The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2021-06-15 Public Hearing Agenda and Reports for website and public.pdfCity of Maple Ridge PUBLIC H-EARING June 15, 2021 CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA June 15, 2021 7:00 pm Virtual Online Meeting including Council Chambers The purpose of the Public Hearing is to allow all persons who deem themselves affected by any of these bylaws a reasonable opportunity to be heard before Council on the matters contained in the bylaws. Persons wishing to speak for or against a bylaw will be given opportunities. You will be asked to give your name and address. Please note that all written submissions provided in response to this consultation including names and addresses will become part of the public record which includes the submissions being made available for public inspection. Further consideration of bylaws on this agenda will be at the next regular Council meeting. The meeting is recorded by the City of Maple Ridge. For virtual public participation register by going to https://www.mapleridge.ca/640/Council-Meetings and clicking on the meeting date. Note: This Agenda is also posted on the City's Website at: www.mapleridge.ca/AgendaCenter (see: Public Hearing) 1a) 2020-168-RZ 13960 232 Street, 13897 and 14027 Silver Valley Road Lot 1 Block "C" Section 33 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 2409; Lot 15 Section 33 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 26732; Parcel "A" (Explanatory Plan 11340) Lot 10 Section 33 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 7757; Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7739-2021 To amend Schedule "A", Chapter 10.3, Part VI, A -Silver Valley, Figure 2 -Land Use Plan; Figure 3A -Blaney Hamlet; and Figure 4 -Trails/ Open Space to revise boundaries of the land use designations. 1b) 2020-168-RZ 13960 232 Street, 13897 and 14027 Silver Valley Road Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw 7662-2020 To rezone from RS-3 (Single Detached Rural Residential) to R-1 (Single Detached (Low Density) Urban Residential), R-2 (Single Detached (Medium Density) Urban Residential) and RST (Street Townhouse Residential). The current application is to permit a future subdivision of approximately 64 lots which includes 51 single-family lots and 13 street townhouse units. 2) 2013-096-RZ Tandem Parking Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7564-2019 To provide a definition for tandem parking, and to provide restrictions around the percentage of tandem parking allowed, and conditions to regulate building block size requirement for townhouse units in the RM-1 (Low Density Townhouse Residential) zone. The current application is to provide a definition for tandem parking, and to provide restrictions around the percentage of tandem parking allowed, and conditions to regulate building block size requirement for townhouse units in the RM-1 (Low Density Townhouse Residential) zone. 3a) 2017-124-RZ 12555, 12599, 12516 240 Street and 12511 241 Street Lot "A" Except Parcel "One" (Explanatory Plan 13720) Section 21 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9912; Parcel "One" (Explanatory Plan 13720) Lot A Section 21 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9912; Lot 2 of the North West Quarter of Section 22 Township 12 Group 1 New Westminster Plan LMP22485; Lot A Section 22 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan LMP9379. Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7537-2019 1. To amend Schedule "B" from areas designated Estate Suburban Residential to Conservation and Forest; 2. To amend Schedule "C" by adding areas designated to Conservation and to Forest. 3b) 2017-124-RZ 12555, 12599, 12516 240 Street and 12511 241 Street Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7343-2017 1. To rezone from RS-3 (Single Detached Rural Residential) to RS-2 (Single Detached Suburban Residential), which will: a. continue to permit single detached residential as a principal use, and will permit a variety of accessory uses; b. provide for a reduction of the minimum lot area to 0.4 hectares; c. provide other regulations for matters such as lot coverage, setbacks, and building height. 2. To provide for a density bonus, under which: a. the base density permitted will be subdivision of the land into minimum 0.4 hectare lots with a prescribed minimum lot width and depth; b. the density may be increased to a minimum lot area of 1,012 m2, with a prescribed minimum lot width and depth, provided that in addition to park land dedication required under the Local Government Act, the owner dedicates park land for the protection of environmentally sensitive areas and recreation; c. where the bonus density is used, the zoning requirements for the SRS (Special Urban Residential) zone shall apply and supersede the zoning requirements for the RS-2 zone. The current application is to create a subdivision of up to 26 lots with park dedication on a 8.19 hectare (20 acre) site. 5F-=--=-------CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE ~OTICE OF VIRTUAL ONLINE PUBLIC HEARING TAKE NOTICE THAT A PUBLIC HEARING is scheduled for Tuesday, June 15, 2021 at 7:00 pm. This meeting is an online virtual meeting only, to be hosted in Council Chambers at City Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge. For virtual online participation, access the link at: www.mapleridge.ca/640/Council-Meetings and click on the meeting date to register. For viewing only, access the link at http:ljmedia.mapleridge.ca/Mediasite/Showcase and click on the June 15, 2021 Public Hearing presentation video; The Public Hearing Agenda and full reports are posted on the City's Website at www.mapleridge.ca/AgendaCenter (see: Public Hearing). This Public Hearing is held in order to consider the following bylaws: 1a) 2020-168-RZ 13960 232 Street, 13897 and 14027 Silver Valley Road Lot 1 Block "C" Section 33 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 2409; Lot 15 Section 33 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 26732; Parcel "A" (Explanatory Plan 11340) Lot 10 Section 33 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 7757; Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7739-2021 To amend Schedule "A", Chapter 10.3, Part VI, A -Silver Valley, Figure 2 -Land Use Plan and Figure 3A -Blaney Hamlet from Eco-Cluster, Open Space and Conservation to ~ Conservation andl'.22Z3 Eco-Cluster(Map No. 1040); and to Amend Figure 4 -Trails/ Open Space to• -•Add to Trail , to ~ Add to Conservation, to~""'-~ Remove from Conservation, to j:::::: :::) Remove from Open Space (Map No. 1041), to revise boundaries of the land use designations. Map 1040 Map 1041 1b) 2020-168-RZ 13960 232 Street, 13897 and 14027 Silver Valley Road Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw 7662-2020 To rezone from RS-3 (Single Detached Rural Residential) to ~ R-1 (Single Detached (Low Density) Urban Residential), ~R-2 (Single Detached (Medium Density) Urban Residential) and C=:J RST (Street Townhouse Residential). The current application is to permit a future subdivision of approximately 64 lots which includes 51 single-family lots and 13 street townhouse units. I I, I= I 2) ·~------_ 2013-096-RZ Tandem Parking Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7564-2019 To provide a definition for tandem parking, and to provide restrictions around the percentage of tandem parking allowed, and conditions to regulate building block size requirement for townhouse units in the RM-1 (Low Density Townhouse Residential) zone. The current application is to provide a definition for tandem parking, and to provide restrictions around the percentage of tandem parking allowed, and conditions to regulate building block size requirement for townhouse units in the RM-1 (Low Density Townhouse Residential) zone. 3a) 2017-124-RZ 12555, 12599, 12516 240 Street and 12511 241 Street Lot "A" Except Parcel "One" (Explanatory Plan 13720) Section 21 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9912; Parcel "One" (Explanatory Plan 13720) Lot A Section 21 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9912; Lot 2 of the North West Quarter of Section 22 Township 12 Group 1 New Westminster Plan LMP22485; Lot A Section 22 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan LMP9379. Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7537-2019 1. To amend Schedule "B" from areas designated Estate Suburban Residential to c:=iconservation and ~Forest (Map No. 999); 2. To amend Schedule "C" by adding areas designated to c:=iconservation and to ~Forest (Map No. 1000). Map No. 999 Map No.1000 ;~fi r-~ 3b) 2017-124-RZ 12555, 12599, 12516 240 Street and 12511 241 Street Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7343-2017 1. To rezone that part of the subject lands outlined on the map below from RS-3 (Single Detached Rural Residential) to RS-2 (Single Detached Suburban Residential), which will: a. continue to permit single detached residential as a principal use, and will permit a variety of accessory uses; b. provide for a reduction of the minimum lot area to 0.4 hectares; c. provide other regulations for matters such as lot coverage, setbacks, and building height. 2. To provide for a density bonus, under which: a. the base density permitted will be subdivision of the land into minimum 0.4 hectare lots with a prescribed minimum lot width and depth; b. the density may be increased to a minimum lot area of 1,012 m2, with a prescribed minimum lot width and depth, provided that in addition to park land dedication required under the Local Government Act, the owner dedicates park land for the protection of environmentally sensitive areas and recreation; c. where the bonus density is used, the zoning requirements for the SRS (Special Urban Residential) zone shall apply and supersede the zoning requirements for the RS-2 zone. The current application is to create a subdivision of up to 26 lots with park dedication on a 8.19 hectare (20 acre) site. ' ~ l--,-' ,. 1--C-1---1: f r AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that a copy of the aforesaid bylaws and copies of staff reports and other information considered by Council to be relevant to the matters contained in the bylaws are available for viewing on the City's Land Development Viewer site at https://gis.mapleridge.ca/LandDevelopmentViewer/LandDevelopmentViewer.html During the COVID-19 health emergency it is important to ensure that our democratic processes continue to function and that the work of the City remains transparent for all citizens. As authorized by the current health order, the Public Hearing pertaining to the aforesaid bylaws will be conducted virtually using the links set out below. ALL PERSONS who believe themselves affected by the above-mentioned bylaws shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard at the Public Hearing before Council on the matters contained in the bylaws. Please note that all written submissions provided in response to this notice will become part of the public record which includes the submissions being made available for public inspection. • For virtual online participation, access the link at: www.mapleridge.ca/640/Council-Meetings and click on the meeting date to register. When registering you will be asked to give your name and address, to give Council your proximity to the land that is the subject of the application. We ask that you have your camera on during the Public Hearing; • For viewing only, access the link at http:ljmedia.mapleridge.ca/Mediasite/Showcase and click on the June 15, 2021 Public Hearing presentation video; • To submit correspondence prior to the Public Hearing, provide written submissions to the Corporate Officer by 12:00 Noon, Tuesday, June 15, 2021 (quoting file number) via drop-box at City Hall or by mail to 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, V2X 6A9; • To email correspondence, forward written submissions to clerks@mapleridge.ca to the attention of the Corporate Officer, by 12:00 Noon, Tuesday, June 15, 2021 (quoting file number); or, I • In order to display a video, graphic or similar media component when speaking at the public hearing, the item must be forwarded to the Corporate Officer at clerks@mapleridge.ca by 12:00 Noon, Friday, June 11, 2021 (quoting file number) so that staff can ensure that the format is compatible with the virtual public hearing platform. The City is not responsible for technical limitations or problems that prevent the display of any such media items. PLEASE NOTE THAT ALL PRESENTATIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC INCLUDING ANY MEDIA COMPONENT WILL BE SUBJECT TO A 5 MINUTE TIME LIMIT. Dated this 2nd day of June, 2021. Stephanie Nichols Corporate Officer ,_ ,-' ,-,-. t~-! ' 1~•-mapleridge.ca City of Maple Ridge TO: FROM: SUBJECT: His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer First and Second Reading MEETING DATE: May 18, 2021 FILE NO: 2020-168-RZ MEETING: Co W Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7739-2021; Second Reading Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7662-2020; 13960 232 Street, 13897 and 14027 Silver Valley Road EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received to rezone the subject properties located at 13960 232 Street, 13897 and 14027 Silver Valley Road from (RS-3 Single Detached Rural Residential) to R-1 (Single Detached (Low Density) Urban Residential), R-2 (Single Detached (Medium Density) Urban Residential) and RST (Street Townhouse Residential), to permit a future subdivision of approximately 64 lots which includes 51 single-family lots and 13 street townhouse units. Council granted first reading to Zone Amending Bylaw 7662-2020 and considered the early consultation requirements for the Official Community Plan (OCP) amendment on September 8, 2020. The proposed development is in compliance with the policies of the Silver Valley Area Plan of the Official Community Plan (OCP). Ground-truthing of the site with applicant's environmental consultants and City staff has established the developable areas and environmentally sensitive areas. As a result, an OCP amendment is required to revise the boundaries of the land use designations to fit the site conditions. Pursuant to Council policy, this application is subject to the Community Amenity Contribution Program at a rate of $4,100.00 per townhouse dwelling unit; or $5,100.00 per single family lot, for an estimated amount of $53,400.00 for the 13 townhouse dwelling units and $260,100.00 for the 51 single family lots for an estimated amount of $313,400.00. Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7662-2020 is proposed to be given second reading as amended and will include revisions that include wording and referencing to the new Zoning Bylaw 7600-2019. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) That, in accordance with Section 4 75 of the Local Government Act, opportunity for early and on-going consultation has been provided by way of posting Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7739-2021 on the municipal website and requiring that the applicant host a Development Information Meeting (DIM), and Council considers it unnecessary to provide any further consultation opportunities, except by way of holding a Public Hearing on the bylaw; 2) That Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7739-2021 be considered in conjunction with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Waste Management Plan; 2020-168-RZ Page 1 of 8 1. 3) That it be confirmed that Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7739-2021 is consistent with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Waste Management Plan; 4) That Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7739-2021 be given first and second readings and be forwarded to Public Hearing; 5) That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7662-2020 be given second reading, as amended, and be forwarded to Public Hearing: and, 6) That the following terms and conditions be met prior to final reading: i) Registration of a Rezoning Servicing Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant and receipt of the deposit of a security, as outlined in the Agreement; ii) Amendment to Official Community Plan Schedule "A", Chapter 10.3, Part VI, A -Silver Valley, Figure 2 -Land Use Plan, and Figure 4 -Trails/ Open Space, iii) Road dedication as required; iv) Park dedication as required, including construction of walkways, multi-purpose trails; and removal of all debris and garbage from park land; v) Consolidation of the subject properties; vi) Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for the Geotechnical Report, which addresses the suitability of the subject properties for the proposed development; vii) Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for the protection of the Environmentally Sensitive areas (wetlands) on the subject properties; viii) Registration of a Statutory Right-of-Way plan and agreement for Sanitary Sewer Line and Watermain Line; ix) Registration of Restrictive Covenants for Tree Protectfrm and Stormwater Management; x) Removal of existing buildings; xi) In addition to the site profile, a disclosure statement must be submitted by a Professional Engineer advising whether there is any evidence of underground fuel storage tanks on the subject properties. If so, a Stage 1 Site Investigation Report is required to ensure that the subject property is not a contaminated site. xii) That a voluntary contribution, in the amount of $313,400.00 ($4,100.00/townhouse unit and $5,100.00/single family lot) be provided in keeping with the Council Policy with regard to Community Amenity Contributions. 2020-168-RZ Page 2 of 8 DISCUSSION: 1) Background Context: Applicant: Legal Description: Morningstar Homes Ltd. Lot 1 Block "C" Section 33 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 2409; Lot 15 Section 33 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 26732; Parcel "A" (Explanatory Plan 11340) Lot 10 Section 33 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 7757; Within Urban Area Boundary: Yes Area Plan: Silver Valley Area Plan OCP Major Corridor: Yes OCP: Existing: Proposed: Zoning: Existing: Proposed: Surrounding Uses: North: South: East: West: Use: Zone: Conservation, Open Space, and Eco Clusters Conservation and Eco Clusters RS-3 Single Detached Rural Residential R-1 Single Detached (Low Density) Urban Residential; R-2 Single Detached (Medium Density) Urban Residential; RST Street Townhouse Residential Single Family Residential Designation: RS-3 Single Detached Rural Residential Eco Cluster and Conservation Use: Zone: Designation: Use: Zone: Designation: Use: Park RS-3 Single Detached Rural Residential Open Space Single Family Residential RS-3 Single Detached Rural Residential Eco Cluster and Conservation Single Family Residential Zone: Designation: R-1 Single Detached (Low Density) Urban Residential), R-2 Single Detached (Medium Density) Urban Residential Eco Cluster Existing Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Site Area: Access: Servicing requirement: 2020-168-RZ Single Family Residential Multi-Family Residential and Single Family Residential 5. 78 ha (14.28 acres) 232 Street and Silver Valley Road Urban Standard Page 3 of 8 2) Project Description: The applicant is proposing to rezone the subject properties from RS-3 Single Detached Rural Residential to the R-1 Single Detached (Low Density) Urban Residential, R-2 Single Detached (Medium Density) Urban Residential and RST Street Townhouse Residential zones to facilitate a mixture of 51 single family homes and 13 street townhouse units. The development will incorporate a trail as identified on the Silver Valley Area Plan as well as, provide watercourse, view and wildlife corridors. 3) Planning Analysis: i) Official Community Plan: The subject properties are designated Eco-Cluster; Conservation and Open Space (see Appendix B). The Eco-cluster designation refers to the developable portions of the site. Some adjustments in the designations have been made in response to ground -trothing as noted above. These have been adjusted as shown in Appendix C. Section 5.4.6 of the Silver Valley Area Plan speaks to Eco-Cluster densities, as follows: a) Densities and housing types should be diversified within and between Eco-Clusters. b) The densities of Eco-Clusters in the eastern sector should be lower than other Eco-Clusters due to limited access and the requirements for accommodating equestrian activities, i.e. pastures and stables. c) An Eco-Cluster includes varying levels of density, ranging from 5 to 15 units per hectare, in the form of single and/or multi-family units, dependent on proximity to a Hamlet centre, slope constraints, view impacts, and existing development. d) Residential areas should be developed in a manner to allow a gradual and natural increase in density over time. The Eco-Cluster designation is intended to provide development opportunities in sparsely developed or rural areas, in a cluster form which supports sensitive integration of housing into a natural forest setting. Eco~clusters are located in areas where topography is difficult and the existing rural character should be retained. The specific areas including steep slopes and watercourse corridors are proposed to be designated as Conservation and dedicated to the City as park. ii) Zoning Bylaw: The application is a mixture of R-1 Single Detached (Low Density) Urban Residential, R-2 Single Detached (Medium Density) Urban Residential and RST Street Townhouse Residential zones (see Appendix D). The table below details the minimum parcel sizes for each zone. Zone Minimum Lot Area R-1 Single Detached (Low Density) Urban Residential 371m2 R-2 Single Detached (Medium Density) Urban Residential 315m2 RST Street Townhouse Residential Ranges from 195m2to 234m2 based on end or interior lot location. 2020-168-RZ Page 4 of 8 iii) Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw: Each of the residential zones requires two (2) off-street parking stalls to be provided per lot. The R-1 Single Detached (Low Density) Urban Residential) zone permits a secondary suite as an accessory use; an additional parking stall would be required if a secondary suite was developed in those homes. iv) Development Permits: Pursuant to Section 8.10 of the OCP, a Natural Features Development Permit application is required for all development and subdivision activity or building permits for: • All areas designated Conservation on Schedule "B" or all areas within 50 metres of an area designated Conservation on Schedule "B", or on Figures 2, 3 and 4 in the Silver Valley Area Plan; • All lands with an average natural slope of greater than 15 percent; • All floodplain areas and forest lands identified on Schedule "C" to ensure the preservation, protection, restoration and enhancement of the natural environment and for development that is protected from hazardous conditions. v) Development Information Meeting: A Development Information Meeting was conducted via the Public Comment Opportunity process from March 15, 2021 to March 24, 2021. The applicant Morningstar received 40 comment cards from the public in which 33 supported, 5 neutral and 2 against the proposed development. A summary of the main comments and discussions with the attendees was provided by the applicant (Appendix E) and include the following main points: • 18 comments: "Great addition to the neighbourhood" • 17 comments: "Good balance of natural space/conservation and homes" • 12 comments: "Looking forward to the new trail extension" • 10 comments: "Morningstar makes quality neighbourhoods/homes" • 4 comments: "Silver Valley needs schools, shops, churches etc." • 4 comments: "Negative impacts the wildlife/ trees in the area" • 4 comments: "Morningstar has a good/ professional reputation" • 3 comments: "New developments create employment opportunities" • 3 comments: "Increased traffic" • 3 comments: "Duplex/triplex not needed" • 2 comments: "Consideration of affordable housing" • 2 comments: "Proposal brings needed services/road upgrades to the area" • 2 comments: "Reduce truck noise/pollution" • 1 comment: "Disagreement with Environmental Reporting" 2020-168-RZ Page 5 of 8 The following comments were provided by the applicant in responses to the issues raised by the public: • For many of the participants, Morningstar representatives had the opportunity to discuss the project over the phone. The public's questions were answered then and there, and Morningstar representatives encouraged the public to add the same questions on their comment cards so the City could see as well. • For the public who emailed, Morningstar representatives provided email responses to direct questions. • Morningstar representatives always encourage the neighbourhood residents to reach out to Morningstar directly by phone or email or text message if they have concerns or questions for any Morningstar Projects at any point. vi) Parkland Requirement: As there are more than two additional lots proposed to be created, the developer will be required to comply with the park dedication requirements of Section 510 of the Local Government Act prior to subdivision approval. For this project, there is sufficient land that is proposed to be dedicated as park, amounting to approximately 2.7 ha. (6.75 acres) or 47% of the site being required to be dedicated as park as a condition of Final Reading. 4) Interdepartmental Implications: i) Engineering Department: The Engineering department has identified that all the services required in support of this development do not yet exist on the site. It will therefore be necessary for the owner to enter into a Rezoning Servicing Agreement and post securities to do the work identified in the agreement prior to Final reading. Comments provided by Engineering include: • The existing water system in this area is not sufficient to support this development and the owner will be required to provide significant upgrades to this system. The extent will be identified through a water servicing analysis report. • Storm and sanitary sewers will need to be extended to the site. The systems will need to be evaluated for condition and capacity and the owner will be required to complete any upgrades identified to support the proposal. • Urban upgrades to both 232 Street to Arterial Standard and Silver Valley Road to Collector Standard will be required. ii) Parks. Recreation and Culture Department: The Silver Valley Area Plan identifies a trail through the development site. The dedication and development of this trail as well as, park dedication is a condition of rezoning. A landscaped feature is required at the entrance of the development site from Silver Valley Road. This feature will be located on private land within a covenant area so consideration for appropriate landscaping, future maintenance and safe site lines is required. 2020-168-RZ Page 6 of 8 iii) Environmental Implications: The proposed site plan has been considered through an extensive review with the Environmental Section and the applicant's Environmental Professionals. The site plan reflects this collaborative approach in site design. The site design included the recommendations of the Environmental Impact Assessment, the Arborist Report, the Geotechnical Report, the Wildfire Hazard Assessment, and the Stormwater Management Plan to achieve the objectives of the Silver Valley Area Plan. During the City review of the WPDP, NFDP and subdivision applications, there will be further work with the applicant's consultants on the development site and park areas on: • Assessment of trees which need to be removed to ensure windfirmness. • Planting of replacement trees as required. • Coordination with engineering and environmental requirements for stormwater management. 5) Intergovernmental Issues: i) Local Government Act: An amendment to the OCP requires the local government to consult with any affected parties and to adopt related bylaws in compliance with the procedures outlined in Section 4 77 of the Local Government Act. The amendment required for this application, to conservation and open space boundaries, is considered to be minor in nature. It has been determined that no additional consultation beyond existing procedures is required, including referrals to the Board of the Regional District, the Council of an adjacent municipality, First Nations, the School District or agencies of the Federal and Provincial Governments. The amendment has been reviewed with the Financial Plan/Capital Plan and the Waste Management Plan of the Greater Vancouver Regional District and determined to have no impact. 6) Citizen/Customer Implications: The applicant has conducted a Developers information meeting which is a City requirement. There is a statutory public hearing required as part of the rezoning process for this application. 2020-168-RZ Page 7 of 8 CONCLUSION: It is recommended that first and second reading be given to OCP Amending Bylaw No. 7739-2021, that second reading be given to Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7662-2020 and that application 2020-168-RZ be forwarded to Public Hearing. "Original signed by Mark McMullen" Prepared by: Mark McMullen, MA, MCIP, RPP Manager of Development & Environmental Services "Original signed by Chuck Goddard" Reviewed by: Charles R. Goddard, BA, MA Director of Planning "Original signed by Christine Carter" Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP GM Planning & Development Services "Original signed by Al Horsman" Concurrence: Al Horsman Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A -Subject Map Appendix B -Ortho Map Appendix C -OCP Amending Bylaw No. 7739-2021 Appendix D -Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7662-2020 Appendix E -DIM Summary by Applicant Appendix F -Site Plan 2020-168-RZ Page 8 of 8 I I ,, 13920 I 13912 13906 13900 13890 13880 13860 13856 13852 Legend -stream --· Ditch Centreline -Edge of River - -Indefinite Creek N -Lake or Reservoir -River Scale: 1 :3,000 ~ Active Applications (RZ/SD/DPNP) ~===~-------=--1 14136 , -----------------a.to~----14126 14119 14092 14077 SUBJECT PROPERTIES 1389 14053 13960 232 STREET, 13897, 14027 SILVER VALLEY ROAD PID'S 012-642-223, 000-615-722, 011-260-840 PLANNING DEPARTMENT ~-···· FILE: 2020-168-RZ DATE: Jun 3, 2020 mapleridge.ca BY:PC Scale: 1 :2,500 13960 232 STREET, 13897, 14027 SILVER VALLEY ROAD PID'S 012-642-223, 000-615-722, FILE: 2020-168-RZ DATE: Jun 3, 2020 011-260-840 PLANNING DEPARTMENT mapleridge.ca BY: PC ! f I I CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7739-2021 A Bylaw to amend the Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 WHEREAS Section 4 77 of the Local Government Act provides that the Council may revise the Official Community Plan; AND WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend Schedule "A" to the Official Community Plan; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge, enacts as follows: L This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7739-2021." 2. Schedule "A", Chapter 10.3, Part VI, A -Silver Valley, Figure 2 -Land Use Plan and Figure 3A -Blaney Hamlet, are hereby amended for the parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: Lot 1 Block "C" Section 33 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 2409; Lot 15 Section 33 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 26732; Parcel "A" (Explanatory Plan 11340) Lot 10 Section 33 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 7757; and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1040, a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this bylaw, is hereby designated as shown. 3. Schedule "A", Chapter 10.3, Part VI, A -Silver Valley, Figure 4 -Trails/ Open Space is hereby amended for the parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: Lot 1 Block "C" Section 33 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 2409; Lot 15 Section 33 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 26732; Parcel "A" (Explanatory Plan 11340) Lot 10 Section 33 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 7757; and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1041, a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this bylaw, is hereby designated as shown. 4. Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No.7060-2014 as amended is hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the 25th day of May, 2021. READ a second time the 25th day of May, 2021. PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , 20 READ a third time the day of ,20 ADOPTED, the day of ,20 PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER 25 13920 SCP 46662 13912 2 13!106 13900 3 !~ u i 13a904 ~co " ecP1aa2j M 13880 P 14805 LMP 50180 re ~ 141AVE. ~ ~ ~ ~ EP 16905 E ~ P 16208 ~ N 150.74' Rem H EP 15312 14119 Rem H a, 0 N ,,on 0. S 150' H 14136 14126 0 " ~ " ~ ;;; 14092 P 20981 P 20981 2 P 20981 P 13776 P2409 Rem 6 MAPLE RIDGE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDING Bylaw No. Map No. Purpose: From: 7739-2021 1040 To Amend Figure 2 and Figure 3A of the Silver Valley Area Plan Eco-Cluster, Open Space, and Conservation To: ~ Conservation ~ Eco-Cluster 6 MAPLE RIDGE N Bntrsh Columbra SCALE 1:3,493 I r I I S91'C i'l 1,136 P 14805 LMP 50160 1l P7757 141AVE. ~ ~ 1l 1l EP 16905 RP 14647 RemG F P7757 EP 11340 Rem 10 A 13948 25 13920 SCP 46662 13912 ~ ~ P 16208 1l N 150.74' Rem H EP 15312 14119 Rem H .. 0 N Q. 8 13992 S 150' H 13976 18 17 16 ROAD P 13776 14077 140S3 19 14136 14126 ~ j ~ ~ 14092 P27891 7 P 27891 P 20981 P 20981 2 P 20981 P 13776 MAPLE RIDGE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDING 7739-2021 1041 Bylaw No. Map No. Purpose: To Amend Figure 4 Trails/Open Space as shown To Add to Trail ~ To Add to Conservation MAPLE RIDGE ~ To Remove from Conservation c:J To Remove from Open Space D N p British Columbia SCALE 1 :3,500 CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7662-2020 A Bylaw to amend Map "A" forming part of Zoning Bylaw No. 7600-2019 as amended WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 7600-2019 as amended; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows: 1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7662-2020." 2. Those parcel (s) or tract (s) of land and premises known and described as: Lot 1 Block "C" Section 33 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 2409; Lot 15 Section 33 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 26732; Parcel "A" (Explanatory Plan 11340) Lot 10 Section 33 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 7757; and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1846 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, are hereby rezoned to R-1 Single Detached (Low Density) Urban Residential, R-2 Single Detached (Medium Density) Urban Residential, RST Street Townhouse Residential. 3. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 7600-2019 as amended and Map "A" attached thereto are hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the 8th day of September, 2020. READ a second time, as amended, the 25th day of May, 2021. PUBLIC HEARING held the READ a third time the ADOPTED, the day of PRESIDING MEMBER day of day of ,20 , 20 ,20 CORPORATE OFFICER 25 S91'C P 14805 P7757 RP 14647 13920 SCP 46662 13912 2 13906 F P7757 Rem 10 P26 32 LMP 50180 ,/ i'l @ Rem G MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING 7662-2020 1846 i 1'41 AVE. EP 16905 Rem4 13917 13948 13894 13872 Bylaw No. Map No. From: RS-3 (Single Detached Rural Residential) ~ ~ @ I P 16208 N 150.74' Rem H EP 15312 14119 ! Rem H ., 0 N a. P 13776 8 13992 S 150'H 13976 18 17 16 ROAD P 13776 14077 19 141J6 14126 C ~ >-~ ~ g 14092 P 27891 To: ~ R-1 (Single Detached (Low Density) Urban Residential) ~ R-2(Single Detached (Medium Density) Urban Residential) c::::J RST (Street Townhouse Residential) MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia P 20981 P 20981 2 P 20981 P 13776 P 13776 P 27891 6 N SCALE 1 :3,500 f. t ~-I - -~=--·"....._.~ ...... --· = --·. ~ MORNINGSTAR Public Comment Opportunity Summary The Public Comment Opportunity for 2020-168-RZ was held during March 15-24th 2021 inclusive. Comments were collected mainly through emails to aanderson@mstarhomes.com, some by phone (which were recorded and approved to submit), and by comment card provided. The following documents were provided to notify the public, per DIM policy: 1. Posted update to the Development Information Signs, (March 5th) 2. Ads in the Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows News (March 5th and 12th) 3. Invitation Letter delivered to neighbourhood residents (March 1 Qth) Summary of Comments:_ Summary of Feedback: 40 responses were collected: 33 responses were in support. 5 responses were neutral. 2 responses were against. 18 comments: "Great addition to the neighbourhood" 17 comments: "Good balance of natural space/conservation and homes" 12 comments: "Looking forward to the new trail extension" 10 comments: "Morningstar makes quality neighbourhoods/homes" 4 comments: "Silver Valley needs schools, shops, churches etc." 4 comments: "Negative impacts the wildlife / trees in the area" 4 comments: "Morningstar has a good / professional reputation" 3 comments: "New developments create employment opportunities" 3 comments: "Increased traffic" 3 comments: "Duplex/triplex not needed" 2 comments: "Consideration of affordable housing" 2 comments: "Proposal brings needed services/road upgrades to the area" 2 comments: "Reduce truck noise/pollution" 1 comment: "Disagreement with Environmental Reporting" 580-861 201 Street Langley, BC V2Y OG9 aanderson@mstarhomes.com '' \ tr'0 -r--.-T--------1 1.------~ " I \I: , ~ : , , -l' I ~l---~ ffi, • __ _; 5, ~ I zL !'! ' lill --~---, . e;, 2 I : ~l-------: I \ " " • z zQ >z ,; -1/) ~j i 1/)_ <( > :!!~ ~ a::-<( 0 irl1-ij ~ (D =-I ::i ... IJ) 1/) " rB ~ ~ ~ ~ ~t--;--r-~ ~ ~ ; ~~ "J 0~ ~ ' i ' ' ' i-1- !~·-TO: mapleridge.ca City of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council MEETING DATE: May 25, 2021 FILE NO: 2013-096-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Council SUBJECT: Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7564-2019 Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7565-2019 Tandem Parking Garage Units Within Townhouse Developments Policy EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A Tandem Parking Update report was presented to Council at a Council Workshop on May 12, 2020. At this Workshop meeting, Council was presented with three options for implementing restrictions on tandem parking within the RM-1 (Low Density Townhouse Residential) zone. The three options were as follows: • Option 1: 30% tandem garages and 70% double-car garages, including a 6m (19.7 ft.) driveway apron for the second space, prohibiting two-car enclosed tandem garages; • Option 2: 70% tandem garages and 30% double-car garages, including a 6m (19.7 ft.) driveway apron for the second space, prohibiting two-car enclosed tandem garages; or • Option 3: 30% tandem garages and 70% double-car garages, allowing two-car enclosed tandem garages, but with slightly shorter driveway aprons to accommodate a smaller vehicle (i.e. 4m (13.1 ft.)). Upon further discussion, it was determined that although there was a preference for 70% double car side-by-side garages and 30% tandem parking units in general, Council would be supportive of allowing up to a maximum of 50% tandem parking units, which would be consistent with several surrounding municipalities. This would only be supported if on-street parking was available in the area or if the site was particularly impacted by geotechnical or environmental constraints that significantly reduced the developable area of the site. Furthermore, Council was concerned with requiring the developer to go through the Development Variance Permit process if the developer wanted to develop more than 30% tandem parking units. To address Council's desire to avoid the administrative work around Development Variance Permits and allowing some flexibility based on site-specific conditions, it is proposed that the Zone Amending Bylaw include the most allowable amount of tandem parking units within a development, with a Council Policy describing the desired amount with allowances for site-specific considerations, at the discretion of the Director of Planning. Staff have prepared the accompanying Zone Amending Bylaw, Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw, and Council Policy to reflect the direction above. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7564-2019 be given first and second readings, and be forwarded to Public Hearing; 2013-096-RZ Page 1 of 4 2. 2. That Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7565-2019 be given first and second readings; and 3. That Tandem Parking Garage Units Within Townhouse Developments Policy be adopted. BACKGROUND: A Tandem Parking Update was provided at the May 12, 2020 Council Workshop with three options for Council consideration (see Appendix A). The three options provided are summarized below: Option 1: Based on Council's Direction Limit the amount of Tandem Parking permitted within the RM-1 (Low Density Townhouse Residential) zone to 30% tandem garages, including a 6m (19.7 ft.) driveway apron for the second space, and 70% double-car garages, prohibiting two-car enclosed tandem garages. Option 2: Based on Developer/Builder Feedback Limit the amount of Tandem Parking permitted within the RM-1 (Low Density Townhouse Residential) zone to 70% tandem garages, including a 6m (19. 7 ft.) driveway apron for the second space, and 30% double-car garages, as per current practice. This option would also prohibit two-car enclosed tandem garages. Option 3: Compromise of Options 1 and 2 Limit the amount of Tandem Parking permitted within the RM-1 (Low Density Townhouse Residential) zone to 30% tandem garages and 70% double-car garages, allowing two-car enclosed garages, but with slightly shorter driveway aprons to accommodate a smaller vehicle (i.e. 4m (13.1 ft.)) as an alternative for the second tandem space. Three councillors were in support of Option 1, one councillor was in support of Option 3, and two councillors were undecided. Most councilors were opposed to two-car enclosed tandem units, but one coucillor supported it as long as a driveway apron was also provided. Upon further discussion at Workshop, it was determined that although Council would prefer 70% double car side-by-side garages and 30% tandem parking units in general, Council would be supportive of allowing up to 50% tandem parking units if site-specific conditions warranted it. This would be consistent with several surrounding municipalities, but would only be supported if on-street parking was available in the area or if the site was particularly impacted by geotechnical or environmental constraints that significantly reduced the developable area of the site. Furthermore, Council was concerned with requiring the developer to go through the Development Variance Permit process if the developer wanted to develop more than 30% tandem parking units. Bylaws are regulatory in nature and, based on legal advice, it would be difficult to write the bylaw in a way to provide the discretionary flexibility that Council desired within the Zoning Bylaw itself. It is, therefore, recommended to implement the less restrictive 50% tandem parking unit restriction within the Zoning Bylaw (see Appendix B), thereby not requiring a Development Variance Permit should the percentage of tandem parking units go above 30%, but not more than 50%. In addition, to address the concern around an additional Development Variance Permit process, a Council Policy with direction on generally allowing no more than 30% tandem parking units, but allowing up to 50% tandem parking units under certain site-specific conditions, at the discretion of the Director of 2013-096-RZ Page 2 of 4 Planning for approval, would also be approved, to provide guidance on allowable percentages of tandem parking unit provisions (see Appendix C). ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS: a) On-Street Parking: One of the main resident concerns raised with new development is around traffic and parking. Council is very concerned with the impact to on-street parking as a result of developments with high numbers of tandem parking units. However, it should be noted that even residents with double-car, side-by-side garage units or even single family homes also park on the street, so restricting the percentage of tandem parking units will not unilaterally solve this problem. Multi-family developments require road upgrades to a collector road standard, so it would be difficult to restrict on-street parking in the area as providing it is a requirement of the development. Restricting on-street parking in front of a development could also cause parking migration issues and impact a surrounding neighbourhood. Time-limited parking was also suggested as a potential solution, however in discussion with the Bylaw and Licensing Services Department, enforcement would be conducted on a complaint basis only, and it would not be monitored on a daily basis. Thus, such an approach may not provide the level of service expected to address this concern. As there is no simple solution to increased on-street parking, amendment of the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990 is proposed to allow for larger garages and driveway aprons to accommodate vehicles and allow for more functional garages with storage space to hopefully decrease the need for residents to park on the street (see Appendix D). Proposed dimensions are as follows, based on the vehicle dimensions summarized in the May 7, 2019 Council Workshop report (see Appendix E). • A minimum 3m (9.8 ft.) wide and 6m (19.7 ft.) long driveway apron for single-car enclosed tandem garage units (note: Surrey requires an apron that is 2.75m wide and 6m long; Port Moody requires an apron that is 6.1m long); • A minimum 3. 7m (12.1 ft.) wide, 6. 7m (22.0 ft.) long, and 2.1m (6.9 ft.) high single-car, enclosed garage dimensions, to accommodate a full-sized vehicle and storage (note: Surrey requires 3.2m by 6.1m); and • A minimum 6.5m (21.3 ft.) wide, 6.7m (22.0 ft.) long, and 2.1m (6.9 ft.) high double-car, enclosed garage dimensions, to accommodate full-sized vehicles and storage. b) Electric Vehicle Charging: In discussions with the Building Department, there is no concern with providing electrical vehicle charging outlets to vehicles that would be parked on the exterior driveway apron. c) Developer/Builder Feedback: In addition to the correspondence received prior to the May 12, 2020 Council Workshop Report, additional correspondence from UDI/HAVAN and EPIC Homes has been received and are attached to this report (see Appendix F). Comments include that the 30% to 50% restriction on tandem parking units is acceptable, however the change in garage dimensions would be more problematic due to the 2013-096-RZ Page 3 of 4 increase in floor area above the garages and the reduced number of units, leading to decreased densities and affordability. ALTERNATIVES: Should Council wish to amend the proposed Council Policy regarding Tandem Parking Units, this policy can be referred back to staff with further direction. Should Council determine that increasing the garage dimensions and driveway apron lengths are not required at this time, based on developer feedback on the cost increases, Council can deny giving first reading to Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7565--2019 or defer it back to staff with further direction. CONCLUSION: At the request of Council, Staff have revised the proposed Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7564-2019 to capture the maximum desired amount of tandem parking units within a townhouse development, while also providing a Council Policy regarding Tandem Parking Units to provide direction for the actual desired amount with some flexibility based on site-specific conditions. It is recommended that Council forward this report to the next available Council meeting for the bylaw and policy considerations. "Original signed by Michelle Baski" Prepared by: Michelle Baski, AScT, MA Planner "Original signed by Chuck Goddard" Reviewed by: Charles R. Goddard, BA, MA Director of Planning "Original signed by Christine Carter" Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP GM Planning & Development Services "Original signed by Al Horsman" Concurrence: Al Horsman Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A -Tandem Parking Update Report, dated May 12, 2020 Appendix B -Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7564-2019 Appendix C -Tandem Parking Garage Units Within Townhouse Developments Policy Appendix D -Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7565-2019 Appendix E -May 7, 2019 Council Workshop Report Appendix F -Correspondence from UDI/HAVAN and EPIC Homes 2013-096-RZ Page 4 of 4 APPENDIX A l~-mapleridge.ca City of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council MEETING DATE: May 12, 2020 FILE NO: 2013-096-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Workshop SUBJECT: Tandem Parking Update After Consultation EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: A Tandem Parking Update report was presented to Council at Council Workshop on May 7, 2019. At this Workshop meeting, Council provided direction with respect to the following questions on tandem parking: • Should the Bylaw permit two car enclosed tandem garages? • Should the Bylaw permit one car enclosed tandem garages, with a driveway apron for parking? • What size of vehicle should be accommodated in the garage/apron? • Should the amount of tandem parking be limited? • To what percentage should the tandem parking be limited to? • Should internal garage dimensions be specified? • Should the amount of visitor parking be increased? • Should a defined storage area be required in the garage? Staff reviewed the feedback provided by Council in response to the above-referenced questions and have prepared options for amending the Zoning Bylaw and Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw accordingly. Staff also surveyed residents of townhouse developments with varying percentages of tandem parking, and sent letters to the development community to seek feedback on the proposed amendments based on Council's direction. The proposed amendments were also presented at the Urban Development Institute and Homebuilders Association of Vancouver Municipal Advisory Committee meeting of October 25, 2019, and feedback has been provided. This report summarizes the feedback provided by residents and developers and provides Council with options to consider for amending the Zoning Bylaw and the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw. RECOMMENDATION: That staff prepare a Zone Amending Bylaw and Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw for consideration at a future Council meeting, which reflects one of the three options presented in the staff report dated May 12, 2020. BACKGROUND: The current Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350 -1990 allows for residential parking that obstructs access, where the primary parking space is a carport or garage and the obstruction is an intervening parking space, either on a driveway apron, or enclosed within a garage. This is considered "tandem parking" and it is permitted in the RS-1, RS-1a, RS-ib, R-1, RT-1 and RM-1 2013-096-RZ Page 1 of 8 zones. Tandem parking garages may be provided with two parking spaces placed one behind the other in an enclosed garage (see Diagram 1); one parking space enclosed within a garage and the second parking space provided on the apron in front of the garage (see Diagram 2); or as two un-enclosed parking spaces provided on an apron. Currently, there is no restriction on the amount of tandem parking garage units within a development. Garage dimensions and apron lengths are also not currently specified within the bylaws. STRATA ROAD STRATA ROAD A summary of the work that has been done to date to address Council's concerns around tandem parking is provided in the Council Workshop Update Report, dated May 7, 2019 (see Appendix A). Although no amending bylaws have been adopted to address Council's concerns around tandem parking to date, Staff have been working with developers to generally have a maximum of 70% tandem parking garage units and 30% double-car garage townhouse units, based on previous Council discussions. At the May 7, 2019 Council Workshop, Council provided direction on what restrictions they would like to see imposed to address their concerns. Staff also solicited feedback from residents, builders and developers. Based on the information received, Staff have prepared three options for Council's consideration. Each of the options would include: • adding the definition of Tandem Parking into the Zoning Bylaw; and • limiting the number of townhouse blocks to six units, or 45 m (147.5 ft.) in length. The three options differ in the amount of tandem parking garages that would be permitted within a townhouse development, as follows: • Option 1: 30% tandem garages and 70% double-car garages, including a 6 m (19.7 ft.) driveway apron for the second space, prohibiting two-car enclosed tandem garages; • Option 2: 70% tandem garages and 30% double-car garages, including a 6 m (19.7 ft.) driveway apron for the second space, prohibiting two-car enclosed tandem garages; or • Option 3: 30% tandem garages and 70% double-car garages, allowing two-car enclosed tandem garages, but with slightly shorter driveway aprons to accommodate a smaller vehicle (i.e. 4 m (13.1 ft.)). 2013-096-RZ Page 2 of 8 =~--~-::_ Amendments to the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw would accompany the Zone Amending Bylaw to reflect minimum garage and apron length dimensions. These proposed changes are discussed later in this report. CONSULTATION FEEDBACK: a) Resident/Owner Feedback: A survey was sent to 600 residents/owners at townhouse developments with varying percentages of tandem parking garage units, in order to gauge how tandem parking is functioning, and their preference in selecting a tandem garage townhouse unit versus a double-car garage unit (see Appendix B). Forty-seven surveys were completed and a summary of the responses is provided (see Appendix C), with key questions summarized below. Of the 47 respondents, 38 respondents live in units with tandem garages; 25 of those are units with two-car, enclosed tandem garages, and 13 are units with single-car enclosed garages (see Figure 1). Of those respondents living in units with a tandem garage, affordability and availability were the biggest factors in selecting their unit (see Figure 2). Thirty-two of the 47 respondents in units with tandem garages would have or may have preferred a double-car, side-by-side garage (see Figure 3). Sixteen of those 32 respondents would have been willing to pay extra for a unit with a double-car, side-by-side garage; fourteen would not be willing to pay extra; and two did not respond to that question (see Figure 4). Of the 4 7 respondents, 14 have vehicles that regularly park on the street (see Figure 5), two of which are from units with double-car garages. A summary of why residents park on the street is provided in Table 1 of Appendix C. Eight of the 14 respondents that park on the street do so because either the vehicle is too large to fit in the garage or the garage is too small to accommodate two vehicles plus storage. Three of the respondents park on the street because the household has more than two vehicles. Two of the respondents park on the street because they use their garage for storage instead of parking; and one of the respondents parks on the street as it is too difficult to move the vehicles around. 2013-096-RZ Figure 1 -Questions #13 and #14 What type of townhouse unit do you live in? One-Car Endosed Tandem Garage 28% • Double-Car Garage One-Car Enclosed Tandem Garage Double-Car Garage 19% Tandem Garage 53% • Two-Car Enclosed Tandem Garage Page 3 of 8 ' =-=----------_-· ·:....~---~ Figure 2 -Question #15 -------------Biggest Factor in Selecting a Tandem Garage Unit 9% 37% • Affordability • Location Figure 3 -Question #17 Affordability 41% • No response ~---------------------------2013-096-RZ Would you have preferred a double-car, side-by-side garage? Maybe 18% • Yes • Maybe m No ·-------· --------------·----------Page 4 of 8 I~ ·~ Figure 4 -Question #16 ·-------------If you preferred it, would you be willing to pay for a double-car, side-by-side garage? • Yes • No 1:J No response Figure 5 -Question #10 Does another person in your household park on the street? • Yes • No Based on the information provided by the resident survey, it could be inferred that: • affordability and availability are major factors in selecting the tandem garage units; • nearly half of the respondents who may have or would have preferred a double-car garage would be willing to pay extra for this type of unit (although an amount was not specified in the survey); and 2013-096-RZ Page 5 of 8 cr::c c;. --~-~ [ 1-f I ! I • the major reason vehicles from townhouse developments are parking on the street is because either the garage is too small to fit both vehicles plus storage, or the vehicle is too large for the garage. b) Developer/Builder Feedback: Letters were sent to the Building Department's Builders' Forum contact list, the Urban Development Institute, the Home Builders Association of Vancouver, the Condominium Home Owner's Association of BC, the BC Real Estate Association, and the Canadian Home Builders Association of BC, seeking feedback on the proposed amendments that were prepared based on Council's feedback (see Appendix D). A presentation was also provided at the Urban Development Institute and Homebuilders Association of Vancouver Municipal Advisory Committee meeting of October 25, 2019. Discussion at this meeting indicated that the developers at that table would like to see the percentage of enclosed tandem parking units permitted in the Zoning Bylaw amendment to be 70% enclosed tandem garage units, and 30% double-car garage units, as per staff's current practice. Four response letters of correspondence were received (see Appendix E). In general, developers have concerns around providing a variety of products and allowing the purchaser to choose based on their needs, and around the affordability of the units. They note that affordability decreases as the cost of land is borne by fewer units, thus increasing the average cost of all the units. An example calculation was provided by Polygon, through the Urban Development Institute, with financial and building data from 2014, indicating how the average cost per unit increases as the percentage of tandem parking units decreases, suggesting that there is a direct correlation between the number of tandem units and affordability. OTHER MUNICIPALITIES: A summary of municipalities that restrict tandem parking was provided in the Council Workshop Report dated May 7, 2019 (see Appendix A). Currently, the City of Coquitlam is the most restrictive, allowing a maximum of 33% enclosed tandem parking within a townhouse zone. Mission, Richmond, Surrey, and Port Moody allow 50% enclosed tandem parking, whereas Port Coquitam and the Township of Langley allow 40% enclosed tandem parking within a townhouse zone. The Township of Langley requires an additional 0.3 parking stalls for units that provide tandem parking garages. Surrey and Port Moody are the only cities that provide garage or apron dimensions, specifically related to the tandem parking arrangement. OPTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION: Based on Council, resident, and Developer/Builder feedback, three options to amend the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone are provided below. The three options attempt to alleviate the concern around vehicles parking on the street by limiting the amount of tandem parking garage units in townhouse developments. Each of the options would also include: • adding the definition of Tandem Parking into the Zoning Bylaw; and • limiting the number of townhouse blocks to six units or 45 m (147.5 ft.) in length. The above amendments would accompany any of the options below to create a definition for tandem parking, to improve the form of townhouse developments by reducing the scale of large building blocks, and to restrict two-car, enclosed tandem garages. Council was clearly opposed to two-car enclosed tandem garage units; however developers have expressed concerns with the design of a 2013-096-RZ Page 6 of 8 single-car enclosed garage unit with a carport or driveway apron, and the increased amount of land taken up for parking without having living space above. Based on this feedback, a third option is proposed, to reduce the amount of tandem garage units, but to allow them to be two-car enclosed garages, with a smaller driveway apron to accommodate a smaller vehicle. The three options are summarized below: Option 1: Based on Council's Direction Limit the amount of Tandem Parking permitted within the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone to 30% tandem garages, including a 6 m (19.7 ft.) driveway apron for the second space, and 70% double-car garages, prohibiting two-car enclosed tandem garages. Option 2: Based on Developer/Builder Feedback Limit the amount of Tandem Parking permitted within the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone to 70% tandem garages, including a 6 m (19.7 ft.) driveway apron for the second space, and 30% double-car garages, as per current practice. This option would also prohibit two-car enclosed tandem garages. Option 3: Compromise of Options 1 and 2 Limit the amount of Tandem Parking permitted within the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone to 30% tandem garages and 70% double-car garages, allowing two-car enclosed garages, but with slightly shorter driveway aprons to accommodate a smaller vehicle (i.e. 4 m (13.1 ft.)) as an alternative for the second vehicle. Once a percentage is determined, if a developer wanted to incorporate more tandem parking within a townhouse development than what is permitted, the developer could seek a variance to the zone. Council could then evaluate the amount of tandem parking on a project-specific basis through a Development Variance Permit. As with similar changes to the Zoning Bylaw or Official Community Plan, development applications will be monitored for one year after changes are implemented, and an update report to Council will be brought forward for review. OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING BYLAW: In addition to amending the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone, the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw should be amended to reflect Council's desire for storage space and longer driveway aprons for Options 1 to 3. The following amendments are proposed for the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw: • For Options 1 and 2: require a minimum 6 m (19.7 ft.) long and 3 m (9.8 ft.) wide driveway apron for single-car enclosed tandem garage units (note: Surrey requires an apron that is 2.75 m wide and 6 m long; Port Moody requires an apron that is 6.1 m long); • For Option 3: require a minimum 4 m (13.1 ft.) long and 3 m (9.8 ft.) wide driveway apron for two-car enclosed tandem garage units; 2013-096-RZ Page 7 of 8 • For Options 1 to 3: require a minimum 3.8 m (12.5 ft.) wide, 6. 7 m (22.0 ft.) long, and 2.1 m (6.9 ft.) high single-car, enclosed garage dimensions, to accommodate a full-sized vehicle and storage (note: Surrey requires 3.2 m by 6.1 m); and • For Options 1 to 3: require a minimum 6.5 m (21.3 ft.) wide, 6.7 m (22.0 ft.) long, and 2.1 m (6.9 ft.) high double-car, enclosed garage dimensions, to accommodate full-sized vehicles and storage. Townhouse developments within the Town Centre Area could be exempted from providing the minimum dimensions proposed, as there is more access to transit and more likely that two vehicles may not be required. Council should advise if they would prefer this option. It should be noted that some developers have expressed concern with the cost of the additional floor area required above the larger garages if the minimum garage dimensions are implemented. CONCLUSION: At the request of Council, Staff have prepared options to amend the Zoning Bylaw and Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw to address concerns around tandem parking. This Staff report has been prepared to provide Council with the information needed to select a preferred option for limiting tandem parking within townhouse developments. Council may direct Staff to prepare the Zone Amending Bylaw and Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw based on their preferred option. "Original signed by Michelle Baski" Prepared by: Michelle Baski, AScT, MA Planner "Original signed by Chuck Goddard" Reviewed by: Charles R. Goddard, BA, MA Director of Planning "Original signed by Christine Carter" Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP GM Planning & Development Services "Original signed by Al Horsman" Concurrence: Al Horsman Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A -Tandem Parking Update Report, dated May 7, 2019 Appendix B -Example Tandem Parking Survey Appendix C -Summary of Survey Results Appendix D -Letter to Builders/Developers/Realtors Appendix E -Correspondence from Builders and Developers 2013-096-RZ Page 8 of 8 CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7564-2019 APPENDIX 8 A Bylaw to amend the text of Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 7600-2019 as amended WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 7600-2019 as amended: NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge, enacts as follows: 1. This bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7564-2019". 2. This Bylaw provides a definition for Tandem Parking with restrictions around the percentage of tandem parking allowed, and conditions to regulate building block size requirement for townhouse units in the RM-1 (Low Density Townhouse Residential) zone. 3. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 7600-2019 as amended is hereby amended accordingly: a) PART 2, INTERPRETATIONS AND DEFINITIONS, 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) PART6, RESIDENTIALZONES,Section 617, RM-1 LOW DENSITYTOWNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL, subsection 617.10, PARKING and LOADING, is amended by adding the following after 3. as follows: 4. A tandem garage unit shall be limited to one enclosed single-car garage, with a driveway apron length to accommodate a second vehicle, as specified in the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw, No. 4350 -1990, as amended. Two-car enclosed tandem garages shall not be permitted. 5. The maximum percentage of single-car tandem garage units within a townhouse development shall be limited to 50%. See Council Policy on Tandem Parking Within Townhouse Developments for more information. c) PART 6, RESIDENTIAL ZONES, Section 617, RM-1 LOW DENSITY TOWNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL, subsection 617.11, Other Requirements, is amended by adding the following after 5. as follows: 6. 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. 7600-2019, as amended, is hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the 25th day of May, 2021. READ a second time the 25th day of May, 2021. PUBLIC HEARING held the day of READ a third time the day of ADOPTED, the day of , 2021. PRESIDING MEMBER , 2021. , 2021. CORPORATE OFFICER APPENDIXC Title: TANDEM PARKING GARAGE UNITS WITHIN TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENTS Authority: Legislative D Operational ~ POLICY MANUAL Policy No.: Supersedes: Effective Date: Approval: Council ~ CMT D General Manager~ Review Date: Policy Statement: That with respect to the percentage of tandem parking garage units permitted within a townhouse development with at-grade parking, mainly the RM-1 (Low Density Townhouse Residential) zone, be it resolved that the policy take effect when approved by Council. 1. This policy shall apply to all RM-1 (Low Density Townhouse Residential) zoned developments. 2. Council desires no more than 30% tandem parking garage units within the development. 3. Should site-specific conditions, such as geotechnical, watercourse or natural features significantly impact the developable area of the site, up to a maximum of 50% tandem parking garage units may be permitted, as provided in Zoning Bylaw 7600-2019, at the discretion of the Director of Planning. 4. Such an increase in tandem parking garage units shall only be permitted if on-street parking is available adjacent to the development. Purpose: To restrict the amount of tandem parking garage units provided within a townhouse development and to reduce the need for a Development Variance Permit should a variance be warranted based on site-specific conditions. Definitions: 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. Key Areas of Responsibility Action to Take Advise developers of the Tandem Parking Garage Unit restriction and enforce it through plan review. Doc#Error! Unknown document property name. Page 1 of 1 Responsibility Planning Policy 52 ·~~ ~ l I-f-~--~< [':_ . . r~ ~~ ; r I I I I I !-I CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7565-2019 A Bylaw to amend the text of APPENDIX D Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990 as amended WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend the Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990, as amended: NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge, enacts as follows: 1. This bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading Amending Bylaw No. 7565-2019". 2. Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990 is amended as follows: PART IV, OFF-STREET PARKING DESIGN, SECTION 4.1(a), is amended by adding the following after vi): vii) Townhouse units with an enclosed single-car parking garage in a tandem configuration in the RM-1 zone shall: a) Provide a minimum driveway apron of 6.0 metres in length and 3.0 metres in width; and b) Have an enclosed single-car garage with internal finished dimensions of not less than 3. 7 metres in width, 6. 7 metres in length, and 2.1 metres in height. viii) Townhouse units with an enclosed double-car parking garage, in a side-by-side configuration, in the RM-1 zone shall: a) Have an enclosed double-car garage with internal finished dimensions of not less than 6.5 metres in width, 6.7 metres in length, and 2.1 metres in height. 3. Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990 as amended is hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the 25th day of May, 2021. READ a second time the 25th day of May, 2021. READ a third time the day of RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the PRESIDING MEMBER , 2021. day of , 2021. CORPORATE OFFICER 1~•-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: APPENDIX E 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 Page 1 of 8 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 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 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. "Original signed by Michelle Baski" Prepared by: Michelle Baski, AScT, MA Planner "Original signed by Christine Carter" Reviewed 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 Kelly Swift" Concurrence: Kelly Swift, MBA Acting Chief Administrative Officer 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 U!IBAN DEVELnJ>MENTINsu:nn:E-PACil'lC rusm:oN #!lS-0 ... ~G.SG wes: PenG:er. ~ ¥~..-, Brllih o,Jumbfa \/$1! $$7 ~'1 T_ 6~-4.;;59. ~S i'. 504.6Bi1-""~ W'MV,~dJ.bC:..@ August 28, 2020 Chuck Goddard, Director of Planning City of Mapie-.Ridg.e 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 · · Dear Mr. Goddard: .... ,.... • HAVAN HOME su:;al)ERS ASSOOATION V.ANCOmlER #1()11, :t4'15 13Z Sir-,,,;,!: $am,.y, Bi!\fuih ~b!a V:;!W JJiJ; -;. 778.$6:L 421/iB l'Nr.JT.i;a.\-a.n_..r:B -~'="" • Re: Maple Ridge Bylaw Restrictions to Tandem parking APPENDIX F On behalf of the Urban Development Institute (UDI) and the Homebuilders Association Vancouver (HAVAN), we respectfully offer our feedback on the proposed tandem parking changes. We appreciate the efforts that staff haye made to update our associations and our members at the Liaison Committee meetings on May 29, 2020 and October 25, 2019, regarding the City of Maple Ridge's plans to amend the tandem parking provisions in the Zoning Bylaw and Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw. We would also like to thank staff for surveying residents and owners at townhouse developments and asking critical questions regarding the potential impact of the bylaw on affordability. As highlighted in the staff report, a key takeaway from the survey was that affordability was a top priority for residents. A potentially contradictory finding was that 50% of the residents were willing to pay for a double-car, s_ide-by-side garage, whereas 44% were not. However, what many residents may not ti~ve understood from the survey is the magnitude of the price· difference between a tandem unit and a double-car garage townhouse unit. Mandating an increase to garage dimensions will result in larger but more expensive units, as well as, fewer homes being built on any given townhouse site. Hard construction costs don't necessarily vary from tandem to double car garage if the units are similar square footages. The cost variance results from the increased width of the units to accommodate larger garage dimensions. Increasing the lower floor plate automatically adjusts the upper floors to accommodate.larger garage dimensions with ·two side-by-side stalls. This is largely because townhomes are built most economically by stacking walls on top of one another. Based on current market conditions, it is unclear if those who preferred the double-car · garages would be able to qualify for or afford the ii:icreased purchase price of .a home. · Depending on the site layout larger units with a double car garage are between $25,000 and $50,000 more expensive than townhouses with tandem parking -affect[ng housing . . affordability signlficantiy. Therefore, imposing this kind of restriction· on housing design could also limit the supply of affordable housing for some prospective homebuyers. Our industry typically prefers the flexibility that tandem garages provide; however, we recogniz:e that staff proposed two parking options for Council's consideration. Of the two options presented by staff, the preferred approach, though still not ideal for UDI and HAYAN menubers, is the option of "50% tandem (1in/1 out) I 50% double, with an additional 0.4 tandem garage unit for.the strata to assign for residents." While we definitely prefer the 50/50 split, we would recommend that it not include the 0.4 tandem garage unit for the strata to assign for residents. · We also believe this approach would be the least impactt'ul on housing affordability and site yield. This requiremen~ would decrease the number of buildable homes and have a subsequent impact on landscape features, amenity space, flexibility to exceed required visitor parking requirements, and affordability. The additional stalls have a direct and significant Impact on yield, the cost of which would be distributed to the 'price of all units thereby increasing cost and further impacting affordability. The additional stalls combined with the proposed longer apron requirement will Increase hardscape and stormwater run-off as. well as reduce available open green space. If indeed these stalls are required~ we would prefer that builders have the option to sell these additional spaces to homebuyers, or have the ability to choose between the 50/50 and the 30% tandem (lin/lout)/70% double. This strategy would maintain levels of affordability in mixed income communities where some owners may not require additional parking and therefore shouldn't bear that cost. We would also suggest that in circumstances of hardship (e.g., where the further extended apron is challenging to attain given the layout of sites with topographical challenges), . flexibility be worked Into the bylaw where exemptions can be made to increase the number of tandem units on a site. Amendments to the bylaw could be subject to the approval of staff. If Council proceeds with either of the proposed options, we recommend protection for instream applicatio,:is/grandfathering. This would help avoid an inequitable situation in which homebuilders are caught with a new, unexpected.bylaw that could impact the configuration of their site_.and safes. As a result, we suggest the bylaw come into effect on January 1, 2021 and any insb-eam applications at that time be exempt from the changes. Another critical Issue that we would like to highlight is that the proposed bylaw amendment · does not address a significant part of the problem-that people are using their garages for storage or purposes other th9n parking,. with the r:esultaht increase in street parking. Therefore, the issue is not with the size and alignment of the parking spots, but the fact that people are not using their garages as they were intended. A solution for the City of Maple Ridge could be to focus ·on better parking control and enforcement of bylaws already in place. Permit parking that is consistently enforced by the city could be a creative solution to further ensure that people are using their garage for Its planned purpose. We look forward to working with the City of Maple Ridge on this with other planning and ·building Issues. · ; Anne McMullin President & CEO, UDI a~---_ /~', . . Ron Rapp CEO,HAVAN CC: Hugh Carter, Chair of the UDI Fraser Valley Committee Mi.chelle Baski .>m: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Importance: Hey all, Cole Lambert <cole@epichomes.info> June 4,.2020 4:31 PM Michelle Baski; Chuck Goddard; Christine Carter · Fwd: Tandem Parking Letter for Builders Site Plotting -Parking Changes -May 2020.pdt, Parking Tandem -Oct 2019.pdf ·. High .. ·-··-... -··.. . -·-·. ·-· ------·--· .... I apologize for taking so long to get this over to you this week. I've been completely swamped with opening a . new community at 106th & Jackson and trying to get the DP submitted on our initial townhouse phase in NE Albion. While most of our opinions have been vocalized or outlined in the ~nclosed letter, this email will focus · on our concern surrounding the pending changes to interior garage ~ensions. To ·giv~ some context to the discussion bel~w, the changes be~g proposed incl~d.e: • Tandem/Single Car Garage going from industry standard 10'2" wide to 12'6 • Double Car Garage going from industry standard of-19'· to 22.5' wide and from 20' to 22' deep . Keep in mind that the Jyfaple Ridge parking and loading bylaw calls for spaces to be designed at 2.5m (8'2") x 1m (18'). Therefore, any apartments, municipal or commercial parki}1.g spots designed to the bylaw · _ ~quirements would be substantially smaller than the new garage modifications outlined above. While we understand the desire to accommodate pick-up trucks in all units, we want to express caution that not all townhome owners are truck owners. From our experience, a large number of buyers moving into multi-family product types don't have either the desire or financial means to own full-sized pickup trucks. Note that there are a lot of townhouse complexes that design larger units that have additional luxuries such as oversized garages or parking aprons that can accommodate a fit a broader variety of vehicle types. Also note that a Ford F-150 with regular crew cab and 6.5' box is 17'5" long. So residents can drive pickup trucks and fit into a garage!! The downside to the proposed changes is that it will have a material impact on construction costs, yield and ultimately affordability for all purchasers, not just those with a truck. Construction cost efficiencies are sought in town housing by sta.Gking floors and walls directly on top of one another. Anytime we have to incorporate stepping from one floor to the next, there are added costs to build and weather seal the changes to' the floor plate and elevation. This includes framing, siding, concrete, insulation; mechanical, etc. Anytime the basement floor plate is increased, the rule.ofthumh is that it adds the reciprocal amount to the two st,ories above. To help illustrate the situation, we had our architects draft up a 1.35 acre site with three different product types. We plotted 50% double car garage and 50% single car garage to give a cross section of how the changes affect each. Based on these generic floor plans, the unit square footages would be change with new garage dimensions as follows: • A -Plan -would go fro~ a 1,373 sqft three bedroom plan to 1,453 sqft • B -Plan-would go from a 1,397 sqft three bedroom plan to 1,735 sqft • · · C -Plan-would go from a 1,019 sqft two bedrooin:plan to 1,204 sqft 1 In Scenario (A), we plotted the base case showcasing the existing garage dimensions. In this situation, we were able to plot 31 units at a .62 FSR In Scenario (B), we incorporated the new garage dimensions and tried to maximize the# units. While we were able to maintain 30 units, the FSR had to be increased from .62 to . 71 FSR. While we only lost one unit, there was an additional 5,500 sqft that had to built and at a cost of $150/ft which is $825,000 extra or roughly $27,000/unit. In addition to that, if we assumed that serviced townhouse land is worth $3,500,000/acre in Maple Ridge, then there would also be another $3000 per door in additional raw land costs. · Finally, in Scenario (C), we explored with the assumption that there is a hard cap on available FSR (which is the case in most situations), and we were only able to plot 26 units at a .62.FSR. That is a loss of 5 units or 16% of the original yield. Not only would there still be hate additional construction costs per unit described in Scenario (B), but there would also be additional raw land costs per unit·of approximately $21,000/door .. This is not meant to be an exhaustive study and I've only put it together to illustrate that there is an impact to these changes that will alter costs and ultimately impact affordability. There are a number of different variations . and design options that would change what is described above. . . Townhousing provides an immense amount of product ranging anywhere from a 1,000 sq:ft two-bed to a 3,500sq:ft + four bedroom unit The changes being proposed will disproportionately affect the lower end of that scale where square footages are smaller and buyers are more price sensitive. As we were selling through Willow & Oak, one of our lasting observations was how price sensitive buyers were compared to our single family communities. Most were stretched to their max on mortgage qualifi.cations and demand was very elastic when confronted with price changes. This is a stark contrast from single family where homeowners tend to be move-up buyers who have built up larger equity reserves over the years. They never seem to settle on the base package and every home tends to be loaded with additional options. In multi-family, it was rare for a home owner to select any options that are over and above our base package. To summarize, we don't have any objections to cap's on the% of tandem units if it falls between 30-50%, but we encourage further exploration on the new garage dimensions to help address some of the scenario's outlined above. Happy to elaborate should you have questions or queries on information provided. Thanks again for your interest in our perspective and look forward to seeing the next iteration that goes to council! Warm Regards, Cole Cole Lambert Epic Homes #201-20050 Stewart Crescent, Maple Ridge BC, V2X OT4 (P) 604-465-6886 I (C) 604~818-7702 [ (E) cole@epichomes.info Confidentiality Notice -This email and any files transmitted with it are con:fideatial and intended solely fur the nse of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Any nse, disclosure, dissemination, distnbution or reliance on such information by a third party is strictly proluliited. If you hav,: received this email in error, please notify sender and destroy all copies. Email trnnsmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free, as infOIIllation could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive I.ate or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender, therefore d_oes not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message whlch arise as a result of email ' Begin forwarded message: 2 From: Cole Lambert <cole@epichomes.info> · Subject: Re: Tandem Parking Letter for Builders Date: October 16, 2019 at 5:53:50 PM PDT . To: Michelle Bask:i <mbaski@mapleridge.ca> Hey Michelle, Not sure if this is too late. Thought I should put some comments into writing after our meeting last week where we shared a few thoughts on it. In general, I think it would be a shame to loose the tandem car garages as they provide floorpan variation and design options for customers that otherwise wouldn't be available. Rather than an al\ out ban, would there tie any appetite to explore percentage restrictions (i.e. 70/30 o~ 80/20 double/tandem)? Are these changes being driven from a council initiative? · Let me know if you need anything else or want further information on related items. Thanks again for the help. Cole Cole Lambert Epic Homes #201-20050 Stewart Crescent, Maple Ridge BC, V2X OT4 (Pl 604-465-6886 I (C) 604-818-7702 I (E) cole@epichomes.info Confidentiality Notice -This email and any files transmitted with It are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. Any use, disclosure, dissemlration, distribution or reliance on such information by a third party is strictly prohibited. Jfyou have received this email in error, please notify sender and destroy all copies. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error-free, as information could be intercepted, corrupted, lost, destroyed, arrive late or incomplete, or contain viruses. The sender, therefore, does not accept liability for any errors or omissions in the contents of this message which arise as a result of email From: Stephen J Cote-Rolvink <scoterolvink@mapleridge.ca> Sent: September 19, 2019 3:56 PM Cc: Michelle Baski <mbaski@mapleridge.ca> Subject: Tandem Parking Letter for Builders Importance: High Hello all Hope the day finds you well. Planning has asked that I send you out the following document on Tandem parking for your review and comment. Comments are to go back to Michelle Baski in planning and I have included her in this email so you may reply directly to her. Regards; Stephen J. Cote-Rolvink, RBO, CRBO Chief Building Official Building De~artment -Permits &_Inspection Services <image003.png> City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-467-7389 Fax: 604-467-7461 Web Open Government Portal Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. 3 . . This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entiiy named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf your receipt of this message is in error and not meant to waive privilege in this message. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading the attachments. Unauthorized dissemination and use is pr9hibited. Correspondence with any government body, including City of Maple Ridge Council and staff, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Thank you. <Tandem Parking L1tter.pdf> 4 . ·-· :=am· ,~-----~-=·· --_ r Scenario A .---r I I 34'-0' I 1--I I I I-I I I I-I I I I J I-r I __ J _J-L Scenario B .