment to the Purchasing Policy #5.45 in regards to the process for conducting peer reviews. Integration of this resolution into the Policy is required. Schedule A of the Purchasing Policy requires a complete review. It may be appropriate to provide a delegated authority to the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) and allow the CAO to do a further delegation of this authority, as appropriate. Finally, our policy needs to be updated to reflect trade agreements such as the New West Partnership Trade Agreement (NWPTA), the Canadian Free Trade Agreement (CFTA), and the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). b) Strategic Alignment: Our objective is to ensure that the Purchasing Policy aligns with the city's objectives and to make sure that the delivery model continues to function effectively and efficiently. c) Citizen/Customer Implications: The review will ensure best practices are integrated into the Purchasing Policy so that the procurement of goods and services by staff continues to provide best value for the use of public funds. d) Interdepartmental Implications: Input from all departments will be required during the review. Page 4 of 5 e) Business Plan/Financial Implications: Staff time will need to be allocated for this initiative. Also, some of the consulting funding provided in the financial plan may be required for some external advice. f) Policy Implications: New policies and procedures may be recommended and other existing policies could be impacted and require amending. g) Alternatives: The alternative is to leave the existing policy as is and this is not recommended. CONCLUSION: The current Purchasing Policy needs to be updated and brought forward to Council for consideration. Prepared by: Daniela Mikes, SCMP, CRM Manager of Procurement Approved by: Catherine Nolan, CPA, CGA . Corporate Controller c~&:Swi~ MBA Acting Chief Administrative Officer Attachment: Appendix A -Purchasing Policy 5.45 Page 5 of 5 1 I Title: Purchasing POLICY STATEMENT District of Maple Rid~e Policy No : 5.45 Supersedes: Amended Authority: Council Approval: November 9, 2004 Effective Date: November 10, 2004 Policy Statement: This policy applies to all employees or elected representatives of the District of Maple Ridge who may be required to use corporate funds for goods or services. Purpose: 1. PRIMARY OBJECTIVE As part of the duties assigned to it in the Local Government Act, the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge must engage in the procurement of goods and services. The primary objective of the Purchasing Division is to assist all internal customers to achieve best value for dollars expended by the District. Lowest price can be best value, but lowest price is not always best value. We look at the total cost of ownership, which may include but not be limited to: 1. acquisition cost 2. quality required 3. residual value 4. disposal cost 5. training cost 6. maintenance cost 7. delivery and shipping terms 8. warranties 9. payment terms 10. performance 11. environmental impact The Purchasing Section is committed to conducting business with fairness, probity, and respect for all parties involved. - 1 - 2. SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE PURCHASING TEAM Purchased products and services account for a significant portion of total operating cost. This provides a continuous opportunity for cost reduction and control. The Purchasing Team provides support to ensure an uninterrupted supply of goods and services of acceptable quality and best value. This support includes the following: 1. Procurement: various degrees of involvement based on complexity, risk and dollar value. Consultation with the Purchasing team is required if the purchase is beyond the specific dollar limits of the user's purchasing card. 2. Management of surplus and scrap: reuse or disposal for best value 3. Sourcing: new products, services or vendors or technology. 4. Research 5. Contract management: various degrees of involvement based on complexity, risk and dollar value. All supply transactions have contractual implications. 6. Resolution of Supply disputes. 7. Standardization: products and services 8. Sponsorship: process development and contract management 9. Inventory management 10. Central Stores 11. Vendor relations and development 12. Record keeping 13. Training, coaching and monitoring on procurement and other supply issues. PURPOSE: To summarize the responsibilities of the Purchasing Team. 3. AUTHORITY & RESPONSIBILITY 3.1 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER The Chief Administrative Officer as directed by Council delegates Purchasing authority throughout the organization, as outlined in Schedule "A". 3.2 GENERAL MANAGERS The General Managers are responsible for ensuring Purchasing Policy is followed within their areas of control. PURPOSE: • To ensure that expenditures comply with the District business plans. • To ensure that sufficient analysis and discussion has taken place. • To ensure the risk of fraud, embezzlement and error is minimized. 4. SERVICE CONTRACTS Services procurement is subject to the same policy as materials, equipment or supplies procurement. The annual value of a service contract determines the authorization required. - 2 - EXAMPLES OF SERVICE CONTRACTS: 1. Professional or Consulting Services • Legal • Banking • Engineering • Architectural • Planning 2. Facilities and Equipment • Janitorial • Equipment Maintenance • Security 3. Labour and Construction • Plumbing • Clean Up • Inspection 5. PROCESS OR TOOLS PRINCIPAL PROCUREMENT TOOLS (subject to dollar thresholds in Schedule A) 1. Invitation to Tender: A formal request for sealed bids for the supply of specific goods or services in response to an advertised invitation. It may be opened in public. The Tendering process itself forms complex legal obligations. PURCHASING MUST BE INVOLVED AND NOTIFIED WHEN THE TENDER IS FIRST BEING DEVELOPED. 2. Request for Proposals: A formal request for sealed submissions. It is not as specific as an Invitation to Tender. It describes an opportunity or problem and asks for solutions and costs for those specific opportunities or problems. The RFP process itself forms complex legal obligations. PURCHASING MUST BE INVOLVED AND NOTIFIED WHEN THE RFP IS FIRST IS FIRST BEING DEVELOPED. 3. Prequalification: An attempt to identify in advance of an actual Tender or RFP suppliers that are capable of successfully accomplishing what is required in that Tender or RFP. Usually, this is used in complex procurements only. The Prequalification process itself may form legal obligations. PURCHASING MUST BE INVOLVED AND NOTIFIED WHEN THE PREQUALIFICATION IS FIRST BEING DEVELOPED. 4. Request for Information: A request for written information. It may or may not develop into a supply contract. This does not have the legal obligations of an Invitation to Tender, Request for Proposals or a Prequalification. PURCHASING MAY BE INVOLVED IN A CONSULTATIVE ROLE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE END USER. -3 - 5. Purchasing Card: The Purchasing Card is a corporate credit card issued to specific employees for purchases within clearly defined parameters. Purchasing will determine who shall participate in the card program and the spending limits of each card user. Every card user will have a designated supervisor or manager for authorization. PURCHASING MAY BE INVOLVED IN A CONSULTATIVE ROLE AT THE DISCRETION OF THE END USER. 6. CHOOSING THE BEST PROCESS OR TOOL The Purchasing Team, after consultation with their customer will select the most suitable procurement tool or process. 1) Time: When are the goods and/or services required? 2) Complexity: Are there specifications, alternate solutions, sub-contractors to be considered? 3) Risk: Is there low, moderate or high risk regarding public liability, danger to our property, failure to perform? 4) Cost: Generally, the higher the cost, the more complex the appropriate process. 7. PROHIBITIONS The following activities are prohibited: 1) The division of contracts to avoid using the tools and practices as described in the Purchasing Policy. 2) Purchase by the District from any member of Council, appointed officers, employees of the District or their immediate families or from any other source that would result in a conflict of interest. 3) Purchase by the District of any goods or services for personal use by or on behalf of any member of Council appointed officers, employees of the District or their immediate families. 4) The use of a purchasing card by anyone other than the person to whom the card was issued. 5) The release of a Suppliers written or oral information. This practice is unethical and may be illegal as well as damaging to the District's competitive position. Requests of this nature are to be managed through Purchasing. 8. CO-OPERATIVE VENTURES The District may participate with other government agencies, public authorities or private organizations in co-operative acquisition ventures where it is in the best interest of the taxpayer to do so and may follow the procedures set out by the group responsible for the venture. - 4 - 9. PREFERENCE TO LOCAL SUPPLIERS We support local merchants by encouraging the use of local suppliers and by purchasing locally, where all things are equal. The following priorities will be given where all things are equal, (i.e. after giving due consideration to determining overall Best Value) • Firstly -Locally • Secondly -Within the Province • Thirdly -Within Canada • Fourthly -Outside Canada No percentage differences or dollar preferences will be given to purchasing locally as that would represent a direct grant to local suppliers, however, full consideration will be given to potential future costs or savings that may be experienced by using a local. 10. ITEMS NOT REQUIRING THE INVOLVEMENT OF PURCHASING Although subject to all other District Policies and Procedures the involvement of Purchasing Staff is not required for the following items: • Petty Cash Professional and Training Activities • Training and Education • Conference Fees • Convention Fees • Courses • Magazines • Meeting Expense • Memberships • Periodicals • Seminars • Staff Development • Staff Training • Staff Workshops • Subscription -5 - Refundable Employee Benefits • Cash Advances • Entertainment • Hotel Accommodation • Meal Allowances • Mileage Allowance -Vehicle • Miscellaneous Travel Expense (e.g. Airport Fees) Employer's General Expenses • Debt Payments • Grants to Agencies • Licenses (vehicle, elevators, radios, etc.) • Medical and Dental Expenses • Payment of Damages • Payroll Deduction Remittances • Petty Cash Replenishments 11. PURCHASING CARDS Although subject to all other District Policies and Procedures, including Purchasing Policy -Tools and Processes, the involvement of Purchasing Staff is not required. Purchasing may be utilized in a consultative capacity on any Purchasing Card transaction, e.g. recommend vendors. 12. CONTINGENCY AND SCOPE CHANGES Contingency allowances provide Project Manager's with discretion to meet a requirement, which is not perfectly defined. Unit price contracts are valued according to a process established in the contract documents. Quantities may vary. As a result, the bid is not a fixed sum or ceiling, but, rather, a common basis for comparison among bidders. These contracts may require a contingency as the final quantities may be more or less than the original estimate. Contingency options must be outlined in Reports to Council when an award is recommended. -6 -11 '·'j I I f 1 I I 12. CONTINGENCY AND SCOPE CHANGES (Cont'd) During the course of a project, additional works may arise that could not be anticipated during the project planning process. A contractor already engaged in works for the District may be able to better respond to this related work as they have already very recently met District requirements. For example, other potential bidders may not be able to obtain requisite insurance and bonding in a timely and/or cost effective manner. As a result, the contractor engaged in the principal works may be asked for a quotation for additional works. This offer may be accepted, provided it is reasonable, and good value in the opinion of the Project Manager and the Manager of Procurement. Funds must be available for Scope changes as for any other activity of this nature. 13. SOLE SOURCE PROCUREMENT There are occasions when products/services must be purchased from one specific source or manufacturer. Personal preference for certain brands or products does not justify limiting competition. Whenever possible competition should be encouraged and developed. Products or services purchased on a sole source basis must meet at least one of the criteria shown below. Compatibility with existing equipment The products or services are being purchased to directly interface with or attach to equipment of the same manufacture, and no other manufacturers products will correctly and effectively interface with existing equipment. Compatibility for instructional purposes The products are being purchased to supplement existing equipment for use and operation. The product must exactly match the existing equipment and is being purchased to provide uniformity for instructional purposes. Uniformity should provide a significant instructional benefit. Compatibility for Research If the main purpose for acquiring equipment, supplies or services is to replicate specific outcomes, using the exact products that produced the original results may be necessary. Only one supplier can be identified to supply a product or service In rare cases, only one supplier may exist to provide a particular product or service. Specifying patented products or processes, when not necessary to meet functional requirements, is not acceptable as a sole source justification -7 - Emergency Purchasing When quick or immediate acquisition of goods or services is determined to be necessary to restore or maintain minimum acceptable levels of community service, or prevent serious delays or injury. In an emergency the preparation, documentation and analysis aspects of the usual purchasing procedures as described in the Procedure section of Schedule "A" Acquisition Dollar Amount Approval Thresholds may not be possible. Oral authorization will be acceptable as described in the Approval Required section of Schedule "A' Acquisition Dollar Amount Approval Thresholds. All normal purchasing documentation and reporting, complete with signed authorizations as required is to be completed as soon as possible after the emergency. Sole Source Justification Report A written explanation, commonly referred to as a Sole Source Justification, must be provided to the Manager of Procurement to support sole source purchases over $20,000. The Chief Administrative Officer will give final authorization. Your Sole Source Justification Report will be filed as part of the official procurement documents and may be subject to review or audit by interested parties. e.g. Freedom Of Information and Privacy Requests. 14. CONSULTING AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACTS Consulting and professional services contracts will be awarded on the basis · of demonstrated competence and qualifications for the type of professional services to be rendered. Any professional services or consulting contract less than $20,000 may be awarded directly at the discretion of the appropriate General Manager or his/her designate. Any professional services contract expected to be worth more than $20,000. annually shall be bid competitively as described in Schedule "A" Acquisition Dollar Amount Approval Thresholds or Sole Source Justification shall be required. The appropriate General Manager will conduct reviews of significant contracted consulting or professional services with the Manager of Procurement on a rotational basis so that there will be at least one review each year. All significant consulting or professional services contracts will be subject to review at least once every three years. -8 - SCHEDULE "A" This schedule refers to the approvals required for the various dollar values of procurement. Other than in emergencies, budget approval is required before Procurement begins. ACQUISITION DOLLAR AMOUNT APPROVAL THRESHOLDS Once Municipal Council through the Business Plan and Budget process has approved funds for your purchase, the following thresholds apply: Greatet than $100,000. . ... but less th.an: . ' .. $150,QOO ... users to. obtain sealed Tenders, Proposals or J?requajifications, .A combination ()f local, . tegionaland national newspaper• ~dvertising ~ill pe usedJo locate interested parti§F Opportunities '\yill .. also qe postecl. op. .. the Municipal \\'ebsite ~ncl a.telecti-onicprocuiement ·tes s116h as BG Bid dME :.·.·.:.:. :: :::::::)'.:)\?-::://:?':::-'' :::. . . . :: ?/\::' : :: : :::)/. :::::: '''' ''' ::·:·: .. Have the Procurement division work with end •........... . ............... ,.. ....... ................... .... . ......• users to obtain sealed Tenders, Proposals or Prequalifications. A combination of local, national newspaper advertising may be use •. o ocate interested parties. Opportunities will also be posted on the Municipal website and · atelectronic procurement sites such as BC Bid andMERX .. · · - 9 - Greater than $20,000. But less $100,000 Have the Procurement division work with end users to ensure fair competition. Telephone, facsimile, e-mail or;written quotes or proposals will be acceptable unless stated otherwise. Formal tendering or Request for Proposal. processes will not be used but. competitiveness will still be encouraged and all participants will be treated fairly and equitably. A minimum of three bids or offers will be sought whenever possible. Use some degree ofcompetitionwhenever possible. Offers should be obtained from .more than one supplier when that is sensible and pnideriCPrns~ss. cq~tand c:ost of time. needs to be balanced <.1gainstdue diligence to obtain best value. An optimuniiiumber ofoffers for low dollar simple procurements is three. Purchasing may be contacted tq a.gvise I). who may wish to ~upply2) '-",9. aref~pt1table, ~xp~ri~nced. vendors.3) whether<.1 co11tractis in place for .what is required 4 liether.a need~d supply is in inventory sllou1.d be iiritivent9fy a.t Stores. General Manager or his/her designate. * Although the value of most contracts can be defined as the cost to the District to acquire specific goods or services, occasionally a more nuanced definition of value is appropriate. When rights or privileges are embedded in a contract the net dollar cost to the District may not reflect it's true significance. e.g. bus bench advertising; towing services. In situations of this type the total value of the contract to the successful supplier shall determine what process is used and what approval is required. Invitations for sealed tenders or proposals will be reviewed by the Purchasing Division for consistency and legal compliance. The Purchasing Division will be the lead agency in issuing invitations for sealed tenders or proposals at the request of the user department. -10 - Definitions: Acquisition Method -the process by which goods or services are procured. Best Value -obtained by determining the total cost of performing the intended function over the lifetime of that function. Bid-an offer or submission from a vendor, contractor, or consultant in response to a tender or request. It may be subject to acceptance or rejection. Bid Request -a formal request for bids or solicitation, which may be in the form of a request for quotation, request for tender, request for information or request for proposal. Cheque Request - a written request to pay for goods or services on an approved form, not covered by a purchase order, contract or other direct methods. Contract -an agreement that may be written or verbal comprising the following components: (1) must be legal, (2) parties involved must have the intellectual capacity to understand, (3) there is an offer, ( 4) there is acceptance, (5) something of value changes hands (also known as consideration). Electronic Requisition -an internal request in electronic format (to Purchasing) for information, research or to procure goods and services. Emergency -a situation where the immediate acquisition of goods or services is essential to provide community service, prevent serious delays, injury, further damage or to restore or maintain minimum service. End User -the person or persons ultimately using or managing/supervising the use of required goods, materials or services. Prequalification -the procuring organization evaluates interested suppliers/vendors prior to a Tender or RFP process. This identifies who may be capable of performing the work. Typical criteria for this determination would be specialized necessary expertise, resources, relevant experience and references. Probity -adherence to the highest principles and ideals. Procure -to acquire by purchase, rental, lease or trade. Proprietary Specifications -Exclusivity that restricts the acceptable products or services to one manufacturer or vendor. Some Proprietary items may be available from several distributors affording a limited degree of competitiveness. Proprietary specification should be avoided if possible as it limits or eliminates competition. Purchasing Card -is a corporate credit card issued to specific employees for purchases within clearly defined parameters. Quotations -a formal request for bids for the supply of goods or services, from selected sources of supply, not opened in public. -11 -I ~ Request - a formal request or solicitation, which may be in the form of a request for quotation, request for tender, request for information, request for proposal or request for offers. Request for Offer -a request by the District for formal offers to purchase surplus, used or obsolete materials, equipment or property. Request for Proposal -a formal request for details on the supply of goods or the provision of services which cannot be fully defined of specified. Request for Tender -a formal request for sealed bids for the supply of goods or services in response to an advertised invitation opened in public. Services -useful labours that do not produce a tangible commodity. Sole Source -When a product or service is practicably available from only one source competitive procurement cannot be conducted. Obtaining best value can be challenging in these circumstances -12 -I_ I 4·-~-··· mapleridge.ca City of Maple Ridge TO: FROM: SUBJECT: His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer Tandem Parking Update EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: MEETING DATE: May 7, 2019 FILE NO: 2013-096-RZ MEETING: Workshop Tandem parking in townhouse developments has been a topic of discussion for several years, due to concerns around residents using their parking space for storage, lack of unit storage space, garages being too small and narrow, and short driveway aprons to accommodate vehicles. Concerns from residents surrounding townhouse developments are that the developments do not provide sufficient parking, and cause increases in the number of vehicles parked on the street. Council directed staff to review the tandem parking issues in 2013, a Public Open House was held on the proposed bylaw amendments, and in 2015, the issue was referred back to staff for further review. The 2015 Planning Department Business Plan identified Tandem Parking Review as an item within the Business Plan; however based on Council's prioritization exercise, the item was removed from the 2015 Work Program. This item has been identified as a priority for this Council's 2019 Strategic Plan and staff were directed to provide an update to Council. The purpose of this report is to summarize the work done to date and to seek direction from Council on how to proceed. RECOMMENDATION: That Staff be directed to consult with residents residing in certain townhouse developments as listed in the report dated May 7, 2019, the Urban Development Institute and Homebuilders Association of Vancouver Municipal Advisory Committee, the Builders' Forum, and Condominium Home Owners' Association to obtain feedback regarding tandem parking. BACKGROUND: The current Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350 -1990 allows for parking that obstructs access, where the primary parking space is a carport or garage and the obstruction is an intervening parking space. This is considered tandem parking. Tandem parking may be provided with two parking spaces placed one behind the other in an enclosed garage, as opposed to the typical side-by-side double car garage, or one parking space enclosed within a garage, and one parking space provided on the apron in front of the garage. Concerns around tandem parking were raised when several townhouse development applications were presented to Council that proposed either 100% or a high percentage of tandem parking. Council had concerns around the residents not using the second enclosed parking space for a vehicle, but rather using it for storage or living space; not having a driveway apron that could accommodate a second vehicle; not having enough space in the garage to maneuver or park two vehicles; and the logistics of the vehicle that is the first one in is usually the vehicle that would need to be the first one out, so it would be inconvenient to always have to move the vehicles around, resulting in more vehicles being parked on the street. Due to these concerns, Council directed staff to review the existing regulations, options and implications. On May 27, 2013, a discussion paper on Tandem and Off-Street Parking was presented at Council Workshop (see Appendix A). This discussion paper reviewed how other municipalities were regulating tandem parking in townhouse developments at that time, and reviewed different scenarios for a hypothetical development site, with different allowances for tandem parking (100%; 70%; 50%; and 0% tandem parking allowed). Based on the analysis conducted, the discussion paper made recommendations for regulation changes to limit the amount of tandem parking while trying to strike a balance between affordability and liveability. Staff were directed to prepare the bylaw amendments and conduct an Open House for review of the amendments. On October 8, 2013, Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024 -2013 and Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025 -2013 were given first reading, with amendments to what was proposed in the original Council Workshop Report (see Appendix B). The bylaw amendments were then referred to a public process for comments and feedback. On November 13, 2013, an Open House was held and the results of the feedback provided from the general public and from the developers were summarized in a report presented at Council Workshop on February 17, 2014 (see Appendix C). Resident concerns with tandem parking were as follows: • The inner tandem garage is used for storage/living area, so secondary vehicles are forced onto the street; • Tandem garages are too small for a pick-up truck and a car; • The taller tandem units are not senior-friendly; and • The narrow tandem units do not have a visually pleasing steetscape. Developer concerns were as follows: • They are concerned with the 70% maximum allowance for tandem units, as it will make it difficult to sell the 30% double-car garage units, as they will be more expensive; • They support having a mix of tandem and double-car garages, but would prefer it to be left to the architect, to be assessed on a site-by-site basis, rather than putting in the 70% maximum tandem unit restriction in the bylaw; • They oppose the requirement for a full driveway apron for each tandem unit, as it increases the parking requirement, but does not discourage people from converting tandem garage space to storage/living space; and • There is general support for providing more on-site visitor parking on townhouse site. Based on the feedback from the questionnaires provided at the Open House, amendments were proposed to Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024 -2013 and Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025 -2013 and were presented at the March 25, 2014 Council Meeting for second reading and to proceed to Public Hearing for Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024 -2013; and for second and third reading for Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025 -2013 (as amendments to the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw are not required to go to Public Hearing) (see Appendix D). A summary of the bylaw iterations over the years is provided as Appendix E. Page 2 of 8 I ~ Council did not give second reading as they were not satisfied with the bylaws as amended, and rather referred the bylaws to a future Workshop Meeting. Concerns expressed around the amended bylaws included the following: • Were the proposed amendments addressing residents' concerns? • How are the storage issues being addressed? • Average vehicles are too large to fit within the proposed dimensions and the proposed apron lengths also do not accommodate larger vehicles. • Council liked the original proposal of 70% maximum tandem parking units, but appreciated the flexibility for site-specific considerations. The 2015 Planning Department Business Plan identified Tandem Parking Review as an item within the Business Plan; however based on Council's prioritization exercise, the item was removed from the 2015 Work Program. In the meantime, based on the previous discussions, Staff have been recommending to developers to provide a 70/30 or 60/40 ratio of tandem garages to double-car garages for townhouse developments to alleviate Council's concerns until the bylaw amendments were approved. Anecdotally, since 2015, many developers have been reverting back to double-car garages in Maple Ridge, in recognition of the larger vehicles driven here and market demand. However, as affordability has decreased, tandem parking is again being increasingly considered by developers to increase densities and reduce costs. Therefore, this review is again timely. This item has been identified as a priority for this Council's 2019 Strategic Plan and staff were directed to provide this update to Council. Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw: The current Off-Street Parking and Loading and Bylaw No. 4350 -1990 allows for parking that may have obstructed access where the primary parking space is a carport or garage and the obstruction is an intervening parking space. This tandem parking arrangement is currently permitted in the RS-1, RS-1a, RS-1b, R-1, RT-1 and RM-1 zones, without restriction. Garage dimensions and apron lengths are also not currently specified within the bylaw. Given that several years have passed since our Council first discussed implementing a limit on the tandem parking within townhouse developments, it is worthwhile to provide a summary of surrounding municipalities that have implemented similar restrictions within their comparable townhouse zones. The table below summarizes municipalities reviewed. The most recent implementation was the Township of Langley, which just passed the Zone Amending Bylaw in March 2019. Note that the highest allowable percentage of tandem parking is 50% for surrounding existing municipal regulations. Table 1 -Summary of Municipalities that Restrict Tandem Parking in Townhouse Developments Municipality Maximum Percentage of Tandem Visitor Parking Parking Permitted in a Townhouse Requirements Zone Coquitlam 33% 0.2 Mission 50% 0.2 Port Coquitlam 40% 0.2 Richmond 50% 0.2 Surrey 50% 0.2 Township of Langley 40% 0.2 Page 3 of 8 ANALYSIS: Summary of Vehicle and Garage Dimensions At the Council Meeting of March 25, 2014, where the Zone Amending and Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaws were last discussed, Council was questioning the dimensions proposed for the garages and apron lengths to accommodate various vehicles. Below is a summary of common vehicle widths and lengths: Table 2 -Common Vehicle Widths and Lengths Vehicle Type Width Length Small Car (Toyota Yaris, Ford Fiesta) 1.7m (5.6 ft.) 4.0m -4.4m (13.1 ft. -14.4 ft.) Compact Car (Toyota Corolla, Nissan Leaf) 1.8m (5.9 ft.) 4.5m -4.7m (14.8 ft. -15.4 ft.) Compact SUV (Ford Escape, Hyundai Tucson) 1.9m (6.2 ft.) 4.5m (14.7 ft.) Family Car (Toyota Camry, Honda Accord) 1.9m (6.2 ft.) 4.9m (16.1 ft.) Large SUV (Jeep Cherokee, Toyota Highlander) 1.9m (6.2 ft.) 4.6m -4.9m (15.1 ft. -16.1 ft.) Pick-Up Truck (Toyota Tacoma, Ford F-150) 2.0m (6.6 ft.) 5.4m -6.4m (17.7 ft. -21.0 ft.) The Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350 -1990 currently has minimum off-street parking dimensions of 2.5m (8.2 ft.) wide, 5.5m long (18 ft.), and 2.1m (6.9 ft.) high (parallel parking spaces are to be 6.1m (20 ft.) long). There is a provision to allow for 10% small car only parking stalls, which have dimensions of 2.4m (7.9 ft.) wide, by 4.9m long (16 ft.), by 2.1m (6.9 ft.) high. In addition to the vehicle width, space is required to open doors and maneuver around, which is typically 0.9m (3 ft.) on either side of the vehicle. Based on the widths and lengths of the range of common vehicles listed in Table 2, the minimum internal width required for a single car garage, including the 0.9m (3 ft.) maneuvering space on either side, and front and back ranges from 3.5m (11.5 ft.) to 3.8m (12.5 ft.), and a minimum length of 5.8m (19.0 ft.) to 8.2m (26.9 ft.), as summarized in Table 3 below. The minimum internal width range for a tandem garage would remain the same, at 3.5m (11.5 ft.) to 3.8m (12.5 ft.), but the minimum length would range from 10.7m (35.1 ft.) to 15.5m (50.9 ft.). Note that this dimension is generous, as it accounts for 0.9m (3 ft.) in front of, in between, and behind each vehicle. The larger range also accounts for two full-sized pick-up trucks, which is probably not likely. A more likely scenario may be a pick-up truck and a compact SUV or car, which would be in the upper range of 13.6 m (44.6 ft.). The minimum internal width range for a double car garage ranges from 6.1m (20 ft.) to 6.7m (22.0 ft.) wide, accounting for 0.9m (3 ft.) on either side of each vehicle and in between. The minimum length range would be the same as a single car garage, ranging from 5.8m (19.0 ft.) to 8.2m (26.9 ft.). Page 4 of 8 Table 3 -Minimum Garage Dimensions, Including 0.9m (3 ft.) Maneuvering Space on All Sides Type of Garage Width Range Length Range Single Car 3.5m (11.5 ft.) to 3.8m (12.5 ft.) 5.8m (19.0 ft.) to 8.2m (26.9 ft.) Tandem Car 3.5m (11.5 ft.) to 3.8m (12.5 ft.) 10.7m (35.1 ft.) to 15.5m (50.9 ft.) Double Car 6.1m (20 ft.) to 6.7m (22.0 ft.) 5.8m (19.0 ft.) to 8.2m (26.9 ft.). Based on the above information, if Council wanted to specify dimensions to accommodate a range of vehicles, the minimum garage dimensions would be as follows: Type of Garage Single Car Tandem Car Double Car Table 4 -Proposed Minimum Garage Dimensions Depending on Vehicle Width and Length Typical Garage Width Length Dimensions Family Car/SUV Pick-up Truck Family Car/SUV Pick-up Truck 3.7m (12 ft.) wide by 3.7m (12.1 ft.) 3.7m (12.1 6.7m (22.0 ft.) 8.2m (26.9 ft.) 5.5m (18 ft.) long ft.) 3.5m (11.5 ft.) wide 3.7m (12.1 ft.) 3.7m (12.1 12.5m (41.0 ft.) 13.5m (44.3 ft.) by 11m (36 ft.) long ft.) 5.8m (19 ft.) wide by 6.5m (21.3 ft.) 6.5m (21.3 6.7m (22.0 ft.) 8.2m (26.9 ft.) 6m (20 ft.) long ft.) Based on a review of townhouse development applications, a typical double-car garage is approximately 5.8m (19 ft.) wide by 6m (20 ft.) long. A typical single car garage is 3.6m (12 ft.) wide by 5.5m (18 ft.) long. A typical tandem garage, with 2 enclosed stalls is 3.5m (11.5 ft.) wide by 11m (36 ft.) long, as summarized in Table 4 above. These typical tandem garage dimensions would accommodate for two family cars/SUVs, with less space in between for maneuvering, but would not accommodate for two pick-up trucks in a tandem arrangement. Council could consider requiring a larger garage dimension to accommodate either a smaller vehicle with storage, or a larger vehicle without storage. Depending on whether or not Council wants to permit tandem car garages with two enclosed spaces, direction on the type of vehicles to accommodate would be required to specify the minimum dimensions in the amending bylaws. Should Council determine that they would like to eliminate tandem garages, due to the concern of using the parking space for storage/living space, and allow for a single car garage with a driveway apron to accommodate the second parking stall, direction would be needed to determine what type of garage and length of the driveway apron would be appropriate. Additionally, should Council determine that they would like to restrict the amount of tandem parking within a townhouse development, as had been proposed as 70% maximum tandem parking in the initial Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025 -2013 that had received first reading, Council should provide direction in the amount of tandem garages they would deem appropriate. Note that should Council determine they would like the flexibility to review a development on a site-by-site basis, the developer would still be able to apply for a variance to the maximum allowable tandem parking requirement. However, an amendment to the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350 -1990 would provide staff with a baseline to inform developers of what Council prefers. Page 5 of 8 l · A common concern with townhouse development applications in general is that there is not enough parking in the area and that residents are parking on the streets. Council could direct staff to increase the required amount of visitor parking for townhouse developments to alleviate this concern; however it would not address the issue of residents using on-street parking, as it would be intended for visitors only. The current requirement for visitor parking for multi-family uses in Maple Ridge is 0.2 per unit, which is consistent with surrounding municipalities (see Table 1). Summary of Recent Townhouse Development Applications Although the proposed amendments did not get second reading back in 2015, staff have been working with developers to avoid 100% tandem parking arrangements for townhouse developments and have been recommending to developers to provide a 70/30 or 60/40 ratio of tandem garages to double-car garages for townhouse developments. In addition to this provision, staff also limit the block sizes to 6 units per block and insist that the townhouse units are provided with a pedestrian door entrance that is separate from the garage to improve the liveability and appearance of the development. Recent townhouse development applications with tandem parking arrangements that have been approved by Council, range from 10% to 60% are (see Appendix F). One application, located on the east side of 240 Street, north of Kanaka Way, consisted of 54 units, 5 of which were with a tandem garage configuration (10%). Another application, located on the south-west corner of 236 Street and Larch Avenue, consisted of 31 units, 3 of which were with a tandem garage configuration (10%). The third application, located on the east side of 240 Street, south of Kanaka Way, consisted of 130 units, 76 of which were with a tandem garage configuration (58%). All three of these rezoning applications were given final reading in 2018. Another application that received first reading in 2017 and is located within the Town Centre Area Plan, is located on Fletcher Street, and is proposing 7 units, 4 of which would have a tandem garage configuration (57%). In addition to the applications above, a townhouse development application located on Lougheed Highway, received third reading on March 18, 2019. This application was under the RM-4 (Multiple Family Residential District) zone which requires parking to be underground. The developer sought a variance to this underground parking requirement, so the development is similar to the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone, with a higher density. The development consists of 30 townhouse units, 18 of which are with a tandem garage configuration (60%). The tandem units also have driveway apron lengths of 6.1m (20 ft.) to accommodate a third vehicle. Page 6 of 8 NEXT STEPS: Although much work has been done to try to address Council's concerns with tandem parking, 100% tandem parking remains permitted in the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350 -1990, and this warrants further review. Prior to amending the bylaws and bringing them to Council for review, staff recommend that feedback be obtained from residents residing in certain townhouse developments, as listed below; the Urban Development Institute (UDI) and Homebuilders Association of Vancouver (HAVAN) Municipal Advisory Committee, in person at the next scheduled meeting; the Builders' Forum, in person at the next scheduled meeting; and Condominium Home Owners' Association, through a mailout. This feedback would be used to consider what type of amendments are needed and to create options for regulating tandem parking in Maple Ridge. The results of this feedback would be brought back to Council in a future Workshop report. For the residents residing in townhouse developments, anonymous hardcopy surveys could be sent to the residents of townhouse developments, with electronic surveys made available, to developments that have: i. 100% double car garages (10 unit example located at 11548 207 Street) ii. 100% tandem garages (159 unit example located at 10151 240 Street) iii. 70/30 tandem to double car garage ratio (61 unit example located at 13260 236 Street); iv. 60/40 tandem to double car garage ratio (167 unit example located at 11305 240 Street); and v. 50/50 tandem to double car garage ratio (40 unit example located at 23986 104 Avenue) The examples listed above were selected as the Development Permits for the townhouses were approved within the last 10 years and have been constructed and are occupied. The survey could be used to determine if the tandem garages are a concern for liveability, and if the cost savings were worth the potential inconvenience of having the tandem parking arrangement, and the extent to which it forces additional vehicles onto the street. ALTERNATIVE: Should Council feel that an additional public consultation process is not required and that enough information has been provided, Council can direct staff to prepare the amending bylaws accordingly with direction on the questions below: • Should the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw permit 2 car enclosed tandem garages, or a single car garage and driveway apron that can accommodate a second vehicle? • The size of vehicles to be accommodated in the tandem garage or on the driveway apron? • Should the amount of tandem parking units within a townhouse development be limited, and if so, to what percentage? • Should the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw specify internal garage dimensions? • Should the amount of visitor parking required per unit be increased? • Should a defined storage area be required in garages? Page 7 of 8 CONCLUSION: This report was prepared as an update to Council on what has been done in the past with respect to regulating tandem parking in townhouse developments, and to seek input from Council on how to proceed. The recommendation is to seek input from the various stakeholders listed in the report and return to a future Council Workshop to summarize the results. Prepared by: Michelle Baski, AScT, MA Pia/le~ ~ ~ Reviewed by: rank Quinn, MBA, P. Eng GM Public Works & Development Services Concurrence: The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A -Tandem and Off-Street Parking Discussion Paper, dated May 27, 2013 Appendix B -Tandem and RM-1 Zone Amendments Report, dated October 7, 2013 Appendix C -Tandem and Off-Street Parking Open House Summary, dated February 17, 2014 Appendix D -Tandem Parking in the RM-1 Zone Report, dated March 17, 2014 Appendix E -Summary of Bylaw Iterations Appendix F -Recent Site Plans of Townhouse Developments with Tandem Parking Page 8 of 8 TO: District of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin and Members of Council MEETING DATE: FILE NO: APPENDIX A FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: May 27, 2013 Workshop SUBJECT: Tandem and Off-Street Parking Discussion Paper EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Planning Department 2013 Business Plan directed staff to prepare a report on tandem and off-street parking in Maple Ridge, based on concerns with tandem parking in multi-family (townhouse) developments in the District. This was triggered by several recent townhouse development applications proposing all or a significant percentage of the units with tandem parking. Tandem parking is currently permitted in a few single family zones, duplex zone and the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone. Given that recent discussion has noted concerns with tandem parking in townhouse projects, the focus of this report is on tandem and off-street parking in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone. Townhouse units with tandem parking are a fairly common form of housing in many jurisdictions within the region. Typically the tandem parking arrangement results in a taller, narrower unit with a minimal driveway apron in front of the tandem garage. The perception is that tandem townhouse units typically sell for less, than the units with a double car garage and it is often a preferred option with developers to maximize the unit yield. Staff discussions with some of the private sector stakeholders suggest that tandem units are more affordable, however, there is no concrete evidence that tandem units sell for less in the market. General discussions with staff from other jurisdictions and the private sector stakeholders indicated that while there is a general perception of overall acceptance of tandem townhouse units in the market, there are concerns with a 100% tandem townhouse developments across the region. This report focuses on the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone and includes the following: • Review of the existing regulations for tandem and off-street parking and loading regulations; • Review of tandem parking regulations in other jurisdictions within the region; • Identification of concerns/issues with tandem parking; • Review of scenarios/ options for the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone with graphic examples of each scenario; • Review of the recommended option for tandem parking in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) zone. RECOMMENDATION: That the "Tandem and Off-Street Parking Discussion Paper" dated May 27, 2013 be received for information and discussion. BACKGROUND: The Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990 permits tandem parking in specific single family zones, duplex zone and the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone. Tandem Parking has not been a concern in single family zones where the roads meet the municipal standards and the driveways may be wider. In some cases, there is parking along the streets as well. 1 4.2 However within the townhouse zone it appears to be a concern. The District has seen a steady rise in townhouse development projects with all tandem parking units. DISCUSSION: A) Review of the existing tandem and Off-Street Parking and Loading regulations: The Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw provides for tandem parking in certain single family zones, duplex zone and the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone. The bylaw reads: PART IV, Section 4.1(iii)(b)(iv), of Maple Ridge off-Street Parking & Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990, "the RS-1 (one Family Urban Residential) zone, RS-1a (One Family Amenity Residential) zone, RS-1b (One Family Urban Residential-Medium Density) zone, R-1 (Residential District) zone, RT-1 (Two Family Urban Residential) zone and RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone, may have obstructed access where the primary parking space is a carport or garage and the obstruction is an intervening parking space". Out of the above noted zones, the RS-1, RS-1b, R-1 and RT-1 are single family or duplex zones. Each of the above mentioned zones require a minimum of two parking spaces per unit and an additional parking space for a permitted Accessory Residential use such as a Home Occupation, Secondary Suite or Detached Garden Suite (if permitted in the zone). For the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone, two spaces per unit plus a 0.2 space per unit for visitors is required. It is important to note that out of all the available multi-family zones in the District, only the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone permits tandem parking. B) Review of tandem parking regulations in other jurisdictions within the region: The following identifies the tandem regulations used in other municipalities within the region (Appendix A): i. City of Pitt Meadows: allows tandem parking in the townhouse zone. The townhouse zone requires a ratio of 1.75 spaces per unit for residents and 0.2 spaces per unit for visitors. ii. City of Port Coquitlam: does not have tandem parking regulations in the Zoning Bylaw, but permits it on a site by site basis. Recently their Council has expressed concerns with tandem parking in the townhouse zones and the City staff has been encouraging a balanced proportion of double and tandem garages on a project by project basis. iii. City of Coquitlam: does not have tandem parking regulations in the Zoning Bylaw, but permits it on a site by site basis. In most cases, tandem spaces may be provided as extra spaces and are not included in the parking calculations. They are sometimes proposed in addition to the minimum parking spaces required in the zone, as a marketing tool. iv. Township of Langley: permits tandem parking in the townhouse zone but requires a higher ratio i.e. in the townhouse zone, units with tandem parking garages require a ratio of 2.5 spaces per unit instead of 2.0 spaces per unit for a double garage unit. The Township requires a Restrictive Covenant on the tandem space, to discourage conversion of it to a habitable space. The bylaw is silent on permitting tandem parking in any other zones. 2 v. City of Burnaby: does not permit tandem parking except for specific projects on site by site basis through a Comprehensive Development zoning. It forms a part of specific site design with a Restrictive Covenant registered on title to ensure that the tandem space is not converted in to a habitable space. The required minimum parking ratio for ground-oriented townhouse zones is 1.75 spaces per unit (including 0.25 spaces per unit for visitor parking) except for a specific zone permitted in the business district where it is reduced to 1.0 space per unit. These ratios are much lower parking ratios than Maple Ridge and other jurisdictions and tandem parking is in general discouraged. vi. Corporation of Delta: permits tandem parking in single family zones, duplex zone, strata house and townhouse zones. There are more than one townhouse zones with varying densities from 25 to 40 units per net hectare, depending on the specific zone. Visitor parking ratio is similar to Maple Ridge's requirements. vii. City of Abbotsford: permits tandem parking in single family and townhouse residential zones. The townhouse residential use is required to provide two spaces per unit, of which one is located in a garage or under-ground parking and 20% of the total parking is required to be for visitors, which is same as the Maple Ridge's requirements. viii. District of Mission: permits tandem parking for ground-oriented townhouse zones, but with a restriction on the percentage of tandem units in two zones. These zones permit up to 50% tandem units which are limited to internal units only. The densities vary in the three townhouse zones they offer and parking ratios are comparable to the District's requirements. ix. City of Richmond: has four sub-zones with the townhouse form and tandem parking is permitted within certain geographical locations in site-specific zones. These zones are permitted in the city centre and other busy areas that have fairly good connectivity by public transit. Standard minimum lengths and widths of the parking spaces are specified and densities vary in the various townhouse zones. It is interesting to note that the amenity space is expressed as a floor space ratio of 0.1. x. City of Surrey: permits tandem parking in ground oriented multiple unit residential use with a greater apron length on the driveway. The bylaw states "In a tandem parking arrangement where the second vehicle is parked outside a garage in the driveway a minimum length of 6.0 metres (19. 7 feet) shall be provided for each parking space". The City has recently been dealing with enforcement issues with tandem parking in Clayton Heights area. The tandem spaces have become living spaces and there are renters with cars on the same site. City of Surrey has some additional regulations with respect to tandem parking permitted in the ground-oriented multiple unit residential zones, such as: restrictions on location of tandem parking spaces on an arterial road; restriction that both the tandem spaces be enclosed and attached to the unit; requirement that both tandem spaces be held by the same owner and that tandem parking is not permitted for units located within 6.0 metres from lot entrances/exits. In reviewing other municipal parking bylaws it is clear that approaches vary by community with some not permitting tandem parking, some permitting tandem parking on a project by project basis, some permitting tandem parking by requiring a higher parking ratio or limiting the amount of tandem; requiring additional common amenity area and/or driveway aprons. Discussion with some of the staff from other municipalities confirms that several jurisdictions are expressing concerns over 100% tandem unit developments. 3 C) Identification of concerns/issues with tandem parking: The following section of the report notes the issues and preferences relating to tandem parking, that were identified through research and consultation with developers, architects, Building and Fire departments. The issues have been organized into the following categories: i. BC Building Code requirements: c Often the tandem or double parking garages on townhouse sites are built to meet the minimum B.C. Building Code requirements for width, depth and height. A driveway apron is the area in front of a tandem garage. It may or may not be adequate to park one vehicle. Under the bylaw, the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone does not require the driveway apron length to accommodate a parking space. If it is not adequate to park one vehicle, this may result in individual vehicles possibly encroaching into the 6.0 metre wide strata road. ii. Unit sizes, architectural design and streetscape: Townhouse units with a tandem garage are typically narrower (12.5 to 15 feet wide) and taller (3 or 3.5 storey) in form. The architectural form for tandem and double garage units differ significantly, one being a two storey massing while the other with tandem parking is a taller, narrow three-storey massing. The tandem units offer a denser, compact, taller form. The townhouse form is often envisioned and encouraged as a transition between single family and apartment building forms. A 100% tandem development maximizes on the density or the unit count on site which can at times be at the expense of creating interesting, pedestrian-friendly streetscapes. A combination of tandem and double garage units have greater potential to create an interesting streetscape with staggered units and inter-linking green spaces. Block sizes that exceed six units can create a monotonous fac;;ade. Smaller blocks of units create well-articulated facades separated with green buffers in between the blocks that promote natural light, ventilation and views. iii. Restrictive Covenant on the tandem space; enforcement of tandem spaces and visitor parking spaces: The Licences, Permits and Bylaws Department respond to formal written complaints seeking enforcement. However, they cannot enforce parking regulations on strata property. The District prefers the Strata Councils to try to resolve their own parking disputes. Units with a tandem garage often lose a parking space due to conversion into a habitable area, after the owner moves in. Complaints are received by the District about the lack of parking on site and in the streets, after this happens. Sometimes the visitor parking stalls are used by residents or cars are parked within the 6.0 metre wide strata road. In such instances, Strata Councils are responsible for enforcing parking on the property; however they are not always successful. For the District it becomes a safety concern, yet enforcement is a challenge. Long-term preservation of tandem parking space cannot necessarily be secured through the use of a Restrictive Covenant. A covenant however, can be informative to the unit owners but the District would be required to undertake enforcement and/or legal action. However, the District is under no obligation to enforce such a covenant even if in place. 4 D} ANALYSIS: Review of scenarios/options for the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District} zone with graphic examples of each scenario: As explained earlier the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone permits a townhouse development with ground-oriented units that have 100% tandem parking spaces. The density permitted is a floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.6 times the net lot area, with an additional 50m2 per unit basement habitable space. To review the impact of tandem parking spaces on a townhouse development, several factors need to be considered. Some important factors are: density (floor space ratio), usable open space, common activity area, setbacks, size of the block of units, driveway apron length, on-site parking for residents and visitors. The graphic examples attached as appendices help to illustrate the potential impacts of tandem parking along with recommended measures to minimize impacts. For the purpose of this review, four categories were analysed for the various scenarios: a) A townhouse development with 100% tandem parking spaces (currently permitted); b) A townhouse development with up to a maximum of 70% tandem parking spaces; c) A townhouse development with up to a maximum of 50% tandem parking spaces; d) A townhouse development with no tandem parking spaces (100% double garages). To assist in this review graphic illustrations have been provided utilizing some fixed and variable elements. These have been applied to a hypothetical piece of land. It should be noted that for simplification purpose, the development site is assumed to be a flat, one acre rectangular shaped piece of land with road frontage on one side. The following fixed elements included are: 1) Lot Size: 4047 m2 (1 acre or 43562.97 ft2) 2) FSR: 0.6 (50 m2 extra for habitable basement area per unit) 3) Unit sizes: 2 bedroom =1000 ft2 and 3 bedroom=1500 ft2 (50% of each type) 4) Setbacks: 7.5 m from all property lines 5) Parking: 2 spaces per unit (residential) and 0.2 spaces per unit (visitor) 6) 6.0 m wide strata road (no parking along strata road) 7) Max lot coverage: 40% 8) Units in one block: 2 minimum and 6 maximum (2-6 units) Some variable elements that could have a potential impact on addressing previously identified concerns with tandem parking are: 1) Percentage (%) of tandem parking spaces on site 2) Usable Open Space Area for units with tandem parking spaces 3) Common Activity Area for units with tandem parking spaces 4) Visitor parking ratio for units with tandem parking spaces 5) Driveway apron length for units with tandem parking spaces 6) Setback variances A total of 18 scenarios were considered in the review of tandem parking; however, one scenario clearly resulted in a reasonable mix of tandem and double wide units, maximization of green 5 I~ space/useable open space and a well-articulated, livable design, while maintaining a viable unit yield (refer to item i on page 7). Concern has been expressed with the 100% tandem parking (i.e. category a), which is what is currently permitted. In reality no tandem parking (i.e. category d) is not realistic, as most developments prefer to maximize on the number of units on site. Therefore, a mix of tandem and double wide parking scenarios are explored in greater detail (Appendix C-J). In each of the four scenarios, one variable was introduced to see the overall impact (see Appendix C-J). It was evident that introducing one variable in each of the scenarios did not help mitigate the potential impacts of units with tandem parking spaces. However, when three variables such as requiring a driveway apron, increasing the useable open space and limiting the amount of tandem parking, the overall improvements to the site design were clearly visible. Included below is an illustration of 100% units with tandem parking spaces, as permitted today. 