Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-05-17 Commitee of the Whole Agenda and Reports.pdfCity of Maple Ridge COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE AGENDA May 17, 2022 11:00 a.m. Virtual Online Meeting including Council Chambers Committee of the Whole is the initial venue for review of issues. No voting takes place on bylaws or resolutions. A decision is made to send an item to Council for debate and vote or to send an item back to staff for more information or clarification before proceeding to Council. The meeting is live streamed and recorded by the City of Maple Ridge. For virtual participation during Community Forum please go to www.mapieridge.ca/640/Council-Meetings and select the meeting date. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ADOPTION AND RECEIPT OF MINUTES 2.1 Minutes - May 3, 2022 3. DELEGATIONS/STAFF PRESENTATIONS 4. PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES Note: • Owners and/or Agents of development applications on this agenda may be permitted to speak to their item with a time limit of 10 minutes. • The following items have been numbered to correspond with the Council Agenda where further debate and voting will take place, upon Council decision to forward them to that venue. 1101 2020-237-RZ, 11070 Lockwood Street and 24984, 25024 & 25038 112 Avenue, RS-3 to R-1 and RM-1 Staff report dated May 17, 2022, recommending that Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7844-2022 to rezone from RS-3 (Single Detached Rural Residential) to R-1 (Single Detached (Low Density) Urban Residential) and RM-1 (Low Density Townhouse Residential) to permit a future subdivision of approximately 38 single-family lots and a 102 townhouse unit development be given first reading and that the applicant provide further information as described in the report. Committee of the Whole Agenda May 17, 2022 Page 2 of 4 1102 2018-289-RZ, 10309 & 10337 240 Street and 10320 & 10350 Slatford Place Staff report dated May 17, 2022, recommending that Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7542-2019 be given first and second reading and forwarded to Public Hearing and that Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7543-2019 as amended, to rezone from RS-3 (Single Detached Rural Residential) and RS-2 (Single Detached Suburban Residential) to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) to permit a future 102-unit townhouse development be given second reading and forwarded to Public Hearing. 1103 2018-458-RZ, 11310 Kingston Street, RS-3 to M-3 Staff report dated May 17, 2022, recommending that Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7522-2018 to rezone from RS-3 (Singe Detached Rural Residential) to M-3 (Business Park Industrial) to permit a future subdivision of approximately seven industrial park lots be given second reading and forwarded to Public Hearing. 1104 2018-489-RZ, 20278 and 20292 Patterson Avenue, RS-1 to RM-2 Staff report dated May 17, 2022, recommending that Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7523-2018 to rezone from RS-1 (Single Detached Residential) to RM-2 (Medium Density Residential) to permit a future four -storey apartment building, with approximately 88 units be given second reading and forwarded to Public Hearing. 1105 2022-159-RZ, 21973 132 Avenue, Termination and Replacement of Land Use Contract Staff report dated May 17, 2022, recommending that Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7853-2022, to rezone from LUC (Land Use Contract) to a new zone CD-1-22 (Equestrian Facility and Restaurant), be given first and second reading and forwarded to Public Hearing. 1106 2019-244-RZ, 12155 Edge Street, Housing Agreement Bylaw Staff report dated May 17, 2022, recommending that Housing Agreement Bylaw No. 7855-2022, to secure 209 units in the five -storey apartment building as market rental units, be give first, second and third reading. 1107 2022-014-DVP, 20425 Hampton Street Staff report dated May 17, 2022, recommending that the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2022-014-DVP to increase the maximum principal building height and that a restrictive covenant be authorized to be registered on title to prohibit the construction of a Secondary Suite. Committee of the Whole Agenda May 17, 2022 Page 3 of 4 5. ENGINEERING SERVICES 1131 Regional Public Works Mutual Aid Agreement for Major Emergencies Staff report dated May 17, 2022, recommending that the City enter into the modified Metro Vancouver Regional Public Works Mutual Aid Agreement. 7. PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURE 8. ADMINISTRATION 1191 Council Size Bylaw Staff report dated May 17, 2022, recommending that an increase to 8 Councillors be implemented after the 2022 general local election and upon incorporating the costs into the financial plan for 2023 budget cycle. 9. OTHER COMMITTEE ISSUES 10. NOTICE OF CLOSED COUNCIL MEETING 11. ADJOURNMENT Committee of the Whole Agenda May 17, 2022 Page 4 of 4 COMMUNITY FORUM The Community Forum provides the public with an opportunity to speak with Council on items that are of concern to them, with the exception of Public Hearing bylaws that have not yet reached conclusion. There is a 2 minute time limit per speaker with a second opportunity provided if no one else is waiting to speak, and a total of 15 minutes is provided for the Community Forum. Respectful statements and/or questions must be directed through the Chair and not to individual members of Council. 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. City Hall is open to the public and as of April 8, 2022, Council meetings open to the public will continue to be hosted through electronic means, with up to 25 members of the public allowed physical access to Council Chambers through a first come, first serve basis. The wearing of masks will be encouraged but not required. Sanitizer stations will be available at entry points to Council Chambers. Please check our website for the most current updates in response to the evolving Public Health Orders at: https://www.mapleridge.ca/2408/COVID-19- Information. We encourage the public to watch the video recording of the meeting via live stream or any time after the meeting via http://media.mapleridge.ca/Mediasite/Showcase. Using Zoom, Community Forum is being facilitated via the raised hand function through the Zoom meeting. For virtual public participation during Community Forum please join the meeting by clicking on the date of the meeting at https://www.mapleridge.ca/640/Council-Meetings. When the meeting reaches the Community Forum portion, please raise your virtual hand to indicate you would like to speak. For more information on these opportunities contact: Legal and Legislative Services (('lerk's) Department at 604-463-5221 or clerksCa�mapleridge.ca Mayor and Council at mayorandcouncilCa�mapleridge.ca APPROVED BY: DATE: PREPARED BY CHECKED BY: DATE: May 12, 2022 DATE: City of Maple Ridge COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE MEETING MINUTES MAY 3, 2022 The Minutes of the Committee of the Whole Meeting held on May 3, 2022 at 11:02 a.m. virtually and in Council Chambers of the City Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia for the purpose of transacting regular City business. PRESENT Appointed Staff Elected Officials S. Hartman, Chief Administrative Officer Mayor M. Morden C. Carter, General Manager Planning & Development Councillor J. Dueck Services Councillor C. Meadus C. Crabtree, General Manager Corporate Services Councillor G. Robson S. Labonne, General Manager Parks, Recreation and Councillor R. Svendsen Culture Councillor A. Yousef D. Pollock, General Manager Engineering Services P. Hlavac-Winsor, General Counsel and Executive Director, ABSENT Legislative Services, Acting Corporate Officer Councillor K. Duncan A. Nurvo, Deputy Corporate Officer Other Staff as Required R. Brummer, Business Operations Manager W. Cooper, Planner M. McMullen, Manager of Development & Environmental Services C. Nolan, Deputy Director of Finance D. Olivieri, Manager, Corporate Planning & Consultation H. Singh, Computer Support Specialist R. 011enberger, Manager of Infrastructure Development F. Smith, Director of Engineering T. Thompson, Director of Finance D. Pope, Director, Recreation & Community Engagement Note: These Minutes are posted on the City website at mapleridge.ca/AgendaCenter/ Video of the meeting is posted at media.mapleridge.ca/Mediasite/Showcase Note: Councillor Robson participated electronically. Councillor Svendsen chaired the meeting from the Council Chambers. 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ADOPTIONAND RECEIPT OFMINUTES 2.1 Minutes of the Committee of the Whole Meeting of April 19, 2022 It was moved and seconded 2.1 Committee of the Whole Minutes May 3, 2022 Page 2 of 5 That the minutes of the April 19, 2022 Committee of the Whole Meeting be adopted. CARRIED 3. DEL EGA TIONS/STAFF PRESENTA TONS - N i I 4. PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 1101 2022-034-RZ, 11956, 11946, 11936 & 11926 236 Street and 23638 Dewdney Trunk Road, RS-3 to RM-1 and R-2 Staff report dated May 3, 2022, recommending that Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7852-2022 to rezone from RS-3 (Single Detached Rural Residential) to RM-1 (Low Density Townhouse Residential), to permit the future construction of 52 townhomes and three single-family lots, be given first reading and that the applicant provide further information as described in the report. M. McMullen, Manager of Development & Environmental Services, provided a summary presentation and staff answered Council questions. KunwarAlvair attended electronically and answered Council questions on behalf of the applicant. It was moved and seconded That the staff report dated May 3, 2022, titled "First Reading, Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7852-2022, 11956, 11946, 11936 &am 11926 236 Street and 23638 Dewdney Trunk Road" be forwarded to the Council Meeting of May 10, 2022 CARRIED 1102 2021-323-RZ, 23348 141 Avenue, RS-3 to R-1 and R-2 Staff report dated May 3, 2022, recommending that Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7847-2022 be given first and second reading and forwarded to Public Hearing and that Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7774-2021 to rezone from RS-3 (Single Detached Rural Residential) to R-1 (Single Detached (Low Density) Urban Residential) and R-2 (Single Detached (Medium Density) Urban Residential), to permit a future subdivision of approximately 23 single-family lots and to revise the boundaries of land use designation, be given second reading as amended and forwarded to Public Hearing. W. Cooper, Planner, provided a summary presentation and staff answered Council questions. Quentin Boulton attended electronically and answered Council questions on behalf of the applicant. It was moved and seconded Committee of the Whole Minutes May 3, 2022 Page 3 of 5 That the staff report dated May 3, 2022, titled "First and Second Reading, Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7847-2022, Second Reading, Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7774-2021, 23348 141 Avenue" be forwarded to the Council Meeting of May 10, 2022. CARRIED 1103 Alternate Approval Process for Park Use Bylaw, Silver Valley Road (Plan BCP 26658 Section 33 Township 12 NWD) Staff report dated May 3, 2022, recommending that staff develop a Park Use Bylaw to permit a City storm sewer line in Dedicated Park Land located at Silver Valley Road (Plan BCP 46658 Section 33 Township 12 New Westminster District and that staff commence public engagement through the Alternative Approval Process. W. Cooper, Planner, provided a summary presentation and staff answered Council questions. It was moved and seconded That staff report dated May 3, 2022, titled "Alternate Approach Process for Park Use Bylaw, Silver Valley Road (Plan BCP 46658 Section 33 Township 12 NWD); Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7662-2020,13960 232 Street, 13897 and 14027 Silver Valley Road" be forwarded to the Council Meeting of May 10, 2022. CARRIED 5. ENGINEERING SERVICES 1131 Award of Contract ITT-EN22-3: 236 Street Water Pump Station Replacement Staff report dated May 3, 2022, recommending that Council approve the award to Drake Excavating (2016) Ltd., a contract contingency, an increase to the existing Stantec Consulting Ltd. contract for Engineering Design Services for the 236 Street Water Pump Station Replacement, and that the Financial Plan be amended to fund this project from the Water Revenue Fund and Development Cost Charges. F. Smith, Director of Engineering, was available to answer any questions from Council. It was moved and seconded That the staff report dated May 3, 2022, titled "Award of Contract ITT-EN22- 3: 236 Street Water Pump Station Replacement" be forwarded to the Council Meeting of May 10, 2022. CARRIED 6. CORPORATE SERVICES Committee of the Whole Minutes May 3, 2022 Page 4 of 5 1151 2021 Consolidated Financial Statements Staff report dated May 3, 2022 recommending the 2021 Consolidated Financial Statements be approved. C. Nolan, Deputy Director of Finance, provided a presentation summarizing the Financial Statements and staff answered Council questions. It was moved and seconded