---L--- r----27'-6114" L __ _ r---,,---,-, I I I I f----+--+-i I I I I ',-1,--1--i I I I '------'--'·J I l --~-----=-I I_ !: i i I i 1~•-City of Maple Ridge TO: FROM: SUBJECT: mapleridge.ca His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer MEETING DATE: FILE NO: MEETING: Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7537-2019 Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7343-2017; 12555, 12599, 12516 240 Street and 12511241 Street May 25, 2021 2017-124-RZ COUNCIL The applicant for the above noted application has completed all the conditions for final reading of Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7537-2019 (Appendix A) and Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7343-2017 for the subject properties, located at 12555, 12599, and 12516 240th Street, and 12511 241 Street. The applicant has requested that final reading be granted. Conditions related to the subdivision have not been completed. Amendments to Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7343-2017 may be considered so that the bylaw may be adopted under the new Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 7600-2019. The proposed amendments to Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7343-2017 are shown balded and underlined in Appendix B. The proposed amendments do not make any substantive changes to the bylaw. However the numbering and location of the amendments within the zoning bylaw have been revised to be consistent with Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 7600-2019. If Council wishes to hold a second Public Hearing before giving final consideration to the bylaws, Council has the option of rescinding third reading and second reading of Bylaw No. 7343-2017, and then amending Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7343-2017. The amended bylaw may then be given second reading and may be advanced to Public Hearing, after which Council can consider third and final readings. To proceed to Public Hearing as a package, Council would need to also rescind third reading of Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7537-2019. The project description and conditions are found in Appendix C to this report. The original Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7343-2017 is attached as Appendix D to the March 19, 2019 staff report. As background, Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No.7537-2019 is to amend the OCP Land Use Designation Map for portions of the site from Estate Suburban to Conservation and Forest. Environmentally sensitive lands that are unsuitable for development will be dedicated into public ownership and placed into the Conservation designation. Portions of the site include developable lands that will be dedicated into public ownership as density bonus compensation. These lands will be placed into the Forest designation. Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7343-2017, as amended, is to rezone from the RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) zone to the RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) zone the developable portions of the site utilizing a density bonus to achieve 26 bare land strata lots. Council granted first reading for Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7343-2017 on October 10, 2017. Council granted first and second reading for Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7537-2019 and second reading for Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7343-2017 on March 19, 2019. This application was presented previously at Public Hearing on April 16, 2019, and Council granted third reading on April 23, 2019. 2017-124-RZ Page 1 of 2 3. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That third reading of Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7537-2019 be rescinded, and that the bylaw for second reading be forwarded to the Public Hearing of June 15, 2021; 2. That third reading and second reading of Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7343-2017 be rescinded and that Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7343-2017 be amended in accordance with the amendments proposed in Appendix B; and that Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7343-2017 be given second reading as amended, and that the bylaw for second reading be forwarded to the Public Hearing of June 15, 2021. "Original signed by Chuck Goddard" Prepared by: Charles R. Goddard, BA, MA Director of Planning "Original signed by Christine Carter" Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP GM Planning & Development Services "Original signed by Al Horsman" Concurrence: Al Horsman Chief Administrative Officer Appendices: Appendix A -Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7537-2019 Appendix B -Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7343-2017, as amended Appendix C -Staff report dated March 19, 2019 2017-124-RZ Page 2 of 2 CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7537-2019 A Bylaw to amend the Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 APPENDIX A WHEREAS Section 4 77 of the Local Government Act provides that the Council may revise the Official Community Plan; AND WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend Schedules "B" & "C" to the Official Community Plan; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge, enacts as follows: 1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7537-2019 2. Schedule "B" is hereby amended for that parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: Lot 2 of the North West Quarter of Section 22 Township 12 Group 1 New Westminster Plan LMP22485; Lot "A" Except: Parcel "One" (Explanatory Plan 13720) Section 21 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9912; Parcel "One" (Explanatory Plan 13720) Lot A Section 21 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9912; Lot A Section 22 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan LMP9379; and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 999, a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby designated/amended as shown. 3. Schedule "C" is hereby amended for that parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: Lot 2 of the North West Quarter of Section 22 Township 12 Group 1 New Westminster Plan LMP22485; Lot "A" Except: Parcel "One" (Explanatory Plan 13720) Section 21 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9912; Parcel "One" (Explanatory Plan 13720) Lot A Section 21 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9912; Lot A Section 22 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan LMP9379; and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1000, a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby amended by adding Conservation and Forest. 4. Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 is hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the 19th day of March, 2019. READ a second time the 19th day of March, 2019. PUBLIC HEARING held the 16th day of April, 2019. READ a third time the 23rd day of April, 2019. THIRD READING RESCINDED the 25th day of May, 2021. SECOND PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , 2021. READ a third time the day of , 2021. ADOPTED, the day of , 2021. PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER m30 16 \ \ p 93 P83J16 A LMP2.1771 ('t") 3 ~ ~ ., \ ' WP 207~0 1\. ' L.MP20739 \. P.50307 P51027 10 F'10558 -------.w -, P1071J 1 P1071J -_-_c-.-r 128AVE PARK Rem 18 B 50115 EPP19608 P43885 62 P86522 P86522 fl 1 31 2 I .!:2. L -125AV ""'"' 2 28230 B 2&Zl1 LMP123 79032 2 LMP 2744 65 MAPLE RIDGE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDING Bylaw No. Map No. From: To: MAPLE RIDGE Bnt,sh Columbia 7537-2019 999 Estate Suburban Residential c::::J Conservation ~ Forest Urban Area Boundary 6 N SCALE 1 :5,000 t I: P51027 p 93 ,o " 17 P83316 A P51027 ;. ~ 2 (/) U,IP21711 ('I") 3 ~ UJP20740 1'\.,. \. LMP20739 '\.,. 30 P50307 P10558 U.!P31'.l0S6 '\'Ii ~ ( ' P10713 128AVE PARK Rem 16 B 50115 EPP19606 P43885 62 P86522 P86522 : 1 .3 2 I ' -!::.... .!:!. L -12~AV, 1 4AV8 ... ,,,,, 2 B ""6"' I ~c Ii ~ LMP 123 79032 2 LMP 2744 MAPLE RIDGE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDING Bylaw No. Map No. Purpose: MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia 7537-2019 1000 To Amend Schedule C As Shown c::::J To Add To Conservation ~To Add To Forest Urban Area Boundary 6 N SCALE 1 :5,000 I-r r CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7343-2017 A Bylaw to amend Schedule "A" Zoning Bylaw Map forming part of Zoning Bylaw No. 7600-2019 as amended APPENDIX 8 WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 7600-2019 as amended; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows: 1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7343-2017." 2. Those parcels or tracts of land and premises known and described as: 3. Lot 2 of the North West Quarter of Section 22 Township 12 Group 1 New Westminster Plan LMP22485; Lot "A" Except: Parcel "One" (Explanatory Plan 13720) Section 21 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9912; Parcel "One" (Explanatory Plan 13720) Lot A Section 21 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9912; Lot A Section 22 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan LMP9379; and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1715 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is/are hereby rezoned to RS-2 (Single Detached Suburban Residential). Part 6 -Residential Zones, 610 Zone: RS-2 (Single Detached Suburban Residential), 610.11 Other Requirements. is amended by adding the following as item 6: (a) A Density Bonus is permitted on the parcels or tracts of land and premises known and described as: Lot 2 of the North West Quarter of Section 22 Township 12 Group 1 New Westminster Plan · LMP22485; Lot "A" Except: Parcel "One" (Explanatory Plan 13720) Section 21 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9912; Parcel "One" (Explanatory Plan 13720) Lot A Section 21 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9912; Lot A Section 22 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan LMP9379; Provided that in addition to park land dedication required by Local Government Act Section 510, the owner dedicates park land for the purpose of protection of environmentally sensitive lands and recreational purposes. (b) The base density is a minimum subdivision lot area of 4,000 m2, minimum subdivision lot width of 36 metres, and minimum subdivision lot depth of 60 metres. A Density Bonus is an option in the RS-2 zone as follows: (i) The owner must dedicate as park land at least 12,100 m2 in any subdivision containing one or more lots with an area of less than 4,000 m2, as a condition of subdivision approval by the Approving Officer, such area to be acceptable to the Approving Officer for the purpose of preserving mature trees on the parent parcel. (ii) The maximum density bonus is: A) Minimum lot area of 1,012 m2 B) Minimum lot width of 20 m C) Minimum lot depth of 30 m 4. Zoning requirements for the SRS (Special Urban Residential) zone shall apply and supersede the zoning requirements for the RS-2 zone for any subdivision. 5. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 7600-2019 as amended and Map "A" attached thereto are hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the 10th day of October, 2017. READ a second time the 19th day of March, 2019. PUBLIC HEARING held the 16th day of April, 2019. READ a third time the 23rd day of April, 2019. SECOND and THIRD READING RESCINDED the 25th day of May, 2021. READ a second time, as amended, the 25th day of May, 2021. SECOND PUBLIC HEARING held the READ a third time the day of ADOPTED, the day of PRESIDING MEMBER day of , 2021. , 2021. , 2021. CORPORATE OFFICER p 93 16 17 P83316 A . " N 2 UJP21771 3 UJP207.(0 1, '\ LMP20739 " 30 PS0.307 (/) ('I) ~ P51027 10 = . --- -----L P10558 1 P10713 128AVE PARK Rem18 8 50115 MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING Bylaw No. Map No. From: To: MAPLE RIDGE British Cotumb1a 7343-2017 1715 RS-3 (Single Detached Rural Residential) RS-2 (Single Detached Suburban Residential) Urban Area Boundary EPP19608 P43885 62 I 12~AV, ""79 2 46690 28230 a 2a2J1 LMP123 79032 2 LMP 2744 6 N 65 SCALE 1 :5,000 la MAPLE RIDGE mapleridge.ca City of Maple Ridge TO: FROM: SUBJECT: His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer First and Second Reading MEETING DATE: FILE NO: MEETING: Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7537-2019; Second Reading Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7343-2017; APPENDIXC March 19, 2019 2017-124-RZ cow 12555, 12599, & 12516 240th Street, and 12511241 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This proposal is to rezone the subject properties from RS-3 One Family Rural Residential to RS-2 One Family Suburban Residential to create a 26 lot bare land subdivision with park dedication on a site area of 8.19 hectares (20 acres). Through density bonus provisions and a text amendment to the RS-2 Zone, this application proposes greater residential density than permitted under RS-2 Zoning. The highest density in the RS-2 Suburban Residential Zone is 2.5 lots per hectare, or 0.4 hectares per lot (1 acre lots). The proposed density with this application is 3.88 lots per hectare in a combination of individual lots and common properties. An amendment to the Official Community Plan will be required to the Conservation designation for riparian habitat and to Forest for additional dedicated lands. The subject properties are within the Fraser Sewer Area of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District. For this reason, both sewer and water connections are available, making it possible to create parcels with smaller lot sizes. The typical lot size in the Estate Suburban designation is 0.4 hectares or 1 acre. For this application, the justification for reduced parcel sizes is due to the voluntary dedication of developable area for park purposes. After first reading was granted, an environmental assessment of the qualitative value of these areas proposed for dedication has been prepared by a qualified professional. The issue of increased densities on qualifying properties in the Estate Suburban designation1 has been discussed by Council for some time. On September 5, 2017, a report was presented to Council identifying feasible subdivision potential and the impacts to build out. The report also noted that the recently adopted Tree Bylaw provided tree protection measures that could outweigh advantages associated with density bonus measures for this purpose. In response to this report, Council voted in favour of leaving the Estate and Suburban Residential designations and their policy base unchanged. Pursuant to Council policy, this application is subject to the Community Amenity Contribution Program at a rate of $5,100.00 per single family lot, for an estimated amount of $132,600.00. 1 Council has the jurisdiction to increase residential densities on Estate Suburban properties that are designated Urban in the Regional Growth Strategy of Metro Vancouver. This regional designation roughly pertains to Estate Suburban properties west of the 244th Street alignment, south of the Silver Valley area. All other Estate Suburban parcels are designated rural and could only be subdivided with minimum parcel sizes of 0.4 hectares (1 acre), although some are currently legal non-confo1ming urban lots. Page 1 of 10 RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) That, in accordance with Section 475 of the Local Government Act, opportunity for early and on-going consultation has been provided by way of posting Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7537-2019 on the municipal website and requiring that the applicant host a Development Information Meeting (DIM), and Council considers it unnecessary to provide any further consultation opportunities, except by way of holding a Public Hearing on the bylaw; 2) That Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7537-2019 be considered in conjunction with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Waste Management Plan; 3) That it be confirmed that Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7537-2019 is consistent with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Waste Management Plan; 4) That Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7537-2019 be given first and second readings and be forwarded to Public Hearing; 5) That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7343-2017 be given second reading, and be forwarded to Public Hearing; 6) That the following terms and conditions be met prior to final reading: i) Registration of a Rezoning Servicing Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant and receipt of the deposit of a security, as outlined in the Agreement; ii) Park dedication as required; and removal of all debris and garbage from park land; iii) Road dedication as required; iv) Consolidation of the subject properties; v) Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for the Geotechnical Report, which addresses the suitability of the subject properties for the proposed development; vi) Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for the floodplain report, which addresses the suitability of the subject property(ies) for the proposed development; vii) Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for Tree Protection; viii) Registration of a Restrictive Covenant, and Stormwater Management; ix) Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for conservation purposes; x) Removal of existing buildings; xi) Notification to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Ministry of Environment for in-stream works on the site; xii) That a voluntary contribution, in the amount of $132,600.00 ($5100.00/lot) be provided in keeping with the Council Policy with regard to Community Amenity Contributions. Page 2 of 10 DISCUSSION: 1) Background Context: Applicant: Don Bowins Legal Description: OCP: Existing: Proposed: ESTRES (Estate Suburban Residential) Single-Family Residential OCP: Existing: Proposed: Zoning: Existing: Proposed: Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Zone: Designation: South: Use: Zone: Designation: East: Use: Zone: Designation: West: Use: Zone: Designation: Existing Use of Properties: Proposed Use of Property: Site Area: Access: Servicing requirement: Previous similar applications: Estate Suburban Residential Estate Suburban Residential RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) with density bonus provisions to reduce parcel size. Rural Residential RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Estate Suburban Residential Rural Residential RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Estate Suburban Residential Suburban Residential RS-2 Suburban Residential Estate Suburban Residential Vacant RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Estate Suburban Residential Rural Residential Estate Suburban Residential 8.35 Ha (20.6 acres) 240 and 241 Street Urban Standard • Application 2014-054-RZ (23598 & 23627 Dogwood), which proposed to protect significant stands of trees with park dedication, was ultimately supported by Council, with refinements to the original proposal. • In addition to the above, concurrent Application 2017-184-RZ (23585 Dogwood) proposes the protection of significant trees with park dedication as an extension of the above noted Dogwood application. This application has advanced to second reading, and will be presented at the March 19 Public Hearing. Page 3 of 10 2) Project Description: The four subject properties are located to the south of the Silver Valley Horse Hamlet in the vicinity of 240 Street, Fern Crescent, and 124 Avenue. The South Alouette River bisects two of the properties, with the greater portion of the lands located south of the South Alouette River. A number of watercourses are located on or adjacent to the subject properties including Latimer Creek and two indefinite watercourses. As a result, the site offers pockets of potentially developable areas that are bounded by environmentally sensitive areas. Steep slopes define the site along its east and southern boundaries. Three of the four subject properties are currently accessed via 240 Street, constructed to a gravel road standard on the south side of the river. The fourth property is accessed from 241 Street. This project proposes a bareland strata of 1 fee simple remainder lot and 25 bareland strata lots with a net density of 3.88 units per net hectare. The first reading report noted that a developable portion of the site comprising 1.2 hectares (3.0 acres) north of the South Alouette River was to be dedicated as parkland. In order to realize this development, significant servicing upgrades are required to bring sewer and water to the site. Servicing requirements and the infrastructure required to provide them will be assessed by the Engineering Department as this application progresses. This development proposal is tied to other works in relation to its context and servicing considerations. These works include a Flood Impact Study conducted by Northwest Hydraulics Consultants, and a new bridge crossing along the 240th Street Corridor. Flood Impact Study: The first reading report noted that approximately 86% of the site was located within floodplain. Maple Ridge requirements for floodplain development are guided by Policy 9.10, titled Regulation of Earth Fill within Floodplains. Development applications within floodplains are required to provide a hydraulic assessment of the proposed work which addresses current site conditions, an impact assessment of proposed works, and a proposed mitigation plan. The engineering firm Northwest Hydraulics Consulting (NHC) was commissioned to conduct this work. The findings demonstrated that the placement of fill on the subject site for flood construction purposes would have very minimal impact. There was one structure that could be impacted within the study area. However, it was noted that the foundation of this affected residential structure was currently below existing flood construction levels. It should be noted that this assessment was based on anticipated flooding during a 1 in 200 year event, which has an estimated probability of 0.5% of occurring in any given year. Bridge Crossing on 240th Street. The first reading report noted that 240th unconstructed road right of way was earmarked in the Major Corridor Network Plan for future bridge connection to Silver Valley. Since first reading was granted on October 10, 2017, further exploration of a bridge crossing at this location has taken place, and has been determined to be feasible. The 240th corridor has been determined to be the best location for a bridge crossing over the Alouette River. As a result, this proposal will be integrated with the site preparations for the bridge. This work will involve the placement of fill to reduce the required span of the bridge. NHC has reviewed the impact of additional filling of the 240th corridor and have concluded that this will not result in a measurable change to the predicted flood profile of the Alouette River. Page 4 of 10 Additional environmental compensation is required with the bridge development, requiring a shift in the proposed conservation boundaries. As a result, a portion of the developable area of the site proposed as a bonus park will now be used for riparian enhancement and will then be designated as conservation. The integration of this site preparation in anticipation of a future bridge will provide significant cost savings to the municipality as it provides needed infrastructure improvements within the community. A habitat balance evaluation of these proposed site preparations has been provided by a qualified environmental professional. This evaluation concludes that there is a net gain of riparian area with the compensatory measures proposed by this application. 3) Planning Analysis: i) Official Community Plan: The Estate Suburban designation is characterized generally by lots of 0.4 hectare (1 acre) in size. Based on a net area of 6.8 hectares (17.2 acres), in a bareland strata format which combines both developable and protected areas (by a restrictive covenant), a maximum of up to 17 lots could be created under the RS-2 Suburban Residential Zone for this development site. However, these lots would be dispersed across the site and north of the Alouette River. In order to realize higher density than is permitted in the Official Community Plan this application proposes to utilize density bonus provisions. The subject properties are designated Estate Suburban Residential in the OCP, and Urban in the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy. The Estate Suburban Residential designation aligns with land that is serviceable by the regional sanitary service within the Fraser Sewer Area. Where these lands are within the Regional Urban Containment Boundary, development to urban densities are possible without triggering the requirement for an amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy. The following OCP policies guide the form and density supported in the Estate Suburban Residential land use designation: Policy 3-14 Urban-level residential densities will not be supported in areas designated Estate Suburban Residential Policy 3-15 Maple Ridge will support single detached and two-family residential housing in Estate Suburban Residential areas. The Estate Suburban Residential land use designation is characterized generally by 0.4 hectare lots. The intent of these policies was reaffirmed by Council on September 5, 2017. However, these properties are also designated Urban in the Regional Growth Strategy of Metro Vancouver, and as additional Regional approvals are not required, Council therefore has significant freedom in designating land uses and residential densities for these properties. Policy 2-9 of the Official Community Plan provides a density bonus mechanism to support higher density, as follows: Community Amenity Contributions and density bonuses may also be considered at Council's discretion for all Official Community Plan and Zoning Bylaw amending applications that are seeking a higher density than is envisioned in Schedule "A" and/or Schedule "B", to help provide a variety of amenities and facilities throughout the municipality. Page 5 of 10 In the Maple Ridge Official Community Plan, only properties within the Albion Area Plan are currently subject to a prescribed formula for density bonus provisions. As the subject property is not subject to such a specific formula, in either the Zoning Bylaw or Official Community Plan, Council must assess whether the amenities provided and the density proposed are appropriate, and supportable. Portions of the site in the riparian protection area are to be designated conservation in response to ground truthing and riparian compensation. The proposed remaining park will be designated as forest, in accordance with the following two key OCP policies: Policy 5-13 Maple Ridge will promote the retention of urban and mature trees and of natural forests and woodland areas, and ensure that additional trees and plant material are provided as part of all development proposals. To enhance the ecological integrity of the District, the use of native trees, plants and naturescape principles will also be encouraged. Policy 6-62 To protect ecological diversity and the integrity of forested lands, Maple Ridge will retain parts of the northern slope of Thornhill as Forest. Innovative development proposals that protect unique site characteristics, ecologically sensitive areas, or amenities on lands designated Forest and within private ownership, may be considered for a density bonus. The value of the density bonus will be at Council's discretion, in return for the development providing an identified community benefit. In particular, Policy 6-62 speaks to a density bonus framework as a mechanism for protecting unique site characteristics, such as forested lands, that provide an identified community benefit. The density bonus structure proposed for this development application, while site-specific presently, is consistent with the Dogwood applications. It is noted that the OCP supports using a density bonus framework in three specific development scenarios. The subject application is supportable for three important reasons. Firstly, the subject property is serviceable by sanitary sewer due to their location in the Fraser Sewer Area, and there is no Regional policy impediment that would require lot sizes to remain at 0.4 hectare (1 acre). Secondly, the proposed development will ensure long term protection of environmentally sensitive areas under public ownership in dedicated parkland in alignment with Policy 6-62 of the OCP. The habitat balance assessment provided by the applicant concludes a net gain of riparian habitat through proposed compensatory measures for this development and for the future bridge alignment. Thirdly, this proposal will integrate the site preparation for the future 240th Street Bridge, to provide needed community infrastructure with significant cost savings to the municipality. These site preparations will be included in the works required for the rezoning servicing agreement and will be a condition of final reading. The proposed density bonus structure used to accommodate reduced densities will not trigger an OCP amendment, because the Official Community Plan recognizes and supports additional density for density bonus purposes. The Zoning Bylaw text amendment will be established to create the density bonus framework, made on a site specific basis, based on an evaluation of community benefits of the dedicated lands. This application will be providing additional dedication for park and infrastructure improvements rather than a cash contribution. In the absence of prescribed density bonus provisions in the site area, this site specific approach provides similar opportunities to the Page 6 of 10 Albion Area Community Amenity Program, which has a prescribed fee schedule that applies to all developments utilizing the density bonus program in Albion. ii) Zoning Bylaw: The current application proposes to rezone the properties located at 12511 241 Street, 12555, 12599, and 12516 240 Street from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to permit 25 bareland strata and 1 fee simple lot. The minimum lot size for the current RS-3 zone is 8000 m2, and the minimum lot size for the proposed RS-2 zone is 400om2. A site specific text amendment will be required to the RS-2 zone in order to permit a subdivision with higher density than permitted under zoning. Any variations from the requirements of the proposed zone will require a Development Variance Permit application. As this is a bareland strata development, a range of strata lots is proposed, with no individual strata lot being less than 1000 m2. In addition, there are common areas under conservation covenants that will be part of this development. The proposed lot dimensions that accompany this rezoning text amendment include a minimum lot width of 20 metres, and a minimum lot depth of 30 metres. These dimensions in the RS-2 Zone are respectively, 36 metres, and 60 metres. Any variances from the requirements of the RS-2 Zone will be required to obtain approvals prior to proceeding. iii) Off-Street Parking And Loading Bylaw: The Off-Street Parking And Loading Bylaw identifies a minimum of 2.0 parking spaces for a one family residential use. This can readily be accommodated on the proposed lots. iv) Development Permits: Pursuant to Section 8.9 of the OCP, a Watercourse Protection Development Permit application is required for all developments and building permits within 50 metres of the top of bank of all watercourses and wetlands. The purpose of the Watercourse Protection Development Permit is to ensure the preservation, protection, restoration and enhancement of watercourse and riparian areas. Pursuant to Section 8.10 of the OCP, a Natural Features Development Permit application is required for all development and subdivision activity or building permits for: • All areas designated Conservation on Schedule "B" or all areas within 50 metres of an area designated Conservation on Schedule "B", or on Figures 2, 3 and 4 in the Silver Valley Area Plan; • All lands with an average natural slope of greater than 15 percent; • All floodplain areas and forest lands identified on Schedule "C" to ensure the preservation, protection, restoration and enhancement of the natural environment and for development that is protected from hazardous conditions. Page 7 of 10 v) Development Information Meeting: A Development Information Meeting was held at Meadowridge School on January 29, 2019. A total of 20 people signed the signup sheet at the meeting. This had been the third public information meeting held by the applicant. This latest meeting was to provide updates with the proposal and how it would be integrated with the site preparations for the 240th Street Bridge Crossing. No comments were made by the public at this meeting. A previous meeting, held on May 15, 2018, was held at Meadowridge School, with 45 people signing in. A total of 10 comment sheets were provided, with 6 comments sheets noting concerns about impacts to fish habitat, loss of trees, flood impacts, and potentially incompatibility between the future bridge and residential development. There were 4 positive comment sheets, and one of these emphasized the potential for improved equestrian trail development with this proposal. For municipal purposes, the applicant has addressed concerns by securing qualified consultant services for riparian compensation, hydrological assessments, and by providing additional developable land for park development. vi) Parkland Requirement: For this project, there is sufficient land that is proposed to be dedicated as park on the subject properties and this land will be required to be dedicated as a condition of Final Reading. This parkland requirement will be met with a combined dedication of Forest and Conservation areas, totaling 5.1 hectares (12.6 acres). 4) Environmental Implications: The proposed new Alouette crossing has necessitated a revised application to the Ministry of Environment due to the required infilling within the 240th Street Right of Way. The new bridge involves a change in restoration works proposed with the first reading report. The current proposal is to utilize these areas and restoration and enhancement works as compensation. Clay fill deposited on the slope at the east end of the slope during the development of upslope Academy Park (about 30 years ago) may have resulted in these flows being cut off, impeding fish movement. The current proposal is to remove the deposited clay-based material to create a direct connection to the Alouette River at its east end. The proposed works will increase the area utilized by fish providing direct fish habitat all year round. Further, it will allow for the contribution of oxygenated, nutrient rich flow to downstream fish populations. A habitat balance report provided by the environmental consultant indicates a net gain of riparian habitat proposed with this development. 5) Interdepartmental Implications: i) Engineering Department: In addition to works required for the proposed bridge crossing, the Engineering Department has outlined the development considerations in support of this proposal. These include road construction, servicing the site with water and sewer, decommissioning any existing septic disposal systems, and street trees. This development may be eligible for latecomers fees. Page 8 of 10 ii) Parks & Leisure Services Department: The Parks and Leisure Services Department reviewed this proposal and expressed the following: • Retention of the equestrian trail along 240th is retained in the current road allowance and not disturbed. • Development of a formal trail connection along the Alouette river connecting to 241 St to the east, along with a reduction of the existing informal trails being used along the south bank of the Alouette river, in order to minimize compaction and disturbance of the shore area. These priorities will need to be addressed with the proposed bridge, and will be considered in the future as the project develops. iii) Building Department: The Building Department will require municipal standards to be applied to this strata development, with the inclusion of sidewalks, lighting, and street trees. iv) Fire Department: The Fire Department has established standards for emergency access, private fire hydrants, and residential addresses. 6) Intergovernmental Issues: i) Local Government Act: An amendment to the OCP requires the local government to consult with any affected parties and to adopt related bylaws in compliance with the procedures outlined in Section 4 77 of the Local Government Act. The amendment required for this application, to Conservation Boundaries, is considered to be minor in nature. It has been determined that no additional consultation beyond existing procedures is required, including referrals to the Board of the Regional District, the Council of an adjacent municipality, First Nations, the School District or agencies of the Federal and Provincial Governments. The amendment has been reviewed with the Financial Plan/Capital Plan and the Waste Management Plan of the Greater Vancouver Regional District and determined to have no impact. 7) Citizen/Customer Implications: The applicant has hosted 3 information meetings in support of this project. Additional opportunities for public input will be provided at the required public hearing, which will be scheduled should second reading be granted. Page 9 of 10 CONCLUSION: It is recommended that first and second reading be given to OCP Amending Bylaw No. 7538-2019, that second reading be given to Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7343-2017, and that application 2017-124-RZ be forwarded to Public Hearing. "Original signed by Diana Hall" Prepared by: Diana Hall, M.A, MCIP, RPP Planner 2 "Original signed by Christine Carter" Reviewed 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 Kelly Swift" Concurrence: Kelly Swift, MBA Acting Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A -Subject Map Appendix B -Ortho Map Appendix C -OCP Amending Bylaw No. 7537-2019 Appendix D -Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7343-2017 Appendix E -Site Plan Page 10 of 10 ,--. -r I ' N Scale: 1 :4,500 Legend -Stream --Ditch Centreline -Edge of River - -Indefinite Creek -River Centreline -Lake or Reservoir -River -Major Rivers & Lakes -------ii I 1----------1 ~~--t._ _ ____jl \ ' 12516/12555/12599 240 ST 12511 241 ST ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT mapleridge.ca FILE: 2017-124-RZ DATE: Mar 31, 2017 BY: LM 1 f~ [ !=- Scale: 1 :4,500 12516/12555/12599 240 St 12511 241 St FILE:2017-124-RZ DATE: Mar 14, 2019 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT BY: MC CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7537-2019 A Bylaw to amend the Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 WHEREAS Section 4 77 of the Local Government Act provides that the Council may revise the Official Community Plan; AND WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend Schedules "B" & "C" to the Official Community Plan; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge, enacts as follows: 1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7537-2019 2. Schedule "B" is hereby amended for that parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: Lot 2 of the North West Quarter of Section 22 Township 12 Group 1 New Westminster Plan LMP22485; Lot "A" Except Parcel "One" (Explanatory Plan 13720) Section 21 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9912; Parcel "One" (Explanatory Plan 13720) Lot A Section 21 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9912; Lot A Section 22 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan LMP9379; and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 999, a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby designated/amended as shown. 3. Schedule "C" is hereby amended for that parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: Lot 2 of the North West Quarter of Section 22 Township 12 Group 1 New Westminster Plan LMP22485; Lot "A" Except Parcel "One" (Explanatory Plan 13720) Section 21 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9912; Parcel "One" (Explanatory Plan 13720) Lot A Section 21 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9912; Lot A Section 22 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan LMP9379; and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1000, a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby amended by adding Conservation and Forest. 4. Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 is hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the day of , 20 READ a second time the PUBLIC HEARING held the READ a third time the ADOPTED, the day of PRESIDING MEMBER day of day of day of ,20. ,20 ,20 , 20 CORPORATE OFFICER 30 16 17 . ~ \ \ ., ~ \ ' l)JP21n1 ,, '\ LMP20739 '\ (f) C") ~ P51027 10 P51027 P10558 RemA P10713 1 P10713 28 128AVE 32 Rem18 B 50115 .L ao L ~ EPP 19608 r. ""'"'' ~ I~ _. __ ._[ LMP 2744 PP43256 ,L' 37336 2 ,r r MAPLE RIDGE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDING Bylaw No. Map No. From: To: MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia 7537-2019 999 Estate Suburban Residential r:::::J Conservation ~ Forest Urban Area Boundary ~ N SCALE 1 :5,000 m,O 16 \ \, p 93 P83316 A ~ ., \ ' ,. UAP20'40 1, ' LMP20739 ' P51027 P:3017 P10558 P10713 ' P10713 28 ~------r -·~----a,=,__ ___ ,~ ~I EPP 19608 128AVE 31 32 PARK Rem 18 B 50115 -i.. ~ L -P43885 82 P86522:I P86522 f----rl 1 !l 2 ... ,,,. 2 I I 12q AV, [ 1 PP~ 48690 ~ 37336 2 ~ 1 I ~c I~ ~ f 7'032 2 LMP 2744 MAPLE RIDGE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDING Bylaw No. Map No. Purpose: MAPLE RI OGE British Columbia 7537-2019 1000 To Amend Schedule C As Shown c::::J To Add To Conservation ~To Add To Forest Urban Area Boundary 6 N SCALE 1 :5,000 CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7343-2017 A Bylaw to amend Map "A" forming part of Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows: 1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7343-2017." 2. Those parcels or tracts of land and premises known and described as: Lot 2 of the North West Quarter of Section 22 Township 12 Group 1 New Westminster Plan LMP22485; Lot "A" Except Parcel "One" (Explanatory Plan 13720) Section 21 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9912; Parcel "One" (Explanatory Plan 13720) Lot A Section 21 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9912; Lot A Section 22 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan LMP9379; and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1715 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is/are hereby rezoned to RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential). 3. Section 601 ONE FAMILY AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES (R-1, R-2, R-3, RS-1, RS-1a, RS-1b, SRS, RS-1c, RS-id, RS-2, RS-3, RT-1, RE, CD-1-93) Subsection C. REGULATION FOR THE SIZE, SHAPE AND SITING OF BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES of Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 is amended by adding the following as item 19: "(19) DENSITY BONUS REGULATIONS (a) A Density Bonus is permitted on the parcels or tracts of land and premises known and described as: Lot 2 of the North West Quarter of Section 22 Township 12 Group 1 New Westminster Plan LMP22485; Lot "A" Except Parcel "One" (Explanatory Plan 13720) Section 21 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9912; Parcel "One" (Explanatory Plan 13720) Lot A Section 21 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9912; Lot A Section 22 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan LMP9379; Provided that in addition to park land dedication required by Local Government Act Section 510, the owner dedicates park land for the purpose of protection of environmentally sensitive lands and recreational purposes. (b) The base density is a minimum subdivision lot area of 4,000 m2, minimum subdivision lot width of 36 metres, and minimum subdivision lot depth of 60 metres. A Density Bonus is an option in the RS-2 zone as follows: (i) The owner must dedicate as park land at least 12,100 m2 in any subdivision containing one or more lots with an area of less than 4,000 m2, as a condition of subdivision approval by the Approving Officer, such area to be acceptable to the Approving Officer for the purpose of preserving mature trees on the parent parcel. (ii) The maximum density bonus is: A) Minimum lot area of 1,012 m2 B) Minimum lot width of 20 m C) Minimum lot depth of 30 m 4. Zoning requirements for the SRS (Special Urban Residential) zone shall apply and supersede the zoning requirements for the RS-2 zone for any subdivision approved pursuant to this item 19." 5. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended and Map "A" attached thereto are hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the 10th day of October, 2017. READ a second time the PUBLIC HEARING held the READ a third time the ADOPTED, the day of PRESIDING MEMBER day of day of day of ,20 , 20 ,20 , 20 CORPORATE OFFICER p 93 16 17 P63J16 A (f) l.MP21ni ("() \ • ~, \ 3 ~ ~ 3\'I, 5 c:. \' ' ' P51027 10 •' ,, P7 6 ,41~ 1 < "PP129 LMP30056 '\s.a ~ti ~ ! Rema 1 P10713 28 29 21921 27 N126'A P9364 RemA 3' § & 128 AVE 32 26177 LMP9379 PARK Rem 18 B 50115 / P69960 2 -~ I ' .. _l&.0___3 -4AV6 MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING Bylaw No. Map No. From: To: MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia 7343-2017 1715 RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) P 86522 P 86522 P43885 • :l 1 3 2 I I 12oAV. 26230 B 28231 - 1 --n,p,4:ITT.l; It! 37336 ~ 1 L LMP 2744 6 N SCALE 1:5,000 I ! -!· : I. !-_ I I· r I I ,.,,1!._., FUTURE B.L.S. f----w w 0::::: f----U) L WEST I SUBJECT SITES 12555 240 STREET, REM ~ 12599 240 STREET, PCL. EAST APRROX. AREA 4.05HA 12516 2 40 STREET, LOT 2 APPROX AREA 2.35Ho 12511 241 STREET, LOT A APPROX. AREA 1.85Ho ® 1:750 BUILDING ENVELOPES MIN SIDE YARD MIN EXT SIDE YARD FRONT/REAR YARD TOTAL SIJE AREA 8.19 HA. IAfilL!. GREENSPACE CALC~L:!.~.N CONSfRVADOI/Q!EfNsPA 0.275HA ~Al.OOETTERl~+-\\6TCH>.NNEL 1.418HA 7!::_m·~,:~,m~~rn'ru:u,:~~'"~'lil..lJ====~~ll'LIM~<~•-----'~~::~:: Bl S RFSIBICD\f CQ\fNANI INC f(f SIUP\ E 4.948 HA. f!0.42:C ~ TOTAL SITE AREA S\JB TOTALWlSERVATIOO /GREENSPAC(AR£AS 0.17JHA AOO!TIONAI. ON LOTS TREE CO\t'.NA.NTEO GREEN SPACE z) 62 52% OF TOTAi SIJE AREA TABLE 2 ~-----DENSITY CALCULATION I I ii /1 ;qi,, 3.0m 4.5m 7.5m DE.',O..CPAB!.£ AREA BOIIUS p,.t.Rj( AREA J.526 H"-. LOTS INC m: Sl:IJPLE AND ROAD AREA COY AREA I 92 HA ms RESIBICTl\f 00\.fN>JU INC FIT SVPl[ 6 70 HA TOTAL DE'A;LOP~tBLE (At 26 Lots/6. 70HA) Net Dens1 Y 3.88 Un/ Ha. LUSJ755 lUSJl.55 ~IZE 1200m2/10l2m2 I JAN 18 2019 MIN LOT WlDTH 20.0m . MIN LOT DEPTH 30.0m CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE OIQll£ER!llG OEPA~R.IOIT '"'1··~ ~\ SUBDIVISION PLAN 'iii#) i"-~1[ f:- ~o\JETTE ltrt~ . -~· 24959 ALOUETTE ROAD, MAPLE RIDGE, BC V 4R 1R8 Tel: 604.467.6401 Fax: 604.467.6478 arms@alouetteriver.org www.alouetteriver.org . ~4GE!v.fENTSoct~i'.'I-Febma1y 22, 2021 Dear Mayor and Council City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, BC, V2X 6A9 At the Februaiy 2021 board meeting of the Alouette River Management Society, the board passed the following resolution and is formally asking mayor and council to add the discussion to a council workshop agenda to discuss the merits of our request. Our hope is that council reflects on the application of the density bonus scheme and agrees that fmiher application of it within zones not intended for higher or urban density standards, such as RS-2, RG-2, RS-3, and RG-3, is not in alignment with the intent of the principles of Chapter 3 of the Official Community Plan. Although we do not agree with the rationale council applied for allowing the density along the south side of the South Alouette River, we recognize that council weighed the gains for the city against the potential losses for wildlife habitat, the watershed and river itself. However, we believe that the circumstances, if repeated, will escalate speculation by other developers for the remaining waterfront propeiiies, which will cause further damage to the watershed. Therefore, on behalf of the board of directors of ARMS, I am requesting that you consider the following resolution on a future workshop agenda. If you require further information relating to this request, ARMS would be happy to make a presentation to council to supplement the discussion. Please consider the following: Resolution: That the board formally request Mayor and Council of Maple Ridge to amend Schedule ''A" of the Official CommunUy Plan and supporting council policies relating to the Density Bonus Framework and Community Amenity Contribution Program to exempt the application of each to RS-3 RG-3, RS-2, and RG-2 zones. Sincerely, Ken Stewart President, ARMS City of Maple Ridge Mayor and Council P: (604)465-8961 I F: (604)465-5949 19700 Salish Road, Pitt Meadows, BC, V3Y2G1 Re: Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw NO. 7537-2019; Zoning Bylaw Amending No. 7343-2017; 12555,12599, & 12516 240 1h Street; and 12511 214 Street Final Reading Dear Mayor and Council, Katzie First Nation ("Katzie") was informed on May 7, 2021, by a concerned resident of Maple Ridge, that the City of Maple Ridge (the "City") intends to consider final reading on of the Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw NO. 7537-2019; Zoning Bylaw Amending No. 7343-2017; 12555,12599, & 12516 2401h Street; and 12511 214 Street Final Reading (collectively the "Project"). Katzie has not been meaningfully engaged or consulted by the City on the Project that has significant potential to impact Katzie Aboriginal rights, including title. It is Katzie's understanding that the Project is proposing to transition 4 rural lots, into a 26-lot subdivision, and includes service upgrades that will enable future development within the unprotected flood plain of the Alouette River. The Alouette River lies in the heart of Katzie's unceded territory and provides the foundation for many Aboriginal rights, including title. Katzie's rights in this area continue to be severely impacted by the Alouette Dam, and Katzie, BC Hydro, the Provincial Ministry of Mines, Energy and Petroleum Resources, and the Provincial Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation are in a long-standing conversation about the mitigation of these impacts on Katzie rights, which conversations includes one possibility of removing the Alouette dam entirely. With these questions of sufficient accommodation pending, Maple Ridge would be rem is to predicate a development approval on the Alouette dam providing flood protection because the dam will pass far more water to allow for fish passage in the future, or it could be removed entirely. The Dam is not a flood control structure, and Katzie implores Maple Ridge to reconsider this ill-advised Project considering the uncertainty that the need for sufficient accommodation will create. By way of this letter, Katzie is also putting the City (and any developer who may be unfortunate enough to pursue this ill- advised Project) on notice that it will oppose any and all provincial or federal permits required for this Project, on the basis of unjustified infringements on Katzie Aboriginal rights, including title. While Katzie has not been consulted or engaged by the City, the City did confirm in November 2020 that the developer would need to obtain required federal and provincial approvals, prior to final reading. Katzie is currently engaged in these federal and provincial consultation processes, so to learn from an outsides source that the City is seeking to advance the Project without so much as informing Katzie, in advance of the senior government decisions that the City told Katzie would be in place before advancing the Project is very concerning i.e. it appears as though the City promised Katzie that we would be consulted before the Project was approved at the municipal level in order to 'get us out of the way' and have the Project approved at the municipal level before Provincial and Federal consultation and accommodation took place. KATZIE FIRST NATION ... Land of the Moss /;\1ca\j P: (604)465-8961 I F: (604)465-5949 19700 Salish Road, Pitt Meadows, BC, V3Y2G1 As the City knows, it is at the very least responsible for various procedural aspects of the Provincial and Federal government's duty to consult and accommodate Katzie. Failing to so much as inform Katzie of this final reading which is required for the Project is not only a failure to fulfill this procedural aspect of the consultation and accommodation process, but it is clearly bad faith engagement. By way of cc on this letter Katzie is putting the Provincial and Federal governments on notice of this failure of process by the City and building the record to prepare of a fulsome engagement on Provincial and Federal permits required for the Project. Katzie wishes to also inform the City of their unfilled duty to consult on Official Community Plan ("OCP") amendments in accordance withs 475 (2) of the Local Government Act. The proposed OCP amendments to designate conservation area that will be impacted by the Project, dedicate private land in the Alouette River Flood Plain to the City, and to provide density bonus to the Project based on this amenity will have serious impacts on Katzie's asserted Aboriginal rights, including title. This failure of the City to sufficiently consult Katzie on this OCP amendment (not only failure to sufficiently consult, but seemingly try and sneak the final reading past Katzie) is behavior which Katzie will implore the Provincial and Federal governments to consider during any subsequent consultation and accommodation process relating to permitting required for the Project. Katzie was first informed of the Project in 2020 through the Water Sustainability Act and Fisheries Act applications (the "Applications") to infill a section of Lattimer Creek and develop a channel along the south property line that is proposed to connect with the Alouette River. Katzie was receiving information on the Applications up until March 2021, and as such has only recently commenced our review. For the City's record, while the scope of review currently being considered under the Applications is for the infill and development of a new channel on the south end of the property, Katzie has met with the Federal and Provincial Crown, and informed them that the delegated authority to local governments to establish stream setbacks under the Riparian Area Protection Act through the Stream Side Protection Regulation, does not meet their obligation to consult with First Nations on matters related to fish and fish habitat. Given this, it is our intent to fully exercise our rights across the entire Project footprint, and not confine this to the limited scope within the Applications. Katzie has stewarded the Alouette River watershed since time immoral, and in more recent years has been engaged with BC hydro and the Provincial and Federal governments to have our Aboriginal rights, which were taken from us without consent, recognized and restored. The negative impacts on our Aboriginal rights, which would be further entrenched if this Project is undertaken as currently proposed, has resulted in the loss of our once abundant salmon runs. Our salmon are our family, and they are in a state of crisis and on the edge of extinction. As we commence our fulsome review of the Applications, we will be looking to ensure our inherent right to a healthy and vibrant fishery and fish ecosystem (which will involve significant changes in the flow of the Alouette River) on the Alouette River is restored and protected for our future generations. We ask that the City take immediate notice of its current serious failure to fulfill the procedural aspects of the Crown's duty to consult, as well as the consultation obligations under its enabling legislation. Perhaps more simply, we ask the City to uphold its commitment to Katzie and require government KATZIE FIRST NATION ... Land of the Moss l\/:;ay P: (604)465-8961 I F: (604)465-5949 19700 Salish Road, Pitt Meadows, BC, V3Y2G1 permitting on the Project prior to final reading of your OCP and Zoning Bylaw amendments in accordance withs 475(2) of the Local Government Act, and your commitment in November 2020 to Katzie, a commitment that is now seemingly being ignored. Given the City's multiple failures to meet its limited duty to consult, and failure to engage in early and ongoing engagement with Katzie during the OCP amendment process, the government permitting processes are now Katzie's only opportunity to ensure our Aboriginal rights, including title are not further infringed by the Project in the lower Alouette flood plain. When our rights in the Alouette are accommodated in accordance with Crown Honour, the scope and scale of any proposed development within the unprotected flood plain of the Alouette River may have to change significantly. If the City continues with this ill-advised disregard of its legal obligations to consult with Katzie, this bad-faith engagement will be brought to the attention of statutory decision makers during any required Provincial or Federal permitting processes. ~~ex:;}~ #/J4 tftMPmtJ Katzie First Nation Chief and Council Chief Grace George, Katzie First Nation Councilor Rick Bailey, Katzie First Nation Councilor David Kenworthy, Katzie First Nation Councilor Lisa Adams, Katzie First Nation CC: Rebecca Barrick, Biologist, Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Program, Fisheries and Oceans Canada Vance Mercer, Section Head Lower Mainland, Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Program, Fisheries and Oceans Canada Crystal Lloyd, Senior Biologist, Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Program, Fisheries and Oceans Canada Daniel Sneep, Senior Biologist, Fish and Fish Habitat Protection Program, Fisheries and Oceans Canada Michael Currie, Water Authorization Specialist, South Coast Natural Resource Region, Ministry of Forest Lands Natural Resources Operations and Rural Development Jeanne Roy, Senior Authorization Specialist, South Coast Natural Resource Region, Ministry of Forest Lands Natural Resources Operations and Rural Development Andrew Appleton, Riparian Areas Regulation Coordinator, Fish Habitat, Ministry of Forest Lands Natural Resources Operations and Rural Development Katherine Rowe, Director, Electricity Generation & Regulation Branch, Ministry of Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation Heinz Dyck, Chief Negotiator, Coast Area, Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation Chuck Goddard, Director of Planning, City of Maple Ridge Al Horsman, Chief Administrative Officer, City of Maple Ridge City of Maple Ridge PUBLIC HEARING Apri I 16, 2019 CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE REPORT OF PUBLIC HEARING April 16, 2019 The Report of the Public Hearing held in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia on April 16, 2019 at 7:00 p.m. PRESENT Appointed Staff Elected Officials Mayor M. Morden Councillor J. Dueck K. Swift, Acting Chief Administrative Officer F. Quinn, General Manager Public Works & Development Services ** Councillor K. Duncan Councillor C. Meadus *Councillor G. Robson Councillor R. Svendsen Councillor A. Yousef L. Benson, Director of Corporate Administration Other staff as required D. Pollock, Municipal Engineer C. Carter, Director of Planning D. Hall, Planner 2, Development and Environmental Services M. Baski, Planner 2, Development and Environmental Services M. Pym, Environmental Planner 1, Development and Environmental Services *Councillor Robson electronically participated in the meeting. **Councillor Duncan entered the meeting at 7:05 p.m. The Corporate Officer provided the procedure and rules of order of the Public Hearing and advised that the bylaws will be considered further at the next Council Meeting on April 23, 2019. The Mayor then called upon Planning Department staff to present the following items on the agenda: 1) 2017-124-RZ 12555, 12599, 12516 240 Street and 12511241 Street Lot "A" Except: Parcel "One" (Explanatory Plan 13720); Section 21 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9912 Parcel "One" (Explanatory Plan 13720) Lot "A" Section 21 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9912 Lot 2 of the North West Quarter of Section 22 Township 12 Group 1 New Westminster Plan LMP22485 Lot A Section 22 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan LMP9379 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7537-2019 • To amend Schedule "B" from areas designated Estate Suburban Residential to Conservation and Forest. • To amend Schedule "C" by adding areas designated to Conservation and to Forest. Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7343-2017 • To rezone from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential). The current application is to create a 26 lot subdivision with park dedication on a 8.19 hectare (20 acre) site. Report of Public Hearing April 16, 2019 Page 2 of 6 D. Hall, Planner 2, Development and Environmental Services, gave a PowerPoint presentation detailing the application and advising that representatives from Northwest Hydraulics were in attendance to make a presentation. Derrick Ray, Northwest Hydraulics, provided a PowerPoint presentation explaining the role of Northwest Hydraulics in relation to the application, addressing floodplain historical data and future flooding concerns. Councillor Duncan left the meeting at 7:21 p.m. and returned at 7:25 p.m. during the Mr. Ray's presentation. The Corporate officer advised that 27 letters mailed out relative to the application and noted that 36 responses were received with only one of those in favour. The Mayor called for speakers a first time. Cheryl Ashlie spoke as the President of ARMS (Alouette River Management Society) on behalfofthe board, notingthatthe board does not support the application noting concerns with the impact to the Alouette River, fish habitat and flooding. Liz Hancock, ARMS board member, spoke in opposition of the application noting concerns with the impact to the Alouette River, fish habitat and flooding. Ken Stewart, resident, gave a PowerPoint presentation on the flooding history of the area. He spoke in opposition of the application noting the flood history of the area. Gina Bishop, resident who lives on the property, advised that she did not receive the letter from the City relative to the application. She spoke in opposition of the application noting concerns with fish habitat, wild life in the area, public access to fishing and trails, and flooding. She asked that the three members of Council who received campaign contributions from the developer abstain from voting on the application. John Kelly, ARMS board member, spoke to the impact assessment review presentation he prepared for Council. He spoke in opposition of the application noting that the information presented by the developers was incomplete and insufficient. He also noted First Nations impacts. Warren Clare, previous owner of 12599 240th Street, spoke in favour of the application. He noted that public will still enjoy the river, the wildlife will be impacted but will adjust to the development. He also spoke to the proposed setbacks and tree retention/plan. Daniel King gave a PowerPoint presentation in relation to the potential impact of storm water runoff and Alouette River salmon runs and habitat. He spoke in opposition of the application. John Dale spoke in opposition to the application. He noted the number of unanswered questions, miscommunication from staff, environmental concerns, information in relation to developable property, conservation area, the RS2 designation, and the geotechnical report on file. Report of Public Hearing April 16, 2019 Page 3 of 6 Councillor Duncan left the meeting at 8:14 p.m. during Mr. Dale's speech and returned at 8:18 p.m. Yopon Madrona, resident, spoke in opposition of the application noting concerns with affecting the wildlife in the area, and overall in the City due to the large amount of development taking place. She also spoke to the three members of Council who received campaign contributions from the developer and compared that to what is happening in the United States and concurred that these members should abstain from voting on the item. Shiraz Mawani, resident, spoke in opposition of the application noting that the development threatens the ecosystem, reiterating ARMS documented concerns, and questioning the rationale for developing in a floodplain. He spoke to the Official Community Plan noting inconsistencies with this application. He asked for clarification relative to policy of council voting on an application after taking campaign donations from the developer of the application. Elizabeth Taylor, resident, echoed the previous speaker in relation to the Official Community Plan. She raised concerns with the disappearance of creeks in the Albion area due to development in that area. She also noted concerns relative to the campaign contributions received by the developer, effects on fish habitats and questioned the consultation with First Nations. Alexa Ross, former resident of the area, spoke in opposition of the application noting concerns relative to effects on the ecosystem, wildlife and the potential of attracting bears due to trash to the development. She spoke to the video's that she sent to Council noting the amount of wildlife documented on the property. She spoke to the history of tree management on the property, and noted concerns with public access to the river by fishermen and those who tube down the river. Jeff Te Boekhorst, resident and longtime fisherman on the Alouette River spoke in opposition of the application noting the reduction in returning salmon stocks, the protection of other river wildlife. He also expressed his concerns with the members of Council who took campaign contributions from the developer. Diane Stoesz, resident, vice-president of the Haney Horseman and member of the trails committee, spoke in opposition of the application noting concerns with trail retention and development, and the impact increased vehicle traffic in the area will have on those using the horse trail. Gavin Roache, resident, spoke in opposition to the application and building on the floodplain. He provided a PowerPoint presentation which addressed his concerns. Elizabeth Foreman, resident, noted her agreement that the members of council who received campaign contributions from the developer should abstain from voting on the application. She asked about First Nations consultation and raised concerns with wildlife impacts. She spoke in opposition of the development. Cheryl Zand bergen, resident, spoke to the values of the City of Maple Ridge and the survey results from a few years back where the environment was the number one priority of residents. She spoke against the development noting the environmental value of the land. Report of Public Hearing April 16, 2019 Page 4 of 6 Craig Speirs, resident, spoke in opposition of the application. He spoke to the value of water to fish habitat, and the environmental effect of flooding. He noted previous flooding events in the area and the effects of climate change could have on this land. He asked Council to take the time to study and refine the application before them. He spoke to the perceived conflict of interest and asked that those members of Council effected abstain from voting. Mayor Morden spoke to the subject of campaign contributions noting the legislated process by which members of Council fund their campaigns and how conflict of interest is to be considered. He asked that anyone with questions on the subject to contact Council for clarification. Rod Potter, resident, spoke in opposition of the application noting concerns in relation to increased sediment in the river due to development in the area. He spoke to the potential for sockeye salmon in the river, and the need for safe, clean water for all fish species and users of the Alouette River. Tim Bishop, resident, spoke in opposition to the application and read aloud an email that he sent to Council. Doug Stanger, Director of ARMS and resident, spoke in opposition of the application noting concerns with the effect on the South Alouette Watershed, historical flooding of the area and the potential for future flooding. He asked that Council protect the watershed as previous Councils have. Patrick Ironside, resident, spoke in opposition of the application and agreed with the previous comments in relation to the members of Council who received campaign contributions from the developer. Wayne Lions, resident, spoke in opposition of the application noting his agreement and support of the other speakers and presenters. Art Halfnights, resident, spoke in opposition of the application noting his history in the City and personal experiences with the previous floods in 1955 and 1995. He expressed concern with the development process and park space. Mayor called again for first call. Julia Pottinger, resident, spoke in opposition of the application noting concerns with environmental protection and preservation, increased runoff from developments, decrease in water quality and salmon stock, and the increase in silt from developments such as Silver Valley. Carol Botting, resident, spoke in opposition of the application noting her personal loss resulting from the 1995 flood. She spoke to the precedent of building in a riparian area and the impact this will have on future subdivision applications. Mayor called for again for first call and then for second call. Councillor Yousef left the meeting at 9:12 p.m. and returned at 9:17 p.m. during Cheryl Ashlie's speech. Report of Public Hearing April 16, 2019 Page 5 of 6 Cheryl Ashlie, spoke as the President of ARMS regarding a thesis about the issue of challenges staff face in flood response and mitigation response in the face of competing interests. She referred to the link of the document in the correspondence she submitted to the Corporate Officer and read aloud some excerpts from the document. Ken Stewart, resident, continued his presentation to Council in relation to the 1995 flood. John Kelly, resident, continued his presentation and compared the risk of this development to the recent development and evacuation in Sechelt. Daniel King, resident, continued his presentation regarding toxic effects of storm water on the Alouette River and salmon habitat. Mayor called again for second call and then for third call. Ken Stewart, resident, questioned the geotechnical report on the application and the proposed fill for the development and fill regulations. He stated that the sewer system in the area resulted from the failure of the corrections facility septic system, rather than to support future development. He questioned the math in relation to the park property and density bonus process. Gavin Roache, research, followed up on some points from his presentation and quoted some material from the Emergency Program Act as it relates to claims for compensation pertaining to flood plain development. The Mayor called again for third call. Don Bowins, DK Bowins and Associates, applicant on behalf of the developer, spoke to the questions and concerns raised by residents. He provided a brief history of the development and advised that three developer information meetings had taken place and the information from those meetings is posted on City website. He spoke to slope stability and the flood plain assessment by Valley Geotechnical approving the development. He spoke to silt and fill in the river. He advised that the storm water management plan does address toxins and filtration systems. He spoke to concerns raised in relation to the trail network and advised he would work with Haney Horsemen and staff to include trails in the project. The Mayor called for third and final call for speakers. Derek Ray, Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Ltd., clarified four points raised in relation to climate change considered in report; issue of incomplete survey of secondary channels; gage location; and, the inability to model debris in the river which lead to suggesting that city staff retain the 1991 flood plain map. Gina Bishop, resident, clarified her previous comments in relation to the three members of Council who received campaign contribution from the McBrides. She noted that the basis of her comment was not to suggest anything illegal, but that she was speaking from an ethical and moral standpoint. Report of Public Hearing April 16, 2019 Page 6 of 6 Cheryl Ashlie, spoke as the President of ARMS to changes in climate change legislation, clarification of comments made by the consultants, and questioned the risk to potential residents of building in the flood plain. She spoke to density bonus and its intention when it was first established. She spoke again to the proposed contribution from the developer. John Dale, resident, continued his presentation in opposition to the application. Gary Letts, Letts Environmental, spoke to provide clarity in relation to comments made regarding fish habitat, and questions raised relative to the environmental assessment impact, slope fill and original soil. He advised that the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) approved the original riparian and aquatic habitat application, and that a revised application is currently with DFO as a result of proposed staff initiative to build a bridge which will result in the removal of the of the 240th channel. Speaker addressed geo technical report, drainage ditch proposed, 1-meter high crawl space proposed. Note: Councillor Duncan left the meeting at 10:04 pm The Mayor called for final speakers. Shiraz Mawani mentioned a Joni Mitchell song he remembered about paving parking lot and said he hopes a similar situation won't happen in Maple Ridge, on our pristine heritage river. Having given all those persons whose interests were deemed affected by the matters contained herein a chance to be heard, the Mayor adjourned the Public Hearing at 10:05 p.m. M. Morden, Mayor Certified Correct L. Benson, Corporate Officer CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA April 16, 2019 '7:00pm Council Chambers, 1st Floor, City Hall The purpose of the Public Hearing is to allow all persons who deem themselves affected by any of these bylaws a reasonable opportunity to be heard before Council on the matters contained in the bylaws. Persons wishing to speak for or against a bylaw will be given opportunities. You will be asked to give your name and address. Please note that all written submissions provided in response to this consultation including names and addresses will become part of the public record which includes the submissions being made available for public inspection. Further consideration of bylaws on this agenda will be at the next regular Council meeting. The meeting is recorded by the City of Maple Ridge. 1) 2017-124-RZ 12555, 12599, 12516 240 Street and 12511241 Street Lot "A" Except: Parcel "One" (Explanatory Plan 13720); Section 21 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9912 Parcel "One" (Explanatory Plan 13720) Lot "A" Section 21 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9912 Lot 2 of the North West Quarter of Section 22 Township 12 Group 1 New Westminster Plan LMP22485 Lot A Section 22 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan LMP9379 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7537-2019 • To amend Schedule "B" from areas designated Estate Suburban Residential to Conservation and Forest. • To amend Schedule "C" by adding areas designated to Conservation and to Forest. Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7343-2017 • To rezone from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential). The current application is to create a 26 lot subdivision with park dedication on a 8.19 hectare (20 acre) site. ~-~=== CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TAKE NOTICE THAT a Public Hearing will be held in the Council Chamber of the City Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, North-East corner entrance, at 7:00 pm., Tuesday, April 16, 2019, to consider the following bylaws: 1) 2017-124-RZ 12555, 12599, 12516 240 Street and 12511241 Street Lot "A" Except: Parcel "One" (Explanatory Plan 13720); Section 21 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9912 Parcel "One" (Explanatory Plan 13720) Lot "A" Section 21 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9912 Lot 2 of the North West Quarter of Section 22 Township 12 Group 1 New Westminster Plan LMP22485 Lot A Section 22 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan LMP9379 Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7537-2019 • To amend Schedule "B" from areas designated Estate Suburban Residential to ~ Conservation andl:2223 Forest. (as shown on Map No. 999) • To amend Schedule "C" by adding areas designated to ~ Conservation and to ~ Forest. (as shown on Map No. 1000) Map No. 999 Map No.1000 = :~..=.:. -------. --r Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7343-2017 • To rezone from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential). The current application is to create a 26 lot subdivision with park dedication on a 8.19 hectare (20 acre) site. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE that a copy of the aforesaid bylaws and copies of staff reports and other information considered by Council relevant to the matters contained in the bylaws will also be available for public inspection at the Planning Department Counter of City Hall, between 8:00 am and 4:00 pm from April 3, 2019 to April 16, 2019, weekends and Statutory Holidays excepted. The Public Hearing Agenda with full reports can be viewed on the City website at www.mapleridge.ca/640 . --ALL PERSONS who deem themselves affected by any of these bylaws shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard at the Public Hearing before Council on the matters contained in the bylaws or by making a written submission to the attention of the Corporate Officer or by sending an email to the Clerk's Department at clerks@mapleridge.ca, by 4:00 pm, April 16, 2019. Please note that all written submissions provided in response to this consultation will become part of the public record which includes the submissions being made available for public inspection. Dated this 3rd day of April, 2019. Laura Benson, CPA, CMA Corporate Officer i i '· ' I I I I f DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION CHECKLIST FOR FILE 2017-124-RZ File Manager: Diane Hall Official Community Plan or Zoning Bylaw Amendments: RECEIVED 1. A completed Application Form (Schedule "A" -Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999) 2. An application fee, payable to the City of Maple Ridge, in accordance with Development Application Fee Bylaw no. 5949-2001. 3. A Certificate of Title and Consent Form if the applicant is different from the owner shown on the Certificate of Title. 4. A legal survey of the property(ies) D 5. Subdivision plan layout [ZJ 6. Neighbourhood context plan D 7. Lot grading plan ~ 8. Landscape plan*+ D 9. Preliminary architectural plans including site plan, D building elevations, accessory off-street parking and general bylaw compliance reconciliation•+. * These items may not be required for single-family residential applications NOT REQUIRED D D D [ZJ D [ZJ D [ZJ [ZJ + These items may be required for two-family residential applications, as outlined in Council Policy No. 6.01 Additional reports provided: 1) Floodplain Study 2) Geotechnical Report 3) Environmental Assessment Report 1. [~~ MAPLE RIDGE Brlllsh Columbia mapleridge.ca City of Maple Ridge TO: FROM: SUBJECT: His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council Chief Administrative Officer First and Second Reading MEETING DATE: FILE NO: MEETING: Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7537-2019; Second Reading Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7343-2017; March 19, 2019 2017-124-RZ cow 12555, 12599, & 12516 240th Street, and 12511241 Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: This proposal is to rezone the subject properties from RS-3 One Family Rural Residential to RS-2 One Family Suburban Residential to create a 26 lot bare land subdivision with park dedication on a site area of 8.19 hectares (20 acres). Through density bonus provisions and a text amendment to the RS-2 Zone, this application proposes greater residential density than permitted under RS-2 Zoning. The highest density in the RS-2 Suburban Residential Zone is 2.5 lots per hectare, or 0.4 hectares per lot (1 acre lots). The proposed density with this application is 3.88 lots per hectare in a combination of individual lots and common properties. An amendment to the Official Community Plan will be required to the Conservation designation for riparian habitat and to Forest for additional dedicated lands. The subject properties are within the Fraser Sewer Area of the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District. For this reason, both sewer and water connections are available, making it possible to create parcels with smaller lot sizes. The typical lot size in the Estate Suburban designation is 0.4 hectares or 1 acre. For this application, the justification for reduced parcel sizes is due to the voluntary dedication of developable area for park purposes. After first reading was granted, an environmental assessment of the qualitative value of these areas proposed for dedication has been prepared by a qualified professional. The issue of increased densities on qualifying properties in the Estate Suburban designation1 has been discussed by Council for some time. On September 5, 2017, a report was presented to Council identifying feasible subdivision potential and the impacts to build out. The report also noted that the recently adopted Tree Bylaw provided tree protection measures that could outweigh advantages associated with density bonus measures for this purpose. In response to this report, Council voted in favour of leaving the Estate and Suburban Residential designations and their policy base unchanged. Pursuant to Council policy, this application is subject to the Community Amenity Contribution Program at a rate of $5,100.00 per single family lot, for an estimated amount of $132,600.00. 1 Council has the jurisdiction to increase residential densities on Estate Suburban properties that are designated Urban in the Regional Growth Strategy of Metro Vancouver. This regional designation roughly pertains to Estate Suburban properties west of the 244th Street alignment, south of the Silver Valley area. All other Estate Suburban parcels are designated rural and could only be subdivided with minimum parcel sizes of 0.4 hectares (1 acre), although some are currently legal non-conforming urban lots. Page 1 of 10 RECOMMENDATIONS: 1) That, in accordance with Section 475 of the Local Government Act, opportunity for early and on-going consultation has been provided by way of posting Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7537-2019 on the municipal website and requiring that the applicant host a Development Information Meeting (DIM), and Council considers it unnecessary to provide any further consultation opportunities, except by way of holding a Public Hearing on the bylaw; 2) That Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7537-2019 be considered in conjunction with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Waste Management Plan; 3) That it be confirmed that Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7537-2019 is consistent with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Wast~ Management Plan; 4) That Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7537-2019 be given first and second readings and be forwarded to Public Hearing; 5) That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7343-2017 be given second reading, and be forwarded to Public Hearing; 6) That the following terms and conditions be met prior to final reading: i) Registration of a Rezoning Servicing Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant and receipt of the deposit of a security, as outlined in the Agreement; ii) Park dedication as required; and removal of all debris and garbage from park land; iii) Road dedication as required; iv) Consolidation of the subject properties; v) Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for the Geotechnical Report, which addresses the suitability of the subject properties for the proposed development; vi) Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for the floodplain report, which addresses the suitability of the subject property(ies) for the proposed development; vii) Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for Tree Protection; viii) Registration of a Restrictive Covenant, and Stormwater Management; ix) Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for conservation purposes; x) Removal of existing buildings; xi) Notification to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Ministry of Environment for in-stream works on the site; xii) That a voluntary contribution, in the amount of $132,600.00 ($5100.00/lot) be provided in keeping with the Council Policy with regard to Community Amenity Contributions. Page 2 of 10 DISCUSSION: 1) Background Context: Applicant: Don Bowins Legal Description: OCP: Existing: Proposed: ESTRES (Estate Suburban Residential) Single~Family Residential OCP: Existing: Proposed: Zoning: Existing: Proposed: Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Zone: Designation: South: Use: Zone: Designation: East: Use: Zone: Designation: West: Use: Zone: Designation: Existing Use of Properties: Proposed Use of Property: Site Area: Access: Servicing requirement: Previous similar applications: Estate Suburban Residential Estate Suburban Residential RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) with density bonus provisions to reduce parcel size. Rural Residential RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Estate Suburban Residential Rural Residential RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Estate Suburban Residential Suburban Residential RS-2 Suburban Residential Estate Suburban Residential Vacant RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) Estate Suburban Residential Rural Residential Estate Suburban Residential 8.35 Ha (20.6 acres) 240 and 241 Street Urban Standard • Application 2014-054-RZ (23598 & 23627 Dogwood), which proposed to protect significant stands of trees with park dedication, was ultimately supported by Council, with refinements to the original proposal. • In addition to the above, concurrent Application 2017-184-RZ (23585 Dogwood) proposes the protection of significant trees with park dedication as an extension of the above noted Dogwood application. This application has advanced to second reading, and will be presented at the March 19 Public Hearing. Page 3 of 10 2) Project Description: The four subject properties are located to the south of the Silver Valley Horse Hamlet in the vicinity of 240 Street, Fern Crescent, and 124 Avenue. The South Alouette River bisects two of the properties, with the greater portion of the lands located south of the South Alouette River. A number of watercourses are located on or adjacent to the subject properties including Latimer Creek and two indefinite watercourses. As a result, the site offers pockets of potentially developable areas that are bounded by environmentally sensitive areas. Steep slopes define the site along its east and southern boundaries. Three of the four subject properties are currently accessed via 240 Street, constructed to a gravel road standard on the south side of the river. The fourth property is accessed from 241 Street. This project proposes a bareland strata of 1 fee simple remainder lot and 25 bareland strata lots with a net density of 3.88 units per net hectare. The first reading report noted that a developable portion of the site comprising 1.2 hectares (3.0 acres) north of the South Alouette River was to be dedicated as parkland. In order to realize this development, significant servicing upgrades are required to bring sewer and water to the site. Servicing requirements and the infrastructure required to provide them will be assessed by the Engineering Department as this application progresses. This development proposal is tied to other works in relation to its context and servicing considerations. These works include a Flood Impact Study conducted by Northwest Hydraulics Consultants, and a new bridge crossing along the 240th Street Corridor. Flood Impact Study: The first reading report noted that approximately 86% of the site was located within floodplain. Maple Ridge requirements for floodplain development are guided by Policy 9.10, titled Regulation of Earth Fill within Floodplains. Development applications within floodplains are required to provide a hydraulic assessment of the proposed work which addresses current site conditions, an impact assessment of proposed works, and a proposed mitigation plan. The engineering firm Northwest Hydraulics Consulting (NHC) was commissioned to conduct this work. The findings demonstrated that the placement of fill on the subject site for flood construction purposes would have very minimal impact. There was one structure that could be impacted within the study area. However, it was noted that the foundation of this affected residential structure was currently below existing flood construction levels. It should be noted that this assessment was based on anticipated flooding during a 1 in 200 year event, which has an estimated probability of 0.5% of occurring in any given year. Bridge Crossing on 240th Street. The first reading report noted that 240th unconstructed road right of way was earmarked in the Major Corridor Network Plan for future bridge connection to Silver Valley. Since first reading was granted on October 10, 2017, further exploration of a bridge crossing at this location has taken place, and has been determined to be feasible. The 240th corridor has been determined to be the best location for a bridge crossing over the Alouette River. As a result, this proposal will be integrated with the site preparations for the bridge. This work will involve the placement of fill to reduce the required span of the bridge. NHC has reviewed the impact of additional filling of the 240th corridor and have concluded that this will not result in a measurable change to the predicted flood profile of the Alouette River. Page 4 of 10 Additional environmental compensation is required with the bridge development, requiring a shift in the proposed conservation boundaries. As a result, a portion of the developable area of the site proposed as a bonus park will now be used for riparian enhancement and will then be designated as conservation. The integration of this site preparation in anticipation of a future bridge will provide significant cost savings to the municipality as it provides needed infrastructure improvements within the community. A habitat balance evaluation of these proposed site preparations has been provided by a qualified environmental professional. This evaluation concludes that there is a net gain of riparian area with the compensatory measures proposed by this application. 