7Sm Scenario 1A-Slte P.!an Scale: 1 :500 Site Plan Reconciliation Provided 21 Units 11 Units 10 Units Required #Units # of 3 Bedrooms # oi 2 Bedrooms % of tandem stall to units % of double stall. to units Usable Open Space Common Activity Area Visitor Parking @ 0:2 FSR: Building Site Coverage: 100 % 0 ~'¢ 2,011 m2 105 m2 5 stalls 0.608 795 m2 105 m2 4.2 staJls 0.600 40.0% vi!!!' iol!!!liil!5iiiiiiiiiiiii1i!!!!J !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,l!iiiS iiiiiiiiiiiiii21!!!0 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!2!iii5 iiiiiiiii~30 ,r, :Site Area GFA Road Area: Driveway Area: Site Coverage: Unit/Ha: Road Site Coverage: 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft 2,462 m2 =26,500 sq it 473 m2 = ,5,095 sq ft 150 m2: '1,611 sq ft 1,263 m2 .. 13,593 sq It 51.892 11.7% Driveway Site Coverage: 3.7 % Totai Hard Surface Coverage: 15'4 % 6 It is clear in the site plan above, 21 units can be achieved on a one acre parcel. It is important to note that this scenario maximizes the unit count, density, gross floor area and provides minimal articulation to the streetscape for the residents. The required useable open space and common activity area are met by including all the setback areas and not permitting any setback reductions via a Development Variance Permit. i) Scenario 2E: maximum of 70% units with tandem parking spaces with a driveway apron of 5.5 metres required for units with tandem spaces; usable open space increased by 15 m2 per unit and all the other regulations in the RM-1 zone permitted currently. 75m Site Plan Reconciliation Provided Required # Units 17 Units Site Area 4,047 m2 "'43,560 sq ft # of 3 Bedrooms 7 Units GFA 1,905 m2 = 20,500 sq ft # of 2 Bedrooms 10 Units Road Area: 567 m2 = 5,103 sq ft % of tandem stall to units 65 ~.,. Driveway A.rea: 273 m2 = 2,944 sq ft % of double stall to units 35 % Site Coverage: 943 m2 = 1 O, i 54 sq ft Usable Open Space 2,097 m2 955 m2 Unit/ Ha: 42,008 Common Activity Area 85 m2 85 m2 Road Sile Coverage: 14:0 % Visitor Parking @ 02 4 stalls 3.4 stalls Driveway Site Coverage: 6.8 % FSR: 0.471 0.600 Total Hard Surface Coverage: 20.B % Building Site Cover.age: 23.3% 40.0% The graphic example above shows 65% of the units have tandem garages. It is clear in the site plan above that, by introducing a requirement that permits a maximum of 70% units with tandem parking spaces and by requiring a driveway apron length of 5.5 metres only for units with tandem parking 7 spaces, and by increasing the usable open space by 15m2 per unit only for units with tandem parking spaces, 17 to 18 units can be achieved on a one acre parcel. The following can be inferred from scenario 2E above: • A combination of the three variables i.e. driveway apron requirement for units with tandem parking spaces; proportionate increase in the usable open space for units with tandem parking spaces and permitting up to a maximum of 70% of the total number of units to have tandem parking spaces; the density is not significantly compromised, yet a more architecturally attractive development may be achieved. • Note that setback variances have not been shown. It should be noted that with setback variances the unit yields are very similar to those achieved under the current bylaw (refer to Appendix K). It is clear from Appendix K that when setback variances are granted for scenario 2E, three more units can be achieved, increasing the unit count to 20 (instead of 17 units in scenario 2E above). E) PREFERRED APPROACH: Based on the above analysis it is clear that limiting the amount of tandem parking, and offsetting it with other requirements results in a development that can achieve densities similar to the current bylaw (with variances) and at the same time address the on-site congestion, form, streetscape, and parking concerns. Recognizing that each site is different and that the Development Community prefers flexibility, it is recommended that staff prepare amending bylaws that will limit the amount of tandem parking as stated below: A maximum of 70% units with tandem parking spaces may be permitted with the following required for each unit having tandem parking spaces, except in the Town Centre Area: • Block size not to exceed six attached units; • Driveway apron length of 5.5 metres; and • Usable open space of 65 m2 for each three bedroom or bigger units and 5om2 for each two bedroom or smaller units. Note that 100% tandem parking in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone would still be permitted in the Town Centre Area, due to access to transit and policy support for a dense housing form. It is important to note that setback variances would be considered on a site specific basis and are subject to Council approval. Should Council wish to explore the above noted changes to the bylaws, the following resolution would provide staff with direction to prepare the required amending bylaws: That Council direct staff to prepare the relevant bylaw revisions to the RM-1(Townhouse Residential District) zone and the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw, as described in Section E of the "Tandem and Off-Street Parking Discussion Paper" dated May 27, 2013. 8 CONCLUSION: Tandem parking has been permitted in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone and a few others single family zones as mentioned in this report. For most of the single family zones that permit tandem parking, it has not been a concern due to wider road standards and longer driveway apron lengths. The biggest impact is seen in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone that is serviced by a 6.0 metre wide strata road and there is no requirement for a driveway apron. It is important to maintain the primary intention of the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone, which is to provide for a low-density multi-family housing option. A review of other jurisdictions shows that there are similar concerns about developments with 100% units that have a tandem parking arrangement on site. There needs to be a functional balance of both; tandem and double garage units, to achieve a financially feasible, safe and good quality development. The recommended option (scenario 2E) has been discussed in section E of the report. "original signed by Rasika Acharya" Prepared by: Rasika Acharya, B-Arch, M-Tech, UD, LEED® AP, MCIP, RPP Planner "original signed by Christine Carter" Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning "original signed by Frank Quinn" Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng GM, Public Works & Development Services "original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule" Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A -Regional review-matrix showing tandem regulations in other jurisdictions; Appendix B -Scenario Comparison Chart Appendix C -Scenario 2A Appendix D -Scenario 28 Appendix E -Scenario 2C Appendix F -Scenario 2D Appendix G -Scenario 3A Appendix H -Scenario 38 Appendix I -Scenario 3C Appendix J -Scenario 3D Appendix K -Scenario 2F 9 APPENDIX A Re_g_ional Overview-tandem parking regulations in various jurisdictions MUNICIPALITY RESIDENT PARKING RATIO VISITOR PARKING REQUIRED yes 45% 0.6 FSR and 37 UPNH 2.0 per unit (reduced by 20% in the 0.2 (reduced by 20% in Surrey City Centre area) the Surrey City Centre area) indoor-3.0 m2 per unit Note: It is important to note that some jurisdictions such as Richmond, Surrey, Burnaby, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Mission and Abbotsford have moret han one townhouse zones to allow for varying density a_rid housing form within various _!!eo_g_raphical locations within their jurisdictions. Based on the ICJc_a_tion,!he__ea_r~in__!!_@tios may vary for each of these zones . ---v- SCENARIO COMPARISON CHART-APPENDIX B Scenari,o 1 A Seenari,6 TB Scenario· TC Scenari,o· TD Scenari,o 2A Scemui,o 2B, Sc•ertarFo 2C Soe.nario 20 Sce.na:rfo 2 E Soenario 2.Eb Sci:mari,c:i 2F Sc.enari,o 2Fb $c,ena:rki :3.A Sce.na:r'k:r 3B Scen.arto 3C $cenari030 Scenario 3E Scenario 3Eb Scenario 3 F · Sc en.ario 3F b Sc,e.nario 4A Scenario. 48 Se;enario 4C: $p~t1).3:fi:O 4D FSR 0,6Qi8 1):608 0.574 (L517 0.562 o.s6:2 0.574 ,Q •. .539 Q,,47] CL5l7 CL574 0,574 0,574 0574 ,Q,574 0.494 0,47i (1..49,4 0,551 0539 0539 0.539· 0,539 0.425 Unit/ 14a: .5L8' 51:.9: 49A 44.5 49.4 49A 49A 47.0 42.0 49.4 49 .. 4 49,4 49 .. 4 49A 42.0 39.5 42.0 47.D 47 . .0 47 .. D Unit/ ,Acre ZT 21 20 1'8, 20 HJ I7 18 2 0 2>0 T7 #,af 3 bdrms H H w 9 9 9 TO .9 7 9 TO w TO 10 rO 9 .9 9 TO 9 7, #ot2 hc!rms TO H) ro q Tl n T:O f:{l, 10 9 ],I) HJ 10 T:O H} 8 %.,or Tande.m Stans WO% T.00•% TOO% lGIJ% 70% 70% 70% 74% 65'%i 72.% 70% 70% 50% 50% 5{) %' 53% 69% 53 '3-f:, 53% ,47% 0% 0% 0% 0% APPENDIXB Usable. Open $pace 2,011 mZ 2,c,11 i m2 T ,98<() m2 l,886m2 2,048m2 2 . .,04$ rn2 l,S.93m2 l ,699' m2 2,Q87 rn2 2,mmm2 1,703m2 l,870m2 lr993 m2 t,983m2 T,819m2 2,l)16m2 2,048 rn2 2,Q94m2 l,795 m.2 l:,857m2 T,885m2 T,885 m2 l,731 mZ l,9'43 m2 Tota'! Hard Ste . ; · C .· . . . s1.1:.rfaces \ ExcJud.es , overage • · ·· Ste Coverage, 3i % 31 % 31) % 27% 28% 28% 28,% 27% 23% 26% 28,% 28% 28'% 28% 28% 2.4% 23% 24% 26% 25 % 25 % 25 '% 18 % i5 % 15% 17% 22% 1:8'% 1:8% 2T % 24% 21: %, 2T % 24 ifi< 22% TEI% 23 % 22% 21 % 22% 24% 25 %, 24% 24% 26% 26% 17 May, 20138:48AM APPENDIXC 7.5. Scenario 2A -70% tandem units as the RM-1 zone permits today Variables 1) Parking Type: 70% of Tandem & 30% of Double Wide parking stalls 2) Usable Open Space: 45 m2 I 3 Bedroom & 30 m2 for 2 Bedroom 3) Common activity area: 5 m2 I unit 4) Parking: 0.2 visitor stalls / unit 5) Driveway Apron: 1.0m unit driveway ?Sm ~-·~·-.--·--·-· Scale: 1 :500 Site Plan Reconciliation Provided Required # Units 20 Units Site Area 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft # of 3 Bedrooms 10 Units GFA 2,323 m2 = 25,000 sq ft # of 2 Bedrooms 10 Units Road Area: 579 m2 = 6,236 sq ft % of tandem stall to units 70% Driveway Area: 173 m2 = 1,860 sq ft % of double stall to units 30% Site Coverage: 1,146m2 =12,337sqft Usable Open Space 1,972 m2 750 m2 Unit/ Ha: 49.421 Common Activity Area 100 m2 100 m2 Road Site Coverage: 14.3% Visitor Parking @ 0.2 4 stalls 4 stalls Driveway Site Coverage: 4.3% FSR: 0.574 0.600 Total Hard Surface Coverage: 18.6% Building Site Coverage: 28.3 % 40.0 % Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture Page 12 of 34 17 May, 2013 8:48 AM APPENDIXD 7. 6. Scenario 28 -70% tandem units with increased UOS & CAA Variables 1) Parking Type: 70% of Tandem & 30% of Double Wide parking stalls 2) Usable Open Space: 50 m2 / 3 Bedroom & 35 m2 for 2 Bedroom 3) Common activity area: 10 m2/unit 4) Parking: 0.2 visitor stalls I unit 5) Driveway Apron: 1 .Om unit driveway ?Sm Site Plan Reconciliation Provided Required # Units 20 Units Site Area 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft # of 3 Bedrooms 10 Units GFA 2,323 m2 = 25,000 sq ft # of 2 Bedrooms 10 Units Road Area: 579 m2 = 6,236 sq ft % of tandem stall to units 70% Driveway Area: 173 m2 = 1,860 sq ft % of double stall to units 30% Site Coverage: 1,146 m2 = 12,337 sq ft Usable Open Space 1,972 m2 850 m2 Unit/ Ha: 49.421 Common Activity Area 200 m2 200 m2 Road Site Coverage: 14.3% Visitor Parking @ 0.2 4 stalls 4 stalls Driveway Site Coverage: 4.3% FSR: 0.574 0.600 Total Hard Surface Coverage: 18.6% Building Site Coverage: 28.3 % 40.0 % Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture Page 13 of 34 17 May, 2013 8:48AM APPENDIXE 7. 7. Scenario 2C -70% tandem units with increased visitor parking ratio Variables 1) Parking Type: 70% of Tandem & 30% of Double Wide parking stalls 2) Usable Open Space: 45 m2 / 3 Bedroom & 30 m2 for 2 Bedroom 3) Common activity area: 5 m2 / unit 4) Parking: 0.5 visitor stalls/ unit 5) Driveway Apron: 1 .Om unit driveway 75m Site Plan Reconciliation Provided Required # Units 20 Units Site Area 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft # of 3 Bedrooms 10 Units GFA 2,323 m2 = 25,000 sq ft # of 2 Bedrooms 10 Units Road Area: 674 m2 = 7,250 sq ft % of tandem stall to units 70% Driveway Area: 165 m2 = 1,777 sq ft % of double stall to units 30% Site Coverage: 1,146m2 =12,337sqft Usable Open Space 1,893 m2 750 m2 Unit/ Ha: 49.421 Common Activity Area 100 m2 100 m2 Road Site Coverage: 16.6% Visitor Parking @ 0.5 10 stalls 10 stalls Driveway Site Coverage: 4.1 % FSA: 0.574 0.600 Total Hard Surface Coverage: 20.7% Building Site Coverage: 28.3 % 40.0 % Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture Page 14 of 34 17 May, 2013 8:48 AM APPENDIXF 7.8. Scenario 20 -70% tandem units with increased apron length Variables 1) Parking Type: 70% of Tandem & 30% of Double Wide parking stalls 2) Usable Open Space: 45 m2 / 3 Bedroom & 30 m2 for 2 Bedroom 3) Common activity area: 5 m2 / unit 4) Parking: 0.2 visitor stalls / unit 5) Driveway Apron: 5.5m unit driveway I I ~1 :::q ~I 1"i i ~1 ?.Sm i Site Plan Reconciliation Provided Required # Units 19 Units Site Area 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft # of 3 Bedrooms 9 Units GFA 2,183 m2 = 23,500 sq ft # of 2 Bedrooms 10 Units Road Area: 554 m2 = 5,967 sq ft % of tandem stall to units 74% Driveway Area: 416 m2 = 4,482 sq ft % of double stall to units 26% Site Coverage: 1,083 m2 = 11 ,654 sq ft Usable Open Space 1,699 m2 705 m2 Unit/ Ha: 46.95 Common Activity Area 95 m2 95 m2 Road Site Coverage: 13.7% Visitor Parking @ 0.2 5 stalls 3.8 stalls Driveway Site Coverage: 10.3% FSR: 0.539 0.600 Total Hard Surface Coverage: 24.0% Building Site Coverage: 26.8% 40.0 % Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture Page 15 of 34 17 May, 2013 8:48 AM APPENDIXG 7. 13. Scenario 3A -50% tandem units as the RM-1 zone permits today 1) Parking Type: 2) Usable Open Space: 3) Common activity area: 4) Parking: 5) Driveway Apron: i I i I I t> ~ E I CJ:) . O") ('I") LI') Site Plan Reconciliation Provided # Units 20 Units # of 3 Bedrooms 10 Units # of 2 Bedrooms 10 Units % of tandem stall to units 50% % of double stall to units 50% Usable Open Space 1,993 m2 Common Activity Area 100 m2 Visitor Parking @ 0.2 4 stalls FSR: 0.574 Building Site Coverage: 27.8% Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture Variables 50% of Tandem & 50% of Double Wide parking stalls 45 m2 / 3 Bedroom & 30 m2 for 2 Bedroom 5 m2 / unit 0.2 visitor stalls / unit 1.0m unit driveway ?Sm Required Site Area 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft GFA 2,323 m2 = 25,000 sq ft Road Area: 581 m2 = 6,253 sq ft Driveway Area: 188 m2 = 2,019 sq ft Site Coverage: 1,125 m2 = 12, 11 O sq ft 750 m2 Unit/ Ha: 49.421 100 m2 Road Site Coverage: 14.4% 4 stalls Driveway Site Coverage: 4.6% 0.600 Total Hard Surface Coverage: 19.0% 40.0 % Page 20 of 34 17 May, 2013 8:48 AM APPENDIXH 7. 14. Scenario 38 -50% tandem units with increased UOS & CAA 1) Parking Type: 2) Usable Open Space: 3) Common activity area: 4) Parking: 5) Driveway Apron: Scenario 38 -Site Plan Scale: 1 :500 Site Plan Reconciliation Provided # Units 20 Units # of 3 Bedrooms 10 Units # of 2 Bedrooms 10 Units % of tandem stall to units 50% % of double stall to units 50% Usable Open Space 1,993 m2 Common Activity Area 200 m2 Visitor Parking @ 0.2 4 stalls FSR: 0.574 Building Site Coverage: 27.8% Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture Variables 50% of Tandem & 50% of Double Wide parking stalls 50 m2 / 3 Bedroom & 35 m2 for 2 Bedroom 10 m2 / unit 0.2 visitor stalls / unit 1 .Om unit driveway ?Sm Required Site Area 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft GFA 2,323 m2 = 25,000 sq ft Road Area: 581 m2 = 6,253 sq ft Driveway Area: 188 m2 = 2,019 sq ft Site Coverage: 1,125 m2 = 12,110sq ft 850 m2 Unit/ Ha: 49.421 200 m2 Road Site Coverage: 14.4 % 4 stalls Driveway Site Coverage: 4.6% 0.600 Total Hard Surface Coverage: 19.0% 40.0 % Page 21 of 34 17 May, 2013 8:48 AM APPENDIX I 7. 15. Scenario 3G -50% tandem units with increased visitor parking ratio Variables 1) Parking Type: 50% of Tandem & 50% of Double Wide parking stalls 2) Usable Open Space: 45 m2 / 3 Bedroom & 30 m2 for 2 Bedroom 3) Common activity area: 5 m2 / unit 4) Parking: 0.5 visitor stalls / unit 5) Driveway Apron: 1.0m unit driveway ?Sm -·-·-··-·--·-·.--,--·-·-·-·-·-·-·--·-··-, Interior Side L..ot Line .. ••·• i I I I I I i ~ ' ::i i ...... I I I Site Plan Reconciliation Provided Required # Units 20 Units Site Area 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft # of 3 Bedrooms 10 Units GFA 2,323 m2 = 25,000 sq ft # of 2 Bedrooms 10 Units Road Area: 718 m2 = 7,731 sq ft % of tandem stall to units 50% Driveway Area: 205 m2 = 2,205 sq ft % of double stall to units 50% Site Coverage: 1,125 m2 = 12,110sq ft Usable Open Space 1,819 m2 750 m2 Unit/ Ha: 49.421 Common Activity Area 100 m2 100 m2 Road Site Coverage: 17.7% Visitor Parking @ 0.5 10 stalls 10 stalls Driveway Site Coverage: 5.1 % FSR: 0.574 0.600 Total Hard Surface Coverage: 22.8% Building Site Coverage: 27.8 % 40.0 % Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture Page 22 of 34 17 May, 2013 8:48 AM APPENDIXJ 7. 16. Scenario 30 -50% tandem units with increased apron length Variables 1) Parking Type: 50% of Tandem & 50% of Double Wide parking stalls 2) Usable Open Space: 45 m2 / 3 Bedroom & 30 m2 for 2 Bedroom 3) Common activity area: 5 m2 / unit 4) Parking: 0.2 visitor stalls / unit 5) Driveway Apron: 5.5m unit driveway ?Sm Site Plan Reconciliation Provided Required # Units 17 Units Site Area 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft # of 3 Bedrooms 9 Units GFA 1,997 m2 = 21 ,500 sq ft # of 2 Bedrooms 8 Units Road Area: 438 m2 = 4,713 sq ft % of tandem stall to units 53% Driveway Area: 437 m2 = 4,707 sq ft % of double stall to units 47% Site Coverage: 969 m2 = 10,427 sq ft Usable Open Space 2,016 m2 645 m2 Unit/ Ha: 42.008 Common Activity Area 85 m2 85 m2 Road Site Coverage: 10.8% Visitor Parking @ 0.2 4 stalls 3.4 stalls Driveway Site Coverage: 10.8 % FSR: 0.494 0.600 Total Hard Surface Coverage: 21.6 % Building Site Coverage: 23.9 % 40.0 % Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture Page 23 of 34 17 May, 2013 8:48 AM APPENDIXK 7. 11. Scenario 2F -70% tandem units with variances [> E I.O O"l CV) L/') 1) Parking Type: 2) Usable Open Space: 3) Common activity area: 4) Parking: 5) Driveway Apron: 6) Variances: l"'"'"":"'-----1 I I I Scenario 2F -Site Plan Scale: 1 :500 Site Plan Reconciliation Provided # Units 20 Units # of 3 Bedrooms 10 Units # of 2 Bedrooms 10 Units % of tandem stall to units 70% % of double stall to units 30% Usable Open Space 1,703 m2 Common Activity Area 100 m2 Visitor Parking @ 0.2 4 stalls FSR: 0.574 Building Site Coverage: 28.3% Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture Variables 70% of Tandem & 30% of Double Wide parking stalls 65 m2 / 3 Bedroom & 50 m2 for 2 Bedroom 5 m2 / unit 0.2 visitor stalls / unit Visitor parking complies with setbacks 5.5m unit driveway, tandem garage only Front Yard Setback 4.5m, all other setbacks 6.0m ?Sm o~~i""'si.-_,.1i""'o~~1.,_s_,_,2i""'o~~2,,_s_,_.30 m Required Site Area 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft GFA 2,323 m2 = 25,000 sq ft Road Area: 635 m2 = 6,831 sq ft Driveway Area: 331 m2 = 3,560 sq ft Site Coverage: 1,146 m2 = 12,337 sq ft 1150 m2 Unit/ Ha: 49.421 100 m2 Road Site Coverage: 15.7% 4 stalls Driveway Site Coverage: 8.2% 0.600 Total Hard Surface Coverage: 23.9% 40.0 % Page 18 of 34 APPENDIX B TO: FROM: Deep Rei/ts GNM!tr fl~iJh/,< SUBJECT: DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer DATE: FILE NO: ATIN: Tandem Parking and RM-1 zone amendments; October 7, 2013 2013-096-RZ CofW First Reading Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013 and Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025-2013 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: On May 27, 2013 Council received a discussion paper on "Tandem Parking and the RM-1 zone", which laid out several scenarios and one preferred approach to regulate the proportion of tandem parking units in the RM-1 zone. For the RM-1 zone, the Discussion Paper recommended: • a maximum of 70% units with tandem parking arrangement; • a driveway apron, 5.5 metres long for each tandem unit; • usable open space of 65 m2 for each three bedroom or larger unit and 50m2 for each two bedroom or smaller unit; and • limiting the building block size to six attached units. It was also recommended that 100% tandem units in the RM-1 zone would still be permitted in the Town Centre Area, due to access to transit and policy support for a dense housing form. At the regular meeting of May 28, 2013, Council resolved that staff be directed to prepare the relevant bylaw revisions to the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone and the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw as described in that report. At the meeting Council raised issues regarding impact on density and unit count, analysis on sloping sites, enforcement on strata lots, and consultation with the development community, which are addressed in this report. The draft bylaw amendments reflect Council's direction. RECOMMENDATION: 1) That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013 be given first reading; ' 2) That Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025-2013 be given first reading; and 3) That the above bylaw amendments be referred to a public process for comments and feedback. BACKGROUND: Tandem Parking is the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a driveway/road. The Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw permits a tandem garage or a single garage with a tandem parking space on the apron. 1105 Council expressed concerns about the impacts of a 100% tandem arrangement in the townhouse proposals seen recently and directed staff to do a review of tandem parking. It is important to note that currently, the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw provides for tandem parking in certain single family zones, duplex zone and the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone. The RM-1 zone is the only multi-family zone in the District permitting tandem parking. Tandem Parking has not been a concern in single family zones where the roads meet the municipal standards and the driveways may be wider and longer. In some cases, there is on-street parking as well. In contrast, tandem parking has been a concern in the townhouse zone as driveway aprons are typically not provided and the 6.0 metre wide strata roads do not permit parking. In recent years, the District has seen a steady rise in townhouse development projects with all tandem parking units. Townhouse units with tandem parking are a fairly common form of housing in many jurisdictions across the region. Typically, the tandem parking arrangement results in a tall, narrow unit with a minimal driveway apron leading into a tandem parking garage. General discussions with staff from other jurisdictions and the private sector indicated that while there is a general acceptance of tandem townhouse units in the market, there are concerns with 100% tandem townhouse developments across the region. The Discussion Paper dated May 27, 2013, reviewed regulations in other municipalities. It compared 18 scenarios, to help understand the impacts of tandem parking in the RM-1 zone. The accompanying presentation included photos of existing townhouse developments in the District. All of the 18 scenarios considered both, fixed and variable elements, applied to a hypothetical piece of land. The discussion paper concluded that by introducing a combination of the three variables (i.e. a driveway apron; open space and percentage of tandem units); the density is mildly impacted, yet a more architecturally attractive development may be achieved. The report further demonstrated that if setback variances, facing a municipal street were supported, a similar density without seriously impacting unit yields, can be achieved. Out of the 18 scenarios, one scenario clearly resulted in a reasonable mix of tandem and double wide units; maximization of green space/useable open space; and a well-articulated, livable design; while maintaining a viable unit yield (Scenario 2E). Based on the analysis the recommendation to Council was that, in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone the following shall apply, except in the Town Centre Area: • a maximum of 70% units with tandem parking arrangement; • a driveway apron, 5.5 metres long for each tandem unit; • usable open space of 65 m2for each three bedroom or larger unit and 5Qm2 for each two bedroom or smaller unit; and • limiting the building block size to six attached units. The Town Centre Area Plan encourages more dense development and has better access to transit so it was recommended to exempt from the draft regulation. It is important to note that setback variances would be considered on a site specific basis and are subject to Council approval. At the regular meeting of May 28, 2013, Council resolved: -2 - That staff be directed to prepare the relevant bylaw revisions to the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone and the Off-Street Parking and Loading bylaw, as described in Section E of the "Tandem and Off-Street Parking Discussion Paper" dated May 27, 2013. DISCUSSION AND COUNCIL CONCERNS: Tandem Parking can be defined as "the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway". Reviewing the discussion paper, Council asked about implications on sloping sites, density or unit yield, minimum density for financial feasibility. These are discussed below. A) Densijy and implications on sloping sites: The Zoning Bylaw contains several multi-family zones, of which the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) zone is the one intended to be for ground-oriented, pedestrian-friendly, low-density developments. In the RM-1 zone, a parking ratio of 2.0 spaces per unit for residents is required plus a parking ratio of 0.2 spaces per unit for visitors is also required. In reviewing other municipal parking bylaws it is clear that approaches vary by community. Some do not permit tandem parking; some permit tandem parking on a project by project basis; some permit tandem parking by requiring a higher parking ratio or limiting the amount of tandem parking. Others require additional common amenity area and/or driveway aprons. Discussion with staff from other municipalities confirms that several jurisdictions have concerns with 100% tandem unit developments. i) Illustrations with no setback variances: The following graphics illustrate the impact of the proposed regulations when setback variances are not granted. a) Scenario 1A-100% tandem and no setback variances: The example below illustrates the current regulations in place. With 100% tandem arrangement at the maximum permitted FSR of 0.6 in the RM-1 zone; 21 townhouse units can be achieved on a hypothetical one acre piece of land. -3 - b) Scenario 2E-70% tandem and no setback variances; driveway apron and increased usable open space: The example below illustrates the impact on unit yield if the recommended regulations were applied. In the example below, with a proposed density of FSR 0.47, 17 units are achieved. With the maximum permitted density of 0.6 FSR, the unit count can be at least 18 units. If the proposed regulations were applied, the unit count could drop from 21 (as shown on scenario 1A) to 17 or 18 units. But this is likely to result in a more architecturally attractive development. ·1srrt It is noted that Council raised the concern that the analysis on sloping site was missing in the Discussion paper dated May 27, 2013. The same hypothetical parcel of land is assumed to have a 15-17% slope as shown in the sketch below. The site is assumed to be sloping down approximately 17% grade down from the north-west corner as shown in the site section. -4- c) Scenario 2E-ss 70% tandem on sloping site and no setback variances; driveway apron and increased usable open space: If the recommended regulations were applied to the sloping site, the following graphic illustrates that the same unit count could be achieved, however, creative design, some retaining walls to achieve flat backyards and possibly stepping and staggering of units to take advantage of the grades on site; will be required. In the example below, with a proposed density of FSR 0.47, 17 units are achieved. With the maximum permitted density of 0.6 FSR, the unit count can be at least 18 units. ii) Illustrations with setback variances: The following graphics illustrate the impact of the proposed regulations when setback variances are granted.