That staff report dated May 3, 2022, titled "2021 Consolidated Financial Statements" be forwarded to the Council Meeting of May 10, 2022. CARRIED 1152 Amendment of Consolidated Fees & Charges Bylaw Staff report dated May 3, 2022, recommending that Maple Ridge Fees & Charges Amending Bylaw No. 7850-2020 and Maple Ridge Tree Protection & Management Amending Bylaw No. 7851-2022 be given first, second and third readings. D. Olivieri, Manager, Corporate Planning & Consultation, provided a presentation reviewing the proposed revisions to existing rates and staff answered Council questions. It was moved and seconded That staff report dated May 3, 2022, titled "Bylaw 7575-2019 Maple Ridge Fees & Charges Bylaw Amendments" be forwarded to the Council Meeting of May 10, 2022. CARRIED 7. PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURE - Nil 8. ADMINISTRATION - Nil 9. COMMUNITY FORUM - Nil 10. NOTICE OF CLOSED COUNCIL MEETING It was moved and seconded The meeting will be closed to the public pursuant to Sections 90(1) and 90(2) of the Community Charter as the subject matter being considered related to the following: Committee of the Whole Minutes May 3, 2022 Page 5 of 5 Section 90(1)(e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality; Section 90(1)(f) law enforcement, if the council considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the conduct of an investigation under or enforcement of an enactment; and Section 90(1)(g) litigation or potential litigation affecting the municipality. Any other matter that may be brought before the Council that meets the requirements for a meeting closed to the public pursuant to Sections 90(1) and 90(2) of the Community Charter or Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. CARRIED 11. ADJOURNMENT - 12:04 p.m. Councillor R. Svendsen, Chair Presiding Member of the Committee mapleridge.ca City of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING DATE: May 17, 2022 FILE NO: 2020-237-RZ MEETING: C o W SUBJECT: First Reading Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7844-2022 11070 Lockwood Street and 24984, 25024 & 25038 112 Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received to rezone the subject properties, located at 11070 Lockwood Street and 24984, 25024 & 25038 112 Avenue, from RS-3 (Single Detached Rural Residential) to R-1 (Single Detached (Low Density) Urban Residential) and RM-1 (Low Density Townhouse Residential) to permit a future subdivision of approximately 38 single-family lots and a 103 townhouse unit development. In addition, a 0.49 ha (1.20 acre) parcel of land will be purchased by the City at a future date for a City park, to be negotiated by the City and the owner. To proceed further with this application additional information is required as outlined below. An Official Community Plan amendment will be required to re -designate the land use from Low/Medium Density Residential to Single Family, Townhouse, Conservation, and Park. These designations are proposed by the North East Albion Area Concept Plan (Concept Plan) that was endorsed by Council and used to amend the Albion Area Plan which received first reading on January 20, 2021. There may be additional amendments required to the Albion Area Plan to incorporate policies within the Concept Plan related to this development. As per Council Policy 6.31, this application is subject to the Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) program. The CAC rates in Policy 6.31 are currently under review, and if approved at an upcoming Council meeting, it is anticipated that this application will be subject to new rates. The expected CAC contribution rate for this rezoning application will be confirmed in the second reading report. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. In respect of Section 475 of the Local Government Act, requirement for consultation during the development or amendment of an Official Community Plan, Council must consider whether consultation is required with specifically: L The Board of the Regional District in which the area covered by the plan is located, in the case of a Municipal Official Community Plan; ii. The Board of any Regional District that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan; ill. The Council of any municipality that is adjacent to the area covered by the plan; iv. First Nations; V. Boards of Education, Greater Boards and Improvements District Boards; and vi. The Provincial and Federal Governments and their agencies, 2020-237-RZ Page 1 of 7 1101 and in that regard it is recommended that no additional consultation be required in respect of this matter beyond the early posting of the proposed Official Community Plan amendments on the City's website, together with an invitation to the public to comment; 2. That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7844-2022 be given first reading; and further 3. That the applicant provide further information as described on Schedules A, C, D, E, F, G and J of the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999, along with the information required for an Intensive Residential Development Permit and a Subdivision application. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant: Aplin and Martin Consultants Ltd. Legal Description: Parcel "A" (Explanatory Plan 16432) Lot 4 Section 11 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 1363; Lot 28 Section 11 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 34098; Lot 29 Section 11 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 34098; and Lot 4, Except: Firstly: Parcel "A" (Explanatory Plan 16432) and Secondly: Part Dedicated as Road on Plan 29924, Section 11 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 1363 OCP: Existing: Low/Medium Density Residential Proposed: Single Family, Townhouse, Conservation and Park Within Urban Area Boundary: Yes Area Plan: Albion Area Plan -North East Albion Land Use Concept Plan OCP Major Corridor: Yes Zoning: Existing: RS-3 (Single Detached Rural Residential) Proposed: R-1 (Single Detached (Low Density) Urban Residential) and RM-1 (Low Density Townhouse Residential) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Single -Family Residential and Conservation Zone: R-1 (Single Detached (Low Density) Urban Residential), R-2 (Single Detached (Medium Density) Urban Residential) and RS-3 (Single Detached Rural Residential) Designation: Low/Medium Density Residential, Conservation South: Use: Single -Family Residential Zone: RS-3 (Single Detached Rural Residential) Designation: Low/Medium Density Residential and Suburban Residential 2020-237-RZ Page 2 of 7 East: West: Existing Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Site Area: Access: Servicing requirement b) Site Characteristics: Use: Single -Family Residential Zone: Single -Family Residential Designation: Low/Medium Density Residential and Suburban Residential Use: Single -Family Residential Zone: RS-3 (Single Detached Rural Residential) Designation: Low/Medium Density Residential Single -Family Residential Single -Family Residential, Multi -Family Residential, Conservation and Park 7.39 ha (18.24 acres) 112 Avenue, Lockwood Street and 110 Avenue Urban Standard The four subject properties are located within the North East Albion Area of the Albion Area Plan, south of 112 Avenue, east of Lockwood Street, and north of 110 Avenue (see Appendices A and B). The subject properties are influenced by several creeks and there are several pockets of deciduous and coniferous trees. The subject properties slope from the southeast up to the northwest. c) Project Description: A rezoning application has been received to rezone the subject properties from RS-3 (Single Detached Rural Residential) to R-1 (Single Detached (Low Density) Urban Residential) and RM-1 (Low Density Townhouse Residential) to permit a single-family residential subdivision, townhouse development, active park to be purchased, and conservation areas to be dedicated. The following table provides a breakdown of the proposed zones with the associated approximate lot and unit count. Proposed Lots Existing and Proposed Zones (proposed yield will be affected Proposed Townhouses by technical requirements) RS-3 (One Family Rural 9 0 Residential) - No Change to Zone R-1(Single Detached (Low _ 38 0 Density) Urban Residential) RM-1(Low Density Townhouse 0 103 Residential) At this time, the current application has been assessed to determine its compliance with the Official Community Plan (OCP) and provide a land use assessment only. Detailed review and comments will need to be made once full application packages have been received. A more detailed analysis and further reports will be required prior to second reading. Elements to be reviewed by the City include: • Environmental reports; • Arborist report assessing significant stands of trees; • Servicing and lot grading plans; and • Geotechnical report. 2020-237-RZ Page 3 of 7 Assessment of these elements is likely to impact proposed lot boundaries and yields, OCP designations and Bylaw particulars, and may require application for further development permits. Any subdivision layout provided is strictly preliminary and could change after servicing details and analysis reports are reviewed. Any subdivision layout provided is strictly preliminary and must be approved by the Approving Officer. d) Planning Analysis: Official Communitv Plan: The North East Albion Area Concept Plan, endorsed by Council on October 1, 2019, has not yet been incorporated into the Official Community Plan, but is used as a guide to review applications on a case by case basis. The Plan seeks to develop a complete community by integrating environmental stewardship, the protection of natural resources and the preservation of ecosystems whole balancing the social and economic objectives of the community. The community will focus on multi- family development around commercial and amenity nodes, all linked by streets and a multi -modal network of paths and amenities like school, parks, conservation areas and shopping. This application is in keeping with the proposed land used designations and policies outlined in the Concept Plan. Council granted first reading to Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7698-2021 on January 26, 2021 to amend the Albion Area Plan and incorporate the proposed Concept Plan. The current Albion Area Plan designates the subject properties as Low/Medium Density Residential; however, the subject properties fall within the Concept Plan which identifies the properties as Townhouse, Conservation, Single Family, and Park. Since, this application is proceeding in advance of the North East Albion Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7698-2021, an OCP amendment will be required to designate those portions of the subject properties proposed to be rezoned for R-1 (Single Detached (Low Density) Urban Residential) to Single -Family and the subject property to RM-1(Low Density Townhouse Residential) as Medium Density Residential. In order to designate the subject properties to Single -Family and Townhouse these designations and associated policies contained in the Concept Plan will need to be incorporated into the Albion Area Plan through an OCP amendment. These amendments will be included in the second reading report. In addition, those portions of the land identified as environmentally sensitive areas will need to be designated as Conservation and those land identified as neighbourhood park will be designated Park. The Conservation and Park designations currently exist within the Albion Area Plan; therefore, no additional policy amendments will be required. Zoning Bylaw: The application proposes to rezone the subject properties from RS-3 (One Family Rural Residential) to R-1 (Single Detached (Low Density) Urban Residential) and RM-1 (Low Density Townhouse Residential) to permit a future subdivision of approximately 38 single-family lots and approximately 103 units townhouse development (see Appendix D). Any variations from the requirements of the proposed zone will require a Development Variance Permit application. 2020-237-RZ Page 4 of 7 Development Permits: Pursuant to Section 8.7 of the OCP, a Multi -Family Development Permit application is required to ensure the current proposal enhances existing neighbourhoods with compatible housing styles that meet diverse needs, and minimize potential conflicts with neighbouring land uses. 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"; All lands with an average natural slope of greater than 15%; and All floodplain areas and forest lands identified on Natural Features Schedule "C" to ensure the preservation, protection, restoration and enhancement of the natural environment and for development that is protected from hazardous conditions. Pursuant to Section 8.12 of the OCP, a Wildfire Development Permit application is required for all development and subdivision activity identified in wildfire risk areas. The purpose of the Wildfire Development Permit is for the protection of life and property in designated areas that could be at risk for wildland fire; and where this risk may be reasonably abated through implementation of appropriate precautionary measures. The subject property is located within the Wildfire Development Permit Area, identified on Map 1 in Section 8.12 of the Official Community Plan. Prior to second reading a Registered Professional Forester's Report will be required to determine wildfire mitigation requirements. Advisory Design Panel: A Multi -Family Development Permit is required and must be reviewed by the Advisory Design Panel prior to Second Reading. Development Information Meeting: A Development Information Meeting is required for this application. Prior to second reading the applicant is required to host a Development Information Meeting in accordance with Council Policy 6.20. 