3) Planning Analysis: i) Official Community Plan: The Estate Suburban designation is characterized generally by lots of 0.4 hectare (1 acre) in size. Based on a net area of 6.8 hectares (17.2 acres), in a bareland strata format which combines both developable and protected areas (by a restrictive covenant), a maximum of up to 17 lots could be created under the RS-2 Suburban Residential Zone for this development site. However, these lots would be dispersed across the site and north of the Alouette River. In order to realize higher density than is permitted in the Official Community Plan this application proposes to utilize density bonus provisions. The subject properties are designated Estate Suburban Residential in the OCP, and Urban in the Metro Vancouver Regional Growth Strategy. The Estate Suburban Residential designation aligns with land that is serviceable by the regional sanitary service within the Fraser Sewer Area. Where these lands are within the Regional Urban Containment Boundary, development to urban densities are possible without triggering the requirement for an amendment to the Regional Growth Strategy. The following OCP policies guide the form and density supported in the Estate Suburban Residential land use designation: Policy 3-14 Urban-level residential densities will not be supported in areas designated Estate Suburban Residential Policy 3-15 Maple Ridge will support single detached and two-family residential housing in Estate Suburban Residential areas. The Estate Suburban Residential land use designation is characterized generally by 0.4 hectare lots. The intent of these policies was reaffirmed by Council on September 5, 2017. However, these properties are also designated Urban in the Regional Growth Strategy of Metro Vancouver, and as additional Regional approvals are not required, Council therefore has significant freedom in designating land uses and residential densities for these properties. Policy 2-9 of the Official Community Plan provides a density bonus mechanism to support higher density, as follows: Community Amenity Contributions and density bonuses may also be considered at Council's discretion for all Official Community Plan and Zoning Bylaw amending applications that are seeking a higher density than is envisioned in Schedule "A" and/or Schedule "B", to help provide a variety of amenities and facilities throughout the municipality. Page 5 of 10 In the Maple Ridge Official Community Plan, only properties within the Albion Area Plan are currently subject to a prescribed formula for density bonus provisions. As the subject property is not subject to such a specific formula, in either the Zoning Bylaw or Official Community Plan, Council must assess whether the amenities provided and the density proposed are appropriate, and supportable. Portions of the site in the riparian protection area are to be designated conservation in response to ground truthing and riparian compensation. The proposed remaining park will be designated as forest, in accordance with the following two key OCP policies: Policy 5-13 Maple Ridge will promote the retention of urban and mature trees and of natural forests and woodland areas, and ensure that additional trees and plant material are provided as part of all development proposals. To enhance the ecological integrity of the District, the use of native trees, plants and naturescape principles will a/so be encouraged. Policy 6-62 To protect ecological diversity and the integrity of forested lands, Maple Ridge will retain parts of the northern slope of Thornhill as Forest. Innovative development proposals that protect unique site characteristics, ecologically sensitive areas, or amenities on lands designated Forest and within private ownership, may be considered for a density bonus. The value of the density bonus will be at Council's discretion, in return for the development providing an identified community benefit. In particular, Policy 6-62 speaks to a density bonus framework as a mechanism for protecting unique site characteristics, such as forested lands, that provide an identified community benefit. The density bonus structure proposed for this development application, while site-specific presently, is consistent with the Dogwood applications. It is noted that the OCP supports using a density bonus framework in three specific development scenarios. The subject application is supportable for three important reasons. Firstly, the subject property is serviceable by sanitary sewer due to their location in the Fraser Sewer Area, and there is no Regional policy impediment that would require lot sizes to remain at 0.4 hectare (1 acre). Secondly, the proposed development will ensure long term protection of environmentally sensitive areas under public ownership in dedicated parkland in alignment with Policy 6-62 of the OCP. The habitat balance assessment provided by the applicant concludes a net gain of riparian habitat through proposed compensatory measures for this development and for the future bridge alignment. Thirdly, this proposal will integrate the site preparation for the future 240th Street Bridge, to provide needed community infrastructure with significant cost savings to the municipality. These site preparations will be included in the works required for the rezoning servicing agreement and will be a condition of final reading. The proposed density bonus structure used to accommodate reduced densities will not trigger an OCP amendment, because the Official Community Plan recognizes and supports additional density for density bonus purposes. The Zoning Bylaw text amendment will be established to create the density bonus framework, made on a site specific basis, based on an evaluation of community benefits of the dedicated lands. This application will be providing additional dedication for park and infrastructure improvements rather than a cash contribution. In the absence of prescribed density bonus provisions in the site area, this site specific approach provides similar opportunities to the Page 6 of 10 Albion Area Community Amenity Program, which has a prescribed fee schedule that applies to all developments utilizing the density bonus program in Albion. ii) Zoning Bylaw: The current application proposes to rezone the properties located at 12511 241 Street, 12555, 12599, and 12516 240 Street from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) to permit 25 bareland strata and 1 fee simple lot. The minimum lot size for the current RS-3 zone is 8000 m2, and the minimum lot size for the proposed RS-2 zone is 400om2. A site specific text amendment will be required to the RS-2 zone in order to permit a subdivision with higher density than permitted under zoning. Any variations from the requirements of the proposed zone will require a Development Variance Permit application. As this is a bareland strata development, a range of strata lots is proposed, with no individual strata lot being less than 1000 m2. In addition, there are common areas under conservation covenants that will be part of this development. The proposed lot dimensions that accompany this rezoning text amendment include a minimum lot width of 20 metres, and a minimum lot depth of 30 metres. These dimensions in the RS-2 Zone are respectively, 36 metres, and 60 metres. Any variances from the requirements of the RS-2 Zone will be required to obtain approvals prior to proceeding. iii) Off-Street Parking And Loading Bylaw: The Off-Street Parking And Loading Bylaw identifies a minimum of 2.0 parking spaces for a one family residential use. This can readily be accommodated on the proposed lots. iv) Development Permits: Pursuant to Section 8.9 of the OCP, a Watercourse Protection Development Permit application is required for all developments and building permits within 50 metres of the top of bank of all watercourses and wetlands. The purpose of the Watercourse Protection Development Permit is to ensure the preservation, protection, restoration and enhancement of watercourse and riparian areas. Pursuant to Section 8.10 of the OCP, a Natural Features Development Permit application is required for all development and subdivision activity or building permits for: • All areas designated Conservation on Schedule "B" or all areas within 50 metres of an area designated Conservation on Schedule "B", or on Figures 2, 3 and 4 in the Silver Valley Area Plan; • All lands with an average natural slope of greater than 15 percent; • All floodplain areas and forest lands identified on Schedule "C" to ensure the preservation, protection, restoration and enhancement of the natural environment and for development that is protected from hazardous conditions. Page 7 of 10 v) Development Information Meeting: A Development Information Meeting was held at Meadowridge School on January 29, 2019. A total of 20 people signed the signup sheet at the meeting. This had been the third public information meeting held by the applicant. This latest meeting was to provide updates with the proposal and how it would be integrated with the site preparations for the 240th Street Bridge Crossing. No comments were made by the public at this meeting. A previous meeting, held on May 15, 2018, was held at Meadowridge School, with 45 people signing in. A total of 10 comment sheets were provided, with 6 comments sheets noting concerns about impacts to fish habitat, loss of trees, flood impacts, and potentially incompatibility between the future bridge and residential development. There were 4 positive comment sheets, and one of these emphasized the potential for improved equestrian trail development with this proposal. For municipal purposes, the applicant has addressed concerns by securing qualified consultant services for riparian compensation, hydrological assessments, and by providing additional developable land for park development. vi) Parkland Requirement: For this project, there is sufficient land that is proposed to be dedicated as park on the subject properties and this land will be required to be dedicated as a condition of Final Reading. This parkland requirement will be met with a combined dedication of Forest and Conservation areas, totaling 5.1 hectares (12.6 acres). 4) Environmental Implications: The proposed new Alouette crossing has necessitated a revised application to the Ministry of Environment due to the required infilling within the 240th Street Right of Way. The new bridge involves a change in restoration works proposed with the first reading report. The current proposal is to utilize these areas and restoration and enhancement works as compensation. Clay fill deposited on the slope at the east end of the slope during the development of upslope Academy Park (about 30 years ago) may have resulted in these flows being cut off, impeding fish movement. The current proposal is to remove the deposited clay-based material to create a direct connection to the Alouette River at its east end. The proposed works will increase the area utilized by fish providing direct fish habitat all year round. Further, it will allow for the contribution of oxygenated, nutrient rich flow to downstream fish populations. A habitat balance report provided by the environmental consultant indicates a net gain of riparian habitat proposed with this development. 5) Interdepartmental Implications: i) Engineering Department: In addition to works required for the proposed bridge crossing, the Engineering Department has outlined the development considerations in support of this proposal. These include road construction, servicing the site with water and sewer, decommissioning any existing septic disposal systems, and street trees. This development may be eligible for latecomers fees. Page 8 of 10 ii) Parks & Leisure Services Department: The Parks and Leisure Services Department reviewed this proposal and expressed the following: • Retention of the equestrian trail along 240th is retained in the current road allowance and not disturbed. • Development of a formal trail connection along the Alouette river connecting to 241 St to the east, along with a reduction of the existing informal trails being used along the south bank of the Alouette river, in order to minimize compaction and disturbance of the shore area. These priorities will need to be addressed with the proposed bridge, and will be considered in the future as the project develops. iii) Building Department: The Building Department will require municipal standards to be applied to this strata development, with the inclusion of sidewalks, lighting, and street trees. iv) Fire Department: The Fire Department has established standards for emergency access, private fire hydrants, and residential addresses. 6) Intergovernmental Issues: i) Local Government Act: An amendment to the OCP requires the local government to consult with any affected parties and to adopt related bylaws in compliance with the procedures outlined in Section 477 of the Local Government Act. The amendment required for this application, to Conservation Boundaries, is considered to be minor in nature. It has been determined that no additional consultation beyond existing procedures is required, including referrals to the Board of the Regional District, the Council of an adjacent municipality, First Nations, the School District or agencies of the Federal and Provincial Governments. The amendment has been reviewed with the Financial Plan/Capital Plan and the Waste Management Plan of the Greater Vancouver Regional District and determined to have no impact. 7) Citizen/Customer Implications: The applicant has hosted 3 information meetings in support of this project. Additional opportunities for public input will be provided at the required public hearing, which will be scheduled should second reading be granted. Page 9 of 10 CONCLUSION: It is recommended that first and second reading be given to OCP Amending Bylaw No. 7538-2019, that second reading be given to Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7343-2017, and that application 2017-124-RZ be forwarded to Public Hearing. "Original signed by Diana Hall" Prepared by: Diana Hall, M.A, MCIP, RPP Planner2 "Original signed by Christine Carter" Reviewed 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 Kelly Swift" Concurrence: Kelly Swift, MBA Acting Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A -Subject Map Appendix B -Ortho Map Appendix C -OCP Amending Bylaw No. 7537-2019 Appendix D -Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7343-2017 Appendix E -Site Plan Page 10 of 10 e:;-_--r '"' \ ' N Scale: 1 :4,500 Legend -stream --Ditch Centreline -Edge ofRiver - -Indefinite Creek -River Centreline -Lake or Reservoir -River -Major Rivers & Lakes t=-.J,,;s:•u • -. --. --·-r __ -:..--, ____ tl-_l__L-i/-_L--,i---.t____J_ __ -u! I I \ \ ' \ 12516/12555/12599 240 ST 12511 241 ST ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT -----=-~-··--· mapleridge.ca FILE: 2017-124-RZ DATE:Mar31,2017 BY:LM I I I r = Scale: 1 :4,500 12516/12555/12599 240 St 12511 241 St ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ,--MAPLE RIDGE ----Bnl!sh Columbia FILE:2017-124-RZ DATE: Mar 14, 2019 mapleridge.ca BY: MC CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7537-2019 A Bylaw to amend the Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 WHEREAS Section 477 of the Local Government Act provides that the Council may revise the Official Community Plan; AND WHEREAS it is deemed expedient to amend Schedules "B" & "C" to the Official Community Plan; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge, enacts as follows: 1. This Bylaw may be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7537-2019 2. Schedule "B" is hereby amended for that parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: Lot 2 of the North West Quarter of Section 22 Township 12 Group 1 New Westminster Plan LMP22485; Lot "A" Except: Parcel "One" (Explanatory Plan 13720) Section 21 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9912; Parcel "One" (Explanatory Plan 13720) Lot A Section 21 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9912; Lot A Section 22 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan LMP9379; and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 999, a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby designated/amended as shown. 3. Schedule "C" is hereby amended for that parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: Lot 2 of the North West Quarter of Section 22 Township 12 Group 1 New Westminster Plan LMP22485; Lot "A" Except: Parcel "One" (Explanatory Plan 13720) Section 21 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9912; Parcel "One" (Explanatory Plan 13720) Lot A Section 21 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9912; Lot A Section 22 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan LMP9379; and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1000, a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby amended by adding Conservation and Forest. 4. Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 is hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the 19th day of March, 2019. READ a second time the 19th day of March, 2019. PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , 20 READ a third time the day of , 20 ADOPTED, the day of ,20 . PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER m30 16 \ \ p 93 P63316 A "\ ~, ' ,, LMP20739 17 P51027 10 11 P51027 P3017 12 P10558 P10713 1 P10713 28 128 AVE PARK Rem18 B 50115 L ., A ! n 19 A EPP19608 P43885 62 P 86522 P 86522 & 1 3 2 I I 0 12El AV. ;;__ ec,.~11J BC 48079 A B 28230 B 28231 '" , PP~ BC 46690 L'. 37336 11 1 2 mr ,-1· . ~ L LMP123 EP 79032 LMP 274' LMP "' MAPLE RIDGE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDING Bylaw No. Map No. From: To: MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia 7537-2019 999 Estate Suburban Residential c::J Conservation ~ Forest Urban Area Boundary ~ N SCALE 1:5,000 r ' ,_ ' ' 1_;-_ 1,-~ I. i·-,_ ,_-r: [ i 1-1 r t r r= r i m30 16 30 P 93 P83316 A P50307 P51027 10 11 P51027 P3017 12 RemA P10558 P10713 1 P10713 128AVE 32 PARK Rem18 BC 50115 EPP 19608 B 26230 26231 [ l ppim,6 BC 46690 ~ ""9Pf 37336 ~ 1 L 2 sr !f Ii it LMP123 EP 79032 LMP 2744 MAPLE RIDGE OFFICIAL COMMUNITY PLAN AMENDING Bylaw No. Map No. Purpose: MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia 7537-2019 1000 To Amend Schedule C As Shown __ 1 To Add To Conservation ~To Add To Forest Urban Area Boundary ~ N SCALE 1:5,000 CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7343-2017 A Bylaw to amend Map "A" forming part of Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended WHEREAS, it is deemed expedient to amend Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows: 1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7343-2017." 2. Those parcels or tracts of land and premises known and described as: Lot 2 of the North West Quarter of Section 22 Township 12 Group 1 New Westminster Plan LMP22485; Lot "A" Except: Parcel "One" (Explanatory Plan 13720) Section 21 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9912; Parcel "One" (Explanatory Plan 13720) Lot A Section 21 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9912; Lot A Section 22 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan LMP9379; and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1715 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is/are hereby rezoned to RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential). 3. Section 601 ONE FAMILY AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONES (R-1, R-2, R-3, RS-1, RS-1a, RS-1b, SRS, RS-1c, RS-id, RS-2, RS-3, RT-1, RE, CD-1-93) Subsection C. REGULATION FOR THE SIZE, SHAPE AND SITING OF BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES of Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 is amended by adding the following as item 19: "(19) DENSITY BONUS REGULATIONS (a) A Density Bonus is permitted on the parcels or tracts of land and premises known and described as: Lot 2 of the North West Quarter of Section 22 Township 12 Group 1 New Westminster Plan LMP22485; Lot "A" Except: Parcel "One" (Explanatory Plan 13720) Section 21 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9912; Parcel "One" (Explanatory Plan 13720) Lot A Section 21 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 9912; Lot A Section 22 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan LMP9379; Provided that in addition to park land dedication required by Local Government Act Section 510, the owner dedicates park land for the purpose of protection of environmentally sensitive lands and recreational purposes. (b) The base density is a minimum subdivision lot area of 4,000 m2, minimum subdivision lot width of 36 metres, and minimum subdivision lot depth of 60 metres. A Density Bonus is an option in the RS-2 zone as follows: (i) The owner must dedicate as park land at least 12,100 m2 in any subdivision containing one or more lots with an area of less than 4,000 m2, as a condition of subdivision approval by the Approving Officer, such area to be acceptable to the Approving Officer for the purpose of preserving mature trees on the parent parcel. (ii) The maximum density bonus is: A) Minimum lot area of 1,012 m2 B) Minimum lot width of 20 m C) Minimum lot depth of 30 m 4. Zoning requirements for the SRS (Special Urban Residential) zone shall apply and supersede the zoning requirements for the RS-2 zone for any subdivision approved pursuant to this item 19." 5. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 3510 -1985 as amended and Map "A" attached thereto are hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the 10th day of October, 2017. READ a second time the 19th day of March, 2019. PUBLIC HEARING held the READ a third time the ADOPTED, the day of PRESIDING MEMBER day of day of , 20 ,20 , 20 CORPORATE OFFICER l. " m30 16 p 93 P83316 A 17 ~.---F " i; (f) ., ~, ' '. UAP21711 C'() 3 ~ LI.IP207~0 1'\ \. P51027 10 11 12 P10713 1 P10713 29 31 128AVE 32 PARK Rern18 BC 50115 "PP135 LMP207~ ~,-+-_L------j ReroA P.50007 P3017 P10558 MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING Bylaw No. Map No. From: To: 1MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia 7343-2017 1715 RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) RS-2 (One Family Suburban Residential) Urban Area Boundary A BC '6600 BC 28230 e 2a231 ~'-=--"=c=::i,;,.--~I-· l-i ~j r LMP123 EP 70032 LMP 2744 "·'r."' 1 2 i 6 N SCALE 1 :5,000 --,-... = ----FUTURE B.LS. No Oelt ........ 1-w w 0:::: 1--U) IY WEST I SUBJECT SITES EAST 12555 240 STREET, REM A 12599 240 STREET, PCL 1 12516 240 STREET, LOT 2 12511 241 STREET, LOT A 1--------,---------tAPRROX. AREA 4.05HA APPROX AREA 2.35Ha APPROX. AREA 1.B5Ha BUILDING ENVELOPES MIN SIDE YARD MIN EXT SIDE YARD FRONT/REAR YARD D.K. BOWINS & ASSOCIATES INC. 1S5.5EMRVSTREET,l,USIOll,LC.V~S1Ail FAX: 6Q.l,0(..'3H,fAl>::t0'4'M-3311 EM,\K,: dbo,,ins@Q\lfM.U TOTAL SUE AREA 8.19 HA IAll.LE...1 GREENSPACE CALCULATION POU!i'BW.DOO J ffifIH WACf ARFJ& D.275 HA RPAAWI SE'JBAO(S IN PARX 1.4111 HA BONUS PARK NI.CA 1.205 HA BJ S BfSJRl(iIDf CQ'!fNNiI RID ITT SlMPJ E coy NO 2 Q5Q H6 &18 TOTAL CCHstRVAllON / GREEN SPACE M£>S 4.948 HA. tl0.411 OF TOTAL srn: ARrA ADOlllOOAL OH LOTS TREE CO'v{}/i\HTED QIEEN SPACE 0.17J HA TOTAL GREEN SPACE 5121 HA 02 52'5 Of IDTAI SIJE AREA IAllLE....2. --~--DENSl'f'I'. CALCULATION OEVEl.OPAa.£ >R£A BIMIS Pm< AAEA LOT'S INC fEI 5M'lE AHO ROM> «A l,21HA. ffl S HfSIBICIDf CO'rfHNil J:IC Eff !ll'PI f C9Y NU, 1 IZ HA, ~~;".:}:: TOTAL PEYEI OPABLE 6 70 HA Net Density (At 26 Lots/6.70HA) 3.88 Un/ Ha. ··-_ ri-i ·1~ -... -,;-~::::::::::::::::::::: rr--/ / -1..u / / / / ( / ,/ .!! .l; 5.2m Jg UISJ7SS .. ,.1~ 25 ~ AVENUE 1----------i Cl::'. I ,,,~ 1/1 3.0m 4.5m 7.5m LQLlJfil I--Cf) MIIN LOT SIZE 1200m2/1012m2 MIN LOT WIDlH 20.0m MIN LOT DEPlH 30.0m jJAN 18 2019 ~ ~ CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE DIClll~GOO'AIITMENT SUBDIVISION PLAN ""' F'EB2018 9fiT , or, 0,,.110.00 _, ...... 1o1N,11fWIJolD..l.B091S,l~1IJK.N_h ............. r~,-flt __ ol..,._.,. ---l [ ' ' ,. ,. r.'. ,. ,_ ' C. C-,. ,_ ,. '. ' ' ' I I : J-i f. i' I ! : ' f r= I f _ : -!-: !=' The following correspondence provided relating to the April 16, 2019 Public Hearing has been severed under Section 22(1) of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act Section 22(1) (Severed portions are shaded) Correspondence from April 16, 2019 Public Hearing Package C__~ev ~V\\ic 2 \ \ ~ -i Dou uS ~ ) '6( Good evening Mayor and Council, my name is Cheryl Ashlie and I have provided my address in advance to Ms. Benson. Firstly, I would like to thank you for standing for office to represent the citizens of Maple Ridge. I personally know this is not an easy role and at the outset I want you to know that I respect the fact that you have tough decisions to make during your term in office, ARMS hopes by providing you with relevant information tonight, turning down this application will not be one of them. I stand before you tonight as the president of Alouette River Management Society to further elaborate on the letter we sent to you on April 2nd of this year, presenting our reasons for being in opposition to this application. I will be speaking further on behalf of the collective views held by the board of directors, however, other members of the board will also be elaborating on contents within our letter, as they are far more informed than I am on the technical aspects of the application that we are in disagreement with. To highlight our main issues with this application, please let me re-cap our key points within our letter: • Alouette River is one of 2 lower mainland rivers that have Heritage Status through the BC Rivers Heritage program, which total 20 in BC. It shares the designation with the Fraser. • The river is known for its First Nations historical use and Katzie First Nation works hand in hand with ARMS on numerous projects for fish habitat restoration and general eco-system improvements throughout the watershed. • We believe it is not logical to apply density bonussing provisions to RS3 and RS2 zones in the flood plain, as these zones are the defacto conservation provisions within the Official Community Plan, which are intended to protect the river and limit the amount of people that will be impacted by a flood event. • RS3 and RS2 provides a low enough density to mitigate the negative impacts posed by buildings and humans to the environment and wildlife corridors that exist within the watershed. • The actual bridge design is unknown and placing a subdivision within such close proximity not only causes conflict between future home owners and the city, it impedes the ability to design the bridge to its greatest capacity, which will ultimately be needed as build out in the Silver Valley area continues. • Further, it was stated in the original report commissioned for the city in regards to the bridge location that bringing in fill and putting houses in the vicinity of the bridge was to be avoided. • The compensation lands that are being achieved on the north side of the river would already achieves a type of conservation, due to the limitations of the developable lands within the site and the RS2 proposed zoning. • Trail systems in the 30-metre setback are not in the best interest of the eco-system, as increasing human traffic in this area only lends to added pressure that human interaction puts on wildlife and the sensitive lands that surround the water-60% of species being lost throughout the world is caused due to human impact on their environment. We have enough land to build our homes and develop our trails systems, we do not need the waterfront in an already fragile environment. • Sound planning policies that are contained within the OCP that prescribes low density in and around the river, with greater density allowed moving away from the river will now be in jeopardy, as we strongly believe that this will be precedent setting if allowed to move forward and will open the flood gates-no pun intended. • Staff have commented that density bonussing is on a case by case basis and there will not be a precedent setting outcome from this application. Yet, the Dogwood development is continually held up as an example of how density bonussing has worked in an area that it was not intended for, which negates the argument that it is a case by case basis. • We have asked for clarification as to how the side channel for fish habitat as a compensation project can possibly be considered such when it is also referred to as the silt retention area for the southern slope-we are still wanting to understand this, as this does not appear to be logical from a fish habitat perspective-and staff have not been able to clarify this for us. • We have asked you to consider requesting a peer review for the studies that have been commissioned for this application, as we believe they are limited in scope. Staff have said that it is not justified, due to the veracity of the work and the experience of the consultant relating to floodplain modeling of the Alouette River, We questioned differing numbers the consultant has used for previous work for the area, but accept that more sophisticated modelling exists. However, my colleagues from ARMS will present further arguments for our belief a peer review is still required, if council insists on entertaining this further. Our hope, though, is that it is outrightly denied at third reading. I will return with Part 11 Part Two: Hi Again, Cheryl Ashlie-my address is on file. In my research I found a thesis, published in 2015 called: Conceptualizing Response Capacity and Flood Action in the City of Vancouver and District of Maple Ridge, British Columbia, Canada. The author's thesis is about this issue and it contains a compilation of perspectives shared by City engineering and planning staff with the researcher that reflects the challenges that staff face trying to address key issues, such as flood response and mitigation in the face of competing interests. I have included the link to it in my written submission from tonight. https:ljir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4700&context=etd However, I would like to point out some excerpts, as the researcher and participants words tell it all. Please keep in mind that whenever the word "participant" is used, it refers to a city staff member. In the District of Maple Ridge, with urban development continuing, land use planning and more socially-oriented responses are able to be included in flood management practices because the space is there to make these types of decisions. As one participant explained, they can implement the necessary infrastructure without having to remove existing infrastructure that is out-of-date or they can designate areas for different land uses in order to MINIMIZE vulnerable populations before they can become highly vulnerable based on where they live. This excerpt is speaking to the fact that due to the developable land that we have, our flood mitigation capacity is good, as we can avoid vulnerable areas. As one participant in the District of Maple stated: I do not think there are any areas that could flood where we would be going-REMEMBER, this was printed in 2015, before this application came forward. Yet here we are. What has changed? I think the following comments made by staff give an indication. The use of forecasting models and the history of flood events in the region have assisted discussions surrounding the need for action. For example, the District of Maple Ridge's focus has been on the annual freshet snowmelt further up the Fraser River and potential severe weather-related events. Historically, the area has not experienced a major flood event since 1948 {200-year event). As several participants explained, this has been used to fuel differences in opinion among decision-makers regarding the likelihood of a major flood event happening, the severity of that potential event and, thus, the need for action. The researcher goes on to cite: In the interviews conducted in the District of Maple Ridge, participants frequently attested to the public's involvement in institutional and organizational behaviour, arguing that, although the history and forecasting models show the region's vulnerability/exposure to flooding, the public's concern and advocacy for various issues is essential in determining the issue's priority within the organization or institution and, thus, their action. According to these participants, it is less about the risk of a flood occurring at higher positions within the organization or institution and more about meeting the demands of the public first. -several interviewed participants in the District of Maple Ridge noted a disconnect between departments and other organizations, as well as with higher management. This group emphasizes politics as being influential on response, suggesting that action at the municipal level is typically directed toward issues where an impact can be immediately seen as opposed to one that has not occurred recently like a flood; the results of that action cannot be seen until an event allows for an evaluation. This has resulted in greater attention to and investment in addressing issues where results can be seen in a short turnaround time, rather than for a perceived but only potential threat. Again, this is not to say that this group's behaviour in respect of floods does not involve action, rather politics and structure are critical in its approach. This research reflected the actual challenges faced by our own city staff having to respond to political priorities that easily overshadow invisible threats, such as a 1 in 200-year flood event, so I can understand how we got here. Council members, you will be well served throughout your term to rely on the opinions of the professionals, especially your staff, as there is no way any of you could hold the vast knowledge that formulates and informs the work that will come before you. Some of you are just getting to know city staff and I hope you grow to respect them as much as did over my time in office. They have the city's best interests at heart. However, I also know that they have political masters and must find ways to satisfy the demands of such within all of the competing interests. I know they have done an excellent job at looking at the benefits that will come to the district within this project, as I know they drive a hard bargain. They have done their job and they now know that this is a political decision. Part 111 For my final statements to you, I would like to (re-state-if someone else raises) the following concerning statements made in the flood report. Statement 1) The design flood does not consider the effects of future climate change. I have to say that this application has caused me to read more climate change, flood action and hydrology reports than I ever thought I would read in my life time. And although reading such does not make me a professional, it has informed me on the complexity of determining potential flood patterns in the face of climate change and that it is significant enough issue that the federal government is changing Canada's building codes to address the already increased flood patterns throughout Canada. And, insurance companies are already reporting that floods have surpassed fires as the number one issue facing municipalities and their citizens. It is reasonable for the consultant to include this disclaimer, because they truly cannot predict what climate change is actually going to bring, which means based on what we know today this is their best professional opinion. You can read all of the literature you want that decries climate change is not an issue, but there is enough evidence that suggests it is and to cause consultants to include disclaimers about it. Statement 2) Long-term channel adjustments and vegetation encroachment would result in the mobilisation of a large amount of sediment and debris during the 200-year design event, which cannot be represented in the numerical model. I am hoping that you have all asked for clarification on this, and I truly don't know if you have, but I would like to know, because I kind of think that a 200-year flood event is going to come with a few trees and other debris. Furthermore, there is uncertainty associated with the representation of the design event by the numerical model due to the lack of calibration data during large flood events. No clue what that means, but if you are putting houses in the flood plain, there should be no uncertainty and I hope that clarification can be provided. In closing, I feel partially responsible for this application being before us, because I was part of the council that initiated the pilot project in the Albion area that trialed density bonussing provisions in the RS1b and RS1d zones. The conversation of the day related to the high cost of development in that area, because active development parcels were spread out from each other and bringing in the services was cost prohibitive for developers. And since the area was already zoned for medium-higher densities, it made sense to provide some relief for developers who had to front the cost of the services, by allowing for some additional densities within the area. The use of density bonussing was never intended for the RS3 and RS2 zones. Afterall, when our Official Community Plan was passed, which Councillor Robson and Dueck were part of, the citizens correctly assigned low density zoning within the Alouette flood plain as both a protection to homeowners and the sensitive eco-system we continue to struggle to protect. I know staff would not have recommended that we include this area when the density bonussing conversation started. Yet, due to competing interests for the tax payers limited dollars and the demands that the public put on city staff and elected officials to provide amenities before we have the funds for them, here we are. A small amount of research should provide any of you with enough doubt that you would not entertain this application, regardless of the gains that are being espoused, as you would know in your heart that some time in the future the home owners of those proposed homes could be homeless. Sorry, I know you have heard enough of that word, but that is what flood plains do and that is why we stay out of them. You have to decide if you believe the public would agree that it is worth the risk of putting people in a flood plain with climate change looming, to gain the taxpayer some financial benefits for the bridge and conservation land. I think the arguments are pretty compelling on the side of not doing so. Catherine Schmidt From: Clerk's Dept Sent: To: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 3:59 PM Mayor Council and CAO Users List Cc: Subject: Christine Carter; Chuck Goddard; Diana Hall; Debbie Pope; Lisa Parslow 2017-124-RZ Submission from Gavin Roache Attachments: 2019-04-16 Correspondence from Gavin Roache. pdf Good Afternoon, please see atta.ched correspondence from Gavin Roache, with regard to 2017-124-RZ on tonight's Public Hearing Agenda. Thanks, Catherine Schmidt Legislative Clerk MAPLE RIDGE BRITlSH COLUMBIA City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-463-5221 Ext. 5278 Fax: 604-467-7329 Web Open Government Portal Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf your receipt of this message is in error and not meant to waive privilege in this message. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading the attachments. Unauthorized dissemination and use is prohibited. Correspondence with any government body, including City of Maple Ridge Council and staff, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Thank you. 1 Johanna MacDonell From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: SVNAG Tuesday, April 16, 2019 3:29 PM Johanna MacDonell Submission regarding 2017-124-RZ (240th Street) 2017-124-RZ submission.pdf Your email link to send written submissions is down so, he.re is the text of mine as a pdf. I'm submitting it as a way to make sure a copy gets filed in the record. Thanks Gavin Roache 1 I Re; 2017-124-RZ 12555, 12599, 12516 240 Street and 12511 241 Street First let me say that I'm opposed to this development. There are many reasons for this, some of which I'm sure will be covered by others here tonight I'd like to focus on one -Building on the floodplain I know we have done so in the past, but that in itself is not a good reason to continue to do it today. Remember we used to fill our houses with asbestos, dump oil down the drain and let the South Alouette run dry. We stopped all those because nowadays we know better. It should be the same with building in the floodplain. I see 4 key reasons why we should STOP building on the floodplain 1) Climate Change We know that the climate is changing rapidly. We know that the Feds are changing the building standards because the old ones no longer work. We know that Canada is heating up twice as fast as the rest of the world We know that the number of extreme weather events is increasing rapidly Until we get a better handle on how climate change is going to affect our floodplains, to me, it's foolish to continue doing what we have done before. The one thing we know for sure is that with climate change, the future will not be the same as the past. Lack of adequate mapping Trying to get information as to exactly where the 200 year floodplain is, turned out to be no simple thing. · There are lots of maps out there, some dating back nearly 30 years, and all of them showing differing flood plain levels. I I le: Ii?. ·,·. 