· a) Scenario 2F-70% tandem with setback variances; driveway apron and increased usable open space: The example below illustrates the impact on unit yield if the recommended regulations were applied and setback variances granted. In the example below, with a proposed density of FSR 0.57, 20 units are achieved. With the maximum permitted density of 0.6 FSR, the unit count can be at least 21 units. If the proposed regulations were applied and setback variances granted, the unit count will likely remain same, yet a more architecturally attractive development can be achieved. - 5 -I. i b} Scenario 2F-ss 70% tandem on sloping site with setback variances; driveway apron and increased usable open space: iii} ANALYSIS: If the recommended regulations were applied to the sloping site and some setback variances facing the streets were granted, the unit count achieved could be around 20 units. Again, creativity in design, some retaining walls and stepping/staggering of the units to meet the grades will be required. Based on the graphic examples above, the following can be concluded, by applying a 70% tandem requirement: • The density and unit count is reduced marginally, yet a more architecturally attractive development may be achieved. • With the tandem garage and a driveway apron, there will be three parking spaces per unit available. If the owner ends up converting the internal parking space into a living area, there will still be two parking spaces available. The bylaw will still require a minimum of 2.0 spaces per unit for residents and 0.2 spaces per unit for visitors. - 6 - • On sloping sites, some retaining walls will be required to achieve flat backyards, which is consistent with what is done currently. Smaller retaining walls may also be required to achieve the driveway aprons. • Some units will need to be stepped and staggered to take advantage of the grades on site, which is consistent with the OCP policies around "respecting the land" and with what is done currently. • With setback variances the unit yield is quite similar to those achieved under the current bylaw (21 units versus 20 units). The reduced setbacks facing municipal streets allows for greater design creativity with stronger street presence, stepping and staggering of units. A simplified comparison of the above stated graphic illustrations is attached as Appendix A. B) Tandem Parking in the Town Centre Area: There was discussion regarding the appropriateness of exempting RM-1 properties in the Town Centre Area from the draft tandem regulations. The Town Centre Area Plan through several policies talks about increasing residential density in the various precincts. The "Ground-oriented Multi-family" designation allows RM-1 zone and the intention is to achieve pedestrian-friendly strata developments that serve as a transition between single family and higher density forms like low-rise apartments. A tall, narrow, three-storey tandem form would fit well in the Town Centre Area, which encourages compact developments, more than other areas in the District. The Town Centre area is also served by better access to public transit and owners may choose to own a single vehicle. It is further noted that the exemption of the Town centre properties from the tandem regulations may also serve as an incentive for further town centre investment. C) Consideration to accommodate seniors: There was discussion regarding making townhouse developments more senior-friendly. Ground-oriented units with a double car garage often result in a more senior-friendly form of development than a 3-storey, multi-level, tall, narrow (12 to 15 feet wide) tandem unit. It is felt that a reasonable balance of tandem and double garages will provide for an appropriate housing choice for seniors and others. D) Common variances supported and its impact on outdoor living space: Historically Council has approved setback, height and parking variances on townhouse sites in the RM-1 zone. Typically height variances are supported on sloping sites where the design of the units takes advantage of the grades by rendering a 2-storey fagade on one side and 3-storey fagade (11.0 metres) on the other side. This will be minimized with the adoption of the new Zoning Bylaw where the maximum height of the structure is measured up to the mid-point of the roof. Setback variances facing municipal streets are common and align with the Multi-Family Development Permit Guidelines that emphasize a better street presence and direct pedestrian access from the townhouse units to the municipal streets. They also often create a more livable rear yard. -7 - E) Parking variances are typically fewer and considered on a site-specific basis. The tandem parking arrangement results in more units, so to mitigate the impact of the form and density, an increased usable open space ratio for the tandem units is recommended. This should enhance the livability of the project and create better outdoor usable open space and/or common activity areas. Larger open spaces are an effective marketing tool for developers. Economic implications: Although there is an assumption that tandem units are less expensive, there is no statistical evidence in the market to support this. Scenarios discussed above show that the unit-count may drop marginally if the 70% tandem units regulation is adopted. On sloping sites, some retaining walls and stepping of units may increase the development costs. However, the benefits are thought to outnumber the density impact. A copy the Council report dated May 27, 2013 was forwarded to the Advisory Design Panel to seek their input. The Panel advised that a feasible balance between tandem and double townhouse units is important to safeguard the intention of the zone (low density multi-family form) and the architectural character of the development. The Advisory Design Panel is in support of this initiative and has provided the following comments: • Panel confirmed that tandem parking in the townhouse zones is quite common in all the municipalities. • Panel agreed that regulating the proportion of tandem parking will have some impact on the overall density and unit count, but the benefits are larger. • Panel confirmed that the tandem arrangement is not popular among buyers, but it is used to maximize the unit yield on a site. • The Panel also confirmed that while all tandem townhouse development fit well within the Town Centre Area, a reasonable balance of tandem and double car garages in areas outside the Town Centre will encourage a better streetscape; improve landscaping with a staggering of the units; improve the overall architectural quality of a development and the livability on site. The proposed bylaw amendments strive to strike a reasonable balance between tandem and double parking arrangement, which is economically feasible and architecturally desirable. BENEFITS OF REGULATING TANDEM PARKING UNITS IN THE RM-1 ZONE: The benefits of regulating units with tandem parking arrangement in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) zone could be broadly categorized into the following: 1) Maintain the primary intention of the RM-1 zone which is to provide a low-density multi-family housing form for the neighbourhoods. The tandem units offer a denser, compact, taller form. - 8 - The townhouse form is often envisioned and encouraged as a transition between single family and apartment building forms. 2) Encourage a proportion of the units to be a senior-friendly, ground-oriented housing option. 3) Reduce the parking concerns on a strata lot by providing for some driveway aprons. Minimize parking infractions on a 6.0 metres wide strata road. 4) Encourage an interesting streetscape with staggering and stepping of units. Achieve a less monotonous fa9ade. , 5) Promote natural light, ventilation, view corridors and "green links" between blocks. 6) Improve livability and quality of development by increasing the proportion of usable open space to match the increase in the number of units due to tandem arrangement. 7) Reducing the risks associated with vehicle encroachment or overhanging on strata road by regulating the minimum width and depth of an attached garage and adding the requirement of a driveway apron for a tandem parking arrangement. PROPOSED REGULATIONS: Pursuant with Council's direction of May 28, 2013, Zone Amending and Off-Street Parking Amending Bylaws have been prepared. i) RM-1 CTownhouse Residential District) zone (refer to Appendix 8): The following items are proposed for inclusion in the RM-1 zone and were previously discussed with Council: • Townhouses in the RM-1 zone must be limited to six (6) attached units in one block. Allowing a maximum of six (6) attached units per block is a consistent approach followed in other jurisdictions and the District's RST-SV (Street Townhouse-Silver Valley) zone. This would help promote natural light and ventilation between the blocks thus offering a less monotonous fa9ade. Block sizes that exceed six units can create a monotonous fa9ade. Smaller blocks of units create well-articulate9 facades separated with green buffers in between the blocks that promote natural light, ventilation and views. The Advisory Design Panel in the past has expressed concerns with the ramifications of having more than six (6) attached units in one block. • All the units with tandem parking arrangement must provide a usable open space of 65.0 square metres per unit with 3 or more bedrooms; and 50.0 square metres per unit with less than 3 bedrooms. This regulation is intended to improve the livability and quality of development by increasing the proportion of usable open space with the number of tandem units on a strata lot. ii) Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw (refer to Appendix C): Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw# 4350-1990 requires amendment to add the following: • In the RM-1 zone, tandem parking shall not exceed 70% of the total townhouse units on site, except in the Town Centre Area. - 9 - Townhouse units with a tandem garage are typically narrower (12.5 to 15 feet wide) and taller (3 or 3.5 storey) in form. The architectural form for tandem and double garage units differ significantly, one being a two storey massing while the other with tandem parking is a taller, narrow three-storey massing. A combination of tandem and double garage units have greater potential to create an interesting streetscape with staggered units, driveway aprons and inter-linking green spaces. • All the units with tandem parking must provide a driveway apron per unit that is minimum 5.5 metres long and 3.0 metres wide, except in the Town Centre Area. Under the current Parking Bylaw, the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone does not require the driveway apron length to accommodate a parking space. Requiring the driveway apron will provide an extra parking space per unit thus avoiding any encroachment or overhanging into the 6.0 metre wide strata road. If the internal tandem garage gets converted into a living space, the townhouse unit will still have two parking spaces, one within the garage and one on the apron. Following Council discussion, the Building Department have further recommended inclusion of minimum garage dimensions in the proposed Bylaw: • The minimum internal clear dimensions for attached or detached single, tandem and double garages for townhouse units in the RM-1 zone must be as stated below: Single car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 6.1 metres long; Tandem 2-car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 12.2 metres long; Double wide garage: 5.6 metres wide and 6.1 metres long. Currently the bylaw specifies a parking space (width, height and length) applicable for all zones. It does not specify dimensions within a garage or underground parkade, where the space is beside a wall to permit unobstructed access and clearance to open the car doors. Neither does it specify dimensions of a tandem garage. For the RM-1 zone these amendments will help achieve minimum clear dimensions required to park a car inside an attached or detached garage to a townhouse unit. INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: Engineering Department: The Engineering Department does not have any concerns with the proposed zone amendments. Fire Department: The Fire Department confirmed that parking on strata roads is a concern, and is supportive of the driveway apron requirement. Building Department: The Building Department supports the minimum clear width and depth for single, tandem and double car garage being added in the existing Parking Bylaw. -10 -1~ STRATAS, RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS AND SIGNAGE IN THE RM-1 ZONE: Enforcement will be in accordance with existing Bylaw enforcement regulations and procedures. The District cannot enforce parking regulations on strata property. Within existing developments it is observed that typically garages are used as storage area, forcing the cars to be parked on the driveway or along the streets. In a single family subdivision on-street parking is an option except when the access is through a lane. With a 6.0 metres wide strata road and no aprons for the driveways, this is a challenge on the townhouse sites. Units with a tandem garage often lose a parking space due to conversion into a habitable area, after the owner moves in. Complaints are received by the District about the lack of parking on site and in the streets, after this happens. Sometimes the visitor parking stalls are used by residents or cars are parked within the 6.0 metre wide strata road. In such instances, Strata Councils are responsible for enforcing parking on the property; however they are not always successful. Research indicates that requiring a Restrictive Covenant to restrict the tandem garage from being converted into a living space, is not a common solution. If Council directs, requirement of a Restrictive Covenant can be a condition of final reading, similar to the requirement for visitor parking stalls. Once the project is approved and built, the District would rely on the Strata to enforce it. Legal opinion sought on this confirms that Council can require a Restrictive Covenant as a condition of final reading, which can be informative to the unit owners, but the District enforcement on strata lot can be challenging. It should be noted that the District's solicitor confirmed that such a legal challenge is very expensive to prove in court and is not a necessarily practical solution. It is important to note that "No Parking" signs would need to be enforced by the strata, after the project is complete. The Building Permit drawings are required to show locations of "no parking" areas, on the drawings. The stratas are expected to enforce the "no parking" signage and zones. NEXT STEPS: Recognizing the implications that these bylaw amendments may have on townhouse developments in the RM-1 zone and the fact that amendments to the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw do not go to the Public Hearing, it is recommended that staff host an open house to seek input from the stakeholders. Following first reading to both the bylaws, an open house would be organized for late October or early November 2013. Representatives from the development industry will be invited by letter to comment on the proposed amendments. Advertisement will also be placed in the local newspapers. Council will be updated on the outcomes of this open house in the second reading report. CONCLUSION: As in other municipalities across the region, 100% tandem parking in townhouse projects has generated a variety of concerns. To help alleviate these concerns, Council considered a Discussion Paper, dated May 27, 2013 and endorsed regulation changes to the RM-1 zone and the Off-Street Parking Bylaw. These revisions include limiting parking to 70% tandem units; the provision of a -H - driveway apron for tandem units; increasing the amount of usable open space for tandem units and limiting the "block size" to six attached townhouse units. Numerous benefits of regulating the proportion of tandem units in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone are described in this report. The Advisory Design Panel has commended Council for taking up this initiative and is supportive of the proposed amendments. The proposed open house will serve as an opportunity to seek input from the development industry. The graphic scenarios show that the density and unit count achieved is mildly impacted by restricting the tandem proportion to a maximum of 70% of the units. Additional usable open space and a driveway apron for tandem units are anticipated to improve the architectural quality and reduce parking concerns. In return a "low-density", pedestrian-friendly, multi-family housing form with a reasonable balance of tandem and double garages can be achieved. On sloping sites, creative design to take advantage of the grades, retaining walls, staggering and stepping of units will be required. The proposed bylaw amendments (Appendix B and C) are believed to strike a reasonable balance between tandem and double parking arrangement. The intention is to encourage architecturally desirable development proposals that are economically feasible as well. It is recommended that Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013 and Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025-2013be given first reading and an open house be held to solicit input. Original signed by Rasika Acharya Prepared by. Rasika Acharya, B-Arch, M-Tech, UD, LEED® AP, MCIP, RPP Planner Original signed by Christine Carter Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning Original signed by Frank Quinn Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng GM, Public Works & Development Services Original signed by Jim Rule Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A -Summary of scenarios Appendix B -Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013 Appendix C -Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025-2013 -12 -1 I 1. I 1S"1 APPENDIX A SCENARI01A Current RM~1 Bylaw: (no setback variances) • 100% tandem on 1 acre flat site • FSR:0;6 • Total no, of units: 21 • 2BR=10 units and 3BR"'11 unrts • Open spc:1.ce: 45rn2 per 3BR or bigger urHt and 3omz per 2BR or smaller unit. • Setbacks: 7.5 mfrom all sides SCENARI02E Recommended RM~1 Bylaw: max. 70% tandem (no setbackvariances} • 65% tandem on 1 acre flat site • FSR;OA7 • .2BR=10 units and 3BR=7 units • Total no. of units: 17 • Open space: 65m2 per 3BR or blgger unit and soma per 2BR or smaller unit. • Setbacl~s: 7,5 m from all sides Recommended RM-1 Bylaw: max. 70% tandem on sloping site (no setback variances) • 65% tandem on 1. acre sloping site • FSR: 0.47 • 2BR=10 units and 3BR=7 units • Totatno. of units: 17 • open splilce: 65m2 per 3BRor bigger unit and 5om2 per2BR or smaller unit. • Setbacks: 7.5 m from all sides I> SCENARI02F Recommended RM-1 Bylaw: max. 70% tandem {with setbackvariances) • 65% tandem on 1 acre flat site • FSR: 0.57 • 2BR::::;10 unitsand 3BR=10 units • total no. bf units:20 • Open space; 65m2 per 3BR or bigger unit and 5omz per 2BRor smaller unit. • Setbacks: front= 4.5 m and all other sides= 6.0 rn 1. SCENARIO 2F-ss . , Recommended RM~1 Bylaw: max~ 70%tandem on sloping site. (wlth setback variances) • 65%tandern on 1 acreflatsite • FSR;0.57 • 2BH=10 unit~and 3BR=10 units • Total no. of units: 20 • Open space: 65rn2 pet3BR or bigger unit and 50ffi2 per 2BR or smatl~r unit • Setbacks: front= 4.5 m and all other sides= 6.0 m CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7024-2013 APPENDIX& A Bylaw to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 as amended. WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013". 2. This Bylaw provides conditions to regulate building block size and increased usable open space requirement for townhouse units with tandem parking in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone. 3. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended is hereby amended accordingly: a) PART 2, INTERPRETATION, is amended by the addition of the following definition in correct alphabetical order: TANDEM PARKING means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway. b) PART 6, RESIDENTIAL ZONES, Section 602, RM-1 TOWNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, subsection 8, Other Regulations, is amended by replacing d) with the following: d) Useable open space shall be provided for each unit on a lot based on the following minimum ratios: i) 45.0 m2 for each unit with 3 or more bedrooms; ii) 65.0 m2 for each unit with 3 or more bedrooms with tandem parking; iii) 30.0 m2 for each unit with 2 or less bedrooms; iv) 50.0 m2 for each unit with 2 or less bedrooms with tandem parking. c) PART 6, RESIDENTIAL ZONES, Section 602, RM-1 TOWNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, subsection 8, Other Regulations, is amended by adding g) after f) as follows: / g) A townhouse use shall be limited to a maximum of 6 (six) attached units per building block. 4. Maple Ridge Zoning By-law No. 3510-1985, as amended, is hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the day of READ a second time the day of PUBLIC HEARING held the day of READ a third time the day of RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the PRESIDING MEMBER , 2013. ,2013. , 2013. , 2013. day of ,2013. CORPORATE OFFICER CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7025-2013 APPENDIXC A Bylaw to amend Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990 as amended. WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990 as amended; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025-2013". 2. The District of Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading By-law No. 4350-1990 as amended is amended as follows: a) PART IV, OFF-STREET PARKING DESIGN, SECTION 4.1(a), is amended by replacing iv) with the following: iv) shall comply with the following: a) Within the RS-1, RS-1a, RS-1b, R-1 and RT-1 zones, the parking may be tandem parking; b) Within the RM-1 zone a maximum of 70% of the units may have tandem parking; c) Townhouse units in the RM-1 zone within the Town Centre Area Plan as shown on Schedule B of the Official Community Plan may have up to 100% tandem parking. b) PART IV, OFF-STREET PARKING DESIGN, SECTION 4.1(a), is amended by adding the following after vi): vii) Townhouse units with tandem parking in the RM-1 zone, other than within the Town Centre Area Plan as shown on Schedule B of the Official Community Plan, shall provide a minimum driveway apron of 5.5 metres in length and 3.0 metres in width. c) PART IV, OFF-STREET PARKING DESIGN, SECTION 4.1, is amended by adding the following new subsection 4.1c) in the correct sequence: c) Off-Street Parking Spaces within a garage, for a townhouse unit in the RM-1 zone i) shall have internal dimensions of not less than; a) 3.1 metres wide, 6.1 metres long and 2.1 metres high for a single car garage; b) 3.1 metres wide, 12.2 metres long and 2.1 metres high for a tandem parking two car garage; c) 5.6 metres wide, 6.1 metres long and 2.1 metres high for a double wide (2 car) garage. 3. Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990 as amended is hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the __ day of _____ , 2013. READ a second time the __ day of ____ , 2013. READ a third time the_ day of _____ , 2013. RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the_ day of _____ , 2013. PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER TO: FROM: District of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer DATE: FILE NO: ATTN: APPENDIXC February 17, 2014 2013-096-RZ Workshop SUBJECT: Tandem and Off-Street Parking Open House Summary PURPOSE: On May 27, 2013 Council received a discussion paper on "Tandem Parking and the RM-1 zone", which laid out several scenarios and one preferred approach to regulate the proportion of tandem parking units in the RM-1 zone. At the May 28, 2013, Council Meeting it was resolved that staff be directed to prepare the relevant bylaw revisions to the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone and the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw. Staff prepared the relevant bylaws which were considered at the October 7, 2013 Committee of the Whole meeting. In the first reading report the following amendments were proposed for inclusion in the Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 RM-1 zone: a) Townhouses in the RM-1 zone must be limited to six (6) attached units in one block. b) All the units with tandem parking arrangement must provide a usable open space of 65.0 square metres per unit with 3 or more bedrooms; and 50.0 square metres per unit with less than 3 bedrooms. In the first reading report the following amendments were also proposed for inclusion in the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990: c) In the RM-1 zone, tandem parking shall not exceed 70% of the total townhouse units on site, except in the Town Centre Area. d) All the units with tandem parking must provide a driveway apron per unit that is minimum 5.5 metres long and 3.0 metres wide, except in the Town Centre Area. e) The minimum internal clear dimensions for attached or detached single, tandem and double garages for townhouse units in the RM-1 zone must be as stated below: Single car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 6.1 metres long; Tandem 2-car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 12.2 metres long; Double wide garage: 5.6 metres wide and 6.1 metres long. It was also recommended that 100% tandem units in the RM-1 zone would still be permitted in the Town Centre Area, due to access to transit and policy support for a dense housing form. At the October 8, 2013 Council Meeting, a resolution was passed that Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013 and Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025-2013 be given first reading and referred to a public process for comments and feed back. Pursuant to Council's resolution of October 8, 2013, a Public Open House was conducted on Tuesday, November 13, 2013. The purpose of this report is to update Council on that session and discuss the implications and next steps. 4.2 In response to the feedback received from the Public Open House a number of changes to the proposed bylaw are being recommended in this report. RECOMMENDATION: That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013 and Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025-2013, be revised as per the staff report dated February 17, 2014. DISCUSSION: I. Background: In recent years, the District has seen an increase in the number of townhouse development projects with all tandem parking units in the RM-1 zone. Council and neighbourhoods have expressed concerns about the impacts of such developments. Council directed staff to review the use and impacts of tandem parking. The Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw permits both; a tandem garage or a single garage with a tandem parking space on the driveway apron, in certain single family zones, the duplex zone and the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone. The RM-1 zone is the only multi-family zone in the District permitting tandem parking. Tandem Parking has not been a concern in single family zones where the roads meet the municipal standards and the driveways may be wider and longer to accommodate additional vehicles. In some cases, there is on-street parking as well. In contrast, tandem parking can be a concern in townhouse sites as driveway aprons are typically not provided or the ones proposed are not adequate to park on, while the 6.0 metre wide strata roads do not permit parking. The Discussion Paper dated May 27, 2013, reviewed regulations in other municipalities and reviewed concerns with tandem parking in the existing townhouse complexes in the District. It compared 18 scenarios, to help understand the impacts of tandem parking in the RM-1 zone. This review resulted in one development scenario that resulted in a reasonable mix of tandem (70%) and double wide units (30%) which maximized of green space/useable open space, as well as creating a well-articulated, livable design; while maintaining a viable unit yield. The first reading report dated October 7, 2013, recognized that there would be implications that these bylaw amendments may have on townhouse developments in the RM-1 zone. Council instructed staff to proceed with a public process to seek input from the residents and the development industry. II. Open House update: Pursuant to Council's resolution at the October 8, 2013 meeting, a Public Open House was conducted on Tuesday, November 13, 2013 from 4:00 to 8:00 pm in the Council Chambers lobby. Approximately 15-20 people attended the open house and the attendees were a mix of Maple Ridge residents, realtors, developers and design professionals. -2- Prior to the Open House, advertisement for the open house was run in four consecutive editions of both the local newspapers dated November 1, 6, 8 and 12, 2013. Details of the Open House and all the background reports and presentations were posted on the District's website as of October 29, 2013 and questionnaires were available on the District's website from November 14, 2013 to December 2, 2013. Invitations were also emailed to all the stakeholders on October 29, 2013. The Advisory Design Panel members were also invited. The information panels displayed at the open house provided an overview of the definition, concerns, photos, graphic analysis on flat and sloping sites, and the proposed bylaw amendments to the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone and the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw, applicable to the RM-1 zone. These can still be found on our website, under the "Tandem Parking Section" of the Planning Department. Two separate questionnaires were provided at the open house: one for the general public (Appendix A) and the other for representatives from the development industry (Appendix 8). Two separate questionnaires were drafted with an intention of capturing specific concerns from both the groups as buyers and sellers of townhouse units in the market. The questionnaire for the general public focused on capturing their preferences around choosing a tandem or double wide townhouse unit, site design, affordability, safety/emergency access, livability and feedback on proposed bylaw amendments. The questionnaire for the developers/consultants focused on site design, affordability from selling point of view and feedback on the proposed bylaw amendments. The responses received from both the questionnaires, including the two letters received from the development industry are attached as Appendix C to this report. Questionnaire Summary: As indicated earlier, approximately 15-20 people attended the open house, with 15 people signing the "sign-in" sheet and 16 responses (14 completed questionnaires and 2 letters) being received for a response rate of 80%. Appendix C attached to this report shows all the responses received. Out of the 14 completed questionnaires, 10 of them are from the general public; while 4 of them are from the developers/consultants. It is important to note that some of the attendees, who are residents (not developers), preferred to complete both the questionnaires, to be able to give feedback about all the questions. One of the developers (Portrait Homes Inc.) opted to send in a letter instead of completing the questionnaire, while the other letter is from the "Greater Vancouver Home Builder's Association". Summary of feedback from the general public: It is noted that only a small