2020-237-RZ Page 5 of 7 e) Interdepartmental Implications: In order to advance the current application, after first reading, comments and input, will be sought from the various internal departments and external agencies listed below: a) Engineering Department; b) Operations Department; c) Fire Department; d) Building Department; e) Parks, Recreation and Culture Department; f) School District; g) Utility companies; and h) Canada Post. The above list is intended to be indicative only and it may become necessary, as the application progresses, to liaise with agencies and/or departments not listed above. This application has not been forwarded to the Engineering Department for comments at this time; therefore, an evaluation of servicing and site access requirements have not been undertaken. We anticipate that this evaluation will take place between first and second reading. f) Early and Ongoing Consultation: In respect of Section 475 of the Local Government Act for consultation during an OCP amendment, it is recommended that no additional consultation is required beyond the early posting of the proposed OCP amendments on the City's website, together with an invitation to the public to comment. g) Development Applications: In order for this application to proceed the following information must be provided, as required by Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999 as amended: 1. An OCP Application (Schedule A); 2. A complete Rezoning Application (Schedule C); 3. A Multi -Family Residential Development Permit Application (Schedule D); 4. A Development Variance Permit (Schedule E); 5. A Watercourse Protection Development Permit Application (Schedule F); 6. A Natural Features Development Permit Application (Schedule G); 7. A Wildfire Development Permit Application (Schedule J); and 8. A Subdivision Application. The above list is intended to be indicative only, other applications may be necessary as the assessment of the proposal progresses. 2020-237-RZ Page 6 of 7 CONCLUSION: The development proposal is in compliance with the policies of the OCP and the Northeast Albion Concept Plan which is proposed to amend the OCP. Justification has been provided to support an OCP amendment to designate portions of the subject properties to Single Family and Townhouse. These designations are not currently contained in the Albion Area Plan concept; therefore, these designations and associated policies contained in the Concept Plan will need to be incorporated into the Albion Area Plan. In addition, those portions of the land identified as environmentally sensitive areas will need to be designated as Conservation and land identified as neighbourhood park will be designated Park. The land proposed to be designated Park to accommodate the future City funded neighbourhood Park will purchased by the City at a future date. The details of the purchase of the land will be subject to a future report to Council. It is, therefore, recommended that Council grant first reading subject to additional information being provided and assessed prior to second reading. "Original signed by Wendy Cooper" Prepared by: Wendy Cooper, M.Sc., MCIP,RPP Planner "Original signed by Mark McMullen" for 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 Scott Hartman" Concurrence: Scott Hartman Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A - Subject Map Appendix B - Ortho Map Appendix C - Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7844-2022 Appendix D - Proposed Site Plan 2020-237-RZ Page 7 of 7 MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia ' l` -' ti*'. i tom. NOr 16 s i F 1 •i4 all mom ` i �' y s 91 F�mi � �i' _ 4la Via - — , ar Yailar al all all 41t — 7 ILI ss )Ir MUMdMOM f s ok AILMAlf. i 1 t 1. , all i `. -T 0 - - aia Z4" all d all IL Lai or lip al 44 lam- W _. . all la Aw I Nil Ila _ allall ;.al '�• as adh wff It al Ai 4 Lila III ma, .d oit y ►.: #dj isi' 40 µid rr'. 4 16ratr. # j_v •;i IP Skill a a. a it low L dl ai r 74 a it ,'� �Z sFA * 'kr �" all 0 all all oar +tic t^ i ✓00 ., fra 46 Yo, War OWL sit 91, ' AWL ` ilia. IN, 7Pw _ �^ _ al la Qall Ila ?� 000: 1 —1, k ama all Tw, iall t 4 al al A� all Is 1 ) � s{` • � f � , �',' 1 0 all erw MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia APPENDIX C CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO.7844-2022 A Bylaw to amend Schedule 'A' Zoning Map 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. 7844-2022." 2. Those parcels or tracts of land and premises known and described as: Parcel "A" (Explanatory Plan 16432, Lot 4, Section 11, Township 12, New Westminster District Plan 1363; Lot 28, Section 11, Township 12, New Westminster District, Plan 34098; Lot 29, Section 11, Township 12, New Westminster District, Plan 34098; and Lot 4 Except: Firstly: Parcel "A" (Explanatory Plan 16432) and Secondly: Part Dedicated as Road on Plan 29924; Section 11 Township 12, New Westminster District, Plan 1363 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1958 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) and RM-1(Low Density 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 day of , 20 READ a second time the day of , 20 PUBLIC HEARING held the day of 20 READ a third time the day of 120 ADOPTED the day of , 20 PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER 21 N '-� � � 1124�0N PARK Rem 51 ti� 1 78 11241 1123617 N N 2011239 1123631 1 N6 EPP 1090 24641 �Qe^%� u� 11235 112AAVE, �713132 q 78 Rem 6556 �5 P 69242 1 PARK 11229 g m / P 72158 P 69242 11226 40 33 m 4 N N N N N N / N N W 11223 F 3 37 36 o EPP 114521 0 o m 1122041 39 E P 1 45 ?5 34 v /P 68269 rn N 311217Rem H ?9L 1 52 � 0 d a N E 1 4 2 Sk.20 7 ILF a L11 W 211211 4244444 45 55555 P 36865 Q 1112OS h h h n h N h n N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Q N 112 AVE. R N N N N N N N 22 I j A I Rem 2 0 0 (M d P 31 098 P 1333 P 1363 i 23 P 1363 t0 N N 2 29 W 7 11133 i i i 24 11097 0 0 ch a 25 1363 08 17 j Rem 4 j � 11051 P 29924 I j 26 1 0 T 1 11025 N P 29924 q Q � N _ a N 170 18 BCP 49693 IFPP 60976 11 P 84 54 FPM r02 fin 11363 10941 PARKRem 4 Rem 2 1 f= € 10 a BCP 47594 Bylaw No. Map No. 7844-2022 1958 From: RS-3 (Single Detached Rural Residential) To: � RM-1(Low Density Townhouse Residential) � R-1(Single Detached (Low Density) Urban Residential) Rem 1 70166 BCP 31 i S BCi BCP 3 BCP 3 N SCALE 1:3,500 END�X D 1 MAP�LE RIDGE mapleridge.ca City of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Michael Morden MEETING DATE: May 17, 2022 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2018-289-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C o W SUBJECT: First and Second Reading Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7542-2019 Second Reading Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7543-2019 10309 & 10337 240 Street and 10320 & 10350 Slatford Place EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received to rezone the subject properties located at 10309 & 10337 240 Street and 10320 & 10350 Slatford Place from RS-3 (Single Detached Rural Residential), and RS-2 (Single Detached Suburban Residential) to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) to permit a future 102-unit townhouse development. Council granted first reading to Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7543-2019 and considered the early consultation requirements for the Official Community Plan (OCP) amendment on May 14, 2019. Portions of the site are influenced by a watercourse and steep slopes that are environmentally sensitive. As a result of detailed ground truthing of the site, an Official Community Plan (OCP) amendment is required to adjust the land use designations to fit the site conditions. Pursuant to Council Policy 6.31, this application is subject to the Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) Program at a rate of $4,100.00 per townhouse dwelling unit, for an estimated amount of $418,200.00, or such rate adopted by Council at third reading. Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7543-2019 is proposed to be given second reading as amended, and includes updates to reference the new Zoning Bylaw No. 7600-2019 and inclusion of the properties legally addressed for 10309 & 10337 240 Street. 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. 7542-2019 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. 7542-2019 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. 7542-2019 is consistent with the Capital Expenditure Plan and Waste Management Plan; 2018-289-RZ Page 1 of 8 1102 4. That Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7542-2019 be given first and second reading and forwarded to Public Hearing; 5. That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7543-2019 as amended, be given second reading and 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) Amendment to Official Community Plan Schedules "B" and "C"; iii) Road dedication as required; iv) Park dedication as required, including construction of a 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 pertaining to the Fraser River floodplain report, which addresses the suitability of the subject properties for the proposed development; viii) Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for the protection of the Environmentally Sensitive areas (wetlands) on the subject properties; ix) Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for protecting the Visitor Parking; Tree Protection, and Stormwater Management; x) Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for protecting the Visitor Parking; xi) Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for protecting the Tree Protection; xii) Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for protecting the Stormwater Management; xiii) Registration of a Statutory Right -of -Way plan and agreement for a Public Trail; xiv) Removal of existing buildings; xv) In addition to the Ministry of Environment Site Disclosure Statement, 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; and xvi) That a voluntary contribution, in the amount of $418,200 ($4,100 X 102 units) be provided in keeping with the Council Policy 6.31 with regard to Community Amenity Contributions, or at the rate adopted by Council at the time this application receives third reading. 2018-289-RZ Page 2 of 8 DISCUSSION: 1. Background Context: Applicant: Flat Architecture Inc. Legal Description: Lot 4 District Lot 405 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 60014; Lot 5 District Lot 405 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 60014; Lot 1 District Lot 405 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 60014; and Lot 2 District Lot 405 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 60014. OCP: Existing: Urban Residential and Conservation Proposed: Urban Residential and Conservation Zoning: Existing: RS-3 (Single Detached Rural Residential), and RS-2 (Single Detached Suburban Residential) Proposed: RM-1 (Low Density Townhouse Residential) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Multi -Family and Park Zone: RM-1(Low Density Townhouse Residential), and RS-2 (Single Detached Suburban Residential) Designation: Urban Residential and Conservation South: Use: Fallow Agricultural Land Zone: RS-3 (Single Detached Rural Residential), and RS-2 (Single Detached Suburban Residential) Designation: Agricultural East: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-2 (Single Detached Suburban Residential and R-3(Single Detached (Intensive) Urban Residential) Designation: Medium Density Residential West: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: R-2 (Single Detached (Medium Density) Urban Residential) Designation: Urban Residential Existing Use of Property: Single Family Residential and Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Townhouses Site Area: 2.10 ha (5.18 acres) Access: Slatford Place Servicing requirement: Urban Standard Flood Plain: Yes Fraser Sewer Area: Yes Companion Applications: 2018-289-DP/DVP 2018-289-RZ Page 3 of 8 2. Project Description: The four subject properties encompass approximately 2.10 ha (5.18 acres) of land located on the west side of 240 Street and the east side of Slatford Place (see Appendix A). The applicant has applied to rezone the subject properties from R-3 (Single Detached (Intensive) Urban Residential) and RS-2 (Single Detached Suburban Residential) to RM-1 (Low Density Townhouse Residential) to facilitate a 102-unit townhouse development (see Appendix A). Portions of the subject properties are located with the Fraser River 200-year floodplain. The geotechnical engineer of record will need to include details in the geotechnical report that is required as part of the approval process regarding the impacts that the Fraser River 200-year floodplain may have on the subject properties. A floodplain restrictive covenant may be required as a condition of final reading pending the conclusions of the geotechnical report. 