1:· I I couldn't find any floodplain maps that take into account climate change and how it will affect things 10, 20 or more years into the futu,re. So, how could that be? According a 2015 study by Jonathan Raikes called Conceptualizing Response Capacity and Flood Action in the City of Vancouver and District of Maple Ridge the current Emergency Program Act incentivizes local governments to neglect flood plain mapping in order to be eligible for assistance if a disaster were to occur. In the event that flood plain maps are up-to-date and a flood occurs, the burden of the cost to rebuild or replace structures located in the designated flood plain falls comJJ.letely on the local authority without the n.ossibility_ for come_ensation or assistance." A more detailed copy is attached to my written submission He also points out that Maple Ridge is influenced by a number local rivers that in themselves have significant flood issues that are not well understood or documented. I'm sure the South Alouette is among them. So without adequate mapping, why build on the floodplain, when we don't even know where it will be? Liability I've mentioned already that if we build on a mapped floodplain, which this one is, the cost falls completely on the local authority without the possibility for compensation or assistance. In other words, if we are foolish enough to build on the floodplain that's on us, and us alone. By the proponents' own admission, this property is in the floodplain. They even recommend building all the houses on 1 metre crawlspaces to try and mitigate flooding. So, with this project clearly in the floodplain, and if Maple Ridge allows building there, The City, and thus the community bears all the risk. It's a risk we can do without. Precedents If council allows this to proceed, it will open the door to more development on the floodplain, it will open the door to more risk and liability for the community, and it will open the door to proceeding without adequate information in a time of great uncertainty. In many ways the decision council makes will have repercussions that will be with us for many years down the line. Again, why take the risk? I end with another quote from Raikes' "In interviews conducted in The District of Maple Ridge, participants frequently argued that, although the history and forecasting models show the region's vulnerability/exposure to flooding, the public's concern and advocacy is essential in determining the issue's priority within the organization and, thus, their action." Well, this evening is your public concern, this is your public advocacy, this should change our City's priorities It is my view that no more development should be allowed in the floodplain. It's simply not worth the risk. I urge rejection of this proposal. Thank You Gavin Roache 13034 236 Street Maple Ridge Re; 2017-124-RZ 12555, 12599, 12516 240 Street and 12511 241 Street I would like to provide some additional information regarding the effects of floodplain mapping on potential liability to the taxpayers of our city. I'm quoting from a 2015 research dissertation by Jonathan Raikes entitled Conceptualizing Response Capacity and Flood Action in the City of Vancouver and District of Maple Ridge where he says: "The Compensation and Disaster Financial Assistance Regulation of the Emergency Program Act is designed to outline the conditions for which municipalities and homeown'ers qualify for financial assistance in the event that a disaster occurs. Claims for compensation by municipalities can be made for structural repair, rebuilding or replacement; however, Section 30 raises issues pertaining to flood plain mapping and the ability to receive assistance. Section 30 states, If an area is designated under the [Local Government Act] as flood plain and a public facility is built or installed in that area after the area has been so designated, no assistance will be provided to repair, rebuild or replace the public facility if it is darnaged in a flood unless the structure was determined by the Minister of Environment, Lands and Parks or by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to have been properly flood protected. This provision acts as a deterrent for flood plain mapping. It incentivizes local governments to neglect flood plain mapping in their jurisdictions in order to be eligible for assistance if a disaster were to occur. In the event that flood plain maps are up-to-date and a flood occurs, the burden of the cost to repair, rebuild or replace damaged or destroyed structures located in the designated flood plain falls £2.!!!P.letelY, on the local authority without the possibility for compensation or assistance." To me the intention of the Act in question is clear. It's saying 'don't build in the floodplain at all, and if you're determined to do so, and it floods, you're on your own' This potential liability in itself should be reason enough to stop any future development on the floodplain1 the huge risks to the taxpayers in our city far outweigh any benefits proposals such as this provide. Thank You again Gavin Roache 1 3034 236 Street Maple Ridge 4/16/2019 ShawWebmail Shaw Webmail PUBLIC HEARING April 16, 2019: 2017-124-RZ 12555, 12599, 12516 240 Street and 12511 241 Street, 2017-124-RZ 12.555, 12599, 12516 240 Street and 12511 241 Street from : SHIRAZ MAWANI Tue, Apr 16, 2019 06:48 PM Subject: PUBLIC HEARING April 16, 2019: 2017-124-RZ 12555, 12599, 12516 240 Street and 12511 241 Street, 2017-124-RZ 12555, 12599, 12516 240 Street and 12511 241 Street To : clerks@mapleridge.ca Cc: mayorandcouncil@mapleridge.ca Thank you for this opportunity to speak regarding the above project. I have several concerns: -Though having individual merit, allowing this project threatens the ecosystem of the South Alouette River, one of only 2 Heritage Rivers in Metro Vancouver.How the ecosystem ls threatened has been detailed by the submission from ARMS, who have a long and intimate stewardship of the iocal rivers and whose wise counsel has been sought by Councils over the years. -Allowing such developments sets a dangerous precedent for similar applications causing incremental harm to the ecosystem. -The project undermines the Spirit of the Official Community Plan (OCP), and specifically Principle 23 which speaks to the importance of the protection of environmentally sensitive areas, including water. Chapter 5. Page 4 lists the issues:" Developments.often focus on site-specific issues and may not take larger ecosystem-based aspects into consideration, there is shortage of information regarding overall ecosystem health, including baseline information on individual components, and if not managed properly, increasing development may impact the District's ongoing initiatives with respect to natural features and environmentally sensitive areas." -Allowing development here instead of first in the urban core, violates Principle 28 which states: 11 Pursue a more contained and densified urban environment. Finish developing existing areas within an urban boundary before going to new areas and reserve new areas11• There is 50% still left in the urban boundary to density, before venturing out. -Critically and most importantly, over 80% of the area is in the flood plain. Athough the hydraulics study gives assurances against flooding, the enormous background historical information from ARMS contradicts this assertion. Most recently, due to global warming, we have witnessed unprecedented floods in BC and across Canada, with records for high temperatures, flooding,and wild fires being broken year after year. Why would we be allowing residences in the flood plain when no one can reasonably predict future events, given that Canada is warming at twice the average for the rest of the world? https://wm-so.glb.shawcable.net/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=295270&tz=America/Los_Angeles 1/2 4/16/2019 Shaw Webmail Sometimes, choices are hard to make, and decisions even harder. Such may be the case with this application. What should leaders do at such times? The community expects at such times for their leaders to uphold the Vision and the Principles they have helped lay down in the Official Community Plan and that if there is a potential for a threat to these Principles by a particular development, to NOT ALLOW such development. I would therefore urge council to not allow this application. Thank you. Sincerely, Shiraz Mawani~ 13320 232 Street,Maple Ridge BC, V4R 2R6 https://w.m-so.glb.shawcable.net/zimbra/h/printmessage?id=295270&tz=America/Los_Angeles 2/2 Catherine Schmidt From: Sent: To: Cc: Tracy Camire Friday, April 05, 2019 9:37 AM 'Wilf Meier' Clerk's Dept Subject: RE: The proposed development at 12555 240 Street, etc. Good morning Wilf, On behalf of Mayor and Council, thank you for your email. As per Council's Correspondence guidelines, this acknowledges receipt of your email. I have also forwarded a copy of your correspondence on to the Clerks department so that your email can be included in the Public Hearing file. Thank you for reaching out. Tracy Camire Executive Assistant MAPLE RIDGE BRITISH COLUMBIA From: Wilf Meier Sent: April 4, 2019 9:53 PM To: Mayor Council and CAO Users List <MayorCouncilAndCaol@mapleridge.ca> Subject: Re: The proposed development at 12555 240 Street, etc. 4 April, 2019 Dear Mayor and Council, Regarding the proposed development at 12555 240 Street, 12599 240 Street, 12516 240 Street, and 12511 241 Street, I feel this is not in the long term interest of our community and our citizens and would like you to consider denying the application. Surely there must be better options than developing land that is in a flood plain, is on a Heritage waterway and could negatively affect wildlife, especially with all the previous study and work that has gone before. I urge you to deny this proposal and consider alternative options. Yours truly, Wilf Meier 11590 203rd. STREET MAPLE RIDGE. BC V2X4T6 1 Catherine Schmidt From: Sent: To: Tracy Camire Monday, April 08, 2019 5:50 PM 'Terri Dumas' Cc: Christine Carter; Chuck Goddard; Clerk's Dept Subject: RE: 2017-124-RZ 12555, 12599, 12516 240 Street and 12511 241 Street Good evening Terri, On behalf of Mayor and Council, thank you for reaching out. Inquiries and feedback are greatly appreciated. As per our Corporate Communications Policy, this confirms receipt of your email. I have forwarded your email to Christine Carter, Director of Planning and Chuck Goddard, Manager of Development & Environmental Services for their review. I have also forwarded a copy of your correspondence on to Clerks Department to be included in the Public Hearing file. For future reference, to ensure that your correspondence is included in the Public Hearing file, please direct your emails to clerks@mapleridge.ca. Once again, thank you for reaching out. Best regards, Tracy Camire Executive Assistant MAPLE RiDGE BRITISH COLUMB(A -----Original Message-----From: Terri Dumas Sent: April 8, 2019 12:44 PM To: Mayor Council and CAO Users List <MayorCouncilAndCaol@mapleridge.ca> Cc: arms@alouetteriver.org Subject: Re: 2017-124-RZ 12555, 12599, 12516 240 Street and 12511 241 Street Dear Mayor and Council, I am opposed to this development, and any development which requires the deposition of fill on the floodplain. The arguments put forth by Alouette River Management Society need to be given full consideration as their only concern is the health of the river and its species. The developer obviously has other interests, and the potential is for irreparable harm to this heritage river. Additionally, as a long term resident of the floodplain, I am very aware of the effects of incremental elevation changes on river behaviour. Fill placed in one area can affect properties both upstream and downstream with potentially catastrophic results. Please don't put our homes at risk. T. Dumas 132 Ave, Maple Ridge 1 Catherine Schmidt From: Clerk's Dept Sent: To: Tuesday, April 09, 20191:46 PM Mayor Council and CAO Users List Cc: Subject: Attachments: Chuck Goddard; Christine Carter; Diana Hall; Debbie Pope; Patty Carlow FW: Letter in support of ARMs position on 240th development proposal 20190409_0RC letter to Maple Ridge City Council.pdf Good Afternoon, Please see below correspondence from Cheryl Ashlie, along with attached letter from Ms. Louise Pedersen, of Outdoor Recreation Council of B.C., with regard to Item 1-2017-124-RZ on the April 16, 2019 Public Hearing. Thank you, Catherine Schmidt Legislative Clerk MAPLE RIDGE BRITISH COLUMBIA City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-463-5221 Ext. 5278 Fax: 604-467-7329 Web Open Government Portal Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf your receipt of this message is in error and not meant to waive privilege in this message. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading the attachments. Unauthorized dissemination and use is prohibited. Correspondence with any government body, including City of Maple Ridge Council and staff, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Thank you. From: Cheryl Ashlie Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2019 12:11 PM To: Clerk's Dept <clerks@mapleridge.ca> Subject: FW: Letter in support of ARMs position on 240th development proposal Hi Laura, It was sent to Mayor and council also. Cheryl From: Louise Pedersen Sent: Tuesday, April 9, 2019 6:42 AM To: mayorandcouncil@mapleridge.ca Cc: Mark Angelo >; Cheryl Ashlie >; Louise Pedersen > Subject: Letter in support of ARMs position on 240th development proposal Dear Mayor and Council, 1 The 'Outdoor Recreation Council of British Columbia wishes to submit a letter in advance of the Council's public hearing on April 16 at Maple Ridge City Hall in regards to the rezoning proposals of four properties (12555, 12599, & 12516 240th Street, and 12511 241 Street) and in support of the Alouette River Management Society's concerns as raised in their letter dated April 2. Best regards, Louise Pedersen Executive Director I Outdoor Recreation Council of BC #1101-207 W. Hasting Street, Vancouver, BC V6B 1H7 T: 604-873-5546 (office) I I E: louisepedersen@orcbc.ca Sign up for OR C's e-newsletter for outdoor recreation related news, information about public comment periods, campaigns, and more. 2 ~· Outdoor Recreation ._1 Council of BC Mayor and Council City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, BC Canada V2X 6A9 Sent by email to mayorandcouncil@mapleridge.ca April 9, 2019 Dear Mayor and Council, I am writing in regard to the proposed development at 12555, 12599, & 12516 240th Street, and 12511 241 Street and wish to express the support of the Outdoor Recreation Council of British Columbia for the concerns put forward by the Alouette River Management Society in their letter, dated April 2, 2019. The Alouette River holds tremendous values for recreation, wildlife and flood control for the residents of Maple Ridge and beyond. In collaboration with multiple partners, volunteers from the Alouette River Management Society have worked tirelessly for many years to restore fish and wildlife habitat along the river and educate the public about river conservation. This river is one of only 20 across BC to be granted BC Heritage River status. There are a number of criteria categories that are considered in Heritage River designation and a key criterion for the Alouette was its significance in the cultural heritage of the area: As per the description by the province, "The Katzie First Nation have historically depended on the salmon of the river and have maintained spiritual, cultural and economic ties to the river. The valley was part of a travel corridor for First Nations people between the Lower Fraser River area and the Lillooet area." As well as the concern that we have for the impact that increased densities of this nature will have on the environment of the river, we also have concerns about the city trying to obtain infrastructure gains, or conservation gains for the City through densifying in the flood plain when densities for the City could be gained in more logical serviceable areas. It's also important to note that even though it is in the Regional Boundary, the application is outside the Urban Boundary for Maple Ridge. With increasing pressures such as land use changes, pollution, invasive species, climate change and urban growth (and with an increasing interest in outdoor recreation such as fishing, paddling birdwatching and hiking), it is more important than ever that we steward our river ecosystems carefully and intentional. Outdoor Recreation Council of BC I #1101-207 W. Hasting Street, Vancouver, BC V6B 1 H7 T: 604-873-5546 I E: outdoorrec@orcbc.ca I Registered charity: 11907 4409 RR0001 The Outdoor Recreation Council of British Columbia represents the interests of the outdoor recreation community (50 provincial and regional member groups -100,000 individuals) to government and industry, advocates and facilitates access to public lands and waters for outdoor recreation, and fosters responsible use of BC's outdoors through education. It is our vision that British Columbia becomes be a world leader in the conservation and enjoyment of outdoor places, and for all British Columbians to have access to diverse and abundant opportunities to enjoy outdoor recreation experiences. Thank you for reviewing our letter. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Louise Pedersen, Executive Director Signed for for: Mark Angelo, CM, OBC, DSc, MSc. Rivers Chair Outdoor Recreation Council of British Columbia Outdoor Recreation Council of BC I #1101-207 W. Hasting Street, Vancouver, BC V6B 1 H7 T: 604-873-55461 E: outdoorrec@orcbc.ca I Registered charity: 119074409 RR0001 Catherine Schmidt From: Clerk's Dept Sent: To: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 8:36 AM Mayor Council and CAO Users List Cc: Subject: Christine Carter; Chuck Goddard; Diana Hall; Debbie Pope; Patty Carlow FW: Letter for Public Hearing April 16 Attachments: ARMS Support Letter.docx Good Morning, Please see attached correspondence from Cindy Dale which relates to Item 1-2017-124-RZ on the April 16, 2019 Public Hearing. Thank you, Catherine Schmidt Legislative Clerk MAPLE RIDGE BRITISH COLUMBIA City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-463-5221 Ext. 5278 Fax: 604-467-7329 Web Open Government Portal Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf your receipt of this message is in error and not meant to waive privilege in this message. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading the attachments. Unauthorized dissemination and use is prohibited. Correspondence with any government body, including City of Maple Ridge Council and staff, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Thank you. From: Mike and Cindy Sent: Tuesday, April 09, 2019 2:27 PM To: Clerk's Dept <clerks@mapleridge.ca> Subject: Letter for Public Hearing April 16 Please include this letter for the Public Hearing on April 16. Thanks. Mike Mayer & Cindy Dale 1 April 8, 2019 Corporate Officer City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Re: 2017-124-RZ 12555, 12599, 12516 240 Street and 12511241 Street 13006 Edge Street Maple Ridge, BC V4R 2R2 From the outset I will state that I am vehemently opposed to this proposed development. I grew up in Maple Ridge on 20 acres on the South Alouette River where I rode my horse along the banks, walked with my dog and even went fishing with my Dad. Our house was located on 128 Avenue with nothing behind us but our land and the river; and although our property stretched to that river everyone was welcome to take a stroll, there were no barriers to access. To this day I still live in the same area on a small acreage nestled between the South Alouette River and the Nmih Alouette River. My property is home to bear, coyotes and even deer that roam the corridor and drink from the river alongside the salmon who return yearly. Not even a week ago I was standing in the South Alouette River on my horse enjoying the beautiful surroundings and the break from traffic noise. While reviewing this application I ask that you not only consider the environmental impacts which ARMS will refer to, but that you consider carefully the equestrian community, the dog lovers, fishermen, hikers, tubers and the teens looking for a healthy place to relax with their friends on a beautiful sunny day without the backdrop of an awful new development of homes on lots a quaiier the size of what they should be. I thought that we had an Official Community Plan for a reason. There are a multitude of areas ripe for development that would provide benefit to more than the 26 elitist owners whose homes would be a blight on the landscape and a threat to the ecosystem. Please take a long hard look at the impacts and make the right decision. Respectfully Yours. T;ind:y L :J5afe Cindy Dale Resident Catherine Schmidt From: Clerk's Dept Sent: To: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 2:59 PM Mayor Council and CAO Users List Cc: Subject: Christine Carter; Chuck Goddard; Debbie Pope; Patty Carlow; Diana Hall FW: Riverside Development at 240th Street Good Afternoon, Please see below correspondence received from Mr. Henri, relating to Item 1-2017-124-RZ on the April 16, 2019 Public Hearing. Thank you, Catherine Schmidt Legislative Clerk MAPLE RIDGE BR.ITISH COLUMBIA City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-463-5221 Ext. 5278 Fax: 604-467-7329 Web Open Government Portal Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf your receipt of this message is in error and not meant to waive privilege in this message. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading the attachments. Unauthorized dissemination and use is prohibited. Correspondence with any government body, including City of Maple Ridge Council and staff, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Thank you. From: DONALD HENRI Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 10:21 AM To: Clerk's Dept <clerks@mapleridge.ca> Subject: Fwd: Riverside Development at 240th Street Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: DONALD HENRI Date: April 8, 2019 at 12:24:27 PM PDT To: mmorden@mapleridge.ca Cc: jdueck@mapleridge.ca Subject: Riverside Development at 240th Street We are voicing our objections to the Riverside Development at 240th Street. In support of ARMS we want our Alouette River and it's ecosystem protected. We know a developer has an application in at City Hall to develop the land that would forever alter this delicate ecosystem. Please consider very seriously our numerous concerns that goes against the principals and designation in our official community plan (OCP). Thank you 1 Sincerely Don & Sally Henri Sent from my iPad 2 Catherine Schmidt From: Clerk's Dept Sent: To: Thursday, April 11, 2019 9:07 AM Mayor Council and CAO Users List Cc: Christine Carter; Chuck Goddard; Diana Hall; Debbie Pope; Patty Carlow Subject: FW: Public Hearing April 16, 2019 -Proposed development at 12555 240 Street, 12599 240 Street, 12516 240 Street, and 12511 241 Street, Maple Ridge, BC Good Morning, Please see below correspondence received from Ms. Clarke, relating to Item 1-2017-124-RZ on the April 16, 2019 Public Hearing. Thank you, Catherine Schmidt Legislative Clerk M;.\PLE RIDGE BRITISH COLUMBIA City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-463-5221 Ext. 5278 Fax: 604-467-7329 Web Open Government Portal Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf your receipt of this message is in error and not meant to waive privilege in this message. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading the attachments. Unauthorized dissemination and use is prohibited. Correspondence with any government body, including City of Maple Ridge Council and staff, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Thank you. From: Loralee Clarke Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 7:59 PM To: Clerk's Dept <clerks@mapleridge.ca> Cc: Mike Morden <mmorden@mapleridge.ca>; Judy Dueck <jdueck@mapleridge.ca>; Kiersten Duncan <kduncan@mapleridge.ca>; Chelsa Meadus <cmeadus@mapleridge.ca>; Gordy Robson <grobson@mapleridge.ca>; Ryan Svendsen <rsvendsen@mapleridge.ca>; Ahmed Yousef <ayousef@mapleridge.ca> Subject: Public Hearing April 16, 2019 -Proposed development at 12555 240 Street, 12599 240 Street, 12516 240 Street, and 12511 241 Street, Maple Ridge, BC Dear Mayor and Council, Regarding the proposed development at 12555 240 Street, 12599 240 Street, 12516 240 Street, and 12511 241 Street, please be advised that I do not support this application. I am hopeful that the questions and thoughts below will help support your decision to deny this application and to maintaining the existing zoning densities along the Alouette River. I would ask you to consider the following; • Please do not compare the Dogwood Development project to the 240th Development project as City Staff would have you do. The Dogwood subdivision is NOT the same as it is not in the floodplain and it is clearly not the 1 same topography, ecosystem or environment (not even close). You should be able to see that in your review of the proposed project vs. the Dogwood project. • Reliance on a single Engineer's report seems limited for a project of this scale with sensitive environmental land impact implications for all stakeholders and I would suggest that a second Engineer's opinion or at a minimum a Peer Review should be sought to validate or debunk the theory that building this subdivision on a floodplain is or is not acceptable long term governance for the river as a whole. The District Municipality of Sechelt likely wishes that they had done this with their Seawatch development project which has caused nothing but grief with huge financial and physical land impacts with damage to people's homes and lives. Why are City staff recommending this project which so clearly contradicts previous City initiated reports on bridge planning regards to the negative impact of adding landfill and density in this very environmentally sensitive area? The bridge is part of the OCP and understood it is necessary and the lower profile bridge is something I can support but with the intent that impacts to the surrounding lands are minimized and the addition of this larger scale subdivision does not meet the test. GI Why are City Staff recommending that this developer be permitted to build 25 homes in an area that in its very best case scenario might squeeze 10 to 12 homes but in actuality should only be permitted to build 3-4 homes. Please take the time to have staff to show you how the calculations were done, outlining the details transparently with the values assigned to the density bonusing lands and to the overall land use area. Have Mayor and Council seen the calculations and may the public see the same? We do not understand how this project warrants anywhere close to this in density bonusing for the park land being proposed. The optics of tying this project to the future construction of the 240th bridge are not good. If the City feels there is a benefit to having the Developer do some of the work to the benefit the City this partnership or deal should be outlined clearly and factually in advance that so we can review the same. The full details of this project as well as its connection with future bridge development do not appear to be fully transparent. GI What is the urgency to develop land located in floodplain? What are we missing on this topic and this specific development plan? Is Maple Ridge running out of viable developable land? This appears to be higher end housing which we have plenty of stock of already and which is not in high demand at this time. • Why would this Developer earn what seems to be support from City Staff to work outside of the OCP and Environmental standards? Is there a back story? Why not simply allow the developer to build what is permitted by current zoning on the land they own? Why would staff recommend that Maple Ridge open up precedence on protected lands along the Alouette River for this Developer? What will the outcome of this precedent change be going forward, will all river front properties be able to develop their land if they give a tree or two as "park"? • The Information Meeting process held by Developers appears to simply be held to tick a box required by the City Staff during the development process and is in my opinion not an effective or necessarily an accurate portrayal of the project being presented to the public. A past development information meeting re: a Fern Crescent development project which was presented to our community was not what was built and we discovered later that City Staff were not aware of what the developer promised attendees. We saw a huge disconnect between City Staff, the Developer and the project's final results leaving us misled and frustrated. The fact that many attendees did not write comments at the 2401h Project Information session does not indicate acceptance of the project as City Staff may be trying to suggest in their review to Council but more likely a reflection on our not feeling heard on important issues that matter such as this for the reasons above. 2 Please do not allow this precedent setting densification in these precious river floodplain lands as the negative impact "in the perfect storm" could be devastating for Maple Ridge as history has shown in the past. I live on and respect the Alouette River and all its majesty, the fierceness and joy it brings and feel that it should be left as a low density area and remain a natural treasure for Maple Ridge to be a proud steward of. In closing, I know that your role is a busy one and you are dealing with people from every side of every issue. I value your time taken to review this very important issue as the ramifications of making a bad decision without being fully apprised on what this project actually means for Maple Ridge and the Alouette River can never be reversed once made. Respectfully, Loralee Clarke 24110 Fern Crescent Maple Ridge, BC V4R 251 3 Catherine Schmidt From: Clerk's Dept Sent: To: Thursday, April 11, 2019 9: 11 AM Mayor Council and CAO Users List Cc: Subject: Christine Carter; Chuck Goddard; Diana Hall; Debbie Pope; Patty Carlow FW: 12555 240 St., 12599 240 St., 12516 240 St., 12511 241 St. Good Morning, Please see below correspondence received from Mr. Potter, relating to Item 1-2017-124-RZ on the upcoming April 16, 2019 Public Hearing. Thank you, Catherine Schmidt Legislative Clerk ~11APLE RIDGE BRITISH COLUMBIA City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-463-5221 Ext. 5278 Fax: 604-467-7329 Web Open Government Portal Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf your receipt of this message is in error and not meant to waive privilege in this message. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading the attachments. Unauthorized dissemination and use is prohibited. Correspondence with any government body, including City of Maple Ridge Council and staff, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Thank you. From: Ron Potter Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2019 9:12 PM To: Clerk's Dept <clerks@mapleridge.ca> Subject: 12555 240 St., 12599 240 St., 12516 240 St., 12511 241 St. Dear Mr. Mayor & Councillors: In regard to the proposed development at 12555 240 Street, 12599 240 Street, 12516 240 Street, and 12511 241 Street. My wife, Linda and I have lived on the Alouette River since 1974, a total of 45 years. I am well acquainted with this river as my parents had an old cottage 2 lots from where we now live, and that goes back to 1955. I have seen a lot of changes since then. This summer I will once again drag this 75 year old body down to my favourite swimming hole, right behind my house. There has been a lot of sediment etc. been put into the river since 1955 with the building that has been done not too far from the river over the last years. My wife and I both recall back in 1995 when Hydro neglected to let water out of the Dam in time, even with all the rain that happened in November of that year. All of a sudden they had to release water very quickly into the river and as a result a lot of people experienced damage to their homes and properties. We were very fortunate as we are fairly high up from the water's edge. 1 This new Development is right in the Flood Plain area of the river. There is no way that this should be allowed to proceed. No matter what precautions are taken, there will always be some sediment dumped into the river. And if the water should rise again as in 1995, there would be a lot of damage done in that area. There has been talk in the last little while that Hydro could possibly build fish ladders to bypass the dam to allow Sockeye Salmon to once again be part of this river system. It is long overdue and what a great accomplishment it would be in getting it done. The Alouette River is a Heritage River, and the cleaner it is, the better for people and the fish that call this river their home. Thank you for your time, Sincerely, Ron & Linda Potter 24188 Fern Crescent Maple Ridge, B.C. V4R 2Sl .2 Catherine Schmidt From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Clerk's Dept Friday, April 12, 2019 3:22 PM Mayor Council and CAO Users List Christine Carter; Chuck Goddard; Diana Hall; Patty Carlow; Debbie Pope FW: 12555, 12599 & 12516 240th St. and 12511 241stSt. Good Afternoon, please see correspondence below from Greg and Hilda Desjarlais, relating to Item 1 -2017-124-RZ on the April 16, 2019 Public Hearing. Thank you, Catherine Schmidt Legislative Clerk City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-463-5221 Ext. 5278 Fax: 604-467-7329 Web Open Government Portal Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf your receipt of this message is in error and not meant to waive privilege in this message. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading the attachments. Unauthorized dissemination and use is prohibited. Correspondence with any government body, including City of Maple Ridge Council and staff, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Thank you. -----Original Message-----From: Hilda Sent: Thursday, April 11, 2019 1:50 PM To: Clerk's Dept <clerks@mapleridge.ca>; Judy Dueck <jdueck@mapleridge.ca>; Kiersten Duncan <kduncan@mapleridge.ca>; Chelsa Meadus <cmeadus@mapleridge.ca>; Gordy Robson <grobson@mapleridge.ca>; Ryan Svendsen <rsvendsen@mapleridge.ca>; Ahmed Yousef <ayousef@mapleridge.ca>; Mike Morden <mmorden@mapleridge.ca> Subject: 12555, 12599 & 12516 240th St. and 12511 241st St. Dear Mayor and Council; Please be advised that we STRONGLY OPPOSE the application for rezoning of properties 12555, 12599 & 12516 240th St. and 12511 241st street. We totally support Alouette River Management Society and their position on this application. The South Alouette is a heritage river and should be treasured. We currently have no development surrounding the bridge crossings over the South Alouette at 216 st, 224 st and 232 st. Is developing this land going to set a precedent and allow land owners in these areas as well as other land along the river to develop in the future? City staffers in their reports consistently refer to the Dogwood St. development, this is apples and oranges! The land at Dogwood is considerably higher then the river's edge, there are no cliffs on the perimeter with runoff water filtering 1 thru it, elevating the land was not necessary to develop it, nor. is there a bridge being built in the near future right thru it. This land is a sensitive part of the river's ecosystem, once lost to development it can never be reclaimed! We are asking council to vote no to this application, be community minded and support the residents and not the developers. Thank you for your time, Sincerely, Greg and Hilda Desjarlais 24124 Fern Crescent, Maple Ridge Sent from my iPad 2 Catherine Schmidt From: Clerk's Dept Sent: To: Monday, April 15, 2019 8:35 AM Mayor Council and CAO Users List Cc: Subject: Christine Carter; Chuck Goddard; Diana Hall; Patty Carlow; Debbie Pope FW: Up in ARMS re: proposed development Good Morning, Please see below correspondence from Ms. Padden which relates to Item 1-2017-124-RZ on tomorrow's Public Hearing Agenda. Thank you, Catherine Schmidt Legislative Clerk City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-463-5221 Ext. 5278 Fax: 604-467-7329 Web Open Government Portal Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf your receipt of this message is in error and not meant to waive privilege in this message. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading the attachments. Unauthorized dissemination and use is prohibited. Correspondence with any government body, including City of Maple Ridge Council and staff, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Thank you. From: Cheryl Ashlie Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 9:08 PM To: Clerk's Dept <clerks@mapleridge.ca>; Laura Benson <lbenson@mapleridge.ca> Subject: FW: Up in ARMS re: proposed development Hi Laura, I was not sure if these go to you, if they are sentto mayor and council and wantto make sure any that we are made aware of are included for the public hearing feedback. Thank you! Cheryl From: Deborah Paddon Sent: Friday, April 12, 2019 3:28 PM To: mayorandcouncil@mapleridge.ca Cc: Greta Barick-Cunningham <arms@alouetteriver.org>; Cheryl Ashlie > Subject: Up in ARMS re: proposed development Dear Mayor and Council, 1 Regarding the proposed development at 12555 240 Street, 12599 240 Street, 12516 240 Street, and 12511 241 Street, please be advised that I support ARMS position and do not support this application. It is my hope that the very well-informed and persuasive facts 'and concerns presented in the letter sent to you from ARMS President, Che1yl Ashlie dated April 9/2019, will propel you to deny this application and initiate an examination of the existing densities in the Alouette River watershed and whether density bonus provisions should be allowed within it. Having lived, worked and appreciated the natural beauty and remarkable environment of the forests, lakes and rivers in Maple Ridge for just over thirty years, I have had the opportunity to watch this community grow. I have also witnessed the increasing development that has pushed into the forests and taken up big chunks of space in the wetlands. No longer do I see the wildlife in this amazing area like I did when I first started working in Maple Ridge as a teacher in 1989. In particular, I have noticed the most damage being done with development in and around our waterways, in particular the Alouette River watershed. Where are the painted turtles, frogs, salamanders and fish that once lived close by? Slapping up homes too close to the rivers and streams would be adding insult to the injury already caused by the increased number of cranberry and blueberry farms encroaching on these sensitive areas. I urge you to take notice of what is rare and beautiful in our community and prevent any further damage to what can be at least sustained, if it can't be revived. PLEASE do not support the above mentioned application for development! Respectfully and with grave concern, Deborah Paddon Retired teacher and administrator in Maple Ridge/Pitt Meadows 2 Catherine Schmidt From: Clerk's Dept Sent: To: Monday, April 15, 2019 8:41 AM Mayor Council and CAO Users List Cc: Subject: Christine Carter; Chuck Goddard; Diana Hall; Patty Carlow; Debbie Pope FW: 12555, 12599 & 12516 240th St. & 12511 241st St. Good Morning, Please see below correspondence from Jeannette and Akke Oosten which relates to 2017-124-RZ on tomorrow's Public Hearing Agenda. Thanks, Catherine Schmidt Legislative Clerk MAPLE RIDGE BRITISH COLUMBIA City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-463-5221 Ext. 5278 Fax: 604-467-7329 Web Open Government Portal Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf your receipt of this message is in error and not meant to waive privilege in this message. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading the attachments. Unauthorized dissemination and use is prohibited. Correspondence with any government body, including City of Maple Ridge Council and staff, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Thank you. From: Redd Oosten Sent: Sunday, April 14, 2019 3:21 PM To: Clerk's Dept <clerks@mapleridge.ca> Subject: 12555, 12599 & 12516 240th St. & 12511 241st St. Dear Mayor and Council: Please be advised that we STRONGLY OPPOSE the application for rezoning of properties 12555, 12599 & 12516 240th St and 12511 241 st Street. We totally support Alouette River Management Society and their position on this application. The South Alouette is a heritage river and should be treasured. In conjuction with this, the findings of Allison Hebert of Pacific Salmon Ecology Laboratory ofUBC that Alouette Lake is the one of two sites in the world where deep spawning of the sockeye and kokanee salmon occurs. Will this development interfere with the natural progression of salmon runs in this area? One must recognize the importance of our ecosystems to ensure the longevity of our most precious resources, established waterways and is inhabitants. As 50 year residents living on Fem Crescent we have seen the Alouette river flood in low lying areas including the land in question. A development of this size should not be allowed to proceed in this sensitive area. We are asking Council to vote NO to this application. 1 Thanks for your consideration Jeannette Oosten & Akke Oosten 24115 Fern Crescent Maple Ridge, BC V4R2S1 2 Catherine Schmidt From: Clerk's Dept Sent: To: Monday, April 15, 2019 8:45 AM Mayor Council and CAO Users List Cc: Subject: Christine Carter; Chuck Goddard; Diana Hall; Patty Carlow; Debbie Pope FW: 240th Street Development Good Morning, Please see below correspondence from Ms. Clay which related to 2017-124-RZ on tomorrow's Public Hearing Agenda. Thanks, Catherine Schmidt Legislative Clerk MAPLE RIDGE BRITISH COLUMBfA City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-463-5221 Ext. 5278 Fax: 604-467-7329 Web Open Government Portal Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf your receipt of this message is in error and not meant to waive privilege in this message. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading the attachments. Unauthorized dissemination and use is prohibited. Correspondence with any government body, including City of Maple Ridge Council and staff, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Thank you. From, · Sent: Saturday, April 13, 2Ul~ .:S:LL J-'IVI To: Mike Morden <mmorden@mapleridge.ca>; Judy Dueck <jdueck@mapleridge.ca>; Kiersten Duncan <kduncan@mapleridge.ca>; Chelsa Mead us <cmeadus@mapleridge.ca>; Gordy Robson <grobson@mapleridge.ca>; Ryan Svendsen <rsvendsen@mapleridge.ca>; ayousef@mapleriddge.ca; Clerk's Dept <clerks@mapleridge.ca> Subject: Re: 240th Street Development Please find attached my letter opposing this development. Dear Mayor and Council: I am writing to oppose the granting of the application for development of 12555 240th St., 12599 240th St. '12516 240th St. and 12511 240th St. Maple Ridge. I am a resident of Fem Crescent in the area referred to as Horse Hamlet. Our property of approximately one acre backs onto the South Alouette River. When this property was purchased by my family in the 1950's, the half acre adjacent to the river was solid sand -remnants of historical :flooding. In 1992 when I moved into this house I thought about adding an addition. A building pe1mit was declined by the city building permits department. The reason given -the land adjacent to the South Alouette is an alluvial fan and subject to :flooding, and building close to the river was no longer permitted. Ironically, my house is a considerable distance from the river. There is an elevation of approximately 6 feet between the lower level of our yard adjacent to the river and the upper level of the yard where our house stands. In 1995 following the :flooding in the area, the river rose to the level of our upper 1 yard, or approximately 6 feet. In addition, the water table rose and came up through the basement drain, flooding our basement and the basements of some of our neighbours. In the nearly 3 0 years that I have lived on this property I have witnessed the impact of even small changes in the environment on the fragile nature of this heritage river. From my perspective, those ofus who are fortunate enough to live by this river have a responsibility to care for it and protect it. Our efforts must be supported by our elected officials and this development proposal, declined. Sincerely, Donna Clay Sent from my iPad 2 Catherine Schmidt From: Clerk's Dept Sent: To: Monday, April 15, 2019 10:32 AM Mayor Council and CAO Users List Cc: Subject: Christine Carter; Chuck Goddard; Diana Hall; Debbie Pope; Patty Carlow FW: Development proposal at 240th and the Alouette River Good Morning, Please see below correspondence from Spring Forster which relates to 2017-124-RZ on tomorrow's Public Hearing Agenda. Thanks, Catherine Schmidt Legislative Clerk MAPLE RIDGE BRITISH COLUMBfA City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-463-5221 Ext. 5278 Fax: 604-467-7329 Web Open Government Portal Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are notthe intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf your receipt of this message is in error and not meant to waive privilege in this message. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading the attachments. Unauthorized dissemination and use is prohibited. Correspondence with any government body, including City of Maple Ridge Council and staff, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Thank you. From: Spring Forster Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 10:18 AM To: Clerk's Dept <clerks@mapleridge.ca> Subject: Fwd: Development proposal at 240th and the Alouette River To whom it may concern: I understand that there will be a public hearing next week to discuss this development proposal. I will not be able to attend so am submitting my thoughts on the matter to you directly. I am not in favour of this proposal for a number of reasons: 1) A bridge has been proposed for this location. Wouldn't it make more sense to build the bridge ( or at least plan it in great detail) before allowing private development in the same location? If you build the bridge later, you may have to design around the development instead of letting the developer design around existing infrastructure. 2) Additionally, any bridge that crosses this ecologically sensitive area should be constructed without fill. The potential ramifications are enormous. 3) Do we really need more density in that location? All our big parcels ofland are slowly being turned into townhouses. Building so many homes close to the river in a flood plain raises many ecological concerns. 1 Thanks for your time. Spring Forster resident of Maple Ridge since 2003 2 Catherine Schmidt From: Clerk's Dept Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 2:53 PM To: Subject: Christine Carter; Chuck Goddard; Diana Hall; Debbie Pope; Patty Carlow FW: 2017-124-RZ 12555, 12599, 12516 240 Street and 12511 241 Street Good Afternoon all, Please see correspondence from Raena Dumas which has already been forwarded to Mayor and Council and CAO's user group, which relates to 2017-124-RZ on tomorrow night's Public Hearing Agenda. Thank you, Catherine Schmidt Legislative Clerk MAPLE RIDGE BRITISH COLUMBIA City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-463-5221 Ext. 5278 Fax: 604-467-7329 Web Open Government Portal Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable Jaw. If you are not the intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf your receipt of this message is in error and not meant to waive privilege in this message. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading the attachments. Unauthorized dissemination and use is prohibited. Correspondence with any government body, including City of Maple Ridge Council and staff, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Thank you. From: Tracy Camire <tcamire@mapleridge.ca> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 11:35 AM To: Clerk's Dept <clerks@mapleridge.ca> Subject: FW: 2017-124-RZ 12555, 12599, 12516 240 Street and 12511 241 Street FYI. .. From: Tracy Camire Sent: April 15, 2019 11:35 AM To: 'Raena Dumas' Subject: RE: 2017-124-RZ 12555, 12599, 12516 240 Street and 12511 241 Street Good morning, On behalf of Mayor and Council, thank you for your email. Comments and inquiries are greatly appreciated. As per the City's Council Correspondence Guidelines, this acknowledges that your email and I can confirm that I have forwarded a copy of your correspondence on to the Clerk's Department to ensure that it is added to the Public Hearing file. Thank you once again for sending in your feedback on this proposed development. Best regards, 1 Tracy Camire Executive Assistant MAPLE RIDGE BRITISH COLUMBIA -----Original Message-----From: Raena Dumas Sent: April 15, 2019 10:47 AM To: Mayor Council and CAO Users List <MayorCouncilAndCaol@mapleridge.ca> Subject: Re: 2017-124-RZ 12555, 12599, 12516 240 Street and 12511241 Street Mayor and council; I am writing to express my concern regarding the proposed development on the South Alouette River. This type of development sets a dangerous precedent for land on our rivers which need to be protected for the benefit of the whole community, not just developers. I plan to attend the public hearing to voice my concern. Maple Ridge's rivers should be cherished and protected-it's part of what makes our city incredibly unique. Please oppose this development. Raena Dumas 2 Catherine Schmidt From: Clerk's Dept Sent: To: Monday, April 15, 2019 3:28 PM Mayor Council and CAO Users List Cc: Subject: Christine Carter; Chuck Goddard; Diana Hall; Debbie Pope; Patty Carlow FW: Letter re File 2017-124-RZ 240th Street development Attachments: Letter Re File 2017 124 RZ 240th Street development. pdf Good Afternoon, Please see below correspondence from Mr. Dale which relates to 2017-124-RZ on tomorrow night's Public Hearing Agenda. Thank you, Catherine Schmidt Legislative Clerk MAPLE RIDGE BRITISH COLUMBIA City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-463-5221 Ext. 5278 Fax: 604-467-7329 Web Open Government Portal Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf your receipt of this message is in error and not meant to waive privilege in this message. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading the attachments. Unauthorized dissemination and use is prohibited. Correspondence with any government body, including City of Maple Ridge Council and staff, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Thank you. From: John Dale Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 11:47 AM To: Mike Morden <mmorden@mapleridge.ca>; Gordy Robson <grobson@mapleridge.ca>; judy@judydueck.ca; Kiersten Duncan <kduncan@mapleridge.ca>; Chelsa Meadus <cmeadus@mapleridge.ca>; Ryan Svendsen <rsvendsen@mapleridge.ca>; Ahmed Yousef <ayousef@mapleridge.ca> Cc: Clerk's Dept <clerks@mapleridge.ca> Subject: Letter re File 2017-124-RZ 240th Street development Hello Mayor and Councillors, Hopefully you all have the time to read all the staff reports and letters coming in with regard to this development. Will see you Tuesday night. Clerks Department please acknowledge receipt of this letter. Thank you, John Dale 24110 Fern Crescent Maple Ridge 1 2 Hello Mayor and Councillors, My name is John Dale and my address is 24110 Fern Crescent. Regarding: File 2017-124-RZ 240th Street development 12555, 12599 & 12516 240th Street and 12511 240th Street. This is in my backyard but it's really all of our backyards. The South Alouette River is enjoyed by many residents! So yes you can call me a nimby. I have lived in Maple Ridge for the most part of the past 50 years and have been a successful Realtor since 1997 so I have a fairly good knowledge of the area. I have hiked, fished, canoed, tubed and even water skied the South Alouette River. There are not many feet of the river I have not explored from Alco Park to the Pitt River and I am now starting to explore above Alco Park to the dam at Alouette Lake. I know the river well. In 1993 when the Alouette River Management Society was formed I was fishing the river quite often in those days and BC Hydro had reduced the river flow to a trickle. I rejoined the organization when we moved onto the river 9 years ago and became a director last year. I had no idea there was so much work involved trying to keep a healthy river ecosystem and environment for aquatic life. This organization has done a lot of good work over the past 25 years and I am proud to work with them and try to further the stewardship of the watershed. When my wife Loralee and I bought our property 9 years ago just upstream and across from where this development is proposed I did my due diligence before we placed our deposit and moved forward with the purchase. As the home had not been updated since the 1980's I talked with builders/renovating contractors about possible renovations and additions. I came into City Hall to ask questions about the surrounding area, future transportation plans, the OCP and what we might be able to do with the home we were vying to purchase I talked to counter staff in Planning, Engineering and Building along with Chuck Goddard and Christine Carter. I asked if I could read the feasibility study for the proposed river crossing. As you know the 240th alignment was the chosen path. Within that report it talked about the delicate ecosystems and flood plain around the South Alouette River and that the City at that time "indicated that roadway embankment fills in the flood plain were not to be considered"! Directly across the river from our property is designated as Park or Conservation and then as you head farther west it is designated as Estate Suburban Residential the same as the property we were purchasing. I asked staff about the land designations and timing for future development in the surrounding area. I was told the property on the south side of the river all the way through to the 23900 block was in the flood plain as mapping shows and had many environmental features that would inhibit development. I was told that if development of any sort were to happen in the area with the river setbacks and wetland conservation someone might get "a couple" of 1 acre lots east of the 240 alignment! Now we are talking about 11 lots, a quarter the size of what the OCP indicates, with a major fill removal and structural fill operation to make it happen. What has changed in 9 short years?? We trusted what junior and senior staff told us and what is stated in the Official Community Plan. If we cannot rely on our OCP and the fundamentals within it, then what do we have? If we allow staff to facilitate developers in altering the principals of our Official Community Plan then what is the sense of even having one? I wish someone could explain how it is now okay to fill the flood plain for the bridge and then fill the site for these homes to be built which will still put them at risk. There is no final bridge design or engineering study complete with environmental and geotechnical reports. If it is not to be a high level bridge it doesn't mean it has to filled all the way to the river for the bridge approach and it should not be! The bridge might not need to be a high level design but it certainly needs to be built on piers back from the river to allow water to flow when the next big flood comes. But if it is allowed to be filled and that dam created please have a study completed as to what the implications to the properties will be, both upstream and downstream, much further than where the consultant's report indicates because if the subject properties do not absorb the flood waters in a major flood event then the water has to go somewhere. We have videos and pictures from the flood of 1995, which I will show you, with water freely flowing over property just to the east and west of the subject properties. If there wasn't flood water on them it was close! There will be a long-time resident in chambers Tuesday night whose parents owned property on the river when the 1955 flood came through. She was in her early 20's at the time and basically stated the 1995 flood was insignificant in comparison and there were many other major flood events such as 1961 that you will hear about. The heavy rains will come again and those properties along with the one I live at will be flooded. When the pictures that I will show were taken from my property, the owners were starting to pile their precious belongings on the pool table. Does the City have Translink approval with regard to the road design for the proposed bridge and where the development has the narrow strata roads entering on to it? How can a subdivision and road structure for it be approved without a final design, engineering report, complete geotechnical study and environmental impact study for the bridge to ensure that is the design that will work? Can you imagine the uprising you will get from the property owners of these multimillion dollar homes when the City announces they are going to create a major arterial route and bridge right beside them? What if Translink says they can no longer have access to their strata subdivision once the road is built? Is that going to stop the bridge construction? If this development proceeds it will provide a 30 metre conservation or setback area from where the proponent's consultants and surveyors have stated the top of bank is. One of the keys to a healthy fish bearing river is shade as it keeps the water cooler which is one of many things that make for a healthy river environment. If this development proceeds and routes all the water coming off the hillside into a siltation ditch or toe of slope plan as stated in the geotechnical report and the development area is paved and homes built, those trees and that conservation area will starve for lack of water and trees will eventually be lost. Then consider the human element of pressure that will be present on that riparian area. I know you are all busy but hopefully you have read the staff report for this public hearing along with the first and second reading report. In the staff prepared report to Council for first and second reading please read page 8 paragraph 4) Environmental Implications: "The proposed works will increase the area utilized by fish providing direct fish habitat all year round. Further, it will allow for the contribution of oxygenated, nutrient rich flow to downstream fish populations." In the geotechnical report it states that area is to be a bio-swale that will need to be maintained if any sloughing on the slopes occur. Sloughing certainly does occur in the area just take a look up river along the high bank. Without any large root systems in it when they pull that fill pile out its going to slough for years. It does not work as a bio-swale and fish habitat too. Firstly if that short paragraph is all staff is going to give you with regard to environmental implications of this development we are in trouble! Secondly to state a siltation ditch is fish habitat is an outright lie to you. Also the proponent told me he had a written okay from the Department of Fisheries & Oceans for this new water course. I would be interested to see just what they approved and you should too. Chapter 3 _of our OCP -Neighbourhoods and Housing Has numerous statements in it that are in opposition to this development proposal and are stated in staff reports to you. Again here are just two of them under the title Estate Suburban Residential: 3 -14 Urban-level residential densities will not be supported in areas designated Estate Suburban Residential. 3 -15 Maple Ridge will support single detached and two family residential housing in Estate Suburban Residential areas. The Estate Suburban Residential land use designation is characterized generally by 0.4 hectare lots. That is 4 times the size of what is proposed! Chapter 5 of our OCP -Natural Features talks about: ISSUES: • Development reviews often focus on site-specific issues and may not take larger ecosystem-based aspects into consideration. That is certainly the case here. • There is a shortage of documented information regarding overall ecosystem health, including baseline information on individual components. Well it is not going to get any better when the Geotechnical report calls for a bio-swale to be built as a containment berm because of anticipated surficial sloughing and the staff reports sell it to Council as new fish habitat! • If not managed properly, increasing development may impact the District's ongoing initiatives with respect to natural features and environmentally sensitive areas. Exactly! A development footprint of four roofs for every one that should be constructed is a giant step backwards! Under Policies: 5-9 Maple Ridge will identify significant ecosystems and natural features throughout the municipality as Conservation on the Natural Features Schedule C, Schedule B of the Official Community Plan, or adopted area plans. The Natural Features Schedule will also identify environmentally sensitive areas, open space, floodplains, hazard lands, the Fraser River Escarpment Area, watercourses, and other natural features, to enable their protection and to minimize the risk of injury or damage to residents and to property. The Alouette River system and flood plain is identified. Why are we not enabling their protection and minimizing the risk to residents and preventing property damage. These are all issues and policies identified and written in our OCP! When attending the three development information meetings I heard the proponent's friends and consultants tell visitors that their professional studies had found the subject properties were not susceptible to flooding which according to any flood plain and hazard area mapping available along with historical data is simply not true. They said that the fill pile to be removed probably contained old cars. These tactics and type of behaviour to mislead the public has to stop! I have talked with the Manager of Development & Environmental Services Chuck Goddard a number of times over the years and when talking about development close to the South Alouette River he stated that policy was that only larger parcels would be supported close to the river and then transition to smaller lots as you got farther away. What happened to that line of thought over the last few years? The Official Community Plan certainly indicates that! In talking with him in recent months about a development proposal at 22866 128 Avenue that stated the property was in the flood plain I questioned him on that statement because the area is not shown to be in flood plain maps as the 240th properties are. He stated in an email that "We have always taken a conservative approach to this area and its potential for flooding impacts" and that the 1996 Provincial flood plain map shows it to be in the flood plain! I asked to see that map but apparently it could not be found. The subject property with the 240th Street proposal is clearly in the flood plain and has flooded. Don't you think we should have some level of consistency at City Hall? I met with the General Manager of Public Works & Development Services Frank Quinn when the 240th Street proposal for 34 lots was first brought forward in 2017 and talked about developing in the Alouette River flood plain. The response was "we are already developing in the flood plain in many areas like down at 104th and Slatford in the Albion flats." I knew the properties well as I had written an offer on it for a developer years ago and asked if he thought there is a difference between the Fraser River Flood Plain protected by a provincial diking authority and the South Alouette River flood plain. To my astonishment they did not acknowledge knowing the difference. In recent weeks Planning staff stated to ARMS directors that there is a $10 to $12 million dollar benefit to the City with this project and when I asked the file manager to provide information on exactly how that benefit was calculated they emailed that they sent a request through to the Engineering department for response and were hoping to receive the information shortly. After not receiving any response to my questions about how this $10 to $12 million value to the City for this project was calculated and asking again, the response was "I was mistaken". We still have not received a reply as to what the actual benefit is if any! Last week I emailed the Municipal Engineer David Pollock asking when McElhanney Engineering would have more details on the 240th bridge, riverside setbacks, road and intersection design without response. Without knowing this information how can a development and access to it be approved? This isn't right Mayor and Councillors! Hopefully you will be the ones to set this City ship on a better path. It should start by voting no to this development proposal and then move forward with designating the entire Alouette River Flood Plain as conservation area as it should be to protect it, the ecosystems and the watershed for generations to come. Regards, John Dale Catherine Schmidt From: Clerk's Dept Sent: To: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 8:46 AM Mayor Council and CAO Users List Cc: Subject: Christine Carter; Chuck Goddard; Diana Hall; Debbie Pope; Patty Carlow FW: Letter Attachments: Letter of Support -Penny Pan -April 2019.pdf Good Morning, Please see attached correspondence from Mr. Hugh Burke, of Meadowridge School which relates to 2017-124-RZ on tonight's Public Hearing. Thank you, Catherine Schmidt Legislative Clerk ~/lAPLE RtDGE BRITISH COLUMBIA City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-463-5221 Ext. 5278 Fax: 604-467-7329 Web Open Government Portal Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf your receipt of this message is in error and not meant to waive privilege in this message. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading the attachments. Unauthorized dissemination and use is prohibited. Correspondence with any government body, including City of Maple Ridge Council and staff, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Thank you. From: Christine Carter <ccarter@mapleridge.ca> Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 5:14 PM To: Clerk's Dept <clerks@mapleridge.ca>; Laura Benson <lbenson@mapleridge.ca> Subject: FW: Letter From: MIKE MCBRIDE Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 4:36 PM To: Christine Carter <ccarter@mapleridge.ca> Cc: Diana Hall <dhall@mapleridge.ca> Subject: Letter Sent from my iPhone 1 April 15, 2019 Mayor and Council City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Dear Mayor Morden and City Councillors: I am writing in support of the development application for Academy Estates# 2017-124-RZ. First, I cannot comment on land use issues, or about this particular site. My knowledge is only what I have gleaned from the variety of local news sources, and my expertise in zoning is negligible. However, I have an increasing concern about the suitability and cost of housing close to Meadowridge School. We have people coming from all over the Lower Mainland, and from multiple countries around the world. Many seek housing close to the school. Typically, they are also seeking single-family housing at the middle-level and above, rather than townhouses or smaller homes on small lots. Unfortunately, there is a shortage of supply in this area, which means that housing costs close to the school have been rising faster than in the surrounding area, and are now very high comparatively, when available. It is my experience that this housing issue means that Maple Ridge is losing many families who would like to live here, but cannot find a suitable residence a reasonable distance from the school. I note that the school currently runs five busses per day, both morning and evening. I hope that any proposal dealing with expanding the housing stock in the area north of Dewdney and close to 2401h St. would take into consideration the potential to bring more professional families to our city -physicians, investors, people who work in high tech, and others who might help build our community. Sincerely, Hugh Burke B.A., PDP, M.A. Headmaster MEADOWRIDGE ~ SCHOOL ~ Meadowridge School 12224 240th Street Maple Ridge, BC Canada V4R lNl t 604.467.4444 f 604.467.4989 www.meadowridge.bc.ca Catherine Schmidt From: Sent: To: Subject: McKay Taryn Tuesday, April 16, 2019 6:09 AM Clerk's Dept Re: Public Hearing for 240th & Alouette River development Please accept my letter for inclusion in the Public Hearing file. April 10, 2019 Attention: Mayor Mike Morden. Maple Ridge City Hall Dear Mike, I am writing to you regarding a land development proposal that has made it through second reading. The file number is #2017-124-RZ and covers the area of240th Street at the Alouette River. A development situated beside the Alouette River would have an enormous negative impact on the environment, the salmon spawning grounds & the high density wildlife that use this as their main corridor as well as the fact that this is in a well known flood plain. I have lived on one of the properties that is slated for re-development along with my family for 10 years. I am aware that there have been repeated attempts to develop the land in the past but it always ended with the same outcome due to the highly sensitive nature of the area alongside the Alouette River. This region is unique in that it is an old river bed and was once an island, at rivers level, sunounded by water. There is a dramatic steep bank that separates our area from Academy Park. This bank creates a natural buffer for the wildlife that travel along the river back and forth from Golden Ears Park. The idea that this habitat for so many species that rely on the Alouette River could be eliminated and turned into another housing development is beyond disturbing. It is also shocking to think that in the past 5 decades alone there have been 2 substantial floods that saw fish in our back yard and houses washing down the river. It is hard to imagine that this area could be up for consideration yet again for development. It begs the question: Is the city prepared to take responsibility for damage caused when the next flood hits and more houses are washed away? You cannot say it won't ever happen as history proves otherwise. Through past studies done for hopeful developers we were informed that there were endangered species discovered living around the ponds on the land. I haven't heard any more information about those issues being addressed. The trees surrounding have housed predator birds, herons, endangered owl species etc. as well as our bear, deer, bobcats & coyotes. It is also concerning to note that the biggest donations to each of the council members during the last campaign came from the developer for this particular project through family & those connected with the project indirectly. Although previous attempts have never gone anywhere with getting approval for development in this region, there is suddenly a push to move forward with the new council in place. We are not aware of any significant changes in the area to all of a sudden determine the land buildable, so what facts would have changed to allow for this new direction? It is easy to note as you drive around the area that there are so many other options for developable acreages close to Meadow Ridge School that do not impact the environment to the extent that this development would. If Meadow Ridge School wants to promote environmental studies (which they have stated in the past), why would they want to see one of the most ecologically sensitive areas right by the school destroyed? This area needs to be protected, as do the people who might ll11wittingly buy in an area that leaves them at risk. Development is needed to see Maple Ridge grow, but we desire a council that will use wisdom and vision to develop 1 our land wisely, value the treasure of natural resources we have and work with it instead of pave over it. Once it is gone it can never be brought back. I invite you to come to this amazing property to see for yourself. I would be happy to give you a tour. With respect, Taryn McKay 12599 240th Street, Maple Ridge 2 Catherine Schmidt From: Clerk's Dept Sent: To: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 8:27 AM Mayor Council and CAO Users List Cc: Subject: Christine Carter; Chuck Goddard; Diana Hall; Debbie Pope; Patty Carlow FW: Development Proposal for 240th & Alouette River Good Morning, Please see below correspondence from Ms. McKay which related to 2017-124-RZ on tonight's Public Hearing Agenda. Thank you, Catherine Schmidt Legislative Clerk ~IIAPLE RIDGE B~~ITISH COLUMBIA City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-463-5221 Ext. 5278 Fax: 604-467-7329 Web Open Government Portal Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf your receipt of this message is in error and not meant to waive privilege in this message. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading the attachments. Unauthorized dissemination and use is prohibited. Correspondence with any government body, including City of Maple Ridge Council and staff, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Thank you. From: Tracy Camire <tcamire@mapleridge.ca> On Behalf Of Mike Morden Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 4:50 PM To: 'McKay Taryn' Cc: Clerk's Dept <clerks@mapleridge.ca> Subject: RE: Development Proposal for 240th & Alouette River Good afternoon, On behalf of Mayor Morden, thank you for your email. Comments and inquiries are greatly appreciated. As per the City's Council Correspondence Guidelines, this acknowledges that your email. If you would like your comments included in the Public Hearing file please let me know and I can forward a copy of your email on to them. Alternatively, you can send a copy to clerks@mapleridge.ca. Thank you once again for sending in your feedback on this proposed development. Best regards, Tracy Camire Executive Assistant M,. MAPLE Rf OGE « BRITISH COLUMBIA 1 From: McKay Taryn Sent: April 10, 2019 3:41 PM To: Mike Morden <mmorden@mapleridge.ca> Subject: Development Proposal for 240th & Alouette River April 10, 2019 Attention: Mayor Mike Morden. Maple Ridge City Hall Dear Mike, I am writing to you regarding a land development proposal that has made it through second reading. The file number is #2017-124-RZ and covers the area of240th Street at the Alouette River. A development situated beside the Alouette River would have an enormous negative impact on the environment, the salmon spawning grounds & the high density wildlife that use this as their main corridor as well as the fact that this is in a well known flood plain. I have lived on one of the properties that is slated for re-development along with my family for 10 years. I am aware that there have been repeated attempts to develop the land in the past but it always ended with the same outcome due to the highly sensitive nature of the area alongside the Alouette River. This region is unique in that it is an old river bed and was once an island, at rivers level, surrounded by water. There is a dramatic steep bank that separates our area from Academy Park. This bank creates a natural buffer for the wildlife that travel along the river back and forth from Golden Ears Park. The idea that this habitat for so many species that rely on the Alouette River could be eliminated and turned into another housing development is beyond disturbing. It is also shocking to think that in the past 5 decades alone there have been 2 substantial floods that saw fish in our back yard and houses washing down the river. It is hard to imagine that this area could be up for consideration yet again for development. It begs the question: Is the city prepared to take responsibility for damage caused when the next flood hits and more houses are washed away? You cannot say it won't ever happen as history proves otherwise. Through past studies done for hopeful developers we were informed that there were endangered species discovered living around the ponds on the land. I haven't heard any more information about those issues being addressed. The trees surrounding have housed predator birds, herons, endangered owl species etc. as well as our bear, deer, bobcats & coyotes. It is also concerning to note that the biggest donations to each of the council members during the last campaign came from the developer for this particular project through family & those connected with the project indirectly. Although previous attempts have never gone anywhere with getting approval for development in this region, there is suddenly a push to move forward with the new council in place. We are not aware of any significant changes in the area to all of a sudden determine the land buildable, so what facts would have changed to allow for this new direction? It is easy to note as you drive around the area that there are so many other options for developable acreages close to Meadow Ridge School that do not impact the enviromnent to the extent that this development would. If Meadow Ridge School wants to promote environmental studies (which they have stated in the past), why would they want to see one of the most ecologically sensitive areas right by the school destroyed? This area needs to be protected, as do the people who might unwittingly buy in an area that leaves them at risk. Development is needed to see Maple Ridge grow, but we desire a council that will use wisdom and vision to develop our land wisely, value the treasure of natural resources we have and work with it instead of pave over it. Once it is gone it can never be brought back. I invite you to come to this amazing property to see for yourself. I would be happy to give you a tour. With respect, 2 · Taryn McKay 12599 240th Street, Maple Ridge 3 Catherine Schmidt From: Clerk's Dept Sent: To: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 9:18 AM Mayor Council and CAO Users List Cc: Subject: Christine Carter; Chuck Goddard; Diana Hall; Debbie Pope; Patty Carlow FW: April 16 public hearing submission Attachments: 2019 public hearing submission.docx Good Morning, Please see attached correspondence from Mr. Ross Davies, which relates to 2017-124-RZ on tonight's Public Hearing Agenda. Thank you, Catherine Schmidt Legislative Clerk fvlAPLE RIDGE BR.ITISH COLUMBIA City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-463-5221 Ext. 5278 Fax: 604-467-7329 Web Open Government Portal Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf your receipt of this message is in error and not meant to waive privilege in this message. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading the attachments. Unauthorized dissemination and use is prohibited. Correspondence with any government body, including City of Maple Ridge Council and staff, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Thank you. From: Ross Davies Sent: Monday, April 15, 2019 9:29 PM To: Clerk's Dept <clerks@mapleridge.ca> Subject: April 16 public hearing submission Good evening, Please find attached my submission for the April 16 Public Hearing. Ross Davies 23924 Fern Crescent 1 Ross Davies 23924 Fern Crescent Maple Ridge, B.C. V4R2S3 City of Maple Ridge Mayor and Council 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, B.C. V2X-6A9 Re: Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7343-2017 I am writing as a 31 year riparian property owner on the South Alouette River, residing approximately 0.5km downstream of this proposed development. While there is much detailed documentation of past flood events on the river under separate cover, I witnessed first-hand the flood event of November 291h, 1995. Had the proposed subdivision been in place then, it is my strong opinion that significant property damage would have occurred and souls would have been put in danger. Even though B.C. Hydro changed the way it controls Alouette Lake levels following that event, the era of climate change we are in means that stronger and much more frequent storms are inevitable and are indeed already occurring. I do believe that we should be making every effort to move dwellings farther away from the river floodplain at every opportunity, as opposed to placing them closer. I also question why a development of this nature would be considered at this location, when there are many other locations that are much more closely aligned with existing long term area planning. In addition, the South Alouette riparian corridor is one of the natural attributes that defines Maple Ridge, and as such should merit special consideration. I ask that this Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7343-2017 be rejected. Sincerely, ROSS DAVIES Ross Davies Catherine Schmidt From: Clerk's Dept Sent: To: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 1:34 PM Mayor Council and CAO Users List Cc: Subject: Christine Carter; Chuck Goddard; Diana Hall; Patty Carlow; Debbie Pope FW: Development Proposal for the Alouette River Good Morning, Please see below correspondence from Ms. Long, which relates to 2017-124-RZ on tonight's Public Hearing Agenda. Thank you, Catherine Schmidt Legislative Clerk MAPLE RIDGE BRITISH COLUMBIA City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-463-5221 Ext. 5278 Fax: 604-467-7329 Web Open Government Portal Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf your receipt of this message is in error and not meant to waive privilege in this message. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading the attachments. Unauthorized dissemination and use is prohibited. Correspondence with any government body, including City of Maple Ridge Council and staff, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Thank you. From: Laura Long Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 10:36 AM To: Mayor Council and CAO Users List <MayorCouncilAndCaol@mapleridge.ca>; Clerk's Dept <clerks@mapleridge.ca> Subject: Development Proposal for the Alouette River Dear Council, I do not wish to be writing this letter, but I have to do so under unfortunate circumstances. Tonight you will be discussing the development application near the Alouette River at 240th st, file number #2017-124-RZ. Unfortunately I cannot make it to the meeting, so I am sending this letter instead. As a resident of Maple Ridge for over 20 years, I have grown to love our natural beauty. Although the population has grown tremendously over the past 10 years, we still have our scenic mountains and rivers to enjoy. Unfmiunately, this proposed development would take away this tranquility, causing more vehicle traffic, and destruction to our most valuable spaces. Not only beautiful, and home to many species, the Alouette River is also a central point of history of the Katzie first nations. To do construction in an area that has such historical and cultural significance, most likely disturbing it, would be foolish. We owe it to our first nations neighbours, past and present, to keep this river in its original state. 1 ARMS has already informed you of their position, siting the concern for flooding and loss of vulnerable and sensitive ecology, as well as harm to our wildlife. It seems as though the developer proposing these plans has not thoroughly looked at past floods, and what flooding could look like after this development. I am worried for the environment and wildlife in this area would the proposal go through, as well as any residents along the nver. Council, I urge you to fully think through this proposal, and do what is right for our environment, our Katzie neighbours, our wildlife, and the residents of Maple Ridge. Thank you, Laura Long Virus-free. www.avast.com 2 Catherine Schmidt From: Clerk's Dept Sent: To: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 1:39 PM Mayor Council and CAO Users List Cc: Christine Carter; Chuck Goddard; Diana Hall; Debbie Pope; Patty Carlow Subject: FW: proposed development at 12555 240 Street, 12599 240 Street, 12516 240 Street, and 12511 241 Street, Good Afternoon, please see below correspondence from Ms. Sarah Little, with regard to 2017-124-RZ on tonight's Public Hearing Agenda. Thanks, Catherine Schmidt Legislative Clerk MAPLE RIDGE BRITISH COLUMBIA City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-463-5221 Ext. 5278 Fax: 604-467-7329 Web Open Government Portal Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf your receipt of this message is in error and not meant to waive privilege in this message. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading the attachments. Unauthorized dissemination and use is prohibited. Correspondence with any government body, including City of Maple Ridge Council and staff, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Thank you. From: Sarah Little Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 10:54 AM To: Clerk's Dept <clerks@mapleridge.ca> Subject: proposed development at 12555 240 Street, 12599 240 Street, 12516 240 Street, and 12511 241 Street, Dear Mayor and Council, In regards to the proposed development at 12555 240 Street, 12599 240 Street, 12516 240 Street, and 12511 241 Street, I do NOT support this application at this time. More information is needed before even considering moving forward with this. Where is the concept plan that details the amount of fill that will be brought in and at what elevation will these houses be built at? Will these homes have basement suites? Will these homes have sump-pump systems that addresses the high ground water level in this area between the months of November and January? How is the proposed sanitary system going to work with these properties? Will there be a "pump-up" system? How tall will the houses will be? How does this development fit the "form and character" of the existing neighbourhood. 1 How many trees will be removed from the area? In the last council meeting there was talk about a trail network to the "hot-rocks"? Is there more information on how this would work? I'm not sure if you all realize that the "hot rocks" are located down by "cross-cabins" ...... almost a km down the river, and as I understand, there are many sections of this river that are privately owned, How exactly is that going to work? How is this developer planning on mitigating the negative environmental impact of this development on this salmon bearing river? Is there a specific time of year this will actually be built in? This isn't the first time there has been a development proposal on this site. The last time it was approved, the property was listed on the real estate market as "development potential". Is it the intention of the applicant to actually build this time or is this a speculation proposal? Who are the applicants behind this proposal? I have concerns that some members of council have accepted election donations, the maximum allowable amount, from the applicants behind this application. Integrity is important, and I would hope that those members of council who may be in a position of conflict, remove themselves from voting on this application. I'm asking that mayor and council have these components clarified BEFORE approving this application. I would hate to see a repeat of what happened with the FERN GROVE development. Given that this proposal went through "committee of the whole" and a "council meeting" on the same day, I urge you to at minimum, delay this application until the city report regarding the feasibility and timeline for the Abernathy connector and the 240th future bridge crossing comes back in May. For liability sake, I would like the city to hire an independent geotechnical engineer to provide a non-biased report on the environmental impacts, the ground water table, and the flooding potential. Please, consider the concerns of ARMS, these people have the most understanding of the river. Regards, Sarah Little 24025 Fern cres Maple Ridge V4R 2S1 2 Catherine Schmidt From: Clerk's Dept Sent: To: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 1:42 PM Mayor Council and CAO Users List Cc: Subject: Christine Carter; Chuck Goddard; Diana Hall; Debbie Pope; Patty Carlow FW: file number: #2017-124-RZ Good Afternoon, please see below correspondence from Deva Rodway, with regard to 2017-124-RZ on tonight's Public Hearing Agenda. Thanks, Catherine Schmidt Legislative Clerk MAPLE RIDGE BRITISH COLUMB!il City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-463-5221 Ext. 5278 Fax: 604-467-7329 Web Open Government Portal Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf your receipt of this message is in error and not meant to waive privilege in this message. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading the attachments. Unauthorized dissemination and use is prohibited. Correspondence with any government body, including City of Maple Ridge Council and staff, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Thank you. From: Deva Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 11:22 AM To: Clerk's Dept <clerks@mapleridge.ca> Subject: Re: file number: #2017-124-RZ Dear Maple Ridge council, Re: file number: #2017-124-RZ I am writing you on the proposed development plans for the Alouette River near 240 St. I am a new resident to Maple Ridge, moving from Surrey, BC and prior to that Delta. Growing up in Delta, I saw lots of development but also a lot of sound, conscientious decisions being made regarding Burns Bog - a unique site not commonly found in the world. I grew up with ornithologists, veterinarians, ecologists, and urban developers in my family and a111, personally a Chartered Insurance Professional. My career has been devoted to developing flood and earthquake maps, designing appropriate rating programs, and introducing new risk assessment programs into the insurance industry both in Personal lines (your houses, your cars) and Commercial Lines (businesses, commercial buildings, farms). Additionally, I live in the Albion area, and ride my horse on the trails which are threatened by the proposal. My background gives me a unique and well informed knowledge base to understand the impacts of development on ecologically sensitive areas, both on the wildlife aspect and the commercial/human aspect. I encourage the City and the Council to decline development proposals for areas along the Alouette River and Tributary areas, including Kanaka Creek. There are significant threats of flooding to developed areas if placed 1 along flood plains, and development fmiher heightens the flooding risk which is growing each year and has become the number 1 disaster event and insurable loss in Canada. This means increased expenditures from the City, which often exceed budgeted expenses due to the serious nature of flooding, in the upcoming years after development takes place. Additionally this development proposal is risking the engagement, satisfaction, and right to enjoyment of the sunounding residents and community. Losing wetlands, tributaries, and other ecologically sensitive areas will negatively impact how residents enjoy and view Maple Ridge. You can look to Suney to see negative impacts of aggressive development of wetlands, and see the reduction in prope1iy values, reduced community engagement, and heightened frustration among residents. People withdraw and become siloed the more you remove natural spaces from their sunoundings. Please, keep the Alouette River area as it is, do not develop and densify sensitive areas impacting bird migration, wildlife, and residents. Please let us equestrians and families continue to enjoy our bridle paths, jogging trails, and nature walks as adjacent outdoor, natural spaces improves life and health for everyone who is nearby. And that means not developing these areas. Respectfully, Deva Radway, CIP Resident of Maple Ridge, BC. 116 10151 240 Street 2 Catherine Schmidt From: Clerk's Dept Sent: To: Tuesday, April 16, 20191:52 PM Mayor Council and CAO Users List Cc: Subject: Christine Carter; Chuck Goddard; Diana Hall; Debbie Pope; Patty Carlow FW: Concern with file number 2017-124-RZ Good Afternoon, please see below correspondence from Ms. Jacqlyn Rempel, with regard to 2017-124-RZ on tonight's Public Hearing Agenda. Thanks, Catherine Schmidt Legislative Clerk MAPLE RIDGE BRITISH COLUMBIA City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-463-5221 Ext. 5278 Fax: 604-467-7329 Web Open Government Portal Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf your receipt of this message is in error and not meant to waive privilege in this message. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading the attachments. Unauthorized dissemination and use is prohibited. Correspondence with any government body, including City of Maple Ridge Council and staff, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Thank you. From: Jacqlyn Rempel Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 12:24 PM To: Clerk's Dept <clerks@mapleridge.ca> Subject: Concern with file number 2017-124-RZ To Whom it May Concern I have a concern related to the proposed development in the South Alouette River flood plain at 12555 240 Street, 12599 240 Street, 12516 240 Street, and 12511 241 Street . From what I can see this is a heritage river which Metro Vancouver has very little of. This river has an ecosystem that needs to be protected. It is smTounded by beautiful trees, a running river which host fish and is a source of water for wildlife and amazing animals can be found including bobcats, bears, deers etc. One of my concerns is that if the council approves this development along this river it will set a a standard for future developments to be proposed around rivers and streams and will make it very difficult for the council to turn down future developments. The community needs the councils help to protect these special pockets of areas in our beautiful Maple Ridge so many ofus call home and love enjoying. These areas are what make Maple Ridge Maple Ridge and such a gem in Metro-Vancouver and the Lower Mainland I would like the council to recognize and respect the animals, the land, and environment of this area and help protect instead of help develop every sq ft of land possible near the stream .Please help us protect this fragile area and areas like this for the animals and eco-system. Thanks 1 Jacqlyn Rempel 2 Catherine Schmidt From: Clerk's Dept Sent: To: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 2:10 PM Mayor Council and CAO Users List Cc: Christine Carter; Chuck Goddard; Diana Hall; Debbie Pope; Patty Carlow Subject: FW: 2017-124-RZ ;12555, 12599, 12516 240th Street and 12511 241st Street, Amending bylaw No.7537-2019, Amending bylaw no. 7343-2017 Good Afternoon, please see below correspondence from Mr. Bishop, with regard to 2017-124-RZ on tonight's Public Hearing Agenda. Thanks, Catherine Schmidt Legislative Clerk fV1APLE RIDGE BRITISH COLUMBIA City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-463-5221 Ext. 5278 Fax: 604-467-7329 Web Open Government Portal Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf your receipt of this message is in error and not meant to waive privilege in this message. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading the attachments. Unauthorized dissemination and use is prohibited. Correspondence with any government body, including City of Maple Ridge Council and staff, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Than I~ you. From: TIM BISHOP Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 1:52 PM To: Judy Dueck <jdueck@mapleridge.ca>; Kiersten Duncan <kduncan@mapleridge.ca>; Chelsa Mead us <cmeadus@mapleridge.ca>; Gordy Robson <grobson@mapleridge.ca>; Ryan Svendsen <rsvendsen@mapleridge.ca>; Clerk's Dept <clerks@mapleridge.ca>; Mike Morden <mmorden@mapleridge.ca> Subject: 2017-124-RZ ;12555,12599,12516 240th Street and 12511 241st Street, Amending bylaw No.7537-2019, Amending bylaw no. 7343-2017 To All concerned: I'm completely opposed to: 2017-124-RZ ;12555, 12599, 12516 240th Street and 12511 241st Street, Amending bylaw No.7537-2019, Amending bylaw no. 7343-2017. My reasons for opposition are as follows: It will for ever change the natural environment of the area. Based on the irresponsible considerations that both the developer and city planners have influenced the development at the epic homes Fern Grove subdivision. What was once a home to wildlife has become an over built eye sore of tall over height homes that stand out like sore thumbs. Maple Ridge's River is a show case of beauty which will never be the same if these proposes are approved. 1 Th-.' river has historical, natural fisheries and wildlife contributions which will be threaten with these proposed changes. I ask you all to visit the location and try to envision the effects these proposed changes will have on this area, and how the detrimental influences will change the rivers edge for ever. We need our council members to stand up to developers and protect an area which should be persevered for future generations. This River should be Maple Ridge's signature gem, not a quick flip for some developer to make a quick profit. Regards Tim Bishop 24026 Fern Crescent Maple Ridge B.C. V4R 2S1 2 Catherine Schmidt From: Tracy Camire Sent: To: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 2:29 PM Clerk's Dept Subject: FW: 2017-124-RZ 12555, 12599, 12516 240 Street and 12511 241 Street Catherine, Not sure if I've already forwarded this one to you. I have acknowledged receipt of this email to Mayor and Council. Thank you. Tracy, From: Tracy Camire Sent: April 15, 2019 4:32 PM To: 'Rob Blusson' Subject: RE: 2017-124-RZ 12555, 12599, 12516 240 Street and 12511241 Street Good afternoon Rob, On behalf of Mayor and Council, thank you for your email. Comments and inquiries are greatly appreciated. As per the City's Council Correspondence Guidelines, this acknowledges that your email and I can confirm that I have forwarded a copy of your correspondence on to the Clerk's Department to ensure that it is added to the Public Hearing file. To ensure any further correspondence is included in the Public Hearing file, please send your emails in to clerks@mapleridge.ca. Thank you once again for sending in your feedback on this proposed development. Best regards, Tracy Camire Executive Assistant MAPLE RIDGE BRITISH COLUMBIA From: Rob Blusson Sent: April 15, 2019 3:07 PM To: Mayor Council and CAO Users List <MayorCouncilAndCaol@mapleridge.ca> Cc: Rob Blusson < Subject: 2017-124-RZ 12555, 12599, 12516 240 Street and 12511 241 Street Mayor and council; I have grave concerns about the proposed development (2017-124-RZ 12555, 12599, 12516 240 Street and 12511 241 Street) on the South Alouette River. It would negatively impact the river's ecosystem, which must be protected for the benefit of our community and the fish and wildlife populations that it supports. I expect 1 to be at the public hearing to oppose this development and I would ask that you do not approve this application. Regards, Robert Blusson 2 Catherine Schmidt From: Clerk's Dept Sent: To: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 2:53 PM Mayor Council and CAO Users List Cc: Subject: Christine Carter; Chuck Goddard; Diana Hall; Debbie Pope; Patty Carlow FW: 2017-124 RZ Good Afternoon, please see below correspondence from Alexa Ross, with regard to 2017-124-RZ on tonight's Public Hearing Agenda. Thanks, Catherine Schmidt Legislative Clerk MAPLE RIDGE BRITISH COLUMBIA City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-463-5221 Ext. 5278 Fax: 604-467-7329 Web Open Government Portal Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf your receipt of this message is in error and not meant to waive privilege in this message. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading the attachments. Unauthorized dissemination and use is prohibited. Correspondence with any government body, including City of Maple Ridge Council and staff, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Thank you. From: Tracy Camire <tcamire@mapleridge.ca> On Behalf Of Mike Morden Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 2:43 PM To: 'Alexa Ross' Cc: Clerk's Dept <clerks@mapleridge.ca> Subject: RE: 2017-124 RZ Good afternoon Alexa, On behalf of Mayor and Council, thank you for your email. Comments and inquiries are greatly appreciated. As per the City's Council Correspondence Guidelines, this acknowledges receipt of your email. I have also forwarded a copy of your email on to the Clerks Department to be included in the April 16, 2019 Public Hearing file. To ensure any future correspondence is included, please ensure you send in your emails to clerks@mapleridge.ca. Thank you once again for sending in your feedback on this proposed development. Best regards, Tracy Camire Executive Assistant -.rl, MAPLE RIDGE « BRITISH COLUMBIA 1 From: Alexa Ross Sent: April 16, 2019 11:11 AM To: Mike Morden <mmorden@mapleridge.ca>; Judy Dueck <iduecl<@mapleridge.ca>; Kiersten Duncan <kduncan@mapleridge.ca>; Chelsa Mead us <cmeadus@mapleridge.ca>; Gordy Robson <grobson@mapleridge.ca>; Ryan Svendsen <rsvendsen@mapleridge.ca>; Ahmed Yousef <ayousef@mapleridge.ca>; Clerk's Dept <clerl<s@mapleridge.ca> Subject: 2017-124 RZ Dear Mayor and Council, I will be at the public hearing this evening but I wanted to share with you some videos of what words cannot express:· I wanted to give you all some videos of what is at stake here from the perspective of wildlife, salmon and the environment. I lived at 12599 240 street, one of the properties included in this development application ...... this is exactly what is at risk of being paved over with this. This is where the current 240 horse-trail and river crossing are currently and will remain and the 3-4K humans that use this trail annually (fishe1man, horse-riders, hikers, dog walkers, people that intertube the river and even teenagers that hang out lol) and all the wildlife (personally seen bear, deer, skunk, raccoons, Eagles, seagulls, heron/cranes, salmon, river otter, cougar, bobcat and countless species of bird and rodents and frogs/salamanders) will now have to walk through wall to wall homes to get to the river. 2 ------VOdi'i\'.~,._u.'._;,~,l El_"!l ~,t.filLff_,!r _-_ __:__.ug_F!ft,, ; "1°:T,'..,.. cs·,-?;-, ~;;:i(ill_ CJIL.=.+.,.. .\ l· 'Z·J3' ;u ,~-1 L -·-: •·:-r'.1! L -. -. --.--, I , •. :;. . ", ·11· ·, I I II' ,' • --------I implore you, do not allow our riverfront, recreation and wildlife to be destroyed for the interest of a few. This area should be used and enjoyed by all, as it is, it's beautiful and won't be should it become wall to wall housing. Thank you, Alexa Ross 3 Sent from my iPhone 4 Catherine Schmidt From: Clerk's Dept Sent: To: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 3:02 PM Mayor Council and CAO Users List Cc: Subject: Christine Carter; Chuck Goddard; Diana Hall; Debbie Pope; Patty Carlow FW: 240th McBride development Good Afternoon, please see below correspondence from Kathleen Newman, with regard to 2017-124-RZ on tonight's Public Hearing Agenda. Thanks, Catherine Schmidt Legislative Clerk MAPLE RIDGE BRITISH COLUMBLll. City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-463-5221 Ext. 5278 Fax: 604-467-7329 Web Open Government Portal Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf your receipt of this message is in error and not meant to waive privilege in this message. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading the attachments. Unauthorized dissemination and use is prohibited. Correspondence with any government body, including City of Maple Ridge Council and staff, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Thank you. From: Tracy Camire <tcamire@mapleridge.ca> On Behalf Of Mike Morden Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 2:56 PM To: 'kathleen newman' Cc: Clerk's Dept <clerks@mapleridge.ca> Subject: RE: 240th McBride development Good afternoon Kathleen, On behalf of Mayor and Council, thank you for your email. Comments and inquiries are greatly appreciated. As per the City's Council Correspondence Guidelines, this acknowledges receipt of your email. I have also forwarded a copy of your email on to the Clerks Department to be included in the April 16, 2019 Public Hearing file. To ensure any future correspondence is included, please ensure you send in your emails to clerks@mapleridge.ca. Thank you once again for sending in your feedback on this proposed development. Best regards, Tracy Camire Executive Assistant ~ MAPLE RIDGE « BRITISH COLUMBIA From: kathleen newman Sent: April 14, 2019 6:54 PM 1 To: Mike Morden <mmorden@mapleridge.ca>; jduek@mapleridge.ca; Kiersten Duncan <kduncan@mapleridge.ca>; Chelsa Meadus <cmeadus@mapleridge.ca>; Ryan Svendsen <rsvendsen@mapleridge.ca>; Ahmed Yousef <ayousef@mapleridge.ca> Subject: 240th McBride development Good morning, I would like to tell you how strongly I am apposed to this development. The environmental impact it will have on our S. Alouette Heritage River and the habitat that it supports. Please stop protecting the gross profits of developers! Instead, protect the Maple Ridge that we love, the natural beauty of this area, the heritage areas and the life style of long term residents. My husband and I wil.1 attend the meeting Tuesday. Kind regards, Kathleen Newman Sent from Mail for Windows 10 2 Catherine Schmidt From: Clerk's Dept Sent: To: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 3:05 PM Mayor Council and CAO Users List Cc: Subject: Christine Carter; Chuck Goddard; Diana Hall; Debbie Pope; Patty Carlow FW: 240th development/application Good Afternoon, please see below correspondence from Jacqueline Barnes, with regard to 2017-124-RZ on tonight's Public Hearing Agenda. Thank you, Catherine Schmidt Legislative Clerk City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-463-5221 Ext. 5278 Fax: 604-467-7329 Web Open Government Por~al Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf your receipt of this message is in error and not meant to waive privilege in this message. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading the attachments. Unauthorized dissemination and use is prohibited. Correspondence with any government body, including City of Maple Ridge Council and staff, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Thank you. -----Original Message-----From: Jacquie Barnes Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 2:56 PM To: Clerk's Dept <clerks@mapleridge.ca> Subject: 240th development/application Dear Sir and/or Madame; Please accept this email as Notice of my opposition to the zoning change application set to proceed tonight, April 16, 2019 in relation to land bordering the Alouette River at 240th Street. There are numerous very serious reasons why the proposal is inappropriate and should not be permitted by council: -the location is on a flood plane and requires extensive amendment. Backfilling will be necessary which will negatively affect downstream properties; -the river is of heritage status and preservation of the characteristics of the area ought to be honoured and prioritized over densification and commodification of the land. Once changed it cannot be unchanged; -the OCP was created with much thought and input from numerous knowledgeable sources and should be modified only in the most necessary of circumstances. The OCP should not be abandoned for the sake of maximizing profit. Further, the community ought to be able to rely on the OCP as an indication of the shape of future development, otherwise, what the point?; 1 -there are already numerous public areas and parks along the river and the portion of land the developer proposes to donate to the city cannot be developed in any event. The City should not alter or abandon the OCP in exchange for riverside land that floods every time the hydro dam is released. The community is not deprived of public access to the Alouette River and what the developer offers in exchange for proposal approval is not incentive enough to justify the proposal as it currently exists. -finally, the river and surrounding area at 240th street is vital to dozens of species of fish and wildlife. The Council ought to endorse a balanced approach to land development which places ecological preservation in high priority. The value of the area largely depends on the natural beauty that surrounds it. Increased densification and the development as it is currently proposed would destroy the very essence of what makes the area so unique and valuable. Thank you for taking the time to enter my email into the record. Council is tasked with making decisions that will affect the community far beyond their elected terms and I am certain that this Council will take the office and responsibility that they are charged with as seriously and solemnly is required. Sincerely, Jacqueline Barnes 24024 Fern Crescent 2 Catherine Schmidt From: Clerk's Dept Sent: To: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 3: 18 PM Mayor Council and CAO Users List Cc: Subject: Christine Carter; Chuck Goddard; Diana Hall; Debbie Pope; Patty Carlow FW: re development 12555, 12516, 12559 240th & 12511 241st streets Good Afternoon, please see below correspondence from Dr. Lynne Potter, with regard to 2017-124-RZ on tonight's Public Hearing Agenda. Thanks, Catherine Schmidt Legislative Clerk MAPLE RIDGE BRITISH COLUMBIA City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-463-5221 Ext. 5278 Fax: 604-467-7329 Web Open Government Portal Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf your receipt of this message is in error and not meant to waive privilege in this message. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading the attachments. Unauthorized dissemination and use is prohibited. Correspondence with any government body, including City of Maple Ridge Council and staff, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Thank you. From: lynne Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 3:06 PM To: Mike Morden <mmorden@mapleridge.ca>; Judy Dueck <jdueck@mapleridge.ca>; Chelsa Mead us <cmeadus@mapleridge.ca>; Kiersten Duncan <kduncan@mapleridge.ca>; Ryan Svendsen <rsvendsen@mapleridge.ca>; Gordy Robson <grobson@mapleridge.ca>; Ahmed Yousef <ayousef@mapleridge.ca>; Clerk's Dept <clerks@mapleridge.ca> Subject: re development 12555, 12516,12559 240th & 12511 241st streets Dear Mayor and Councilors, I am opposed to this development and I hope you will be as well. Having lived with the South Alouette River in my backyard since 1954 I am very familiar with the highs and lows, ebbs and flows of this little gem. 1995 was particularly scary as the river came up to the top of our bank, fortunately not overflowing but it was close. I was a youngster during the 1955 flood so cannot comment personally on that one. This development is downstream a bit from my property and everyone knows it is in flood plain. I realize the developer is planning to shore up with fill and, as an added incentive, will assist with fill for the proposed future bridge. As a further incentive he is dedicating the north part of the property to park land (forgoing 3 housing units there), while adding to the density of the development. I know the lower part of this area will flood with high dam releases. What will happen to the southern shore of the river with future flooding should be worrisome. 1 Besides flooding issues, I am very concerned about the impact of this development on the river itself. Adding tons of fill, and disturbing and stripping the land of natural vegetation will increase the sediment flow to the river; you cannot cut down mature cedars, hemlock and fir and expect the planting of little maples and other immature trees to equal the impact of those big trees on soil and water retention. Added to this there is the effect of climate change; I don't think anyone would dispute that we are having more rain now and this will add to the silt being deposited. Our spawning salmon will suffer. I have grave concerns about this development going through. If you have even the slightest worry about it please remember that this is a heritage river and it's just not worth taking a risk. Ours and future generations will thank you for it. Thank you for your attention. Lynne Potter MD April 17, 2019 Virus-free. www.avast.com 2 Catherine Schmidt From: Clerk's Dept Sent: To: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 3:24 PM Mayor Council and CAO Users List Cc: Christine Carter; Chuck Goddard; Diana Hall; Debbie Pope; Patty Carlow Subject: FW: Public Meeting re: Rezoning Application and Zone Amending By-Law No. 7343-2017 of 12555, 12599, 12516 240th Street and 12511 241 Street Good Afternoon, please see below correspondence from Gabriella Morrison, with regard to 2017-124-RZ on tonight's Public Hearing Agenda. Thank you, Catherine Schmidt Legislative Clerk MAPLE RIDGE BRITISH C()LUMBIA City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-463-5221 Ext. 5278 Fax: 604-467-7329 Web Open Government Portal Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf your receipt of this message is in error and not meant to waive privilege in this message. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading the attachments. Unauthorized dissemination and use is prohibited. Correspondence with any government body, including City of Maple Ridge Council and staff, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Thank you. From: GABRIELLA MORRISON Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 3:19 PM To: Clerk's Dept <clerks@mapleridge.ca> Subject: Public Meeting re: Rezoning Application and Zone Amending By-Law No. 7343-2017 of 12555, 12599, 12516 240th Street and 12511 241 Street To Mayor and Council of Maple Ridge, BC I respectfully submit this letter of request that you as a group· of elected representatives of Maple Ridge resident do the following: -withhold passing the development request and re-zoning requirement of the above listed properties from third reading until questions relocating the current occupiers are provided satisfactory responses for these citizens request of relief from termination of their immediate rental or lease agreements with the owners and/or developers who hold title to the properties listed. -please do not pass the Zone Amending By-Law No 7343-2017 to amend the zoning from RS3 to RS2. The developers request for increased density in exchange for soil amendment work on the site, and for the reserving of portion of the land, as well as the amenity bonus is inadequate compensation for the costs to the City in the development of this proposed parcel. -provide independent geo-engineering and environmental assessments as to building in a flood plain, and as to protecting fish and wildlife habitat. 1 -provide assurance as to whether or not Councillors may be in a position of Conflict of Interest, and will recuse themselves from voting on this issue, as some of them have received campaign donations up to the maximum allowed from owners/agents of this development proposal. This Council and Mayor were elected on a strong platform of (disinterested) prudent fiscal management and promoting the concept of making affordable housing available to Maple Ridge citizens. This development does not compensate the city's coffers adequately for the added costs and expenditures to city budget in the construction of housing in this area and on this site. It is hypocritical to hold out hope to voters, only to remove it by policy and action. There are 29 adults and 6 children currently resident on the listed properties; notice to vacate has been given to them. Where in Maple Ridge can the find affordable and suitable replacement housing? Further, the proposed development is to be situated in a sensitive and precarious environmental area. Increasing density there, even considering increasing density, does not demonstrate wise environmental stewardship. A Council composed of wise and prudent persons will consider long-term, as well as short term, present and future implications of the type of development that might develop on this site, and it's neighbours. Respectfully submitted, Gabriella Morrison #305 -22330 McIntosh Avenue, Maple Ridge, BC, V2X 8L4 Telephone: 2 Catherine Schmidt From: Clerk's Dept Sent: To: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 3:45 PM Mayor Council and CAO Users List Cc: Subject: Christine Carter; Chuck Goddard; Diana Hall; Debbie Pope; Lisa Parslow FW: 2017-124-RZ Attachments: 240th South Alouette River development application.docx Good Afternoon, please see below correspondence from Patty Morrison, with regard to 2017-124-RZ on tonight's Public Hearing Agenda. Thanks, Catherine Schmidt Legislative Clerk MAPLE RIDGE BRITISH COLUMBtA City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-463-5221 Ext. 5278 Fax: 604-467-7329 Web Open Government Portal Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf your receipt of this message is in error and not meant to waive privilege in this message. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading the attachments. Unauthorized dissemination and use is prohibited. Correspondence with any government body, including City of Maple Ridge Council and staff, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Thank you. From: Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 3:21 PM To: Clerk's Dept <clerks@mapleridge.ca> Subject: Please find attached my written submission regarding 2017-124-RZ Maple Ridge OCP amending bylaw No. 7537-2019 Sincerely Patty Morrison 1 Re: 2017-124-RZ 12555, 12599, 12516 240 Street and 12511 241 Street Maple Ridge OCP Amending Bylaw No. 7537-2019 Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7343-2017 Mayor Morden and Councillors, April 16, 2019 My name is Patty Morrison and I live at 24003 Fern Crescent, just across the street from the South Alouette River. During my 30-plus years of daily walks along its banks I have never failed to be in awe of the beauty and constant changes of the river. The Alouette can at times be serene and meandering (as it is at the moment) or it can turn into a ranging torrent during a water release from the dam or after a period of heavy rainfall. I wonder which river the environmental consultants got to witness before writing their report? It is important to note that scientists are predicting more extreme weather conditions in the future as a result of global warming and warning us of an increase in both forest fires and most importantly in this situation, flooding (since this proposed development would be built on a floodplain). I must state that I do not support this application and am shocked and disheartened that it has actually made its way to a Public Hearing. I have attended the Public Information Meetings on both the past and present applications for these properties. I understand the applicants' desire to maximize their profits but they did knowingly purchase /own land with the current zoning. The city should feel no obligation to change either the OCP or zoning merely to appease the applicants. I should not have to remind you that the current zoning along the river was created to preserve and protect spawning grounds, fish passage, riverbanks and the overall health of the Alouette. I know that the developers have offered a "carrot-on-a-stick" to council by proposing to donate a new conservation/spawning channel but you must realize that the existing zoning along the river already preserves the existing spawning/conservation areas that could be damaged or destroyed by this proposed development. As with most choices in life, be they medical, financial or personal, we must weigh Risk vs Gain. The gains within this proposal are: the creation of 26 high end homes (of which there are many available in Maple Ridge already), a donation of land to create a conservation area and spawning channel in an area on the North side of the river that is quite unsuitable for building homes ( maybe being offered as a trade for areas destroyed by the building infrastructure on the development site). The risks are immeasurable and I will list a few: -damage to spawning grounds and overall health of river through addition of landfill, tree removal, damage to riverbank during the site development -damage to river from stormwater runoff, water from impervious surfaces -flooding (increase in water volume and damage to properties downstream from this development). Who will be liable for the damage caused by a potential future flood to private residences, parks and city infrastructure. The developers will be long gone and another Mayor and council will be answering as to why, with all the available information, this project was allowed to proceed. Respectfully, I ask you as Mayor and Council to reject this application and continue to show your support for the Alouette watershed. Thankyou, Patty Morrison Catherine Schmidt From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello, Elena Tkatchouk Tuesday, April 16, 2019 3:43 PM Clerk's Dept #2017-124-RZ Please be informed that I am opposed to this development as I believe it will have a negative impact on our neighbourhood and wildlife. Thank you, Elena Tkatchouk Elena Tkatchouk 1 Catherine Schmidt From: Sent: To: Subject: Hello, Pavel Tkatchouk Tuesday, April 16, 2019 3:26 PM Clerk's Dept #2017-124-RZ Please be informed that I am opposed to this development as I believe it will have negative impact on our neighbourhood, and wildlife. Thank you, Pavel Tkatchouk. 1 Catherine Schmidt From: Clerk's Dept Sent: To: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 4:01 PM Mayor Council and CAO Users List Cc: Subject: Christine Carter; Chuck Goddard; Diana Hall; Debbie Pope; Lisa Parslow FW: 2017 -124-RZ Public Hearing Good Afternoon, please see below correspondence from the Barclay Family, with regard to 2017-124-RZ on tonight's Public Hearing Agenda. Thanks, Catherine Schmidt Legislative Clerk MAPLE RIDGE BRITISH COLUMBIA City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-463-5221 Ext. 5278 Fax: 604-467-7329 Web Open Government Portal Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf your receipt of this message is in error and not meant to waive privilege in this message. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading the attachments. Unauthorized dissemination and use is prohibited. Correspondence with any government body, including City of Maple Ridge Council and staff, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Thank you. From: Jessica Hodgins <jhodgins@mapleridge.ca> Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 3:52 PM To: Morgan Barclay Cc: Clerk's Dept <clerks@mapleridge.ca> Subject: RE: 2017 -124-RZ Dear Barclay Family: Thank you for your email to Maple Ridge Mayor and Council regarding the proposed development on 240 Street that is the subject of this evening's Public Hearing. Comments and inquiries are greatly appreciated. As per the City's Council Correspondence Guidelines, this acknowledges that your email has been received by all members of Council. Please note that I have also forwarded a copy to the City Clerks Department for inclusion in the Public Hearing file. Thank you once again for sending in your feedback on this proposed development. Best regards, Jessica Hodgins Executive Assistant, Administration ~ MAPLE RIDGE -4J'f BRITISH COLUMBIA 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-467-7347 Fax: 604-467-7329 1 Web Open Government Portal Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf your receipt of this message is in error and not meant to waive privilege in this message. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading the attachments. Unauthorized dissemination and use is prohibited. Correspondence with any government body, including City of Maple Ridge Council and staff, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Thank you. From: Morgan Barclay Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 3:41 PM To: Mayor Council and CAO Users List <MayorCouncilAndCaol@mapleridge.ca> Subject: 2017 -124-RZ Dear Mayor and Council, Regarding the proposed development at 12555 240 Street, 12599 240 Street, 12516 240 Street, and 12511 241 Street, please be advised that we do not support this application. It is our hope that the following facts and concerns being presented tonight will propel you to deny this application. The Barclays 22192 126 Ave, Maple Ridge Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. 2 Catherine Schmidt From: Clerk's Dept Sent: To: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 4:02 PM Mayor Council and CAO Users List Cc: Subject: Christine Carter; Chuck Goddard; Diana Hall; Debbie Pope; Lisa Parslow FW: 2017-124-RZ Public Hearing Attachments: Public Hearing Alouette River.docx Good Afternoon1 please see below correspondence from Doug Stanger, with regard to 2017-124-RZ on tonight1s Public Hearing Agenda. Thanks1 Catherine Schmidt Legislative Clerk MAPLE RIDGE BRITISH COLUMBfA City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-463-5221 Ext. 5278 Fax: 604-467-7329 Web Open Government Portal Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf your receipt of this message is in error and not meant to waive privilege in this message. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading the attachments. Unauthorized dissemination and use is prohibited. Correspondence with any government body, including City of Maple Ridge Council and staff, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Thank you. From: Sent: Tuesday1 April 16, 2019 3:59 PM To: Clerk's Dept <clerks@mapleridge.ca> Subject: Please find a_ttached my concerns regarding 2017-124-RZ OCP amending bylaw no. 7537-2019 and in regards to the Public Hearing April 16th1 2019 Sincerely Doug Stanger 1 Doug Stanger 24003 Fern Crescent Maple Ridge, B.C. V4R 2R7 April 16, 2019 RE: 2017-124-RZ Maple Ridge OCP amending bylaw no. 7537-2019 12555, 12599, 12516 240th Street and 12511241st Street Mayor and Council I have lived close to the South Alouette River for 38 years, and with my wife walk along sections of it seven days a week, always with a garbage bag to pick up litter etc. From October through December each year I conduct salmon spawning surveys along its tributaries by request of Fisheries and Oceans Canada to have up-to-date records in regards to the health of this important salmon spawning river. So yes, I am very connected to this heritage river, one of only 20 in British Columbia and I state this as I am very concerned about this development application and the implications it will have on the South Alouette watershed. I am aware that this development application has submitted its entire environmental, site plan and flood studies to staff as required and apparently satisfied the requirements to proceed. My concern is that even though this one application might not have serious negative effects for the South Alouette watershed, by allowing it to proceed Maple Ridge Council is setting a precedent for future development on the South Alouette floodplain which will surely be the death by a thousand cuts to our beautiful heritage river and its important salmon spawning grounds. Being a long time resident I was here during the 1995 flood when many my friends and neighbours, some without success, were sandbagging their properties and much of Maple Ridge Park was under water. Although Northwest Hydraulics has downplayed the significance of the 1995 flood I would like to offer a firsthand experience of this flood as published in the Maple Ridge News on February 5th, 2005 by reporter Phil Melnychuk with the headline "Settlement reached for flood of 1995" In the article, long time riverfront resident A. Pausche who lived upstream from this proposed application is quoted as stating "once the water came over the dam it was uncontrollable, and "the water level was about three meters higher than normal" and that he was in water up to his shoulders trying to save his vehicles. " The outcome in the article was that a class-action lawsuit against BC Hydro and the District of Maple Ridge was threatened but before the case went to trial in B.C. Supreme Court both the district and B.C. Hydro decided to settle rather than risk a loss and huge payout by a court judgment. In an article published in the Walrus dated March 5th, 2019 Craig Stewart, Vice-President of Federal Affairs at the Insurance Bureau of Canada is quoted as saying "Since 2005 insurance claims in Canada for flooding have exceeded those for fire and now account for three-quarters of payouts" and that now terms like "100-year floods" are almost meaningless. Can council really be considering allowing a 26 high-end home development on the South Alouette floodplain for no other purpose than a short-term gain to the City when only fifteen years ago the City settled out of court to avoid the potential legal costs to the city for flood related issues along the South Alouette? With all due respect, previous councils supported protecting our Alouette Watershed from development within our existing OCP but if this application is approved it would appear our present council wishes to exploit our watershed for short term profit, thereby setting a course for which Maple Ridge will never reverse. Doug Stanger 24003 Fern Crescent Maple Ridge, B.C. V4R 2R7 Catherine Schmidt From: Clerk's Dept Sent: To: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 4:20 PM Mayor Council and CAO Users List Cc: Subject: Christine Carter; Chuck Goddard; Diana Hall; Debbie Pope; Lisa Parslow FW: 2017-124-RZ Good Afternoon, please see below correspondence from Kassandra Clack, with regard to 2017-124-RZ on tonight's Public Hearing Agenda. Thanks, Catherine Schmidt Legislative Clerk MAPLE RIDGE BRITISH COLUMBIA City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-463-5221 Ext. 5278 Fax: 604-467-7329 Web Open Government Portal Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf your receipt of this message is in error and not meant to waive privilege in this message. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading the attachments. Unauthorized dissemination and use is prohibited. Correspondence with any government body, including City of Maple Ridge Council and staff, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Thank you. From: Kassandra Clack Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 4:16 PM To: Clerk's Dept <clerks@mapleridge.ca> Subject: 2017-124-RZ Good afternoon, I am emailing in regards regarding the development proposal on 240 right on the Allouette River. Developing here will severely impact the wildlife as well as disappoint many families that have moved into that area because of the serene neighborhood. This will be a huge impact on the neighborhood, fish, and wildlife. The equestrian trail that was fought for many years will now have to compete with cars and bicycles. It means that high density will now be allowed, flood plane will mean nothing. This damage will be irreversible. I say no! We are not in favor of this proposal. Kassandra https://open.spotifv. com/track/7FDqJ08hPv54Uqs7SieqHK / Spotify. com httos:/litunes, apple. com/us/album!are-vou-with-me/1304116303?i= 1304116324 / Apple Music 1 Catherine Schmidt From: Clerk's Dept Sent: To: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 4:38 PM Mayor Council and CAO Users List Cc: Subject: Christine Carter; Chuck Goddard; Diana Hall; Debbie Pope; Lisa Parslow FW: Development 2017-124-RZ -Public Hearing Good Afternoon, please see below correspondence from Mr. George Best, with regard to 2017-124-RZ on tonight's Public Hearing Agenda. Thank you, Catherine Schmidt Legislative Clerk MAPLE RIDGE BRITISH COLUMBIA City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-463-5221 Ext. 5278 Fax: 604-467-7329 Web Open Government Portal Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient or their employee or agent responsible for receiving the message on their behalf your receipt of this message is in error and not meant to waive privilege in this message. Please notify us immediately, and delete the message and any attachments without reading the attachments. Unauthorized dissemination and use is prohibited. Correspondence with any government body, including City of Maple Ridge Council and staff, is subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. Thank you. From: George Best Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2019 4:25 PM To: Clerk's Dept <clerks@mapleridge.ca> Subject: Development 2017-124-RZ Hello, My name is George Best. I live in Maple Ridge at 12599 240th, I have been renting here for 2 years. Tonight is the city council meeting to motion forward development in this arena. To destroy all of the beautiful wildlife I see every morning & enjoy throughout my day. I am off work on disability, the peace & quiet has been very soothing for my brain injury. There are countless homes of many different species of animals, birds & insects. Along Alouette river, the fish, salmon & everything that lives down here will suffer if this development is motioned forward. These animals are already pushed to live down here & now the city sees an opportunity to make money, only at the cost of destroying the wildlife in its way. I have heard that the developer has paid for 3 of the city council members campaigns in order for them to vote for the approval of this project. If this is true, then I will be moving out of Maple Ridge. It matters nothing to this city & it's likely this happens every where on this conupt planet. But this is very disappointing to me as a citizen of this city who's been here my whole life. 1 It probably matters little at this point. And this email will go unnoticed, but I wanted to at least try. It is such a shame & a waste to have this area developed. But nature will have its way one day. Do the right thing & find another area to develop, away from such a high population of wildlife. This isn't the only area to build on. George Best 2