proportion of the residents of Maple Ridge attended this open house and those who attended are not residents of a townhouse complex. Based on this fact, the responses are not necessarily representative of all the Maple Ridge residents. Given the limited amount of feedback received from the attendees it appears that townhouse complexes with tandem units are not a favourable preference for buyers, especially seniors due to the size, form, on-site parking concerns and tandem garage conversions. It appears that a 2-car tandem garage with no driveway apron or inadequate apron size to park an additional vehicle is a concern for the public. The results also provide information on marketing of townhouse units which should be of interest to developers but is not necessarily a matter that the local government should concern itself with, assuming that the market will dictate form. The opinions expressed by those who attended the open house (attached to this report as Appendix C) may be summarized as below: -3-I J a) with an enclosed 2-car tandem garage, the inner tandem garage is used for storage/living area. This will force a vehicle to be parked on the street or on a small driveway apron; b) tandem garages are not big enough to park a pick-up truck and a car; c) tandem units offer multiple levels with three flights of stairs; not senior-friendly; d) due to the narrow form of tandem units moving furniture up the stairways is a challenge; e) tall narrow townhouse units do not have a visually pleasing streetscape; f) there is general support for limiting the block to six attached units; and g) there is general support for the tandem form in the Town Centre Area. Summary of feedback from the development industry: It is noted that only a small proportion of development community representatives attended the open house. Concerns with the proposed regulations were expressed by Portrait Homes Inc, the Greater Vancouver Home Builder's Association and two other representatives of the development industry. The opinions expressed by this group at the open house and through a letter (attached to this report as Appendix C) may be summarized as below: a) there is opposition to the proposed 70% tandem restriction due to concerns about affordability (and selling) of the 30% 2-car double wide units with a bigger footprint. For a 2-car double wide townhouse unit, a greater proportion of land value must be assigned, making them higher in price. It was suggested that this will compete with smaller single family homes, making it more difficult to sell these townhouses. It was suggested that the 30% 2-car double wide garage requirement for any townhouse site, will reduce the total density and unit yield; b) there is support for 100% tandem developments as market seeks affordability. It was suggested that tandem units offer functional, livable homes with a smaller footprint. One developer building in Surrey noted that his tandem units sell for $30,000 to $50,000 less than the 2-car double wide units. There is overall support for the idea of townhouse developments having a variety of housing forms (tandem and double) but the flexibility be left to the project architect, to be assessed on a site-by-site basis rather than restricting tandem units to 70% in the RM-1 zone across the District; c) there is general opposition for requiring a full driveway apron for each tandem unit as this will result in 3 parking spaces per tandem unit which seems excessive and will increase the impervious surfaces on site. The driveway apron requirement will increase the parking required for tandem units but not necessarily discourage people from converting tandem garage space to living space. A Restrictive Covenant on all the parking spaces on site (enforced by the Strata Council) could be a measure to discourage owners from converting their enclosed parking spaces;there is general support for limiting the block size to six attached units, except one response recommending specifying the block length instead of number of attached units; d) there is general agreement that townhouse units with well articulated streetscape is an important selling feature; e) there is general support for the tandem form in the Town Centre Area; f) there is general agreement that increased useable open space/amenity area is a desirable selling feature, but general concerns that it will reduce the unit yield; g) there is general support for providing more on-site visitor parking on townhouse sites; and -4- h) there is general preference for the tandem arrangement shown below, i.e. single car garage with the second parking spot on the driveway apron. 0 t . . __:...--,,.-.!lffl'll!lll'-C::~ Common themes from the open house feedback: • The narrow, 2-car fully enclosed tandem garage design can encourage some of the garage to be converted to habitable/ storage area which force a second car on the street. • Restricting tandem unit proportion and increasing amenity area on townhouse sites can negatively impact the unit yield and affordability for buyers and sellers. • Driveway apron requirement may address the parking concerns of a tandem arrangement. • Increasing visitor parking ratio may help resolve some parking concerns. • Limiting the block size is generally supported but some flexibility is required. • Tandem form is acceptable in the Town Centre Area with better fit for a dense form and better access to transit. Ill. Implications of open house feedback on the proposed bylaw amendments: The participation and feedback at the open house suggests that the proposed bylaw amendments need to be revised. While the few residents who attended the open house are in general support of the proposed bylaw amendments as worded in the first reading report, none of them live in a townhouse complex and due to the very small proportion of citizen participation, the responses received are not necessarily representative of all the Maple Ridge residents. On the other hand, the development industry is concerned with project feasibility and reduction in unit yield if the 70% tandem restriction were to be adopted. The fear seems to be the competing price of a 2-car garage townhouse unit with a single family house. The development industry raises concerns about the negative economic impacts resulting from reduced unit yields. Countering this is Council's expressed concern that tandem parking places undue pressure on street parking resources. In an effort to seek a balance, it is proposed that the following changes be considered: i) RM-1 ITownhouse Residential District} zone: In the first reading report of October 2013, the following items were proposed for inclusion in the RM-1 zone: a) Townhouses in the RM-1 zone must be limited to six (6) attached units in one block. b} All the units with tandem parking arrangement must provide a usable open space of 65.0 square metres per unit with 3 or more bedrooms; and 50.0 square metres per unit with less than 3 bedrooms. -5- Item a) above, i.e. "Townhouses in the RM-1 zone must be limited to six (6) attached units in one block", is recommended to be revised as stated below: a) Townhouses in the RM-1 zone must be limited to six (6) attached units in one block or 45 metres (147.5 feet) in length, whichever is less. The open house feedback suggests that there is general support for this amendment. Allowing a maximum of six (6) attached units per block is a consistent approach followed in other jurisdictions and the District's RST-SV (Street Townhouse-Silver Valley) zone. Block sizes that exceed six units can create a monotonous favade. Smaller blocks of units create well-articulated facades separated with green buffers in between the blocks that promote natural light and views. Smaller block sizes are also more sustainable as they could help save more trees due to a smaller footprint. One tandem townhouse unit is typically between 11.5 to 14 feet (3.5 to 4.26 metres) in width. A block of six attached tandem units ranges in length between 69 feet to 84 feet (21.03 to 25.60 metres). On the other hand, a 2-car double wide townhouse unit is between 22.0 to 25.0 feet (6.70 to 7.62 metres) in width. A block of six attached 2-car double wide townhouse units ranges in length between 132 feet to 150 feet (40.23 to 45. 72 metres). A block of six attached units, with four internal units as tandem units and two external units as 2-car double wide units, ranges in length between 90 feet to 106 feet (27.43 to 32.30 metres). The above stated revision provides flexibility to accommodate any of the combinations and to encourage a mix of both types of units in each block. In addition, Council could always consider a Development Variance Permit to this provision, on a site by site basis. Item b) above, i.e. "All the units with tandem parking arrangement must provide a usable open space of 65.0 square metres per unit with 3 or more bedrooms; and 50.0 square metres per unit with less than 3 bedrooms", is proposed to be eliminated. The increased open/amenity space requirement proposed to be applicable to the tandem units, could impact the overall feasibility of a project, based on the feedback from the development community. If designed creatively, amenity areas can be functional and attractive, based on the existing ratios in the current bylaw, without making the project unviable. To discourage linear skinny areas to be included in the usable open space/amenity area calculation, the minimum width of a usable open space/amenity area needs to be at least 6.0 metres wide as per the current zoning bylaw. This will ensure functional and usable open spaces within the townhouse developments. Recognizing that multi-family uses require adequate usable open space/common activity area for the site, it is recommended that no variances be supported for the required usable open space/common activity ratios in the existing Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 RM-1 zone. ii) Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw: In the first reading report of October 2013, the following items were proposed for inclusion in the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw: a) In the RM-1 zone, tandem parking shall not exceed 70% of the total townhouse units on site, except in the Town Centre Area. b) All the units with tandem parking must provide a driveway apron per unit that is minimum 5.5 metres long and 3.0 metres wide, except in the Town Centre Area. -6-' r- c) The minimum internal clear dimensions for attached or detached single, tandem and double garages for townhouse units in the RM-1 zone must be as stated below: Single car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 6.1 metres long; Tandem 2-car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 12.2 metres long; Double wide garage: 5.6 metres wide and 6.1 metres long. Item a) above, i.e. "In the RM-1 zone, tandem parking shall not exceed 70% of the total townhouse units on site, except in the Town Centre Area", is proposed to be eliminated. The development industry is concerned about project feasibility and affordability, if the 70% tandem restriction is adopted. On a site specific basis, a mix of tandem and double wide townhouse units are being encouraged in the RM-1 zone, without jeopardizing the feasibility of a project. Several projects have made an effort to provide for a reasonable mix of tandem and 2-car double garage units. It is important to note that a combination of a driveway apron requirement applicable only to the enclosed 2-car tandem garage unit and limiting the block size, along with some creative designing, may improve the overall site design and substantially resolve the parking concerns on a 100% tandem townhouse development. Council could always choose to not support a 100% tandem townhouse development on a site by site basis. Item b) above, i.e. "All the units with tandem parking must provide a driveway apron per unit that is minimum 5.5 metres long and 3.0 metres wide, except in the Town Centre Area", is recommended to be revised as stated below: b) All the units with an enclosed 2-car tandem parking garage must provide a drivewayapron per unit that is minimum 5.5 metres long and 3.0 metres wide, except in the Town Centre Area. The feedback from the open house suggests that a tandem arrangement with a single garage and a second parking space on the driveway apron would be most feasible. However, the design featuring a fully enclosed 2-car tandem garage seems to be problematic. This is because of the inner parking space having the potential to easily get converted to storage or habitable area. A driveway apron requirement for this specific unit type may help reduce parking problems. The development industry is concerned about every tandem unit requiring 3 parking spaces. The recommended revision will require a driveway apron only for the units having an enclosed 2-car tandem garage. With the proposed revision, the development will still have the flexibility of offering a proportion of both types of tandem arrangement based on their marketing plan. Some 2-car double wide units will also be encouraged by staff. Item c) above, i.e. "The minimum internal clear dimensions for attached or detached single, tandem and double garages for townhouse units in the RM-1 zone must be as stated below ........... ", is proposed to remain unchanged. This regulation is considering standard car sizes and the safe clearance required from the garage walls. The Building Department has confirmed these dimensions will work for most standard cars. The feedback from the open house suggests that these dimensions are not adequate for bigger vehicles. Any bigger vehicles like tow trucks, SUVs, etc. may be parked on the driveway apron. -7- iii) Definition ofTandem Parking: The definition of Tandem Parking is proposed to remain unchanged. In the first reading report of October 2013, Tandem Parking is defined as "the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a driveway/road". The above definition allows both the arrangements of tandem parking, i.e. a unit with 2-car tandem garage or a unit with one car garage and a tandem parking space on the driveway apron, as shown in the sketches below: &l\,i ,~o AND The regulation of a driveway apron for tandem units is proposed to be revised as stated above to avoid extra long driveway apron for the second option above. In other words, the second option above will not require an additional driveway apron because it already shows an adequate parking apron for the required second parking spot. IV. In-stream development applications rezoning to RM-1: It is recommended that any in-stream townhouse development applications that have not been presented at a Public Hearing, before final adoption of the proposed bylaws, be permitted to seek a variance if they do not comply. V. Next Steps: A second reading report with revised Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013 and Off-street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025-2013 will be brought forward to a future Council meeting. It is important to note that amendments to the Off-street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990 do not go to the public hearing. CONCLUSION: The Public Open House was a good opportunity for residents and developers to understand Council's concerns with tandem parking and an opportunity to comment on the proposed regulations. Unfortunately the public turn out was low and none of them were residents of a townhouse complex. The feedback from these attendees are valid but given the low turn out, cannot be considered necessarily representative of all the citizens of Maple Ridge. However, the same can be said for the -8 - development industry as their representation at the open house was low too. The development industry, however, did express concerns about project feasibility and affordability if forced to provide a proportion of 2-car double wide garage units. On a site-specific basis, staff is currently working through several townhouse projects that are making an effort to provide some reasonable proportion of 2-car double wide units (instead of 100% tandem units), e.g. The revised scheme of Portrait Homes on the townhouse proposal at 13260 236th Street now shows 70.49% tandem units and the rest of the units with a 2-car double wide garage. On a site-specific basis Council could choose not to support a 100% townhouse scheme. The proposed block size restriction and driveway apron requirement for all the enclosed 2-car tandem garage units may address Council's concerns about on-site and off-site parking. Based on the open house feedback, the proposed revisions to the bylaw amendments are recommended and will be brought forward with the second reading report at a future Council meeting. It is recommended that Council direct staff to draft the second reading report with the revised Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013 and Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025-2013, as described in this report. "Original signed by Rasika Acharya" Prepared by. Rasika Acharya, B-Arch, M-Tech, UD, LEED® AP, MCIP, RPP Planner "Original signed by Christine Carter" Approved by. Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning "Original signed by Frank Quinn" Approved by: Frank Quinn, P. Eng., PMP 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 -Questionnaire for the general public Appendix B -Questionnaire for the developers/consultants Appendix C -Completed questionnaires and letters -9- APPENDIX A OPEN HOUSE QUESTIONNAIRE: Tandem Parking in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) Zone: Proposed Definition: TANDEM PARKING means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway. Intent of the proposed bylaw amendments applicable to the RM-1 zone:· The proposed bylaw amendments are intended to improve the overall site design, livability and emergency access within townhouse developments. The proposed bylaw amendments would: a) limit tandem units to 70% of the total units on site; b) limit the bloek size to six attached units; c) require driveway aprons for tandem units only and d) increase usable open space ratio per tandem unit. The current bylaw lacks minimum clear internal dimensions of a garage, so the proposed bylaw amendments also specify the minimum clear internal width and length of single, tandem and double garages, for clarity. 1) Are you a resident of Maple Ridge? Y / N 2) Do you currently live in a townhouse complex? Y / N 3) Would you consider living in a townhouse unit with a tandem parking garage? Why? Y / N 4) Would you (or your client) consider paying more for a townhouse in a complex with larger amenity area and for a unit in a smaller cluster with a visually pleasing streetscape? Y / N Comments: 5) If you (or your client) were to buy a townhouse in the near future, how would you rate the importance of the following features? Choose one for each: 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important. Least-----> Most Imp. • a double wide 2-car garage 1 2 3 4 • a tandem garage with a driveway apron (space for one car) 1 2 3 4 • adequate garage width and length 1 2 3 4 • a cluster (block) of less than six attached units 1 2 3 4 • Townhouse complex with more amenity/open space 1 2 3 4 • Townhouse complex with a clear emergency access at all times 1 2 3 4 Comments: Thank you for completing this questionnaire; your feedback is important to us. Completed questionnaires may be left at the Open House registration table; emailed to planning@mapleridge.ca or faxed to 604466-4327 by December 2, 2013. 5 5 5 5 5 5 f r APPENDIX 8 OPEN HOUSE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR DEVELOPERS/BUILDERS: Tandem Parking in the RM-1 ITownhouse Residential District) Zone: Proposed Definition: TANDEM PARKING means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway. Intent of the proposed bylaw amendments applicable to the RM-1 zone: The proposed bylaw amendments are intended to improve the overall site design, livability and emergency access within townhouse developments. The proposed bylaw amendments would: a) limit tandem units to 70% of the total units on site; b) limit the block size to six attached units; c) require driveway aprons for tandem units only and d) increase usable open space ratio per tandem unit. The current bylaw Jacks minimum clear internal dimensions of a garage, so the proposed bylaw amendments also specify the minimum clear internal width and length of single, tandem and double garages, for clarity. 1) Does your company develop/build townhouse residential units in Maple Ridge? 2) Do you have any concerns about restricting tandem to a maximum of 70% of the total units in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone? Please explain. 3) Do you agree that a driveway apron in front of a tandem garage helps reduce parking in "no parking" zone and improves emergency access in a townhouse complex? y / N y / N y / N 4) Do you agree that increased amenity/open space per tandem unit helps improve the overall quality of the development? Please explain. y / N 5) The current bylaw does not specify minimum garage dimensions. Do you have any concerns with the proposed minimum clear garage dimensions for townhouses as stated below? Y / N Single car garage: Tandem 2-car garage: Double wide 2-car garage: If yes, please explain: 3.1 metres wide and 6.1 metres Jong 3.1 metres wide and 12.2 metres long 5.6 metres wide and 6.1 metres long 6) The objectives of limiting the block size to six attached townhouse units is to offer improved livability through functional site design, promotion of natural light, opportunities for view corridors and a well-articulated streetscape. Do you have any concerns with the proposed b"iock size? If so, how may these be addressed while achieving livability? Y / N _,, 7) From your experience how important are each of the following in creating an attractive and desirable townhouse development that will sell successfully? Choose one for each: 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important. Least-----> Most Imp. • 0 • • • Comments: units with double wide 2-car garage units with tandem garage and a driveway apron (space for one car) units in a smaller building block units in a townhouse complex with more amenity/open space units in a townhouse complex with a well-articulated streetscape 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 8) Please indicate which option you would choose for a tandem parking arrangement. Explain why. a) A two car tandem garage with a driveway apron: Comments: b) A tandem arrangement with single car garage and a driveway apron: Comments: ..c t-~-.L__~< !lll'l'l'lf F==::t--::-=:=1 tL t-\/) Y/N Y/N Thank you for completing this questionnaire; your feedback is important to us. Completed questionnaires may be left at the Open House registration table; emailed to planning@mapleridge.ca or faxed to 604-466-4327 by December 2, 2013. · MAPLE RIDGE OPEN HOUSE QUESTIONNAIRE: British Columbia Tandem Parking in the RM-1 {Townhouse Residential District) Zone: Proposed Definition: TANDEM PARKING means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway. Intent of the proposed bylaw amendments applicable to the RM-1 zone: The proposed bylaw amendments are intended to improve the overall site design, livability and emergency access within townhouse developments. The proposed bylaw amendments would: a) limit tandem units to 70% of the total units on site; b) limit the block size to six attached units; c) require driveway aprons for tandem units only and d) increase usable open space ratio per tandem unit. The current bylaw lacks minimum clear internal dimensions of a garage, so the proposed bylaw amendments also specify the minimum clear internal width and length of single, tandem and double garages, for clarity. 1) Are you a resident of Maple Ridge? 2) Do you currently live in a townhouse complex? 3) Would you consider living in a townhouse unit with a tandem parking garage? Why? Y@ l-rvU) , .-J A-1-flJ\.l.s fl , rJ &uvJ &M W-nr.-< fr~ D ~ 4) Would you (or your client) consider paying more for a townhouse in a complex with larger amenity area and for a unit in a smaller cluster with a visually pleasing streetscape? Y / N Comments: ~ I~ ~'I 'B '1 IA S"uA«J /JC.M{tl>Jt; ~ tvo ~ (..f\J ~ti,ot..wA-~ ~ ' THAf" .Wit{.. f:C:·~ &rtl~S' 5) If you (or your client) were to buy a townhouse in the near future, how would y0u rate the importance of the following features? Choose one for each: 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important. Least-----> Most Imp. • a double wide 2-car garage 1 2 3(1}5 • a tandem garage with a driveway apron (space for one car) Q:) 2 3 4 5 • adequate garage width and length • a cluster (block) of less than six attached units • Townhouse complex with more amenity/open space • Townhouse complex with a clear emergency access at all times 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3@5 1 2 3 4i 1 2 3 4 5 Thank you for completing this questionnaire; your feedback is important to us. Completed questionnaires may be left at the Open House registration table; emailed to planning@mapleridge.ca or faxed to 604-466-4327 by December 2, 2013. , . ...-MAPLE RIDGE OPEN HOUSE QUESTIONNAIRE: British Columbia Tandem Parking in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) Zone: Proposed Definition: TANDEM PARKING means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway. Intent of the proposed bylaw amendments applicable to the RM-1 zone: The proposed bylaw amendments are intended to improve the overall site design, livability and emergency access within townhouse developments. The proposed bylaw amendments would: a) limit tandem units to 70% of the total units on site; b) limit the block size to six attached units; c) require driveway aprons for tandem units only and d) increase usable open space ratio per tandem unit. The current bylaw lacks minimum clear internal dimensions of a garage, so the proposed bylaw amendments also specify the minimum clear internal width and length of single, tandem and double garages, for clarity. 1) Are you a resident of Maple Ridge? @; N 2) Do you currently live in a townhouse complex? Y,@ 3) Would you consider living in a townhouse unit with a tandem parking garage? Why? Y@ ~£~~/~k~ti, ~c~~-izit 4) Would you (or your client) consider paying more for a townhouse in a complex with larger amenity area and for a unit in a smaller cluster with a visually pleasing streetscape? fi); N Comments: 5) If you (or your client) were to buy a townhouse in the near future, how would you rate the importance of the following features? Choose one for each: 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important. Least-----> Most Imp. • a double wide 2-car garage • a tandem garage with a driveway apron (space for one car) • adequate garage width and length • a cluster (block) of less than six attached units • Townhouse complex with more amenity/open space • Townhouse complex with a clear emergency access at all times 1234(£) 1@3 4 5 1 2 3 4(§) 1 2 3(4) 5 1 2 3WA 1 2 3 4(,§) Comments: Thank you for completing this questionnaire; your feedback is important to us. Completed questionnaires may be left at the Open House registration table; emailed to planning@mapleridge.ca or faxed to 604466-4327 by December 2, 2013. MAPLE RIDGE OPEN HOUSE QUESTIONNAIRE: British Columbia Tandem Parking in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) Zone: Proposed Definition: TANDEM PARKING means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway. Intent of the proposed bylaw amendments applicable to the RM-1 zone: The proposed bylaw amendments are intended to improve the overall site design, livability and emergency access within townhouse developments. The proposed bylaw amendments would: a) limit tandem units to 70% of the total units on site; b) limit the block size to six attached units; c) require driveway aprons for tandem units only and d) increase usable open space ratio per tandem unit. The current bylaw lacks minimum clear internal dimensions of a garage, so the proposed bylaw amendments also specify the minimum clear internal width and length of single, tandem and double garages, for clarity. 1) Are you a resident of Maple Ridge? 2) Do you currently live in a townhouse complex? 3) Would you consider living in a townhouse unit with a tandem parking garage? Why? w;[ /...!KJ' ;091/,,.-Ou.,,,J ;/ r//irkLt.;/ i;,.,;/ W,c,41-:) ,:!,~ _/-p.1c,,!_} ;-; !°1"?K 4) Would you (or your client) consider paying more for a townhouse in a complex with larger .. amenity area and for a unit in a smaller cluster with a visually pleasing streetscape? c) N Comments: if.4 /... .c. 5) If you (or your client) were to buy a townhouse in the near future, how would you rate the importance of the following features? Choose one for each: 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important. Least-----> Most Imp. • a double wide 2-car garage ).._, 2 3 4 (Y • a tandem garage with a driveway apron (space for one car) /1 )22 33 ,44 u.. 5 • adequate garage width and length ~ • a cluster (block) of less than six attached units 1 2 3 · , • Townhouse complex with more an:ienity/open space 1 2 3 4 Ji c . • 1:ownh.~u~e complex wi!!:1 a clear .emergency access at all time.s 1 2 3 4 ';\" L ,!._, I /-1 ; .,J ,4 / k rll,,; z? ~ /-1 /7« /F' JY(°/f'JC --Comments: <171 ;.J ';J t! rr' ' ./J/1/1 /'( r> 6-/( /J 'f/lt!D ;?v( /II 1 :---J! "' 1--l_f /0,;; re,,?.~ If/'( i ~ /ll-1c.-f7c/ -/ "'r;;,.. v ,f /f','otY w1« /-l .lw,-,A,Yf 13/ /:1W1."J O,,.; f7/1/ f:7p,:,f/; Thank you for completing this questionnaire; your feedback is important to us. Completed questionnaires may be left at the Open House registration table; emailed to planning@mapleridge.ca or faxed to 604466-4327 by December 2, 2013. MAPLE RIDGE OPEN HOUSE QUESTIONNAIRE: British Columbia Tandem Parking in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) Zone: Proposed Definition: TANDEM PARKING means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway. Intent of the proposed bylaw amendments applicable to the RM-1 zone: The proposed bylaw amendments are intended to improve the overall site design, livability and emergency access within townhouse developments. The proposed bylaw amendments would: a) limit tandem units to 70% of the total units on site; b) limit the block size to six attached units; c) require driveway aprons for tandem units only and d) increase usable open space ratio per tandem unit. The current bylaw lacks minimum clear internal dimensions of a garage, so the proposed bylaw amendments also specify the minimum clear internal width and length of single, taridem and double garages, for clarity. 