3. Planning Analysis: i) Official Community Plan: The OCP designates the subject properties Urban Residential and with the consolidation of all four properties into a single parcel before the adoption of Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7543-2019 the Urban Residential - Major Corridor policies would support the proposed development of townhouses which are detailed below. "Policy 3.13 (3-18), 2) Major Corridor Residential - General Characteristics: a) Major Corridor Residential is characterized by the following: i) Has frontage on an existing major Road Corridor as identified on Figure 4 Proposed Major Corridor Network Plan. ii) Includes ground orientated housing forms such as single detached dwellings, garden suites, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, townhouses, apartments, or small lot intensive residential, subject to compliance with Major Corridor Residential infill policies." There are adjustments of the land use designation to reflect ground truthing of the site. Portions of the property will be designated Conservation as depicted in OCP Amending Bylaw 7542-2019. ii) Zoning Bylaw: The current applicaiotn proposes to rezone the subject properties from RS-3 (Single Detached Rural Residential), and RS-2 (Single Detached Suburban Residential) to RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) to permit a 102-unit towhouse development (see Appendix C). The maximum density or Floor Space Ration (FSR) for the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) Zone designated Major Cooridor Residential is 0.75. The applicant is proposing the following to achieve a FSR of 0.75: 2018-289-RZ Page 4 of 8 Density FSR Type of Density Bonus Base 0.60 Not Application $344.46 cash contribution per square metre. Bonus 0.15 Estimate cash contribution (2,897m2 X $344.46) $997,900.62 iii) Off -Street Parking and Loading Bylaw: Parking Required Proposed Spaces per unit 102 units X 2 spaces = 204 spaces 204 Spaces Visitor Spaces 102 units X 0.20 space = 21 spaces 21 iv) Proposed Variances: A Development Variance Permit application has been received for this project and involves relaxations to Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 7600-2019. Potential variances to the north and south interior side lot line will be required as well as increase to the height for the amenity building. Variances will be considered in a future report to Council. v) Development Permits: Pursuant to Section 8.7 of the OCP, a Multi -Family Development Permit application is required to ensure the current proposal enhances existing neighbourhoods with compatible housing styles that meet diverse needs, and minimize potential conflicts with neighbouring land uses. 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"; • All lands with an average natural slope of greater than 15 percent; and • 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. vi) Advisory Design Panel: The application was reviewed by the Advisory Design Panel (ADP) at a meeting held on January 19, 2022 at which the following resolution was carried: "That the Advisory Design Panel has reviewed application 2018-289-DP and recommends that the following concerns be addressed and digital versions of revised drawings and memo be submitted to Planning staff; and further that Planning staff forward this on to the Advisory Design Panel for information. 2018-289-RZ Page 5 of 8 Architectural Comments: • Improve connection from indoor amenity to outdoor amenity spaces; • Explore series of colour palettes to improve massing and wayfinding, • Explore opportunities for rooftop patios; • Explore opportunities to increase prominence of front entries. Landscape Comments: • Address isolation of outdoor amenity space and limited access to central amenity area; • Incorporate dedicated pedestrian circulation and cross paths to enhance walkability of site; • Improve limited bike parking options with better integration into entire site; • Highlight access to outdoor amenity spaces with road treatment; • Consider additional bio swales to improve permeability in open spaces; • Review narrow terraced walls for required soil volume for trees (10 m3 of soil per tree); • Provide complete landscape plans for review to panel; • Triangular landscape median appears to be opportunity for feature." The applicant has responded to the ADP comments as can be seen in Appendix H. A detailed description of the projects form and character will be included in a future Development Permit report to Council. vii) Development Information Meeting: A Development Information Meeting was conducted via the Public Comment Opportunity process from April 18 to April 29, 2022. During the comment date range, Flat Architecture, the applicant, received several comments from the Public that are detailed below (Appendix 1). In addition, a petition was forwarded to Council opposing the proposed development. • Entrance to the proposed development is located off of Slatford Place which will increase traffic on Slatford Place. • Protection of wetlands. • Number of proposed units. • Size of the outdoor amenity space for child play. • Retention of trees. The following are provided in response to the issues raised by the public: • The entrance is located off of Slatford Place per the City's requirement. • A full Environmental Impact assessment has been submitted to the City to fulfill the Natural Features Development Permit Requirements. • The proposed density falls with the policy guidance of the Official Community plan for land designated a Major Corridor Residential. • The outdoor amenity space exceeds the minimum requirements of the Zoning Bylaw. 2018-289-RZ Page 6 of 8 4. Environmental Implications: The subject properties contain steep slopes and is influenced by Spencer Creek; therefore, a Natural Features Development Permit has been submitted along with an Environmental Assessment Report and Arborist Report. Before adoption of the bylaw a staff -issued Natural Features Development Permit will be required. 5. Agricultural Impact: Along the southern boundary of the development site is Agricultural Land Reserve. A buffer has been created as part of the Natural Features Development Permit requirements ranging in width from 30.Om at the west down to O.Om at the east. There will be a 2.5m multi -use pathway that runs parallel to this buffer, providing addition buffering to the property located to the south. 6. Traffic Impact: As the subject properties are located within 800 metres of the Lougheed Highway, a referral has been sent to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure for their approval. 7. Interdepartmental Implications: i) Engineering Department: The Engineering Department requires the following items be addressed: a) Road dedication as required to meet the design criteria of the Subdivision & Development Bylaw No. 4800-1993. b) Utility servicing as required to meet the design criteria of the Subdivision & Development Bylaw No. 4800-1993. c) Frontage upgrades to the applicable road standard. ii) Parks. Recreation and Culture Department: The applicant has worked with the Manager of Parks Planning & Development, Parks & Facilities in conjunction with the City's Environmental Planner to incorporate a multi -use trail on the southern side of the subject properties. 8. 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, 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. 2018-289-RZ Page 7 of 8 9. Citizen/Customer Implications: A Development Information Meeting was conducted via the Public Comment Opportunity process from April 18 to April 29, 2022. An additional opportunity for public comment will be provided by the Public Hearing, which will be required prior to advancing this application. CONCLUSION: It is recommended that first and second reading be given to Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7542-2019, that second reading be given to Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7543-2019, and that application 2018-244-RZ be forwarded to Public Hearing. "Original signed by Wendy Cooper" Prepared by: Wendy Cooper, M.Sc., MCIP, RPP Planner "Original signed by Charles Goddard" Reviewed by: Charles R. Goddard, BA, MA Director of Planning "Original signed by Charles Goddard" for Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP GM Planning & Development Services "Original signed by Scott Hartman" Concurrence: Scott Hartman Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A - Subject Map Appendix B - Ortho Map Appendix C - Official Community Plan Amending Bylaw No. 7542-2019 Appendix D - Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7543-2019 Appendix E - Site Plan Appendix F - Building Elevation Plans (Typical) Appendix G - Landscape Plan Appendix H - ADP Design Comments Appendix I - Public Responses to Development Information Meeting and Petition to Council 2018-289-RZ Page 8 of 8 Legend =� ¢-T-�j p Strewm .�-- Ditch Centreline ®— Indefinite Creek Canal 10320/50 SLATFORD PLACE 10309/37 240 STREET 001-463-187, 002-340-593, 002-340-631, 002-340-569 PLANNING DEPARTMENT mapleridge.ca Scale: 1:2,500 FILE: 2018-289-DP DATE: Dec 10, 2020 BY: BD Scale: 1:2,500 Legend 1� -� Stream --- Ditch Centreline — — Indefinite Creek �J Canal ��--�; Marsh 10320/50 SLATFORD PLACE 10309/37 240 STREET 001-463-187, 002-340-5937 002-340-6311 002-340-569MAPLE RIDGE FILE: 2018-289-RZ DATE: Dec 10, 2020 PLANNING DEPARTMENT wok mapleridge.ca BY: BD CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW N0, 7542-2019 A Bylaw to amend the Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 WHEREAS Section 477 of the Loca! 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. 7542-2019 2. Schedule "B" is hereby amended for that parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: Lot 4 District Lot 405 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 60014; Lot 5 District Lot 405 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 60014; Lot 1 District Lot 405 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 60014, and Lot 2 District Lot 405 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 60014 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1001, 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 4 District Lot 405 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 60014; Lot 5 District Lot 405 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 600147 Lot 1 District Lot 405 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 60014; and Lot 2 District Lot 405 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 60014 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1002, a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby amended by adding Conservation. 4. Maple Ridge Official Community Plan Bylaw No. 7060-2014 is hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the READ a second time the PUBLIC HEARING held the READ a third time the ADOPTED, the day of day of day of day of day of ,20 20 ,20 20 20 PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER `Z O \ �— 1041 23895 / \ 270 275 274 1273 272 271 CO IM n N I CO CO CO MMA 104 AVE. 00 coO co OOi O QMi N C) C) � N N co N4 N5 v6 N N N N 1 2 3 EPiP 56 57 7 8 9 10 PARK EPP 56456 20 19 18�PP 56 �57 14 13 12 11 � CO 0) LO � cn �"LO1 �15 LO m m m b 00 � m m co N N co N N N N N N N 103A AV E. 10338 PAR 46 1 4710339 10330 45 4810331 10324 44 4910325 1031643� 5010317 1030842 51 10309 1030o 10292 41 52 10301 40" ` 53 10293 1028o 39 54 10281 10274 38 155 10275 10266 37 56 10267 10262 36 57 10261 Bylaw No. Map No. From: To: cp N 0] m m cn co C) N 66 67 68 10320 651� LO zl 1031264� 63a. } 10302 a 3 Mr Y 10296 62 z 10284 61 PARK 10276 60 EPP 56456 10268 59 10260 58 J 31 V/ o 10416 0O / 375 10410 U / 376 m \ 10406 Rem S 5.25 CHAINS OF J RP 9287E 3 N 10390 C0 c7 4 N 2 C0 it 10380 1 U 10370 °a PARK BCP 45800 7542-2019 1001. Urban Residential Conservation 10420 O N O N � O N A NB P 21769 10386 I (EPS 763) P160014 0 NSO N � O O O N MDIIIT N B NW )7139 P 13554 P 13554 10358 9 18 10355 o EPP 59458 10352 8 1710349 C(0) d 10346 7 16 10343 m 10389 0 N 10340 6o 15 10337 10332 5(o 14 10331 Q 2 10328 4 13 10325 N 10322 3d 12 10319 Epp g0758 10315 2m 11 10313 / 10310 1 10 10307 10337 103 AVE. BCP / PARK 1 I I P 8149 Rem 1 — — Urban Area Boundary 4 Urb�81 Area �BoundaryP 37992 � PARK �102 rn N 1 M n 10260 co L P 48b5 M1o2 CL w 27 262630 31 M1o2 N 102 10250 N N N N N M 3 0 102A AVE. v MI't Lc) N CI CO ro 10273 "� M L212 oO N 75' of 4 NNNNN NN6 5 221A1 00 1022204 LMP 48059 N SCALE 1:22500 2 \0 1041 A 374 0 / / 23Sg5 / 270 10416 275 274 1273 272 271 1oa1o75 / 10420 M M la � � 376 m \ N N N I N N N 10406 _ _ \ \\ N N M" 104 AVE. N CO N CO CO N CO N N CO 1 2 3 EPP 56 57 7 8 9 10 PARK EPP 56456 J a 20 19 18 PP 56 57 14 13 12 11 1� CO 1 LO 15 � Cn � � ppp CO CO m COCO CO CO CO CO CO p CO N N N CO N N N N N 103AAVE. 10338 46 4710339 1033o 45 4810331 10324 44 4910325 1031643m 5010317 10308 42 51 10309 1030o 41� 52 10301 10292 40J 53 10293 1028o 39 54 10281 10274 38 55 10275 10266 37 56 10267 10262 36 57 10261 0 Bylaw No. Map No. Purpose: CO N N M cv)04 (r7 66 67 68 1032o 65� 64(0 10312 } 10302 � LU Y 10296 62 IN z 10284 61 PARK 10276 60 EPP 56456 10268 59 10260 58 3 � 10390 ((0 N 4 2 (° 0 � 1038 ri- 1 U 10370 CO PARK BCP 45800 N N N A NB P 21769 10386 (EPS 763) P160014 2 i 10389 10337 0 N v Rem S 5.25 CHAINS OF J N 0 0 RP 9287 F v w m 7542-2019 1002 To Amend Schedule C as shown � To Add To Conservation — — Urban Area Boundary 10273 CO v o N CO Irt N Re m D N B NWP7139 P 13554 P 13554 9 � 10355 ao 10358 oar EPP 59458 10352 8 1710349 M a 10346 7 16 10343 m 10340 6p 15 10337 10332 5'(0 14 10331 U) Ce)Q 10328 '4 13 10325 N 10322 12 10319 Epp gp158 r 10316 � 11 10313 � 10310 1 10 10307 CPT 09 103 AVE. PARK P 8149 Rem 1 10294 U1 81 Area �BoundaryP 37992 1 10260 00 2 10250 3 N 75' of 4 PARK M1 r �1 P 4 8 5 27282930 31 M1 rn � to M M1 0_ chi chi o C1 o .. . 