1) Are you a resident of Maple Ridge? 2) Do you currently live in a townhouse complex? 3) Would you consider living in a townhouse unit with a tandem parking garage? Why? Y ;([} 4) Would you (or your client) consider paying more for a townhouse in a complex with larger, amenity area and for a unit in a smaller cluster with a visually pleasing streetscape? a) N Least-----> Most Imp. • a double wide 2-car garage 1 2 3 4@ • a tandem garage with a driveway apron (space for one car) 6) 2 3 4 5 • adequate garage width and length 1 2 3 4(§} • a cluster (block) of less than six attached units 1 2 3 4@ • Townhouse complex with more amenity/open space 1 2 3 4~ • Townhouse complex with a clear emergency access at all times 1 2 3 4@ ,., /) ' ,,.-. -. -~~; t,_,,,}f 'lf"--J:-w--vrJ4,vr,? ·~. I fnY1---£ Thank you for completing this questionnaire; your feedback is important to us. Completed questionnaires may be left at the Open House registration table; emailed to planning@mapleridge.ca or.faxed to 604466-4327 by December 2, 2013. MAPLE RIDGE OPEN HOUSE QUESTIONNAIRE: British Columbia Tandem Parking in the RM-1 {Townhouse Residential District) Zone: Proposed Definition: TANDEM PARKING means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway. Intent of the proposed bylaw amendments applicable to the RM-1 zone: The proposed bylaw amendments are intended to improve the overall site design, livability and emergency access within townhouse developments. The proposed bylaw amendments would: a) limit tandem units to 70% of the total units on site; b) limit the block size to six attached units; c) require driveway aprons for tandem units only and d) increase usable open space ratio per tandem unit. The current bylaw lacks minimum clear internal dimensions of a garage, so the proposed bylaw amendments also specify the minimum clear internal width and length of single, tandem and double garages, for clarity. 1) 2) 3) Are you a resident of Maple Ridge? Do you currently live in a townhouse complex? Would you consider living in a townhouse unit with a tandem parking garage? Why? ;2. . ~ -,/_; H.;..;.: L-:."-,a...lt-;;..." _A'-'-, ;:;;_iL a;;;:.i:2____.,<,,;:;... '..:_;__:;!..;;;a,-4....::.:;.f.::,IJ.J.t:::..i/.:a..{;;,;_( ...:;"';..;' v:a;.' ......:" ... ~A .. · ,..,.; ~· 4:.;;'..:;..J.<'---.:.JL....__.._==--""'--"'"""""'=--J.-"""""''--:::.:..l"-=l..::..I'--"-,""""-A, 7 A;.,'//;: A 4) Would you (or your client) consider paying more for a townhouse in a complex with larger __ amenity area and for a unit in a smaller cluster with a visually pleasing streetscape? (y) N 5) If you (or your client) were to buy a townhouse in the near future, how would you rate the importance of the following features? Choose one for each: 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important. Least-----> Most Imp. • a double wide 2-car garage 1 2 3 4(§} • a tandem garage with a driveway apron (space for one car) D 1 2 3 4 5 • adequate garage width and length 1 2 3 :~ • a cluster (block) of less than six attached units 1 2 3 • Townhouse complex with more amenity/open space 1 2 3 • Townhouse complex with a clear emergency access at all times 1 2 3 ~ / I' j i;, ,·) .. ~ ( (2 d6 i-(} ~/f/1 .....; // <~ -;./(l z:a ( ~[/~ -., -k:: ,,., ;-r / 5 0 :C flc..1/l C/-f,+ Ct:: /t-rN0S;;j , Thank you for completing this questionnaire; your feedback is important to us. Completed questionnaires may be left at the Open House registration table; emailed to planning@mapleridge.ca or faxed to 604466-4327 by December 2, 2013. c2At2-,1,cit. r vJ r T/..r r/11:3. (."'I. '· ,-, 7(::-/,j / c) 1 , S ,.. ~(/ C,C.f/OrJLS). ."), i_,.(_ -../ 0 , \_ ( J f I l--1 J !~ i .A.) w; rH l-;_ A-11 ,1' e, 1;, . -Sri(/ iA.L(} 6=:A-/LI+ C. (:: ) A -Mtl-rt 1 ( Lf7 , /7 11 . . /1 1Z-v/ Ci5'>,f1_, --/.?-. I J} S ~ T'/'( 6;L;~ A; 2;_::: ,.-. I -,v I L MAPLE RIDGE OPEN HOUSE QUESTIONNAIRE: British Columbia Tandem Parking in the RM-1 {Townhouse Residential District) Zone: Proposed Definition: TANDEM PARKING means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway. Intent of the proposed bylaw amendments applicable to the RM-1 zone: The proposed bylaw amendments are intended to improve the .overall site design, livability and emergency access within townhouse developments. The proposed bylaw amendments would: a) limit tandem units to 70% of the total units on site; b} limit the block size to six attached units; c) require driveway aprons for tandem units only and d) increase usable open space ratio per tandem unit. The current bylaw lacks minimum clear internal dimensions of a garage, so the proposed bylaw amendments also specify the minimum clear internal width and length of single, tandem and double garages, for clarity. 1) Are you a resident of Maple Ridge? 2) Do you currently live in a townhouse complex? 3) Would you consider living in a townhouse unit with a tandem parking garage? Why? Y;@ No I IVlfT f rtJo~ G-H ~oo M rot:_ A P ,c tt.-u e xuc x II-IUD A c IYc-__ 71-11; u&rr: t/115 3 ft16fl:75 or sr41,es., fllf.£.VT!flk1!0/0cYJ1u:.ett'1U ~, lNrncvay 11v 6-eTT11ur f't1 fc/(Jflct!fE u/J7t!E /fl/Hl,zJ:'J w b71J-; .£ tu fJ-Y _s;: 4) Would you (or your client) consider paying more for a townhouse in a complex with larg;£~ amenity area and for a unit in a smaller cluster with a visually pleasing streetscape? (!)I N Comments:;111/~£7A/l7 70 //JZTr ,Cee).... Clo~el.) I/U 5) If you (or your client) were to buy a townhouse in the near future, how would you rate the importance of the following features? Choose one for each: 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important. Least-----> Most Imp. • a double wide 2-car garage • a tandem garage with a driveway apron (space for one car) • adequate garage width and length • a cluster (block) of less than six attached units • Townhouse complex with more amenity/open space • Townhouse complex with a clear emergency access at all times 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 comments:_r Cu1Jl/L/J /fJr[ CiJ/U~t!)eJC f}-7?}tut/Jl()t/:;£ /6EC!W5c 71/-ey/l-,eEIVff /Sttll7 f'!J/c 5c1v1tJKS /J-TfJLL. tvE to~J(e/J foe ;i, Ye9tfS +011-e1u /iJ~ ?ov1v!) {)l1Je wtTI/:? S7o£Eys t,U£ coucD/l.l7 6-eT oUSl!~~T /JIJV /JCl(V/J ;N T/.Jc GIJt'-1)6{; Thank y~u for completing this questionnaire; your feedback is important to us. Completed ~ questionnaires may be left at the Open House registration table; emailed to planning@mapleridge.ca or faxed to 604-466-4327 by December 2, 2013. 71/e JfE~llTy /$ 7-lf!JT OtAJN&ILS WILL 7Lf~/V Jife;fc 6-AKfJ.6-ES //VTO 9DRl46-G' 711-ese ./JGVeQ/-1/1€)(.JTS Att:: /Jal t:r FOE Jf.1-€ IJEVEU>f'c~-S ltJ07 F~/c /JEcJ/JL£ , I /l+t_/{f/(){,--())!LL-f1os-r Ccf-7#/#Jlf !vE 6/U 71/E /14/}V S7RecTS , 7o o/tJ ;s 7~?J lft6-l+ ne11J<;t7Y7 F8K.7A-1,u1)cf( !1fµ_f/JE 3D~d £s/Jec1-14ay /i)[Jf_ fl/ ~r r~f!G CJ:c<;.Cj~/UT, /VO C'tJftf{ c/CC(/4 L S !TeS t)/:, 7/f,4/()'!;jld:.,?;t}-T!b/6 C't)HJCef(.)U tJr Tl/£ FA-CT 7/lcfc"E I~ ;vJ ~{!i-1-0tJL $ //U KOC-/( l:-t?J6-£ A-,f_d} . lUHe/e'E 1)-/(E 'life CI/-/L/Jee)l; 60!1D6--TO A-ne;u}) <;Cl-( (jl)t_ 7. foe« f:-.t Du-G 1s If-;eecf(/t-ff7!c)N4L ft£efl 111 Cf}-ffAvtTT St.J/Jfto!cT 5t1ctl ,4 ;/t6-l-f /)eJV~ 1?y TOtu/Uf/1.)t/~,:E /JeV£LtJl1/1€~T {s) IA)!, I+ 1lJIUDE/-1 6-!4JL/J-6-c:--S WE f/lJ.IJC //)()1/CEP /eoi3LE /-A-Kt<. oJu 7H-E '6//Jetull-LKS /jcC14tt'£,l:; TIiey CIJ.k,7 /=IT //l.; 7lfE!/E /J£//)Et1J/l-'('S l].;u}J 7WS IS 0)() A-LOT t,l)/7# t1-$/;()6-6 r/J/1ll.l/fltJf1E. , J /Jj !{)t)T 5,,c1//21JJ:T 71)/v!Jcf1 6+/1:116-eS , f l/4vE 1vevf:3"1c., rtJtoub i'JOe 71/IJ.T I fAJ ott l. O E IJ e1e.. co KJ s 1 /:J e K I!, tt Yt 1u-&-; MAPLE RIDGE OPEN HOUSE QUESTIONNAIRE: British Columbia Tandem Parking in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) Zone: Proposed Definition: TANDEM PARKING means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway. Intent of the proposed bylaw amendments applicable to the RM-1 zone: The proposed bylaw amendments are intended to improve the overall site design, livability and emergency access within townhouse developments. The proposed bylaw amendments would: a) limit tandem units to 70% of the total units on site; b) limit the block size to six attached units; c) require driveway aprons for tandem units only and d) increase usable open space ratio per tandem unit. The current bylaw lacks minimum clear internal dimensions of a garage, so the proposed bylaw amendments also specify the minimum clear internal width and length of single, tandem and double garages, for clarity. 1) Are you a resident.of Maple Ridge? (!y N 2) Do you currently live in a townhouse complex? Y ;@ 3) Would you consider living in a townhouse unit with a tandem parking garage? Why? Y@ LC'c.-H"~c, 2 ·s,u,a--k;:£:';{;?' R S 1 --Z.E 'I.e.,~ \ c:-\.k...-S '---'-"'\A,C-',\ L-~.:.c:1-_J, ... ~--.;,' 1 l:;::\ -r ( c---) 1,'1c::F31 ---r-t-cr----4~ ~~<~ Gvc;:; ~'-!<2; /~~o--+ 4) Would you (or your client) consider paying more for a townhouse in a complex with larger amenity area and for a unit in a smaller cluster with a visually pleasingstreetscape? <J) N l c:--'2-l.~ n \0 ---l~f 1. ·}--,\-d,?:'\f"-c1=\ -"to \_-e:,c;~ C::--c:-~ C t , \C-~~-o.__.,~ 10i::::S~, < r--:> .1~:::;\_,,f'x.··4\Dt,''-" .. --r-o -,~5 . /-><-~:::'.et~{_ C=\"''('\.C('\G1~,f ommen s. ~ ZE ,;,.,. . -\< / ~ °"' -.....c:0-'J-~, __ "· ~ --£ '7 --<-{ ,--" ,~tc :::---..._j ;::x-c:'_)t ~-"'.'I _'--"'~ -. A12-8 _ ~\~ p::.e__ ,«-B e~"""'~-....:S., · "'\O '-r;,i2. 1 ,v"61'"-·t<:-\:--i:::'-f 1 / . .:) \ L.A.-h...._ r. ~ -c-1~--t--i D:£-rY) C;f:?:i?::A<~~z::;> .. \ ~·T pc-z...~c\\ !s;; (....--\ '-.{ t r-~b c..-~3;e:.:.-< .:; ,'J 5) If you (or your client) were to buy a townhouse in the near future, how would you rate the importance of the following features? Choose one for each: 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important. • • • • • • Least-----> Most Imp. a double wide 2-car garage a tandem garage with a driveway apron (space for one car) adequate garage width and length a cluster (block) of less than six attached units Townhouse complex with more amenity/open space Townhouse complex with a clear emergency access at all times 1 2 3 @5 1@3 4 5 1 2 3 4@ 1 2G)1_ 5 1 2 3 (±)5 1 2@4@ _ ,-,c::,.--" r<K~ <::,l_.e.,.--=s ,_ 17,a;L---i:.\-,--o °'-w~-z -sc.~0,G~"' "'~-~-,.i ""'C~n ,~06'""' Comments: u1-...i;(,: '-::;, tt· ~-ere i\'-%'..~ecP.~ T~ r:>c~:-o>n'--i r"'-2.-e '="=-'0>\SL.,:A.iq>,T ~"E:.'C). ~C)..~ c:_:,,-.:. ~:-:>,"f'G \.J"\<"n.-t,-s',::,,c::,--S, '-(~ c~--rec---" c_;,.,,,-..::, ~ ~~~ '. '' ,, . . I .. ~--r~ l,;-t:--,h-C":7 c:=--> v...Xc~ l c,..,,---~ ~C...<--C>G c:::,es,._'=.__:, · , ~\~ , V--\ yG 0~ f:'e"'7V-=1---.J ( -c~c::,,GM "_::;,,Ao_:LD ice" ,Y,0<'26 '2-6'S,¥'--<..L""lc:c> -c'o --C~· "l:~~-...:,. ~""\Q..2 p,:':7"1f2-,.L, Pl"<'\3~1-"9 Thank you for completing this questionnaire; your feedback is important to us. Completed ~~~ c\;,~ questionnaires may be left qt the Open House registration table; emailed to ~ 1 .• -..,,2::t,---E\"'<~"'\)t planning@mapleridge.ca or faxed to 604-466-4327 by December 2, 2013. l,)(N0 Y.0<....) Cc:.i--:,-::-;c~ QI 7c..-e'2;l \ =----:.1-1 l_-f>.. ~~'re-f.\ t'.e, -Z..,....:~\ ~ C\Z-~,' \ \ \ ",eu \...Y'::-.E:~ ~c.:.£-t,..._ c~~~ o\2..-t;;2..o_.0 w~.:;<;2 \.....,'""'76 1 \Zl~\A-Be -C-~--\-P<~ ._j~-7~ P...·r·n@--lb1 r--<~ 1\.A:"C .. ~e.-e.-e\--..::s, \21('(, -\ -z~~ ? ~ p,...-p,~e-6"-Cu:::~'-....)~\_ 1W:0 ~ \+cu"'~ (__;,..,/ l/~~---, ~\,---6 C-c::,J_D ---fl-\:-8---...j ~-~{7\C.7\e,~_') ·co \~ \~~~ C-'c'~\2..E , I I ! t :~:~ OPEN HOUSE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR DEVELOPERS/BUILDERS: MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia Tandem Parking in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) Zone: Proposed Definition: TANDEM PARKING means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway. Intent of the proposed bylaw amendments applicable to the RM-1 zone: The proposed bylaw amendments are intended to improve the overall site design, livability and emergency access within townhouse developments. The proposed bylaw amendments would: a) limit tandem units to 70% of the total units on site; b) limit the block size to six attached units; c) require driveway aprons for tandem units only and d) increase usable open space ratio per tandem unit. The current bylaw lacks minimum clear internal dimensions of a garage, so the proposed bylaw amendments also specify the minimum clear internal width and length of single, tandem and double garages, for clarity. 1) Does your company develop/build townhouse residential units in Maple Ridge? Y@ 2) Do you have any concerns about restricting tandem to a maximum of 70% of the total units in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone? Please explain. Y ;([) 3) Do you agree that a driveway apron in front of a tandem garage helps reduce parking in "no parking" zone and improves emergency access in a townhouse complex? (J) N 4) 5) Do you agree that increased amenity/open space per tandem unit helps improve the overall quality of the development? Please explain. YI@ The current bylaw does not specify minimum garage dimensions. Do you have any conce~?.'\ with the proposed minimum clear garage dimensions for townhouses as stated below? t_:.f_;) N Single car garage: Tandem 2-car garage: Double wide 2-car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 6.1 metres long 3.1 metres wide and 12.2 metres long 5;6 metres wide and 6.1 metres long x--J,p-(,2,V/CL_._) iFDC-c\-\,::::, /-"'-~8 '-le;\-\'\C,.,\_b -L---=\-...SS,~-C.... -......1-01-ic-iLA.;b \;:~<::;, Sr~ --C\;kE, L:>,~i..--C ~~~ q.:::>e:5\--..\..·,~ ~ -6) The objectives of limiting the block size to six attached townhouse units is to offer improved livability through functional site design, promotion of natural light, opportunities for view corridors and a well-articulated streetscape. Do you have any concerns with the ,...,... \ proposed block size? If so, how may these be addressed while achieving livability? Y ,(}L) 7) From your experience how important are each of the following in creating an attra.ctive and desirable townhouse development that will sell successfully? Choose one for each: 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important. Least-----> Most Imp. • • • • • Comments: units with double wide 2-car garage units with tandem garage and a driveway apron (space for one car) units in a smaller building block units in a townhouse complex with more amenity/open space units in a townhouse complex with a well-articulated streetscape 1 2@4 5 1(V3 4 5 1 2 3 @)5 1 2 3 ©5 1 2 3 4(§) 8) Please indicate which option you would choose for a tandem parking arrangement. Explain why. a) A two car tandem garage with a driveway apron: Comments: b) A tandem arrangement with single car garage and a driveway apron: < t-___ _.___..( ~~-.... ~lfflffl'-===IL.=-=:1 ~ \I) (3N Thank you for completing this questionnaire; your feedback is important to us. Completed questionnaires may be left at the Open House registration table; emailed to planning@mapleridge.ca or faxed to 604-466-4327 by December 2, 2013. MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia OPEN HOUSE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR DEVELOPERS/BUILDERS: Tandem Parking in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) Zone: Proposed Definition: TANDEM PARKING means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway. Intent of the proposed bylaw amendments applicable to the RM-1 zone: The proposed bylaw amendments are intended to improve the overall site design, livability and emergency access within townhouse developments. The proposed bylaw amendments would: a) limit tandem units to 70% of the total units on site; b) limit the block size to six attached units; c) require driveway aprons for tandem units only and d) increase usable open space ratio per tandem unit. The current bylaw lacks minimum clear internal dimensions of a garage, so the proposed bylaw amendments also specify the minimum clear internal width and length of single, tandem and double ,garages, for clarity. 1) Does your company develop/build townhouse residential units in Maple Ridge? Y / N 2) Do you have any concerns about restricting tandem to a maximum of 70% of the total units in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone? Please explain. 71/-ey 61/0ttLb oJVt..y ;~£ lf>u1cr 1tL,1lfE /Jl)tu11.:rro(,l,1{ . ., ctJrcEt4/CEft-3) Do you agree that a driveway apron in front of a tandem garage helps reduce parking in "no parking" zone and improves emergency access in a townhouse complex? :J)R1v€w~ys ffJJ.vE=,o U /-lJKI&-£nJDll 6-~ 4) Do you agree that increased amenity/open space per tandem unit helps improve the overall quality of the development? Please explain. /,'\ C(.IN fAJCl<S it/ND A G-oDT> (Ut216-i-l-fJbt<frf+O~P FEEL/tu&-Af;f ..tf1P!>rcfAUJf tHit+tvU 1/tE VEV&LortieMir, L..AWJ)~CflPce-Po'f?:Tl()'r1J$ ())(rt-I &Eluffc~, /JUt-VA-!ee-Pr.S, 5) The current bylaw does not specify minimum garage dimensions. Do you have any concerns with the proposed minimum clear garage dimensions for townhouses as stated below? Y / N Single car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 6 .. 1 metres long Tandem 2-car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 12.2 metres long Double wide 2-car garage: 5.6 metres wide and 6.1 metres long J If yes, please explain: DEf/liJIKJ 6-TyPe ~ F Cfl./r..--f /CK u rJ T/C. uo«., s: l( Vs 7 /1e71lE~ {oft tetui5-1tl-r o rt 511u6-;;; o.r 1Jou /J Le 6-fJ K.46-e s ;.u-Fr (p, L -/1.JOf . UJ~6-6/WU6H-F{Te /J1CK.-U PS 6) The objectives of limiting the block size to six attached townhouse units is to offer improved livability through functional site design, promotion of naturanight, opportunities for view corridors and a well-articulated streetscape. Do you have any concerns with the proposed block size? If so, how may these be addressed while achieving livability? Y / N ':)/'{. tceM /JAJD.S. /11€ () r fol,l.;t\-OV'(eS LcS'S ,s ~'C/IEJe... I_ 7) From your experience how important are each of the following in creating an attra.ctive and desirable townhouse development that will sell successfully? Choose one for each: 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important. Least-----> Most Imp . . 1 2 3 4G) • • • • • Comments: units with double wide 2-car garage units with tandem garage and a driveway apron (space for one car) units in a smaller building block units in a townhouse complex with more amenity/open space units in a townhouse complex with a well-articulated streetscape 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4© 1 2 3 4 5 8) Please indicate which option you would choose for a tandem parking arrangement. Explain why. a) A two car tandem garage with a driveway apron: Y/ N Comments: b) A tandem arrangement with single car garage and a driveway apron: Y/N Comments: Thank you for completing this questionnaire; your feedback is important to us. Completed questionnaires may be left at the Open House registration table; emailed to planning@mapleridge.ca or faxed to 604-466-4327 by December 2, 2013. MAPLE RIDGE OPEN HO~SE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR DEVELOPERS/BUILDERS: British Columbia Tandem Parking in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) Zone: Proposed Definition: TANDEM PARKING means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway. Intent of the proposed bylaw amendments applicable to the RM-1 zone: The proposed bylaw amendments are intended to improve the overall site design, livability and emergency access within townhouse developments. The proposed bylaw amendments would: a) limit tandem units to 70% of the total units on site; b) limit the block size to six attached units; c) require driveway aprons for tandem units only and d) increase usable open space ratio per tandem unit. The current bylaw lacks minimum clear internal dimensions of a garage, so the proposed bylaw amendments also specify the minimum clear internal width and length of single, tandem and double garages, for clarity. 1) Does your company develop/build townhouse residential units in Maple Ridge? y / N \ 2) Do you have any concerns about restricting tandem to a maximum of 70% of the total units in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone? Please explain. 0) 3) Do you agree that a driveway apron in front of a tandem garage helps reduce parking in "no parking" zone and improves emergency access in a townhouse complex? 4) Do you agree that increased amenity/open space per tandem unit helps improve the overall ~ Y/N quality of the development? Please explain. CJ~' L.1;rs HA v,;i ut/3,.v ,4/ i r--/l<Jr.,,:, , 4 ·"-'p1.=, .. /1 CA1Ld-01.c 2-5) 0,3/"IIC ·.-::-\! .v T/ /:':. The current bylaw does not specify minimum garage dimensions. Do you have any concerJ:tS, with the proposed minimum clear garage dimensions for townhouses as stated below? (Y/ N Single car garage: Tandem 2-car garage: Double wide 2-car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 6.1 metres long,-r..u/ L'--vVc-11 fiGt t--tf /f 1 3.1 metres w(de and 12.2 metres long _ t--o.~f/c.;i~{/? i-f 1Jcc>1 5.6 metres wide and 6.1 metres long-~ i,(/( e,.L. ~-.,--. . . , /? ' ~' 1-J,;,._,., ,1 If yes, please explain: "t ;lc:u/2 ?o,o c.-f~ol j}c;-<-<JJi(J 6) The objectives of limiting the block size to six attached townhouse units is to offer improved livability through functional site design, promotion of natural light, opportunities for view corridors and a well-articulated streetscape. Do you have any concerns with the proposed block size? If so, how may these be addressed while achieving livability? Y / N 7) From your experience how important are each of the following in creating an attra.ctive · and desirable townhouse development that will sell successfully? Choose one for each: 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important. • • • • • Comments: Least-----> Most Imp. units with double wide 2-car garage units with tandem garage and a driveway apron (space for one car) units in a smaller building block units in a townhouse complex with more amenity/open space units in a townhouse complex with a well-articulated streetscape 1 2 3 4@ C.)12345 1 2 3 4W 12 3 ~ 1 2 3 4([) 8) Please indicate which option you would choose for a tandem parking arrangement. Explain why. a) A two car tandem garage with a driveway apron: v;@) A-,;..)/) Comments: b) A tandem arrangement with single car garage and a driveway apron: Y/N / c;· /t ST o/i..+c... v .v I f -=--.L.-.a i J\ .1v1 /i /J+r41... 1 ;J (_. i ~ J / " ( b------.. .., 11tM,r;:==t---=:-:::1 ! C,,'1. ;l . Comments: Thank you for completing this questionnaire; your feedback is important to us. Completed questionnaires may be left at the Open House registration table; emailed to planning@mapleridge.ca or faxed to 604-466-4327 by December 2, 2013. MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia OPEN HOUSE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR DEVELOPERS/BUILDERS: Tandem Parking in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) Zone: Proposed Definition: TANDEM PARKING means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway. Intent of the proposed bylaw amendments applicable to the RM-1 zone: The proposed bylaw amendments are intended to improve the overall site design, livability and emergency access within townhouse developments. The proposed bylaw amendments would: a) limit tandem units to 70% of the total units on site; b) limit the block size to six attached units; c) require driveway aprons for tandem units only and d) increase usable open space ratio per tandem unit. The current bylaw Jacks minimum clear internal dimensions of a garage, so the proposed bylaw amendments also specify the minimum clear internal width and length of single, tandem and double garages, for clarity. 1) Does your company develop/build townhouse residential units in Maple Ridge? y / N 2) Do you have any concerns about restricting tandem to a maximum of 70% of the total units in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone? Please explain. Y / N ,c'_,,,C·"-·:-;r( t:'1< /';,, /'iC/\.1-,i'·-CLts,c; 3) Do you agree that a driveway apron in front of a tandem garage helps reduce parking in "no parking" zone and improves emergency access in a townhouse complex? 4) Do you agree that increased amenity/open space per tandem unit helps improve the overall quality of the development? Please explain. 5) The current bylaw does not specify minimum garage dimensions. Do you have any concerns .--;-----:--. with the proposed minimum clear garage dimensions for townhouses as stated below? Y(/ N // Single car garage: Tandem 2-car garage: Double wide 2-car garage: If yes, please explain: 3.1 metres wide and 6.1 metres long ? 3.1 metres wide and 12.2 metres Jong (-5.6 metres wide and 6.1 metres Jong ._) //,-r-"--:~? 6) The objectives of limiting the block size to six attached townhouse units is to offer '·----···-.,.-C">-' ~_:'f ' improved livability through functional site design, promotion of natural light, opportunities for view corridors and a well-articulated streetscape. Do you have any concerns with the Y (i~-) proposed block size? If so, how may these be addressed while achieving livability? A_l_'l-----[I ~j 7) From your experience how important are each of the following in creating an attra.ctive and desirable townhouse development that will sell successfully? Choose one for each: 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important. • • • • • Comments: Least-----> Most Imp. 1 2 3 4@ units with double wide 2-car garage units with tandem garage and a driveway apron (space for one car) units in a smaller building block units in a townhouse complex with more amenity/open space units in a townhouse complex with a well-articulated streetscape (1;2 3 4 5 1 2 (3;'4 5 1 234® 1 2 3 4([) 8) Please indicate-which option you would choose for a tandem parking arrangement. Explain why. a) A two car tandem garage with a driveway apron: Comments: I ,/ / / ,I ,,,,..,,,/ b) A tandem arrangement with single car gt{rage and a driveway apron: ////// / I < ---,...,_,___.~ k-~-.... ~'ffllll!IM!ri====t~=-:=j ~ 'I) Comments: .if"~.)T -17\.l'_; r-::c, &77-\ e;, /,._,_ T::> 1 Y fz,t:: "-,, ~--· :. \ L.-/ Y/ N Y/N Thank you for completing this questionnaire; your feedback is important to us. Completed questionnaires may be left at the Open House registration table; emailed to planning@mapleridge.ca or faxed to 604-466-4327 by December 2, 2013. MAPLE RIDGE OPEN HOUSE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR DEVELOPERS/BUILDERS: British Columbia Tandem Parking in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) Zone: Proposed Definition: TANDEM PARKING means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway. Intent of the proposed bylaw amendments applicable to the RM-1 zone: The proposed bylaw amendments are intended to improve the overall site design, livability and emergency access within townhouse developments. The proposed bylaw amendments would: a) limit tandem units to 70% of the total units on site; b) limit the block size to six attached units; c) require driveway aprons for tandem units only and d) increase usable open space ratio per tandem unit. The current bylaw lacks minimum clear internal dimensions of a garage, so the proposed bylaw amendments also specify the minimum clear internal width and length of single, tandem and double garages, for clarity. 1) 2) Does your company develop/build townhouse residential units in Maple Ridge? (!) N Do you have any concerns about restricting tandem to a maximum of 70% of the total units in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone? Please explain. Y ;@ A/r? C. t?ii(t',rl. s w:/( lYfl.l If ,n 'Sqfu h~ !fer ovvvnuv//feJ 3) Do you agree that a driveway apron in front of a tandem garage helps reduce parking in "no parking" zone and improves emergency access in a townhouse complex? (J) N 4) 5) M osf de&;"le-(;;5< Do you agree that increased amenity/open space per tandem unit helps improve the overall quality of the development? Please explain. (9'N The current bylaw does not specify minimum garage dimensions. Do you have any concerns~ with the proposed minimum clear garage dimensions for townhouses as stated below? Y ~ Single car garage: Tandem 2-car garage: Double wide 2-car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 6.1 metres long 3.1 metres wide and 12.2 metres long 5.6 metres wide and 6.1 metres long If yes, please explain: 6) The objectives of limiting the block size to six attached townhouse units is to offer improved livability through functional site design, promotion of natural light, opportunities for view corridors and a well-articulated streetscape. Do you have any concerns with the proposed block size? If so, how may these be addressed while achieving livability? Y V Muff-"'/1c,u ·1yr~chv/-Jo;..5 ~/rLaJu (J.:-o""-.,(e ·/t.,5_ u / ' I I ! I I I I I 7) From your experience how important are each of the following in creating an attractive and desirable townhouse development that will sell successfully? Choose one for each: 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important. Least-----> Most Imp. • • • • • Comments: units with double wide 2-car garage units with tandem garage and a driveway apron (space for one car) units in a smaller building block units in a townhouse complex with more amenity/open space units in a townhouse complex with a well-articulated streetscape 1 2 3@ 5 12G345 1 2 3g) 5 1 2 3@ 5 1 2 3 4(5) 8) Please indicate which option you would choose for a tandem parking arrangement. Explain why. a) A two car tandem garage with a driveway apron: '2. c.JcJ 1~Nl>& M ,µ\1~ p..,tt.o.i 11,.,-e I" cl I/\ b) A tandem arrangement with single car garage and a driveway apron: < __ ....._ ___ !« ~:...::.--1.ii=re-iattmll'fflllln===c-=~:::t ~ \I) Comments: YI@ 1(1_ I,' (( -t-o o A vc.lA. Thank you for completing this questionnaire; your feedback is important to us. Completed questionnaires may be left at the Open House registration table; emailed to planning@mapleridge.ca or faxed to 604-466-4327 by December 2, 2013. --~ OPEN HOUSE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR DEVELOPERS/BUILDERS: MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia Tandem Parking in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) Zone: Proposed Definition: TANDEM PARKING means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway. Intent of the proposed bylaw amendments applicable to the RM-1 zone: The proposed bylaw amendments are intended to improve the overall site design, livability and emergency access within townhouse developments. The proposed bylaw amendments would: a) limit tandem units to 70% of the total units on site; b) limit the block size to six attached units; c) require driveway aprons for tandem units only and d) increase usable open space ratio per tandem unit. The current bylaw lacks minimum clear internal dimensions of a garage, so the proposed bylaw amendments also specify the minimum clear internal width and length of single, tandem and double garages, for clarity. 1) Does your company develop/build townhouse residential units in Maple Ridge? 2) Do you have any concerns about restricting tandem to a maximum of 70% of the total units in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone? Please explain. 3) Do you agree that a driveway apron in front of a tandem garage helps reduce parking _ .... in "no parking:· zone a_nd impr~ves e~~rgen~y acc~ss in a townhouse comp~e~? , . Y@ ;?, . , r\t-.Vv QL,0y,Q,ft..~ C-v f Ll v•l:-., ,..:. L, V1 / L: OA (U?./. </ ' -c7./2t>Y1 : [ ;1.il/{7' 4) Do you agree that increased amenity/open space per tandem unit helps improve the overall ' quality of the development? Please explain. • ! ' 17 ·"/ /l ;0..-c /_ Y'') ~ f.'/,,: A'S.' ,· ~ ·1 I"'· Li,, / ,.J-V /.J Ir G'I L ·· Lt· ,,,r-1 -v,z r....J.<':6rLt.U,1_xJ ,_,.,,1,--c.-J " .. · y Ir?) ,, (' ,, ~; tz) I Z.{ ~l>'\.CLb 5) The current bylaw does not specify minimum garage dimensions. Do you have any concerns with the proposed minimum clear garage dimensions for townhouses as stated below? O'/ N Single car garage: Tandem 2-car garage: Double wide 2-car garage: If yes, please explain: 3.1 metres wide and 6.1 metres long 3.1 metres wide and 12.2 metres long 5.6 metres wide and 6.1 metres long 6) The objectives of limiting the block size to six attached townhouse units is to offer improved livability through functional site design, promotion of natural light, opportunities for view corridors and a well-articulated streetscape. Do you have any concerns with the proposed block size? If so, how may these be addressed while achi~ving livability? Yi@ "TtZ-,Y lo /vt ;v pjQfv tfl,y·;d tu Ctlr l84-AP:rn f SX: f u·c,t,t_ o.-.JC.-, 7) From your experience how important are each of the following in creating an attra.ctive and desirable townhouse development that will sell successfully? Choose one for each: 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important. • • • • • Comments: Least-----> Most Imp. units with double wide 2-car garage units with tandem garage and a driveway apron (space for one car) units in a smaller building block units in a townhouse complex with more amenity/open space units in a townhouse complex with a well-articulated streetscape 1 2 3@;5 (!12345 123@)5 1 2 3 d)5 1 2 3@5 Sb(ctA.{j_J l ~ =, JI-\ Yi,,\ ·ihQ{ 8) Please indicate which option you would choose for a tandem parking arrangement. Explain why. a) A two car tandem garage with a driveway apron: Comments: >. (/ b) A tandem arrangement with single car garage and a driveway apron: ) ! Thank you for completing this questionnaire; your feedback is important to us. Completed questionnaires may be left at the Open House registration table; emailed to planning@mapleridge.ca or faxed to 604-466-4327 by December 2, 2013. · ~"~~ OPEN HOUSE QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MAPLE RIDGE DEVELOPERS/BUILDERS: British Columbia Tandem Parking in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) Zone: Proposed Definition: TANDEM PARKING means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway. Intent of the proposed bylaw amendments applicable to the RM-1 zone: The proposed bylaw amendments are intended to improve the overall site design, livability and emergency access within townhouse developments. The proposed bylaw amendments would: a) limit tandem units to 70% of the total units on site; b) limit the block size to six attached units; c) require driveway aprons for tandem units only and d) increase usable open space ratio per tandem unit. The current bylaw lacks minimum clear internal dimensions of a garage, so the proposed bylaw amendments also specify the minimum clear internal width and length of single, tandem and double garages, for clarity. 1) Does your company fu~p]~uild townhouse residential units in Maple Ridge? CY;N 2) Do you have any concerns about restricting tandem to a maximum of 70% of the total units in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone? Please explain. U} N ?r&l'.Y~ ~ rr--,c.re:-JN, (....J5S.S ~Vl..-/?/\¢;.L-~ -re,~ tt!JvSv u.J 113 3) Do you agree that a driveway apron in front of a tandem garage helps reduce parking . in "no parking" zone and improves emergency access in a townhouse complex? Y {NJ' , &JC?7 ...Jor· l:6Pfy_§;> feof'c,:rs u?t,JG, ~~t,;~o ~tL C;;,W-Af.~ p:.1c ~ .£.-iCJc ~/'WI ~ 4) Do you agree that increased amenity/open space per tandem unit helps improve the overall quality of the development? Please explain. 5) The current bylaw does not specify minimum garage dimensions. Do you have any concerns with the proposed minimum clear garage dimensions for townhouses as stated below? Y ~ Single car garage: Tandem 2-car garage: Double wide 2-car garage: If yes, please explain: 3.1 metres wide and 6.1 metres long 3.1 metres wide and 12.2 metres long 5.6 metres wide and 6.1 metres long 6) The objectives of limiting the block size to six attached townhouse units is to offer improved livability through functional site design, promotion of natural light, opportunities for view corridors and a well-articulated streetscape. Do you have any concerns with the proposed block size? If so, ho'{v may these be addressed while achieving livability? CUN C:, ucJ rrs Q: ~'5 ~ 1 ~, I I I I I I I ! i I I i 1 ' I . i I I l I 7) From your experience how important are each of the following in creating an attra.ctive and desirable townhouse development that will sell successfully? Choose one for each: 5 being the most important and 1 being the least important. • • • • • Comments: Least-----> Most Imp. units with double wide 2-car garage units with tandem garage and a driveway apron (space for one car) units in a smaller building block units in a townhouse complex with more amenity/open space units in a townhouse complex with a well-articulated streetscape 1 2(3)4 5 1'2:1)3 4 5 1& 3 4 5 1 26:)4 5 1 2 3 4L§} 8) Please indicate which option you would choose for a tandem parking arrangement. Explain why. a) A two car tandem garage with a driveway apron: Y/ N Comments: b) A tandem arrangement with single car garage and a driveway apron: Comments: lffi> ~m .c:.-1 is-..J 1 110\~ rl ()L-0 grf-f C,(. ~ Jl17':tv ·fANfl~ 01\.rt.AC.,,O w/G I Al'~ t? rJJ tSt.....o c?i l\.f.1'<(_""1. c Thank you for completing this questionnaire; your feedback is important to us. Completed questionnaires may be left at the Open House registration table; emailed to planning@mapleridge.ca or faxed to 604-466-4327 by December 2, 2013. The concern about sufficient parking for single family and townhome developments is the same. Both types of housing have the dilemma that people do not use their garages to park their cars. The requirement for an additional driveway apron length for an additional parking space will effectively increase the parking ratio for units with tandem parking to 3 spaces per unit. It will not discourage people from repurposing some of their tandem garage space. A Restrictive Covenant on all parking spaces is one measure to discourage people from repurposing any of their enclosed parking spaces. Home owner's insurance policies typically would discourage renovation of garages into habitable space. The shape and slope of the site has a large influence on the number of units that can fit on to a site in addition to the parking garage configuration, tandem or side by side. The increase in usable open space from 45m2 to 65m2 per unit is desirable but also has an effect on yield and affordability. The proposed changes will reduce the number of units anywhere from 5% to 20% as illustrated by the diagnims commissioned by the District. In order to optimize the FSR, the units will become larger and less affordable. As the size and price of these larger townhomes becomes similar to small single family homes, townhomes become less of an option for the developer. Land prices for RM-1 zoning will need to drop to reflect single-family development rather than townhornes. If there is a goal to limit the length of building blocks, it may be more appropriate to specify a dimension rather than a number of units. 6 units that are 13' wide would result in a block 78' long. 6 units that are 25' wide (a typical non tandem unit allowing for a double garage and the unit entry) would be 150' long. r The Voice of the Residential Construction Industry in the Greater Vancouver Area 02 December 2013 District of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge> BC Attn: Planning Department Re: Tandem Parldng in RM-1 Zone The Greater Vancouver Home Builders' Association represents the residential construction industry throughout Metro Vancouver. Our membership encompasses some 750 builders, developers, renovators, suppliers and trades, representing thousands of employees and billions of dollars of economic activity. We understand the concern over tandem parking, and appreciate the effort undertaken by your staff in examining the issues surrounding this policy decision. We would, however, wish to raise some concerns regarding some of the assumptions and recommendations in the report. The first assumption is that the inclusion of30% non-tandem parking in a townhouse development creates an improved marketing scenario for a developer. Several of our members, who have many years of experience in the marketing of townhouse developments have expressed the opposite opinion. In their view, the tandem parking units, being more affordable, are the most attractive unit types for purchasers. As well, we would take issue with the assumption that a 100% tandem parking project is less aesthetically pleasing than a mixed tandem/double width garage project. Certainly, the example of the 100% project shown in the staff report would not be considered to be a 'best practice' site layout. Our members strive to create developments designed to be efficient, attractive and representative of strong urban design principles, and are willing to work with municipal staff to achieve high standards for site layout. v~CADEMYo, HOUSING British Columbia B,'ilding A Oe11et OC Canadian Home Builders' ~ A,soolation .W, r. The Voice of the Residential Construction Industry in the Greater Vancouver Area Finally, we would take issue with the assumption that the inclusion of double width garages has no impact upon affordability. The larger footprint of double width garage units, compared to tandem parking units essentially makes them less affordable, as a greater proportion of land value must be assigned to them. The GVHBA is proud of the excellent dialogue and working relationship that we have developed with Maple Ridge. We would recommend that Council remove the 70% cap on tandem parking units, and instead work with developers to improve functionality and design on these projects that promote housing affordability. Bob de Wit CEO v~CADEMYoi HOUSING To Mayor and Council November 28, 2013 This letter is in response to the Tandem and Off-Street Parking Discussion Paper dated May 27, 2013. We attended the recent Open House that was held to seek input on proposed bylaw amendmehts resulting from this discussion paper. We hoped to find a balanced and objective presentation discussing the pros and cons of tandem parking as a planning tool. We were greatly disappointed to find a negative one-sided presentation apparently designed to solicit support against tandem parking. We have concerns regarding the methodology utilized in the discussion paper, the negative spin of the public information presentation and we disagree with the resulting conclusions. We feel the report failed to point out the advantages of tandem parking as a planning tool. We will present some alternate practical recommendations for Council's consideration at the end of this letter which we believe will ensure functional communities while allowing municipal planners and developers the flexibility to strategically meet affordability and market demands. The discussion paper starts with a statement: "The perception is that tandem townhouse units· typically sell for less than the units with double car garage and it is often the preferred option with developers to maximize unit yield. Staff discussions with some of the private sector stakeholders suggest that tandem units are more affordable, however, there is no concrete evidence that tandem units sell for less." Our Comment: Maximizing unit yield is not the ultimate objective of a developer. Their business is to provide housing that is desired or needed in the market. Where the market is seeking affordability, it is appropriate to design functional and livable homes with a smaller footprint. In order to offset the high cost of land in today's market and create affordability for buyers, tandem parking homes are a useful and proven tool. By being smaller and utilizing Jess site area, townhomes with tandem parking offer a common sense design solution. There is abundant market information that demonstrates that tandem parking homes sell at a lower cost than homes with double car side-by-side garages which utilize more site area. Where the discussion paper lists concerns/issues with tandem parking, it states: i. BC Building Code requirements: "Under the bylaw, the RM-1 zone does not require the driveway apron length to accommodate a parking space. If it is not adequate to park one vehicle, this may result in individual vehicles possibly encroaching into the 6.0 metre wide strata road." Our Solution: The simple solution to resolve this concern is to require driveway aprons of appropriate length. Apron lengths should be either 2.0 meters or less so there is clearly no room to park a vehicle or, if there is room, they should be at lea t 5.5 metres to fully accommodate a vehicle with maneuvering room. it, . ~ Portrait Homes Ltd. #200-6660 Graybar Rd., Richmond, BC V6W 1H9 • ph: (604) 270-1889 • fax: (604) 270-1841 1 I r i. BC Building Code requirements (cont'd): "Often the tandem or double parking garages on townhouse sites are built to meet minimum BC Building Code requirements for width, depth and height." Our comment: We are not aware of the width or depth of parking garages being specified in the BC Building Code but we welcome a specific code citation to support this statement. ii. Unit sizes, architectural design and streetscape: "A 100% tandem development maximizes on the density or the unit count on site which can at times be at the expense of creating interesting, pedestrian-friendly streetscapes." Our Comment: We respectfully disagree with this generalization. There are considerable wonderful examples of interesting, pedestrian friendly streetscapes created in tandem townhome communities both within Maple Ridge and elsewhere. These generally result from a municipalilJ' and developer working together to produce excellent communities. The report assumes that side-by-side two-car garage doors and large driveways are somehow more appealing aesthetically than tandem parking. In fact, many consider double side-by-side garages greeting the public realm as both pedestrian unfriendly and architecturally undesirable. iii Restrictive Covenant on the tandem space; enforcement of tandem and visitor spaces: "Units with a tandem garage often lose a parking space due to conversion into a habitable area after the owner moves in." Our Comment: Are there any statistics to demonstrate that garage conversion to living space is happening often? We have developed many tandem parking communities and we are not aware of a single occurrence where the unheated unvented garage space was converted to habitable area. "Sometimes the visitor parking stalls are used by residents or cars are parked within the 6.0 meter wide strata road ... For the District it becomes a safety concern." Our Comment: The safe/J' concerns seem to be overstated. Later in the paper it is identified that 100% tandem parking will still be allowed in the town center. If this is a true safety concern why would it be allowed anywhere? Our Solution: The developer should provide adequate gllest parking within the planned development #200 · 6660 Graybar Rd., Richmond, B.C. V6W IH9 • ph: (604} 270-1889 • fax: (604) 270-1841 The discussion paper shows analysis of a 100% tandem parking arrangement and compares it with other scenarios where tandem parking is restricted. We have a number of comments and concerns with the analysis provided: 1. The 100% Tandem scenario shown below with which all other scenarios are compared is not a layout that any successful developer would propose or build. This would also never be approved by the Maple Ridge Advisory Design Panel or even accepted by Planning Staff to be sent to the ADP for their consideration. Unfortunately to use this as the base of comparison results in conclusions that are not based in reality. Below is a more realistic scenario utilizing the sc.1me parcel of land prepared by an experienced multi-family architect. The street oriented townhomes at the front create an attractive and interesting pedestrian oriented streetscape. Residents can meet and have conversations with neighbors or passers-by from their porches or front ent1y yards. This development is attractive, promotes community, walkability and eyes on the street. #200 • 6660 Graybar Rd., Richmond, B.C. V6W 1H9 • ph: (604) 270-1889 • fax: (6041270-1841 2. The alternative scenarios which incorporate some side by side parking units for comparison are drawn more creatively than the original 100% tandem scenario. Unfortunately, there are no accompanying unit plans. We are not aware of a side-by-side parking unit of 1000 sq. ft. as shown in these alternate scenarios that Is being sold in the market. In addition we are unsure how the larger square units shown would be designed. If these unit plans are available, we would be happy to comment on their marketability. Our Comment: Drawing conclusions based on site layouts using unproven unit types and comparing them to an unrealistic scenario is not a good way to determine policy. 3. The report states that "the City of Surrey permits tandem parking with a greater apron length on the driveway." Our Comment: This statement is incorrect. Tandem parking is demonstrated throughout Surrey where they have applied a common-sense and simple rule for tandem parking. If one of the two tandem spots is outside the garage, then they require a driveway length of 6.0 meters. This ensures that vehicles parked in the driveway do not impede the drive aisle. A 6.0 meter apron for all tandem homes is not a requirement. 4. The report concludes that "A combination of the three variables i.e. driveway apron requirements for units with tandem parking spaces; proportionate increase in the useable open space for units with tandem parking spaces and permitting up to a maximum of 70% of the total number of units to have tandem parking spaces; the density is not significantly compromised. yet a more architecturally attractive development may be achieved". Our Comment: This example demonstrates a 19% reduction in the number of units unless a variance is approved. We see this as a significant reduction potentially making a project economically un-viable. There is no demonstration that architectural attractiveness is improved. #200 -6660 Graybar Rd., Richmond, B.C. V6W 1 H9 • ph: (604) 270-1889 • fax: (604) 270-1841 I I 5. The report goes on to recommend that a maximum of 70% units with tandem parking spaces be permitted and also requiring a driveway apron of 5.5 meters. Our Comment: The report does not demonstrate how they concluded that 70% was ideal. Why not 60% or 80% or 90%? The requirement that 30% of the units be side by side parking is arbitrary and is a direct impact to affordability. The side by side units are typically larger and utilize more land and must be sold at a higher price. While we agree that it is often good to provide a variet;y of housing forms within a development, requiring 30% of the units to be more expensive is excessive and it is not demonstrated that any improvement in the development is achieved. Requiring a full apron on all tandem homes results in 3 full tandem parking spots for each tandem unit. ls this much parking really necessary especially considering the trade-off of increasing the impervious surfaces on the site and decreasing the amount of useable open space? The result would be an inordinate amount of hard surface parking well beyond what is currently required in the bylaw. How many families in townhome communities really need 3 full parking spaces? Conclusion and Recommendations: We do not agree with the underlying assumptions or the resulting conclusions in this discussion paper. We believe that affordability should be a primary concern of all municipal councils as we have recently been informed that 65% of British Columbians earn under $50,000 per annum**. The affordability implications have not been considered in the discussion paper recommendations. Tandem parking is a planning tool to enable municipal planners and developers to meet the housing needs of the 65% BC majority in an environment of constrained land supplies at ever-increasing prices. Tandem parking creates affordable livable homes that are well received by the marketplace. People living in a community are generally respectful of each other. Tandem parking provides more affordable homes and allows families to own ground oriented housing where they might otherwise be limited to renting, owning a condominium or seeking more affordable housing choices outside of Maple Ridge. An example is our Brighton community in Silver Valley. Here we had 145 homes with 95% tandem parking. 26% of the residents are first responders, re-start households, nurses or teachers who are benefiting from the affordable ground oriented homes in this community. ** Rennie Marketing Systems address to the Urban Development Institute, May 16, 2013. #200 · 6660 Graybar Rd., Richmond, B.C. V6W 1H9 • ph: (604) 270-1889 • fax: (604) 270-1841 We suggest the following recommendations: 1. Specify that aprons be 5.5 metres or greater where a vehicle is intended to be parked in the apron and less than 2.0 metres elsewhere. This will eliminate the concern of parked vehicles impeding the drive aisle without creating an inordinate amount of impervious hard surface parking. 2. Ensure adequate visitor parking. If there is a demonstrated shortfall of off-street parking, the visitor parking ratio currently at 0.2 for all units could be increased to 0.25 for the tandem homes. Rather than imposing an arbitrary percentage limit on tandem parking, these recommendations will allow municipal planners and developers the flexibility to strategically meet affordability and market demands while ensuring a safe and functional community. Sincerely, ~(5 VP Development Portrait Homes Ltd. #200-6660 Graybar Rd., Richmond, B.C. V6W 1H9 • ph: (604) 270-1889 • fax: (604) 270-1841 MAPLE RIDGE ------Entn,h CuhP?et.c.t TO: FROM: O••P /loots l:r,,:.:.1r.::·,..~9r,u SUBJECT: PURPOSE: District of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer Tandem Parking in the RM-1 Zone MEETING DATE: FILE NO: MEETING: APPENDIX D March 17, 2014 2013-096-RZ cow Second Reading: Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013 and Second and Third Reading: Off-Street Parking & Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025-2013 Following the Public Open House feedback and pursuant to Council's resolution of February 17, 2014, the proposed bylaws that were given first reading on October 8, 2013, have been revised as described in this report and are attached in Appendices A and B. The revisions include the following: clarifying that the driveway apron requirement is applicable to a 2 car enclosed tandem garage (not all tandem arrangements); ensuring some flexibility in the block size restriction; eliminating the 70% restriction on tandem parking; and eliminating the increased amenity area for tandem units. The proposed definition for 'Tandem Parking" and the internal clear garage dimensions remain unchanged. The report also provides alternatives for Council's consideration. RECOMMENDATION: 1) That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013 as amended be given second reading and forwarded to Public Hearing; and 2) That Off-street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025-2013 as amended be given second and third reading. DISCUSSION: I. BACKGROUND: In recent years, the District has seen an increase in the number of townhouse development projects with all tandem parking units in the RM-1 zone. Council and neighbourhoods have expressed concerns about the impacts of parking from such developments. Council directed staff to review the use and impacts of tandem parking. The Discussion Paper dated May 27, 2013, reviewed regulations in other municipalities and reviewed concerns with tandem parking in the existing townhouse complexes in the District, including 18 scenarios of tandem parking in the RM-1 zone. The first reading report dated October 7, 2013, recognized that there may be implications from these bylaw amendments and recommended that staff proceed with a Public Open House to seek input from the residents and the 1107 development industry. A Public Open House was scheduled on Tuesday, November 13, 2013. On February 17, 2014 Council was updated on the open house findings. At this meeting Council passed the following resolution: "That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013 and Off-Street parking and Loading Amending bylaw No. 7025-2013 be revised as per the staff report dated February 17, 2014". While the few residents who attended the open house were in general support of the proposed bylaw amendments as worded in the first reading report, none of them live in a townhouse complex and due to the very small proportion of citizen participation, the responses received were not necessarily representative of all the Maple Ridge residents. On the other hand, representation from the development industry was also limited at the open house, however, they expressed concerns with project feasibility and reduction in unit yield if the 70% tandem restriction were to be adopted. The proposed bylaw revisions are an effort to balance the concerns expressed at the open house by both parties. There are also some existing projects that are at various stages of approva I that still reflect 100% tandem parking in the RM-1 zone. On a site-specific basis, staff is currently working through several townhouse projects that are making an effort to provide some reasonable proportion of 2-car double wide units (instead of 100% tandem units). II. PROPOSED ZONING BYLAW AMENDMENTS {APPENDIX A): a) Definition of Tandem Parking: The following definition for tandem parking is to be added to the PART 2 INTERPRETATION section of the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985: TANDEM PARKING USE-means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a driveway/road. The above definition allows two arrangements of tandem parking (i.e. a unit with 2-car tandem garage or a unit with one car garage and a tandem parking space on the driveway apron) as shown in the sketches below: <( ~ L.:.:::..