0 M M d 102A AVE. I (N I I I V N N N N N N 6 I25I2412�22I2112011 N SCALE 1:21500 APPENDIX D CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7543-2019 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. 7490-2018." 2. Those parcels or tracts of land and premises known and described as: Lot 4 District Lot 405 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 60014; Lot 5 District Lot 405 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 60014; Lot 1 District Lot 405 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 60014; and Lot 2 District Lot 405 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 60014 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1771 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, are hereby rezoned to RM-1(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 14t" day of May, 2019. READ a second time as amended the PUBLIC HEARING held the day of READ a third time the day of day of ,20 ,20 APPROVED by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure this ,20 ADOPTED, the day of PRESIDING MEMBER ,20 ,20 day of CORPORATE OFFICER 2 \0 1041 374 p / / 23895 / 270 10416 O / 275 274 I273 272 271 1041075 0_ / 10420 CO COCO IR V to 376 m \ N CO CO CO N N I N N CO N 10406 OEM 104 AVE. UM) a to N O N CV) 7 V Nil h N N N N4 N5 N6 N N N N 1 2 3 E P 56 57 7 8 9 10 PARK � J EPP 56456 0 0 20 19 18 1 51 57 14 13 12 11 CO 40,17,o1 15 r� CO 0) L COCO CO 00 400 03 00 CO CO CO CO N CO N N N N CO N CNV 103A AVE. 10338 PAR 46 4710339 10330 45 4810331 10324 44 4910325 1031643m 5010317 10308 42m 51 10309 103oo 410)P 52 10301 10292 40"" 53 10293 1028o 39 54 10281 10274 38 55 10275 10266 37 56 10267 10262 36 57 10261 Bylaw No. Ma p No. From: To: tp N N Cn R NN 66 67 68 1032oLO 1031 } 10302 n Y 10296 62 } PARK z 10284 61 10276 60 EPP 56456 10268 59 10260 58 3 10390 W !4j 2 m 10380 rL 1 U 10370 00 PARK Rem S 5.25 CHAINS OF J RP 9287E 7543-2019 BCP 45800 N ap N N A NB N Rem D N B P 21769 NWP7139 P 13554 10386 (EPS 763) P160014 P 13554 10358 9 1$ 10355 o EPP 59458 10352 8 1710349 CO F2 10346 7 1610343 m 10389 0 10340 6a 15 10337 10332 5D 14 10331 U) CO 2 10328 4 13 10325 N 10322 3C 12 10319 Epp g0i6a 10316 200 11 10313 / 10310 1 10 10307 10337 CPT 09 103 AVE. PARK 1 I I I Rem1 19 Urb�� Area �BoundaryP 37992 70 PARK �102 N � I n 10260 M !27 P 48 5 �102 a w 00 282930 31 co102 2 M vv to LO c`oM102CL 0 0 0 o N 10210250 N N N N c� 3 0 102AAVE. r' v LO 'No 1^ r. m 10273 ap I N 75' of 4 N N N N N N N N 6 5 4 2322212019 10222 LMP 48059 1771 RS-2 (Single Detached Suburban Residential) RS-3 (Single Detached Rural Residential) RM-1(Low Density Townhouse Residential) — — Urban Area Boundary N SCALE 1:21500 APPENDIX E o� "s � < c r a m c c-r m � � a 29' 71' (21.64 ml / u FU� N �_� G-�'SAt; E III W=11M®� t*il r \ ' o � f a _ tl I �? � � DUILDING-3 � • r / _ •ram 5 I + ' �� - 51 t l l m < m m ' m J ll � i _ I x. x. • x. , x, �J x; K,� u, x x �rGp = #., / XII XJO IF JK'' 11'6 =K} Kh iv fit-+ • Il. '! . 7 E t t • ' t n. I IN NIK ri x•t v�xy 'J, a i� ,x�, x:. , Tx,. Ex'4 tx> Ex4 t -L \� It (. x . •,• , • .'...'•� - .I' t/y \ / IV ;,(.:I.r :m,�:r�,f1mt trl,)..)_:..1 mt•' li \ / / , Lit: i I: �i, ... t. i [��st.; t� i 11 rit ? !!_; i�S h ,/ t t 0% _ d 'Y i > , 1- • `yam' i 3 • /i / e ° NO plo,'d' 9 ` tie 4 ' % e- ' S N 117 / ,Is: tit ? {(; ih.r •. , ii! J? ii a ;� f{:'i;, I t?) { t / IF ��.. .. I1����}I Z'!-r 1tt�T•: 5fi11: x / ! / l' 'i Ni I I If r.. 1 / _ .a If Ifr�l� x' W o J'� k > t i , a d ' ix jxh 'Jt '�y PARINI iIf / .t• m mIr tx • L� .x. / m ®~ s t I 2� \ Ky x •t ,gitd, m o :i5S3 -...: rm.� - Jxn I l a '} I\ It "oft IN NOR i _� / PM41. t J! 1 _'— �-------—__— 0,00 No INA I'm Nor n / IF lI I • j r '•i c 1: r—, ;...., i?mtJj0 1�?i 'C'•'i i t, m ON - CA ''.'�; I •• m U t ' 1' : {, I •t i •� 4 c 7 { , ' ;._ III, gag ii. I¢1 I _ L m 't Llll:i L'Dl,i t j ml t,i / If i i lrE i? Irk ..'.h ''t4 .l `..�.? 1� ,fi r< T r .• . Y , t # r i `I 1 i `. - r A •. f — — 'r 61'-72 rn C -I �x • 1 3 - -- ., 'n 120'•1fz � 'c• 172' 4101LOZ-" �> 26'- 2"_— 5:' 2417• 136.81 ml 15,85 m) (30.80 m) 46.60 m) (7.50 m) 240T" STREET APPENDIX F its QI 8 ° II I I Ito o l i oT 01 i i 1 I i I i 1 4 6 I () ve, 6 �, V 7) litdl S S i ,� IIIIIII �I I �' 1 11, J� cwo- f y U I I I I '•F I I I I i I� II II i 1 , v 6C)&4k:h &*OLC I � ; §� � )w k\\ j§\ 0 9 kj± k}; � »}2 7m\ ƒ ), 2k4 k$ Ll � | \=----- j � � )w `\\ � \ ) a }!a k« ()$ :ƒ§ w 2%§ 3§§ \ %) . ƒ \ JAM f jewi Mii mvt 1 . .1vi IL, -TIM 0 T 0 z 0 0 APPENDOX H �L 1' ARCHITECTURE z www.fl ata rch itectu re. ca Architectural Comments: Unit 209, 6321 King George viva Surrey BC V3X 1G1 Ph: 604 503 4484 • Improve connection from indoor amenity to outdoor amenity spaces; Connection to Indoor amenity improved. An outdoor amenity is provided at same level beside the indoor amenity. An elevator for split outdoor amenity area with wider stairs are being provided as part of strong connection and landscape feature to create more physical and visual connection to all amenities. • Explore series of color palettes to improve massing and wayfinding; In addition to existing "Evening Blue" finish, A warmer color of red tone added. Refer elevations and building plans for' color tones w.r.t building blocks. • Explore opportunities for rooftop patios; Rooftop patios are not done due to the economic • Explore opportunities to increase prominence of front entries. The entrance to the units is enhanced by adding color to units vertically. The Evening blue and red color further enhances the entrance to the units. Landscape Comments: • Address isolation of outdoor amenity space and limited access to central amenity area; Addressed by adding special paving, re -organizing landscape layout and re -locating stairs. • Incorporate dedicated pedestrian circulation and cross paths to enhance walkability of site; More cross paths with special paving are added. • Improve limited bike parking options with better integration into entire site; Some bike racks are relocated. • Highlight access to outdoor amenity spaces with road treatment; Achieved by adding special paving. • Consider additional bio swales to improve permeability in open spaces; Bioswales are added at the entry of outdoor amenity area. • Review narrow terraced walls for required soil volume for trees (10 m3 of soil per tree); Reviewed and more structural soil is added. See L11 and L12. • Provide complete landscape plans for review to panel. Yes • Triangular landscape median appears to be opportunity for feature. We are proposing a rain garden with some boulders there as a focal point. • ARCHITECTS I INTERIOR DESIGNERS ENDIX Wendy Cooper From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hello Planning Enquiries Mailbox April 25, 2022 10:47 AM Wendy Cooper RE: Public Comment Opportunity (07-04-2022) 2018-289-RZ Slatford PI and 240 Street Thank you very much for your email. I have copied Wendy Cooper, to this email as she is the file manager for this application. She is currently away on Vacation until May 2, 2022 but will reach out to you when she returns. Thanl<you, April April Crockett Planning Technician City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604463-5221 ext 5261 Fax: 604466-4327 Web Open Government Portal Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. Please be advised that this correspondence was prepared in compliance with Municipal Bylaws in effect at the time of the inquiry. It is also noted that this response relates to specific questions asked, and that the City position may change if new information arises, or if the proposal is altered. Prior to proceeding with a development application, applicants are encouraged to discuss the proposal with City staff to ensure that the position noted within this correspondence remains valid, and that the proposal is in compliance with all relevant and current Municipal Bylaws, policies and objectives. From: Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2022 7:51 PM To: dalvir@apnagroupinc.com Cc: Planning Enquiries Mailbox <planning@mapleridge.ca>; Subject: Public Comment Opportunity (07-04-2022) 2018-289-RZ Slatford PI and 240 Street Hello, My name is and I am a local Maple Ridge resident living on 228A street and with a residence on 104 Avenue both in Maple Ridge. My husband . and I received the letter noted in the above subject line from Apna Group to my home address for public comment. Both and I would like to show support for this townhome development. Townhomes are really needed today in the name of affordable home ownership for families. The majority of single family homes are priced well out of reach for the majority of our population today with even smaller homes starting at about the million dollar mark. Townhomes are an alternative that families can enjoy and actually afford. They are typically better maintained as they are run by strata so the street appeal for the city and public is also generally much more attractive. Thank you for consider affordable housing options for families like this. Sincerely, Wendy From. Sent. To. Cc: Subject. Cooper Attachments: April 27, 2022 12:16 PM Mike Morden; Ryan Svendsen; Gordy Robson; Ahmed Yousef; Wendy Cooper; Judy Dueck; Kiersten Duncan; Bylaws Mailbox contact@flatarchitecture.ca Rezoning_ Application 2018-289-RZ to Develop 10320, 10350 Slatford Place, Maple Ridge & 10337 & 10309, 240th Street, Maple Ridge Slatford Petition re to Stop Rezoning Application 240th & Slatford.pdf Dear Mayor and Council of the City of Maple Ridge and Apna Group, I am one of the residents that live directly behind the Slatford Street property, the new proposed development of 101 townhouses schedule to be built by Apna Group and have great concern and worry with regard to the proposed development. When I first moved to the neighborhood the property in question was zoned for single family homes. Shortly after I moved into the neighborhood there was a proposed rezoning application from single family homes to townhomes. At this time myself and some of the other concerned residents in our neighborhood undertook to have a Petition signed by the owners to stop the rezoning from single family homes to townhouses. If this property is to be developed, the original plan for single family homes should proceed NOT the congested townhome development proposed at this time. This Petition contains approximately 80 signatures. Attached is a copy of the signed Petition which was delivered to Maple Ridge City Council. My concerns are as follows as noted in our Petition: Parking and Roads 1) 101 townhomes with approximately 4 people per home would mean that there would be approximately 404 residents living on the property. The developer plans to provide only one exit and entrance road into the townhouse complex from Slatford Street. The traffic in this neighborhood is presently quite busy and I would hate to see what it would be like with approximately 400 more residents using the same one road for entrance and exit. If this proposed development is to proceed there should be at least one more exit and entrance from 240t". Also has the developer provided sufficient parking for the new residents of the townhomes or will Slatford Street be one big parking lot? Play Area for Children 2) Typically townhome complexes attract young families with children. From my review of the proposed development I did not notice that there is a playground for children on the development. Most townhomes provide a playground for children and this does not seem to be the case for this development. The developer needs to take this into consideration. Wildlife and the Creek 3) Has City Council and the developer taken into consideration the creek running right behind the proposed development on Slatford and how it will affect the wildlife? I have noticed many variety of birds including blue herons, hawks, eagles, owls and other wild life. Will this new development be putting the wildlife at risk? Has anyone from City Council looked into this and have we invited an officer from the Fisheries and Wildlife department to attend and comment on this development. Existing Trees on the Property 4) At present there are trees on the property that have been marked and are not to be removed. Does the developer know which trees are marked and will Apna be ensuring that these trees remain and are not torn down? Along with the trees that are marked I would like to see the other existing beautiful trees marked and to remain on the property. There are some beautiful cherry trees and other trees that must be at least 100 years old. It would be a shame if these trees were removed. From my review of the developer's existing drawing I don't see much greenery or many trees on the development —just a cluster of townhomes with no character or aesthetic beauty. I would hope that the developer will incorporate more greenery and keep most of the large old pine trees and cherry trees on this property which would add to the beauty of our neighborhood. Once again I have deep concern regarding this development and I would like City Council to reverse this proposed application and keep the original rezoning to single family homes. 101 townhomes on this property seems too excessive. Also please take into consideration the signed Petition and the wishes of the residents already living in the neighborhood and how this development will be affecting them. Looking forward to your response. z Kind regards, Email: Phone: This email message and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. Any use, review or distribution by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies. Wendy Cooper From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hello Planning Enquiries Mailbox April 29, 2022 4:32 PM Wendy Cooper RE: Input on Rezoning Application 2018-289-RZ Than{< you for your email. I have forwarded it to the File Manager, Wendy Cooper, she is currently out of office but will be back next week. Have a nice day, April April Crockett Planning Technician City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Tel: 604-463-5221 ext 5261 Fax: 604-4664327 Web Open Government Portal Our service commitment: fair, friendly, helpful. Please be advised that this correspondence was prepared in compliance with Municipal Bylaws in effect at the time of the inquiry. It is also noted that this response relates to specific questions asked, and that the City position may change if new information arises, or if the proposal is altered. Prior to proceeding with a development application, applicants are encouraged to discuss the proposal with City staff to ensure that the position noted within this correspondence remains valid, and that the proposal is in compliance with all relevant and current Municipal Bylaws, policies and objectives. From: Sent: Friday, April 29, 2022 3:19 PM To: dalvir@apnagroupinc.com; contact@flatarchitecture.ca; Planning Enquiries Mailbox <planning@mapleridge.ca> Cc: Kiersten Duncan <Icduncan@mapleridge.ca>; Ahmed Yousef <ayousef@mapleridge.ca>, Gordy Robson <grobson@mapleridge.ca>; Judy Duecl< <jduecl<@mapleridge.ca>; Chelsa Meadus <cmeadus@mapleridge.ca> Subject: Input on Rezoning Application 2018-289-RZ To whom it may concern, I am writing to express concerns about the proposal to rezone 4 residential lots to multifamily and in particular, the proposal to develop 102 townhouse units. This area has significant wildlife including Red Tail Hawks, Barred Owls, Northern Flickers, American Goldfinch, Blue Herons, Kildeer, and Eagles. This kind of density of housing will have a significant negative impact on the wildlife. This is a significant number of units and this many units will equate to potentially more than 200 vehicles. It looks like there is a very small number visitor parking spots in the proposed complex and many units look like they only have parking for one vehicle. Slatford cannot accommodate all of those vehicles and Wynnbrook subdivison of single family homes should not become a parking lot for these townhomes. The cul-de-sac at creates even more parking challenges. Parking should not be permitted in the cul-de-sac because it will impede emergency vehicle access. I am extremely concerned about there only being one entrance and exit onto Slatford. There are many young children who walk to c'esqenela Elementary and even more will be walking to the Albion Community Centre when it opens. The roundabout at 104 and Slatford is already quite treacherous with many cars flying down 104th and not following the rules for a roundabout. The significantly increased number of vehicles will be very dangerous for pedestrians, many of whom are young children. There should an entrance/exit on 240th street as well. It seems that the setback requests from 7.5 metres to 1.3, from 7.5 metres to 1.05, and 7.5 to 6.0 are not reasonable. I believe that some of these are close to waterways. Isn't there a minimum required setback from streams and creeks to prevent environmental damage and to minimize impact to wildlife? This development will likely have many families in it. It seems from the plan like there is very little greenspace in the complex for children to be in nature. It is also unclear whether there will be trees in this development. Currently there are a significant variety of mature trees that are home to a variety of wildlife. Will any of these trees be preserved? There was a petition opposing this development that had a large number of signatures on it. Was this petition received by the developer and the city? If so, was any consideration given to this? The petition was not acknowledged. I recognize that there is a need for housing but I am strongly opposed to this level of density because there is not the infrastructure to support it and it will have negative impacts on the environment and wildlife. Regards, PETITION TO STOP PROPOSED REZONING APPLICATION FROM SUBURBAN RESIDENTIAL TO TOWNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL FILE 201&289-RZ ON SLATFORD AND 240TH. To: Mayor and Council o the City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 We the undersigned, petition Mayor and Council of the City of Maple Ridge as follows: WE THE UNDERSIGNED WOULD LIKE TO STOP THE PROPOSED REZONING APPLICATION FROM RESIDENTIAL TO TOWNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL ON SLATFORD AND 240TH (THE "SLATFORD PROPERTY") THE SLATFORD PROPERTY WAS ORIGINALLY ZONED FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THE NEW PROPOSED REZONING IS REQUESTING THAT THE PROPERTY BE REZONED FOR 107 TOWNHOMES. ON AN AVERAGE MOST HOUSEHOLDS HAVE AT LEAST 2 VEHICLES PER HOME, THIS WOULD MEAN THERE WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL 214 VEHICLESCRESIDENTS IF NOT MORE COMMUTING ON SLATFORD ROAD, THE ADDITIONAL PROPOSED HOMES WOULD CREATE BUSY TRAFFIC AND THERE WOULDN'T BE SUFFICIENT PARKING FOR ALL RESIDENTS, WE BELIEVE THAT THE SLATFORD PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO ACCOMMODATE 107 TOWNHOMES, ALSO THE PROTECTED CREEK DIRECTLY BEHIND THE SLATFORD PROPERTY IS HOME TO QUITE A FEW DIFFERENT SPECIES OF WILD LIFE AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE NEW DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE PUTTING THE WILD LIFE AT RISK. THE SLATFORD PROPERTY WAS ORIGINALLY SLATED FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND WE REQUEST THAT IT REMAIN AS ZONING FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. By signing this petition, I acknowledge that this petition will become a public document and all information contained in it will be publicly available. Name Address Date Signature F V ((r V v-" V -2- r � "PA 3.l;�i� o 4.�'e11�C��'�� r'>—�E • �" ' tic �."`'f� ,9'� c, M,�/ •� � r 5. 1121 6. !ISM (���1 3� s` QL31 � 2�I 21 �' m ore 16L61,� '����,��'ii I� � (1 12-1 10. U4C 11, '(/.Z( 12. 1�,z r1 l p (e 13. Del) 1v:1 •��..�, .z3�;46 a `-j ra ve ("i2 . {-� �:� L +� 2 �u� 15: {/')(: i t� 18. 19. MPOZZI\2265193.1 i 1 Ply ce w000 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. �IPOZZI1Z2G5133:1 iO3o2ol 10350 PETITION TO STOP PROPOSED REZONING APPLICATION BAN RESIDENTIAL TO TOWNHOUSE I To; Mayor and Council of the City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 No.,a/S'� a�q DENTIAL 4�Al ;!D i I We the undersigned, petition Mayor and Council of the City of Maple Ridge as follows: WE THE UNDERSIGNED WOULD LIKE TO STOP THE PROPOSED REZONING APPLICATION FROM RESIDENTIAL TO TOWNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL ON SLATFORD AND 240TH (THE "SLATFORD PROPERTY") THE SLATFORD PROPERTY WAS ORIGINALLY ZONED FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. THE NEW PROPOSED REZONING IS REQUESTING THAT THE PROPERTY BE REZONED FOR 107 TOWNHOMES. ON AN AVERAGE MOST HOUSEHOLDS HAVE AT LEAST 2 VEHICLES PER HOME. THIS WOULD MEAN THERE WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL 214 VEHICLES/RESIDENTS IF NOT MORE COMMUTING ON SLATFORD ROAD. THE ADDITIONAL PROPOSED HOMES WOULD CREATE BUSY TRAFFIC AND THERE WOULDN'T BE SUFFICIENT PARKING FOR ALL RESIDENTS. WE BELIEVE THAT THE SLATFORD PROPERTY DOES NOT HAVE THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO ACCOMMODATE 107 TOWNHOMES. ALSO THE PROTECTED CREEK DIRECTLY BEHIND THE SLATFORD PROPERTY IS HOME TO QUITE A FEW DIFFERENT SPECIES OF WILD LIFE AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE NEW DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE PUTTING THE WILDLIFE AT RISK. THE SLATFORD PROPERTY WAS ORIGINALLY SLATED FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AND WE REQUEST THAT IT REMAIN AS ZONING FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. By signing this petition, I acknowledge that this petition will become a public document and all information contained -in it will be publicly available. Name Address Date Signature 1- legILIG/0320'(iyNtit,K 2. &�Wy k/ ja�';? / -r-1 Ir . 1VTOZZI\2265183.1 v n n ok UO � JL, 6. YwIrw 7. 032� 23g 1 ST 'Jul BA Ly 2 P7 12. �`C�/ (G�� -- /0311 Z,5ZD(i -13. f e, % 311 is MIA 14, �JvL-f 251-2MI, fl 15. kraikfiner zcvz Tj-r AMLO- - :LU 17. OLx ch Wly Q j � u NPOZZI\')263183.1 -3- 20. eCNio�l�, ' r 21. c� 23. du 25. Z1, ;�Tz�'�r-ow f ' V dil�Lv �(f 2!7 -51 26. rr ) �� 27. NA �l ArAtUs 29. "In 30.0 lob 1�-ile Z�•G r� 31: 32. K C f%1l1 LL Z� > I�fre P / 33 � A cA I 34.6 ti q > 35.� 36. MPOZZIL265183.1 -4- 37. �pl-?l �i1wl 01�6`2� r'1- 57 11/6 i a`Z 1 S''P 39. ,��� s � P-\ P�X-s a P(s s 040. /lye, . 1 MOLE (ei 2C61 -- is 41. A- T- IT O AAR � $A� 6� 114X 42. �L cv'd I o �.Qi 1 ��. 3g � � � l r j(I 1Acto'g l v43, 44. Sp+c 1-)11�2 �d obi �JtGvI 45. 46. CC ���J� /����✓�� 47. �i`i G�Snf` Nd ,ple. lei 48. � y, ►mot- C, Z> g Apt t a3A NkJE CAA PLC 4 ,11a 49. �ia,a mwVk v au �� �gJi y �. rhf4PLf- n--6 c 50. 1, ha- � �tk 1. t (PB52, � a3 0 uvJ" AL) . 63 MPOZZM2651 SM 55. 5 6 ?)�N 57. _. c%,[�/`V U 59.r/� 6k zgcftL ' lr�it 60. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68% 69. 70. # e. mapleridge.ca City of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Michael Morden MEETING DATE: May 17, 2022 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2018-458-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C o W SUBJECT: Second Reading Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7522-2018 11310 Kingston Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received to rezone the subject property, located at 11310 Kingston Street, from RS-3 (Single Detached Rural Residential) to M-3 (Business Park Industrial), to permit a future subdivision of approximately seven industrial park lots. Council granted first reading to Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7522-2018 and considered the early consultation requirements for the Official Community Plan amendment on December 11, 2018. There will be future Development Permit applications for the industrial buildings on the subject property. This application is in compliance with the Official Community Plan land use designation and conservation areas are proposed to be covenanted rather than dedicated, therefore an amendment to the Official Community Plan will not be required. There is sufficient suitable land for park dedication on the subject property, however the City would prefer for some of the park land to be maintained by the owner. Therefore, it is recommended that Council require the developer to provide a combination of dedicated and covenanted land to meet the Park Land dedication requirements under the Local Government Act. It is recommended that Council waive any additional payment in lieu requirement, as sufficient lands are being protected and rendered undevelopable through this development and trails are being provided for public access. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7522-2018 as amended be given second reading and forwarded to Public Hearing; 2. That Council require, as a condition of subdivision approval, the developer to provide a combination of covenanted and dedicated land, in lieu of parkland dedication, in accordance with Section 510 of the Local Government Act, and waive the requirement to provide additional payment in lieu; and 3. That the following terms and conditions be met prior to final reading: Registration of a Rezoning Servicing Agreement as a Restrictive Covenant and receipt of the deposit of a security, as outlined in the Agreement; ii) Road dedication for a new road (200A Street) running north/south, parallel to Golden Ears Way, to connect Wharf Street to Kingston Street, as required; 2018-458-RZ Page 1 of 12 1103 iii) Road dedication for a north/south multi -use pathway, as required; iv) Road dedication for a pump station located near the intersection of Hazelwood Street and Wharf Street, as required; v) Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for the Geotechnical and Floodplain Report which addresses the suitability of the subject property for the proposed development; vi) Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for the protection of the Environmentally Sensitive areas on the subject property; vii) Registration of a Statutory Right -of -Way plan and agreement for storm drainage and maintenance access; viii) Registration of a Statutory Right -of -Way plan and agreement for public access to the trail network; ix) Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for Stormwater Management; x) Removal of existing buildings encroaching onto the property; xi) Notification to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Ministry of Environment for in -stream works on the subject property; xii) If the Director of Waste Management from the Ministry of Environment determines that a site investigation is required based on the submitted Site Profile, a rezoning, development, or development variance permit cannot be approved until a release is obtained for the subject property; and xiii) In addition to the Site Profile, a disclosure statement must be submitted by a Professional Engineer advising whether there is any evidence of underground fuel storage tanks on the subject property. If so, a Stage 1 Site Investigation Report is required to ensure that the subject property is not a contaminated site. DISCUSSION: 1. BACKGROUND CONTEXT: Applicant: B. Smith, Orion Construction Legal Description: Lot 2, District Lot 280 and 281, Group 1, New Westminster District Plan BCP50883 OCP: Existing: Maple Meadows Business Park Proposed: Maple Meadows Business Park Zoning: Existing: RS-3 (Single Detached Rural Residential) Proposed: M-3 (Business Park Industrial) 2018-458-RZ Page 2 of 12 Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Business Park Zone: M-3 (Business Park Industrial) Designation: Maple Meadows Business Park South: Use: Single -Family Residential and Industrial Zone: RS-3 (Single Detached Rural Residential) and M-2 (General Industrial) Designation: Maple Meadows Business Park East: Use: Single -Family Residential Zone: RS-1(Single Detached Residential) Designation: Single -Family and Compact Residential West: Use: Vacant and Golden Ears Way Zone: RS-3 (Single Detached Rural Residential) Designation: Maple Meadows Business Park Existing Use of Property: Vacant Proposed Use of Property: Industrial Business Park Site Area: 16.6 ha (41.0 acres) Access: New Street (200A Street, to be constructed) Servicing: Urban Standard Companion Applications: 2018-458-DP/DVP/SD and 2019-082-DP 2. PROJECT HISTORY AND DESCRIPTION: Located in South West Maple Ridge, the irregular shaped subject property, located at 11310 Kingston Street (see Appendices A and B) is strategically located for industrial development. It is located near the Golden Ears Bridge and is within the 200-year flood plain of the Fraser River, making it subject to flood construction level requirements for industrial development. Since 2007, there has been interest in developing this property in accordance with its Industrial land use designation. A previous TransLink application for a combined bus fleet overhaul facility and heavy equipment training facility (RZ/057/07) pertained to the southern part of the subject property. Preliminary site preparation in support of this work included the placement of a significant amount of fill. However, this earlier application was withdrawn in 2009. In 2012, the previous property owner applied to rezone the subject property for business park purposes, but the application (2012-031-RZ) expired prior to receiving final approval. Considerable work was carried out as the application progressed, including habitat protection measures, multi - modal trail development, and traffic impact assessments. Road dedication and offsite works to improve local access and alleviate traffic congestion were included in the development details. The current proposal is to rezone the subject property from the RS-3 (Single Detached Rural Residential) zone to the M-3 (Business Park Industrial) zone. This application is based on much of the work of the previous expired application 2012-031-RZ. This earlier work involved public input, and professional consultant services to create a development plan with multi -use trails, watercourse protection measures, stormwater management and road dedication. In addition to providing a pleasant business park work environment, this development proposal aimed to provide multi -faceted community benefits for the local economy, the enviroment, and neighbourhood connectivity. 2018-458-RZ Page 3 of 12 The current proposal builds on this previous work of habitat restoration and trail development to create a campus -style business park composed of seven lots with seven buildings. Five of these buildings (on proposed Lots 3 through 7) will be constructed as multi -tenanted spaces and two buildings (on proposed Lots 1 and 2) will be developed for single -owner occupants. The project includes road dedication along the western perimeter of the subject property, connecting Wharf Street to the south, with Kingston Street to the north of the subject property. 3. PLANNING ANALYSIS: L Official Community Plan: The subject property is located within the Maple Meadows Business Park precinct, within the Hammond Area Plan of the Official Community Plan (OCP) and is designated Maple Meadows Business Park. The proposed land use and M-3 (Business Park Industrial) zone align well with this designation, which is intended to be an employment generator, accommodating many large, medium and small businesses. The Hammond Area Plan recognizes the subject property as key to transportation planning in south- west Maple Ridge and to the regional highway network due to its location near Lougheed Highway and the Golden Ears Bridge, and states: When the undeveloped lands to the south of 113b Avenue eventually develop, an alternative access to the area will be required. This will be particularly beneficial for emergency access. The Hammond Area Plan also notes the importance of the subject property for fostering multi -modal transportation options, as follows: As the Business Park continues to develop (particularly to the south) and redevelop, opportunities will be identified for creating linkages, where appropriate, for pedestrian and bicycle activity. There are also environmentally sensitive areas within the subject property which are intended to be retained and enhanced. Although these areas would normally be dedicated as Park, under the Conservation designation, an amendment to the OCP will not be required as these areas are proposed to be protected through a restrictive covenant for habitat protection. ii. Zoning Bylaw: The current application proposes to rezone the subject property from the RS-3 (Single Detached Rural Residential) zone to the M-3 (Business Park Industrial) zone (see Appendix C) to permit an Industrial Business Park subdivision (see Appendix D). Any variations from the requirements of the proposed zone will require a Development Variance Permit application, as discussed below. Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7522-2018 has been amended to update the reference to the new Zoning Bylaw No. 7600-2019. 2018-458-RZ Page 4 of 12 M. Proposed Variances: A Development Variance Permit application has been received for this project and involves the following proposed variances: a) Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw No. 4800-1993: • To reduce the collector road standard for the new proposed north/south road (200A Street) from 20m (65.6 ft.) down to 18m (59.0 ft.); • To waive the requirement to upgrade Wharf Street to a collector standard and have the sidewalk onsite via a trail, rather than within the road Right -of -Way, in order to preserve the natural habitat around the Katzie Slough; • To allow the construction of Hazelwood Street to a modified Urban Local Standard; and • Additional servicing -related variances may be required once detailed civil design drawings have been reviewed. b) Zoning Bylaw No. 7600-2019: • Part 4 - General Regulations, Section 403 Regulations for the Size, Shape and Siting of Buildings and Structures o 403.9 Retaining Wall Height and Developer Built Retaining Walls: ■ 1. To increase the maximum retaining wall height from 1.2m (3.9 ft.) to 2.7m (8.9 ft.) for proposed Lot 1; • Part 4 - General Regulations, Section 405 Landscaping and Fencing Regulations o 405.3 Landscape Screen and Landscape Strip Requirements: ■ To increase the maximum fence height of 3.6m (11.8 ft.) up to 4.Om (13.1 ft.); ■ To reduce the minimum landscape strip width requirement from 5m (16.4 ft.) down to 3m (9.8 ft.) for proposed Lots 3 through 7; • Part 8 - Industrial Zones, Section 803 M-3 Business Park Industrial 0 803.7 Setbacks: ■ 1. a. To reduce the minimum front setback from 6m (19.7 ft.) to 5m (16.4 ft.) to the architectural columns for proposed Lots 4 through 7, and to 5.6m (18.4 ft.) to the second storey overhang for proposed Lot 4; 0 803.8 Height: ■ To increase the proposed building height from 15m (49.2 ft.) to 15.3m (50.2 ft.) for proposed Lot 1; and 0 803.11 Other Requirements: ■ 2. To allow loading bays in the front yard for proposed Lot 3. c) Off -Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990: • Part IV Off -Street Parking Design, 4.1 a) iii) (b) ■ To reduce the required maneuvering aisle width from 7.3m (24.0 ft.) to 6m (19.7 ft.) for proposed Lots 2 and 3. Additional variances may be identified once detailed civil plans have been reviewed. The requested variances will be the subject of a future report to Council. 2018-458-RZ Page 5 of 12 iv. Off -Street Parking and Loading Bylaw: The Off -Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990 has different parking standards for various Industrial uses. Based on the intended uses of warehouse, warehouse storage, or light industrial, the parking standard applied was the more stringent between the warehouse and the warehouse storage uses, which is 1 parking stall per 186m2 of gross floor area. For the proposed office space, which is limited to 25% of the industrial gross floor area, the office parking rate of 1 parking stall per 40m2 of office gross floor area was applied. All of the lots meet the required parking standards, including the maximum number of small car percentage of 10% and the minimum number of accessible parking stalls. Access easements are proposed between proposed Lots 3 through 7 to have shared drive -aisles and reduce the number of access points along the new road. Proposed Lot 6 has four parking stalls located on proposed Lot 7, which will require an additional access easement. 4. DEVELOPMENT PERMITS: The subject property is within the Hammond Area Plan. Policy 3-38 of the Hammond Area Plan states the following: Lands within the Maple Meadows Business Park designation will be subject to existing policies to regulate Business Parks with the Maple Ridge Official Community Plan. As outlined in this policy, Section 8.6 of the OCP will provide the guidelines for the required Industrial Development Permit application to ensure that the form and character of the current proposal meets the needs of industry, through attractive design that is compatible with adjacent development. The Industrial Development Permit report will be the subject of a future report to Council; however proposed site plans and building elevations have been attached for review (see Appendix E). The applicant may opt to do several Industrial Development Permits, depending on the timing of construction, to allow the development to occur in phases and not have the Development Permits expire. The following table summarizes the overall proposed details for the seven lots. The M-3 (Business Park Industrial) zone allows for a lot coverage of 60%, a floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.75, and accessory office use up to a maximum of 25% of the gross floor area of the principal use. All of the lots will comply with these regulations. 2018-458-RZ Page 6 of 12 Table 1 - Summary of Proposed Lot Details Lot Number and Lot Coverage and Industrial Gross Office Floor Area; PercentageAccessory Parking Required and Lot Area FSR Floor Area (GFA) Use Provided Lot 1: 43,706m2 44%, 0.42 FSR 18,523m2 1,692m2; 9% 143; 145 provided (10.8 acres) (199,386 ft2) (18,213 ft2) Lot 2: 20,586m2 32%, 0.35 FSR 1,692m2 994m2; 16% 59; 59 provided (5.1 acres) (18,213 ft2) (10,700 ft2) Lot 3: 5,606m2 34%, 0.47 FSR 1,981m2 495m2; 25% 28; 33 provided (1.4 acres) (21,324 ft2) (5,328 ft2) Lot 4: 7,295m2 43%, 0.58 FSR 3,219m2 805m2; 25% 43; 43 provided (1.8 acres) (34,650 ft2) (8,665 ft2) Lot 5: 14,647m2 57%, 0.65 FSR 8,368m2 1,118m2; 13% 73; 73 provided (3.6 acres) (90,075 ft2) (12,034 ft2) Lot 6: 20,329m2 58%, 0.66 FSR 12,019m2 1,358m2; 11% 99; 99 provided (5.0 acres) (129,376 ft2) (14,618 ft2) Lot 7: 33,140m2 43%, 0.49 FSR 14,408m2 2,020m2; 14% 128; 129 provided (8.2 acres) (155,091 ft2) (21,744 ft2) Total Site Areas Total Industrial Total Office GFA: After Dedication: GFA: 8,, Total Parking: 145,287 m2 60,210m2 (91302 302 ft2) 581 (35.9 acres) (648,116 ft2) Pursuant to Section 8.9 of the OCP, a Watercourse Protection Development Permit application is required 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. The Watercourse Protection and Natural Features Development Permit will be the subject of a future report to the Director of Planning. L Advisory Design Panel: The application was reviewed by the Advisory Design Panel (ADP) at a meeting held on September 11, 2019, and their comments and the applicant's responses have been attached (see Appendix F). A detailed description of the project's form and character will be included in a future Industrial Development Permit report to Council. 