--1i..a..111111-==!11:-----~ t V) and - 2 - b) RM-1 aownhouse Residential District> zone: Section 602, RM-1, TOWNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT be amended by adding the following: g) Townhouses in the RM-1 zone must be limited to six (6) attached units in one block, not to exceed a length of 45 metres (147.5 feet). The open house feedback suggests that there is general support for this amendment that provides flexibility to accommodate any combinations of units and to encourage a mix of unit types (tandem and double) in each block. Allowing a maximum of six (6) attached units per block is a consistent approach followed in other jurisdictions and the District's RST-SV (Street Townhouse-Silver Valley) zone. Block sizes that exceed six units can create a monotonous fa9ade. Smaller blocks of units create well-articulated facades and end units, separated with green buffers in between the blocks that promote natural light and views. Smaller block sizes due to a smaller footprint, may assist efforts to protect more trees on development sites. Ill. PROPOSED OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING BYLAW AMENDMENTS1 {APPENDIX B}: The Off-Street Parking design provisions of the Parking Bylaw for the RM-1 zone, are to be amended as follows: a} Driveway Apron: The bylaw contains an amendment to the design standards to require that a 2-car enclosed tandem garage be provided with a driveway apron. The proposed regulation reads: Section 4.1 (a) vii) Townhouse units with an enclosed 2-car tandem parking garage in the RM-1 zone, other than within the Town Centre Area Plan as shown on Schedule B of the Official Community plan, shall provide a minimum driveway apron of 5.5 metres in length and 3.0 metres in width. The feedback from the open house suggests that a tandem arrangement with a single garage and a second parking space on the driveway apron would be the most feasible option. However, the design featuring a fully enclosed 2-car tandem garage seems to be problematic. This is because of the inner parking space having the potential to be easily converted to storage or habitable area. A driveway apron requirement for this specific unit type may help reduce parking problems. The development industry is concerned about every tandem unit requiring 3 parking spaces if applied to both the tandem unit designs. The recommended revision will require a driveway apron only for the units having an enclosed 2-car tandem garage. With the proposed revision, the development will still have the flexibility of offering a proportion of both types of tandem arrangement based on their marketing plan. 1 11t should be noted that the amendments to the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw are not required to go to the Public Hearing. Section 890 of the Local Government Act requires that the Local Government must not adopt an Official Community Plan bylaw or a Zoning Bylaw without holding a Public Hearing. The Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw is exempt from this requirement. -3- b) Minimum internal clear dimensions for garages: The proposed bylaw amendment will establish the minimum internal clear dimensions for garages in the RM-1 zone. Section 4.1 c) Off-Street parking spaces within a garage, for a townhouse unit in the RM-1 zone, shall have internal dimensions of not less than the following: Single car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 6.1 metres long; Tandem 2-car garage: 3.1 metres wide and 12.2 metres long; Double wide garage: 5.6 metres wide and 6.1 metres long. This regulation is based on standard car sizes and the safe clearance required from the internal garage walls. The Building Department has confirmed these dimensions will work for most standard cars. The feedback from the open house suggests that these dimensions are not adequate for bigger vehicles. Larger vehicles such as trucks, SUVs and extended vans may be parked on the driveway apron. It is also noted that these dimensions are minimums and a developer can make the garages larger should they prefer. IV. INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: Engineering Department: The Engineering Department does not have any concerns with the proposed bylaw amendments. Fire Department: The Fire Department confirmed that parking on strata roads is a concern and they are supportive of the driveway apron requirement for a 2-car tandem garage unit. Licenses, Permits and Bylaws Department: The Building Department supports the minimum clear width and depth for single, tandem and double car garage in the RM-1 zone, being added in the existing Parking Bylaw. Regarding parking concerns on strata property, the District relies on the Strata Council to deal with these issues. Sometimes the visitor parking stalls are used by residents or cars are parked within the 6.0 metre wide strata road. In such instances, Strata Councils are responsible for enforcing parking on the property; however they are not always successful. Enforcement will be in accordance with existing Bylaw enforcement regulations and procedures. The District does not enforce parking regulations on strata property. This responsibility falls to each Strata Council to enforce it's own bylaws and regulations, including the on-site parking restrictions. The Building Permit drawings are required to show locations of "no parking" areas, on the drawings. The Strata Council is expected to prevent tandem parking conversions and the "no parking" on site where posted. -4- V. IN-STREAM DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS REZONING TO RM-1: It is recommended that any in-stream townhouse development applications that have not been presented at a Public Hearing, before final adoption of the proposed bylaws, be permitted to seek a variance if they do not comply. Each development application for the RM-1 zone will be considered by Council on its own merit. VI. CITIZEN/CUSTOMER IMPLICATIONS: The proposed bylaw amendments to the RM-1 zone of the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 will be forwarded to a Public Hearing, while the proposed bylaw amendments to the Off-Street and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990 are not required to be forwarded to a Public Hearing. The citizens will have an opportunity to voice their concerns on the proposed Zoning Bylaw amendments at the Public Hearing. VII. ALTERNATIVES: The following alternatives were raised by Council at the February 17, 2014 Council Workshop. Alternatives to the recommendations made in this report are: Apron length: a) That the proposed Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw (applicable to the RM-1 zone) be amended to increase the minimum apron length to 6.0 metres (instead of the proposed 5.5 metres), required for all the units with a fully enclosed 2-car tandem garage; The proposed 6.0 metre minimum driveway apron length (required only for a 2-car fully enclosed tandem garage) will likely prevent larger vehicles from encroaching onto a strata road, but may have an impact on the total unit yield. Visitor Parking: b) That the proposed Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw (applicable to the RM-1 zone) be amended to increase the visitor parking ratio to 0.25 spaces (instead of 0.2 spaces per unit) required per tandem unit; The on-site parking concerns on townhouse sites are mainly due to lack of residential parking spaces due to maximizing tandem units on site, lack of driveway aprons and possible conversions of an internal tandem garage. The District relies on the Strata Council to enforce the visitor parking stalls. Increasing the visitor parking ratio may not adequately resolve lack of on-site parking concerns for the residents. -5 - 70% Tandem Restriction: c) That the proposed Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw be amended to include a 70% restriction (or any other proportion restriction) on tandem proportion instead of 100% permitted currently, in the RM-1 zone, except in the Town Centre Area; This approach would likely help encourage a variety of tandem and 2 car double wide garage units within a townhouse complex. It does however; require some creative design, staggering and possibly the use of retaining walls on sloping sites. This requirement was in the Draft Bylaw that was presented at the open house and it was not supported by the development community and the Greater Vancouver Home Builders Association. Concerns noted included a resulting negative impact on affordability and/or project feasibility due to reduced density and unit yield for townhouse sites. Restrictive Covenants: d) That Council pass a resolution requiring registering a Restrictive Covenant on the tandem parking space in the RM-1 zone to prohibit conversion to storage/living space. As mentioned earlier in this report, the Strata Councils are responsible for enforcing parking on strata property. A suggestion has been made that a Restrictive Covenant could be an effective tool in discouraging tandem garage conversions into storage/living space. Township of Langley requires a Restrictive Covenant for a tandem space, but the feedback tells us it is challenging to enforce. Enforcing parking regulations on strata property can be challenging for the District. Long-term preservation of tandem parking space cannot necessarily be secured through the use of a Restrictive Covenant. The District solicitor has noted that such enforcement can be very costly and is not a necessarily practical solution. If Council is looking to use a Restrictive Covenant as simply being a means of providing information, this approach may be feasible. However, if the use of a Restrictive Covenant is intended as an effective enforcement tool, this approach is not recommended. CONCLUSION: The Public Open House was a good opportunity for residents and developers to understand Council's concerns with tandem parking and an opportunity to comment on the proposed regulations. The proposed block size restriction and driveway apron requirement for all the enclosed 2-car tandem garage units could address concerns with on-site and off-site parking. Alternatives to the recommendations in this report are stated above, for Council consideration. Based on the open house feedback, it is recommended that the proposed revisions to the bylaw amendments be favourably considered. The proposed bylaw amendments are meant to achieve a balance for providing for additional space on townhouse sites without impacting the unit yield or project feasibility for the development community. The proposed amendments also introduce a maximum block size and minimum internal garage dimensions that was generally supportable by the community. On a site-specific basis, staff is currently working through several in-stream townhouse projects that are making an -6- effort to provide some reasonable proportion of 2-car double wide units (instead of 100% tandem units). It is recommended that Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013 as amended be given second reading and forwarded to Public Hearing, and the Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025-2013 as amended be given second and third reading. "Original signed by Rasika Acharya" Prepared by: Rasika Acharya, B-Arch, M-Tech, UD, LEED® AP, MCIP, RPP Planner "Original signed by Christine Carter" Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning "Original signed by Frank Quinn" Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng GM, Public Works & Development Services "Original signed by J.L. (Jim) Rule" Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A -Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013 Appendix B -Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025-2013 -7- CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW N0.7024-2013 APPENDIX A A Bylaw to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended. WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7024-2013". 2. This Bylaw provides a definition for Tandem Parking and conditions to regulate building block size requirement for townhouse units in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone. 3. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended is hereby amended accordingly: a} PART 2, INTERPRETATION, is amended by the addition of the following definition in correct alphabetical order: TANDEM PARKING means the placement of one parking space behind another parking space, such that only one parking space has unobstructed access to a drive aisle, driveway or highway. b} PART 6, RESIDENTIAL ZONES, Section 602, RM-1 TOWNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, subsection 8, Other Regulations, is amended by adding g) after f) as follows: g) A townhouse use shall be limited to six (6) attached units in one block, not to exceed a length of 45 metres (147.5 feet). 4. Maple Ridge Zoning By-law No. 3510-1985, as amended, is hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the 8th day of October, 2013. READ a second time the PUBLIC HEARING held the READ a third time the day of day of day of RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the PRESIDING MEMBER , 2014. , 2014. , 2014. day of , 2014. CORPORATE OFFICER CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7025-2013 A Bylaw to amend Maple Ridge Off-street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990 as amended. APPENDIX B WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990 as amended; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge, in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7025-2013". 2. The District of Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading By-law No. 4350-1990 as amended is amended as follows: a} PART IV, OFF-STREET PARKING DESIGN, SECTION 4~1(a), is amended by replacing iv) with the following: iv) Within the RS-1, RS-1a, RS-1b, R-1, RT-1 and RM-1 zones, the parking may be tandem parking. b} PART IV, OFF-STREET PARKING DESIGN, SECTION 4.1(a), is amended by adding the following after vi): vii) Townhouse units with an enclosed 2-car tandem parking garage in the RM-1 zone, other than within the Town Centre Area Plan as shown on Schedule B of the Official Community Plan, shall provide a minimum driveway apron of 5.5 metres in length and 3.0 metres in width. c} PART IV, OFF-STREET PARKING DESIGN, SECTION 4.1, is amended by adding the following new subsection 4.1c) in the correct sequence: c) Off-Street Parking Spaces within a garage, for a townhouse unit in the RM-1 zone i) shall have internal dimensions of not less than; a) 3.1 metres wide, 6.1 metres long and 2.1 metres high for a single car garage; b) 3.1 metres wide, 12.2 metres long and 2.1 metres high for a tandem parking two car garage; c) 5.6 metres wide, 6.1 metres long and 2.1 metres high for a double wide (2 car) garage. 3. Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990 as amended is hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the 8th day of October, 2013. READ a second time the day of READ a third time the day of RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the PRESIDING MEMBER -2 -, 2014. , 2014. day of , 2014. CORPORATE OFFICER APPENDIX E Summary of Bylaw Iterations: Recommendation from May 27, 2013 Workshop Report: A maximum of 70% units with tandem parking spaces may be permitted, with the following required for each unit having tandem parking spaces, except in the Town Centre Area: • Blocks of units not to exceed 6 attached units; • Driveway apron length of 5.5 m (18 ft.); and • Useable open space of 65m2 (700ft2) for each three bedroom or bigger units and 50m2 (538 ft2) for each two bedroom or smaller units. (Note that 100% tandem parking in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone would still be permitted in the Town Centre, due to access to transit and policy support for a dense housing form.) Amendments in October 8, 2013 Council Report: • Useable open space of 45m2 (484 ft2) for each unit with 3 or more bedrooms; 65m2 (700 ft2) for each unit with 3 or more bedrooms with tandem parking; 30m2 (323 ft2) for each unit with 2 or less bedrooms; 50m2 (538 ft2) for each unit with 2 or less bedrooms with tandem parking. • Townhouse units with tandem parking in the RM-1 zone, other than within the Town Centre Area Plan, shall provide a minimum driveway apron of 5.5m (18 ft.) in length and 3m (9.8 ft.) in width. • Off-Street Parking Spaces within a garage, for a townhouse unit in the RM-1 zone shall have internal dimensions of not less than: o 3.1m (10.2 ft.) wide, 6.1m (20 ft.) long and 2.1m (6.9 ft.) high for a single car garage; o 3.J_m (10.2 ft.) wide, 12.2m (40 ft.) long, and 2.1m (6.9 ft.) high for a tandem parking garage; and o 5.6m (18.4 ft.) wide, 6.1m (20 ft.) long, and 2.1m (6.9 ft.) high for a double-wide garage. Amendments in the February 17, 2014 Workshop Report, after Public Consultation and Developer Input: • Townhouses in the RM-1 zone must be limited to six attached units in one block, or 45 m (14 7.5 ft.) in length, whichever is less; • The revisions to the additional useable open space requirements for tandem units was eliminated; • The 70% restriction of tandem parking units was eliminated; • Only those units that had 2 enclosed tandem parking stalls would be required to provide a driveway apron that is 5.5m (18 ft.) long and 3m (9.8 ft.) wide. Amendments in the March 17, 2014 Workshop Report: • A townhouse use shall be limited to 6 attached units in one block, not to exceed a length of 45 m (147.5 ft.) • Townhouse units with an enclosed 2 car tandem parking garage in the RM-1 zone, other than within the Town Centre Area Plan as shown on Schedule B of the Official -I I :;\;,, --35 __ _ 1~~~~;tA,:,r1 !r"f"30 ;) f- ~ t/) ~--3 7~-1-"'""" ~ ,{;') i,.:'.!~ .::::,OJ 1lr;30 "'" '.li~,,, "- N 30.00 (f t~\V)l ('5'4l>-i4 AREA~Jm2 ---- 51.:31 -----· / . I . \ I -4 \,"1 !)'I/ ": f I :,o '<t- ·t--]~,l~s () () LEGEND D ~ 0 ~ «i!~ --~~:·M AM:llnY ARJ,,/ USA e lE OPEII Sf ACF N ~ Thi< pion and dedgn ore. ond ot am time, remc,ln th.-. exclu,!v& Pfop&rfy o! Formwe,ih Archltecl\Jrol Inc. and cannot be used or reproduced without wrltten cement by formwerb Archltectvrol Inc. Written dimemion, ,hall hove precedence oYer ,coled dlmerulom. Conltoctor11hol "6rlty and be re,pomibl& Tor all dlmemlom and cond!llom on the Job. Formwe<b Archltecturollnc.<hollbe lnTor~o!ony vorlotion from lh£> dlm,;n,lom and cond~iomoothe drowiflg. lSWEO fO~O[Vfl OPM:•IIP(RMT LSSUEO row AD\ltlO ~Y D(SIGN rANEl ll'SU(O fOl!BPCOORDINATIOM lSSUE!J l-011 ~p COOIDIN ... TIOII l ~UEOfOl!DEVE lOP'-'l:IITP[l!Ml IMY19.l'DI/ JJ,,tl li,:1016 Mllf l •. :1018 IMYOl .:1018 WILLOW & OAK 1 1250*11300 240 STREET MAPLE R I DGE. BC SITE P ) )> ""'C ""'C rn z c::, >< -r, a >< -a z Ill A. A. C .• '"'"1 z c.. ~ w Q ·5; r L \118L'Jn10:J HS1Ll88 '3[)018 31d\lL'J ;o ALl:J 1N3li\ld013/\3a 3SnOHNM01 03S0d0l::ld 30IS>133l::IJ 1331::11S lHOt>l t>8~~~ '8 t>S~~~ '080~~ z <( ..J 0. w ... t:: en 'J) . _s:J_ PROPOSED 7 TOWNHOUSES 12179 FLETCHER STREET, MAPLE RIDGE, BC LOT 355 / 105'-7' ------....._ -,......__ ---~----FLETCHER STREET APPENDIXD PL;. ~, \ I ; I ~/ EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED CENTER LINE OF THE ROAD Area Schedule Summary CD Site Plan 1/16" = 1'-0" Name Area Area m2 ~ VividGreen 1 • 1 !, I~ t ~ I t1 •,: 1,, I UNIT 11,1, 11871 HORSESHOE WAY, RICHMOND, BC V7E 129 TEL: na · 3894904 www.VIVidGreenArchitecture.com UNIT1 UNIT2 UNIT3 UNIT4 UNITS UNITS UNIT7 Grand total 7 TOWNHOUSES 12179 Fletcher Street, Maple Ridge, BC 1123 SF 104.32 m2 1114SF 103.47 m2 1126SF 104.64 m2 1313SF 121.95 m2 1173SF 108.95 m• 1173SF 108.96 m2 1316SF 122.29 m' 8337 SF 774.57 m2 SITE PLAN Project number 1714FLE Date 03/24/17 A101 Drawn by SA-MN-OP Checked by RS Scale 1/16" = 1'-0" Rem J RP 3829 I I LMP 1874 EITSITE PLAN 1/3'£•1"4 --- :,;E,f!'?if=3.~;~~~~~-'* -····=--·1""'- 0\'lltJnPl fAlii SEQUOIA TOWN HOMES DEVELOPMENT 23100,23084 LOUGHEEO HN'i MAPLE RIDGE, BC WA 't''NENS!.f:Y AI\CHTTECTl.li<E' llP ""-llll">ll~M&llf .<!lJP. uc,swa. vi•~;1,11,uuoc111uu11 SITE PLAN l w,~• A100 [-~ City of Maple Ridge I MAPLE RIDGE'. -------British Columbia TO: FROM: mapleridge.ca His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer MEETING DATE: May 7, 2019 FILE NO: 2197969 MEETING: Council Workshop SUBJECT: UBCM and FCM Resolutions Process EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Union of British Columbia Municipalities' (UBCM) annual resolutions cycle is the main forum for UBCM policy-making. It provides an opportunity for BC local governments to express concerns, share their experiences and take a united position in advocating to other orders of government and other organizations involved in local affairs. Similarly, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) is the national voice for Canada's local governments. In Council's Strategic Plan, one of the five priority areas is Inter-Government Relations. Council recognizes that a solid foundation of strong partnerships is key to innovative solutions and problem-solving to achieve positive results in the community. UBCM and FCM both advocate on behalf of local governments, and this makes it important that the City's annual work cycle provides for early participation in the resolution process of the two organizations. This report outlines a process to ensure Council and staff have adequate lead time to develop informed and supported resolutions for submission to UBCM and FCM. RECOMMENDATION: That the process outlined in Attachment A of the report titled "UBCM and FCM Resolutions Process" be approved; and further That Council members submit UBCM resolution ideas to the Corporate Officer by 4:00 p.m. on May 14, 2019 so that staff can prepare a list of resolutions for consideration at the May 21, 2019 Council Workshop meeting. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Each year UBCM considers resolutions submitted from all BC municipalities at their annual convention. It is recommended that municipalities first submit resolutions to their local area association for debate at their own annual conference, with supported resolutions forwarded on to UBCM. The local area association for the City of Maple Ridge is the Lower Mainland Local Government Association (LMLGA) (2019 Call for Resolutions attached). The resolution submission deadline for the LMLGA conference has passed; however, Council can provide resolutions to UBCM directly. Doc # 2197969 Page 1 of 2 4.4 FCM's procedures for resolutions is a time-limited mechanism that allows Members to bring forward emerging policy issues, and is a complement to the standing policies on core advocacy priorities adopted by the Board of Directors. Resolutions must focus on issues that are direct responsibility or concern of Canadian municipalities at a national level and fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government. Resolutions are considered at the March and September meetings of FCM's Board of Directors, as well as the Annual Conference. The latter is the preferred venue as it provides the opportunity to raise awareness among large numbers of conference attendees versus a smaller number of directors at board meetings. At the April 23, 2019 Council Workshop meeting Council directed staff to report back on options available to Council for submitting resolutions to the 2019 UBCM Conference and to solidify a process for submitting resolutions to the LMLGA, UBCM and FCM for consideration. For 2019, the attached tables establish timelines which would allow staff to ensure Council calendars include prompts to begin developing ideas for submission. For future years, with dates for Council meetings and regional, provincial and national conferences not yet established, the three graphics in Attachment A represent the process in concept. b) Alternatives: Instead of submitting recommendations individually, Council may prefer to strike a Resolutions Task Force for appointed Council Members to identify issues and develop recommendations to propose to full Council for endorsement at the June 25 Council meeting. CONCLUSION: The annual UBCM and FCM Conventions and resolution cycles offer important opportunities for local governments to connect and discuss matters of mutual concern and interest for the benefit of citizens. Furthermore, they are the primary policy-making forums and serve to direct the advocacy efforts of these organizations. This report outlines a process to ensure the voice of Maple Ridge citizens is represented. , Laura Benson, CPA, CMA Direct of Cprporate Administration ) Concurrence: BA Attachments: (A) 2019 Process and Timelines (B) Annual Resolutions Process and Timelines (C) UBCM Writing Guidelines for Resolutions https://www.ubcm.ca/assets/Resolutions-and-Policy/Resolutions/Writing%20Guidelines% 20for%20Resolutions.pdf Doc# 2197969 Page 2 of 2 Attachment A -2019 Process and Timelines Provincial Issues Provincial Agency Suggested Process Deadline UBCM Council provide ideas to staff May 14, 2019 Staff draft resolutions to UBCM standard May 16, 2019 Council consideration and discussion May 21, 2019 Resolutions to Council for adoption May 28, 2019 Staff submit to UBCM June 10, 2019 National Issues Federal Meeting Type Suggested Process Deadline for Agency Submissions FCM September Council provide ideas to staff May 21, 2019 Board Meeting Staff draft resolutions FCM standard May 28, 2019 Council consideration and discussion June 4, 2019 Resolutions to Council for adoption June 18, 2019 Staff submit to *FCM July 2, 2019 FCM March Board Staff remind Council to bring ideas October 1, 2019 Meeting or forward for consideration Annual Conference** Staff bring forward list for Council October 22, 2019 review Staff draft resolutions to FCM October 31, 2019 standard Council consideration and discussion November 5, 2019 Resolutions to Council for adoption November 12 or 26, 2019 Staff submit to *FCM January 6, 2020 *September deadline is 2nd Monday of July each year; March deadline is 2nd Monday of January each year **Preferred for its greater opportunity for awareness and support among members attending Doc # 2197969 Attachment B -Annual Resolutions Process and Timelines Local, Regional and Provincial Issues thru LMLGA •Slaff EMAIL lo Council reminding to develop resolution ideas • Council members lo IDENTIFY resolution ideas to Corporate Officer • Council report and discussion to EVALUATE and ENDORSE ideas • Council member{s} and Clerks REFINE resolution format and wording • Staff report requesting Council APPROVAL of resolutions Local, Regional and Provincial Issues directly to UBCM •Staff EMAIL to Council reminding to develop resolution ideas • Council members to IDENTIFY resolution ideas to Corporate Officer • Council report and discussion to EVALUATE and ENDORSE ideas • Council member{s) and Clerks REFINE resolution formal and wording • Staff report requesting Council APPROVALof resolutions • LMLGARESULTS announced.in early May • Council decision may be required to direct any unsupported resolutions directly toUBCM by • June 30 • Staff lo SUBMIT resolutions to UBCM by June 30 Note: LMLGA process is recommended/ LMLGA approval carries more weight when forwarded to UBCM National Issues through FCM •Staff EMAIL to Council reminding to develop resolution ideas Doc # 2197969 • Council members to IDENTIFY resolution ideas to Corporate Officer • Council report and discussion to EVALUATE and ENDORSE ideas • Council member(s) and Clerks REFINE resolution format and wording • Staff report requesting Council APPROVAL of resolutions • Staff to SUBMIT resolutions to FCM by 2nd Monday in January and July Attachment C -UBCM Writing Guidelines for Resolutions UBCM Writing Guidelines for Resolutions https://www.ubcm.ca/assets/Resolutions-and-Policy/Resolutions/Writing%20Guidelines% 20for%20Resolutions.pdf Doc # 2197969 Writing Guidelines for Resolutions 1. Structure of a Resolution All resolutions consist of a preamble and an enactment. The preamble describes the issue and the enactment outlines the action being requested. A resolution should answer three questions: (a) What is the problem? (b) What is causing the problem? (c) What is the best way to solve the problem? Preamble The preamble begins with "WHEREAS", and is a concise sentence about the nature of the problem or the reason for the request. It answers questions (a) and (b) above, stating the problem and its cause, and should explain, clearly and briefly, the reasons for the resolution. The preamble should contain no more than two "WHEREAS" clauses. If explaining the problem requires more than two clauses, then provide supporting documents to describe the problem more fully. Do not add extra clauses. Enactment The enactment begins with the phrase "THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED", and is a concise sentence that answers question (c) above, suggesting the best way to solve the problem. The enactment should propose a specific action by UBCM. Keep the enactment as short as possible, and clearly describe the action being requested. The wording should leave no doubt about the proposed action. 2. Writing Tips (a)Address one subject in the text of the resolution. Since your community seeks to influence attitudes and inspire action, limit the scope of a resolution to one specific subject or issue. Delegates will not support a resolution if it is too complex for them to understand quickly. (b)Use simple, action-oriented language and avoid ambiguous terms. Explain the situation briefly and state the desired action clearly. Delegates can then consider the resolution without having to parse complicated wording or vague concepts. (c) Provide factual background information. Even a carefully written resolution may not be able to convey the full scope of the problem or the action being requested. Provide factual background information to ensure that the resolution is understood fully. Submit background information in one of the following two formats: i. Supplementary Memo A brief, one-page memo from the sponsor local government, which outlines the background that led to the adoption of the resolution by the council or board. ii. Council/Board Report A report on the subject matter, presented to council or board in conjunction with the resolution. If it is not possible to send the entire report, then extract the essential information and submit it with the resolution. Resolutions submitted without background information will not be considered until the sponsor has provided adequate background information. (d)Construct a brief, descriptive title. A title identifies the intent of the resolution and is usually drawn from the "enactment clause". For ease of printing in the Resolutions Book and for clarity, the title should be no more than three or four words. ( e) Check legislative references for accuracy. Where necessary, identify: • the correct legislation, including the title of the act or regulation • the correct jurisdictional responsibility (responsible ministry or department, and whether it is provincial or federal) (f) Focus on issues that are province-wide. The issue identified in the resolution should be relevant to other local governments across the province. This will support productive debate and assist UBCM to represent your concern effectively to the provincial or federal government on behalf of all BC regional districts and municipalities. xx70/00/01/0l/Writing Guidelines for Resolutions I r Sample Resolution CURTAIL JUMPING OVER DOGS [SHORT TITLE] City of Green Forest [Sponsor] WHEREAS the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog;--------:] Semicolon precedes "WHEREAS" clause. AND WHEREAS the lazy dog does not enjoy games of leapfrog: Colon precedes "THEREFORE" clause. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the quick brown fox will refrain from jumping over the lazy dog. [A second enactment clause, if absolutely required:] AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that in the future the quick brown fox will invite a different partner to participate in games of leapfrog. Your resolution should follow the structure of this sample resolution. Draft your resolution to be as readable as possible within these guidelines. xx70/00/0l/01/Sample Resolution UNION OF BC MUNICIPALITIES GOLD ST AR RESOLUTIONS CRITERIA 1) Resolution must be properly titled. 2) Resolution must employ clear, simple language. 3) Resolution must clearly identify problem, reason and solution. 4) Resolution must have two or fewer recital (WHEREAS) clauses. 5) Resolution must have a short, clear, stand-alone enactment (THEREFORE) clause. 6) Resolution must focus on a single subject, must be of local government concern province-wide and must address an issue that constitutes new policy forUBCM. 7) Resolution must include appropriate references to policy, legislation and regulation. 8) Resolution must be submitted to relevant Area Association prior to UBCM.