2018-458-RZ Page 7 of 12 ii. Development Information Meeting: A Development Information Meeting was held at a church, located at 11391 Dartford Street, on June 20, 2019. Approximately 50 people attended the meeting. A summary of the main comments and discussions with the attendees was provided by the applicant (see Appendix G). The main concerns were around traffic, stormwater management, trail networks, and the impact of the building on the surrounding residences. The applicant has since provided additional details for the road network, stormwater management, trails, and buildings, which will be available for the Public Hearing, should Council forward this report, and finalized through the Rezoning Servicing Agreement. 5. INTERGOVERMENTAL ISSUES: Environmental Implications and Parkland Requirements: The subject property contains eight unnamed watercourses and northern and southern portions of the Katzie Slough (see Appendix H). The unnamed watercourses are all tributaries to the Katzie Slough, with the exception of one, which has no surficial connection to the other watercourses. Three of the watercourses have fish presence, and five of the watercourses are nutrient -bearing. The one watercourse that is not connected to the others does not provide fish habitat values. The proposed development will require some displacement or temporary displacement during construction, some infilling, and some re -alignment or replacement of the existing watercourses. Four habitat compensation and four environmental enhancement areas are proposed to improve the quality of both in -stream and riparian habitat, decrease habitat fragmentation and improve connectivity, resulting in no net loss of fish habitat, and net gains at a ratio of better than 2:1 for both in -stream and riparian habitat (see Appendix 1). In order to achieve this, offsite compensation works on the adjacent Translink property to the west is required and Translink and their third party contractor must agree to the proposed works and maintenance in order for the compensation measures to be approved. Provincial and Federal permits will also be required as part of the Watercourse Protection and Natural Features Development Permit process. 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 suitable land for park dedication on the subject property; however, the City would prefer for the land to be maintained by the owner. Therefore, it is recommended that Council require the developer to provide a combination of dedicated and covenanted land to meet the Park Land dedication requirements under the Local Government Act. Under Section 510 of the Local Government Act, up to 5% of the land being subdivided may be required to be dedicated as Park or be paid as a cash in lieu equivalent amount. Approximately 1.7% of land is to be dedicated as road for the existing municipal and regional servicing Statutory Right -of - Ways; however, a public trail network will also be provided within that dedicated portion. Approximately 12.2% of land is proposed to be covenanted for environmental protection measures. As this total of 13.9% is above and beyond the 5% parkland dedication that may be required through subdivision, it is recommended that Council waive any additional payment in lieu requirement, as sufficient lands are being protected and rendered undevelopable through this development and trails are being provided for public access. The benefits to the environment and City remain the same through the covenanted and dedicated areas. 2018-458-RZ Page 8 of 12 ii. Provincial Archaeology Branch Two Archaeological Impact Assessments were prepared for the previous proposed Translink facilities in 2006 and 2008, as the subject property is located near the boundary of a known archaeological site. Neither of the impact assessments identified any archaeological remains and the consultant did not recommend any further impact assessment. However, both studies recommended that a Chance Find Management Plan be put in place during the construction phase to address the possibility of archaeological deposits inadvertently becoming exposed. Should there be a confirmed chance find discovery, all work in the immediate area would need to be halted until an appropriate Heritage Conservation Act (HCA) Permit is obtained. All applications for HCA Permits are forwarded by the Archaeology Branch to appropriate First Nations for review. iii. Traffic Impact: The 2017 decision to remove tolls from the Golden Ears Bridge has generated significantly greater regional traffic volumes than originally anticipated in the previous applications. The applicant has provided a revised Transportation Impact Assessment (TIA) in support of this current proposal which is currently under review as part of the civil design package. The TIA will also be supplemented by TransLink's Golden Ears Way Study which is currently underway. The TIA has indicated that there are significant challenges with the existing transportation network and that there is little ability for this development to resolve those issues. Overall capacity issues will need to be addressed at the regional and provincial level; specifically, with improvements to Golden Ears Way and Highway 7. Specific to the intersection of 113B Avenue and Kingston Street, the worst performing movements include the northbound left -turn and the northbound through movement. Both of these movements can be improved by converting the 113B Avenue and Kingston Street intersection into a roundabout or signalized intersection with queue detectors for the eastbound off -ramp traffic. As the subject property is located adjacent to Translink Infrastructure, a referral was provided to Translink for review. Translink approval of the Zone Amending Bylaw is not required as a condition of final reading; however, our Engineering Department has reviewed their comments and will address them as required in the civil design stage. A copy of Translink's comments is attached to this report (see Appendix J). iv. Citv of Pitt Meadows: As the subject property is adjacent to the City of Pitt Meadows, a referral was sent to the City of Pitt Meadows Planning Department for review. A summary of their main concerns and the City of Maple Ridge's responses is provided below. a) Trail Connections: The City of Pitt Meadows responded in support of the pedestrian/cycling connections in the area, but wanted to see more paved trails. There is a mix of gravel and paved trails for the area, in an effort to try to keep the areas as natural as possible. b) Traffic Concerns: The majority of traffic concerns in the area can be attributed to the South Bonson Area and general growth. The connection of Wharf Street to Pitt Meadows through the Katzie First Nations Reserve #1 is not anticipated through this development. 2018-458-RZ Page 9 of 12 c) Drainage: Drainage is currently entering Pitt Meadows through the Katzie Slough to the Fraser River. This development is required to implement a pump station to redirect drainage from Hammond while maintaining environmental base flows to the Katzie Slough. d) Dike: This development is not required to upgrade Wharf Street to current dike or flood standards. The development itself will need to ensure that the future buildings meet the flood construction levels to meet the Building Code requirements. 6. INTERDEPARTMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: i) Engineering Department: The Engineering Department has indicated that the following servicing upgrades will be a requirement of this development: • A new urban collector road (200A Street), connecting Kingston Street to Wharf Street; • Urban Improvements to Wharf Street and Kingston Street; • Construction of a drainage pump station, including improvements to the area's storm sewer system; and • Utility servicing as required to meet the design criteria of the Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw No. 4800-1993. The new urban collector road between 113B Avenue and Wharf Street is shown in the drawings as providing a full access connection. Doing so would provide an unfettered alternative emergency access to the lower Hammond neighbourhood; however, further considerations to potential impacts to cut -through traffic are required before finalizing this approach. ii) Parks. Recreation and Culture Department: The Parks, Recreation and Culture Department has requested that the habitat compensation and riparian areas onsite be maintained by the owner of the property, with Statutory Right -of -Ways provided to allow for maintenance of the City's drainage channel, and public access to the trail network. A pedestrian bridge and trail connection to the Golden Ears Off -Leash Dog Park is required. On -street parking will be provided along one side of the new proposed 200A Street to allow for parking for the Off -Leash Dog Park by way of the pedestrian bridge and trail. A trail connection was also required to connect below the Golden Ears Bridge, towards Pitt Meadows in order to make an eventual connection to regional multi -use trails, including the Coast to Canyon Trail. This future trail connection forms part of the Metro Vancouver Greenways Plan and Experience the Fraser route. iii) License. Permits and Bylaws Department: The Building Department has indicated that a Floodplain Covenant and Stormwater Management Covenant will be required, and the Fire Department will need to review the internal access and turning radii. They also recommended that the different permitted uses be considered for parking standards. Other comments will be provided at the Building Permit stage, later in the process. 2018-458-RZ Page 10 of 12 iv) Fire Department: The Fire Department provided their requirements for access design, fire safety plans, and private hydrant requirements. v) Environmental Section: The Environment Section supports the onsite and offsite compensation and rehabilitation measures proposed, as discussed above. Four habitat compensation and four environmental enhancement areas are proposed as part of the project, which plan to improve the quality of both in -stream and riparian habitat, decrease habitat fragmentation and improve connectivity. The habitat compensation strategy proposes net gains at a ratio of better than 2:1 for both in -stream and riparian habitat. Other requirements, such as Stormwater Management and Tree Management Plans will be required as components of this development. As the development is intended to be built out in phases, the developer will be required to have the landscaping completed within two months after each phase of construction is completed. 7. CITIZEN IMPLICATIONS: A Development Information Meeting was held on June 20, 2019, as noted above. Resident concerns raised at that time are attached to this report. A study was conducted on the proposed acoustic barrier between the proposed development and the adjacent residential area. The proposed acoustic barriers will address ground -mounted mechanical equipment and truck activities. The surrounding single-family homes are one to two - storey homes. Based on the general setback distance between the houses and the propose acoustic barriers, the height of the walls would need to be at least 4m (13.1 ft.) tall from grade to provide meaningful noise reduction to the community, which is what is being proposed, but will require a height variance, as noted above. 2018-458-RZ Page 11 of 12 CONCLUSION: It is recommended that second reading be given to Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7522-2018, as amended, and that application 2018-458-RZ be forwarded to Public Hearing. Under Section 510 of the Local Government Act, up to 5% of the land being subdivided may be regi iirerl to hp dedicated as Park or be paid as a cash in lieu equivalent amount. Approximately 1.7% of land is to be dedicated for municipal and regional servicing Statutory Right -of -Ways, with a public trail network provided within the dedicated portion. Approximately 12.2% of land is proposed to be covenanted for environmental protection measures. As the total percentage of land being dedicated and covenanted is above and beyond the 5% parkland dedication that may be required through subdivision, it is recommended that Council waive any additional payment in lieu requirement, as sufficient lands are being protected and rendered undevelopable through this development and trails are being provided for public access. "Original signed by Michelle Baski" Prepared by: Michelle Baski, AScT, MA Planner "Original signed by Charles Goddard" Reviewed by: Charles R. Goddard, BA, MA Director of Planning "Original signed by Charles Goddard" for Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP GM Planning & Development Services "Original signed by Scott Hartman" Concurrence: Scott Hartman Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A -Subject Map Appendix B - Ortho Map Appendix C - Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7522-2018 Appendix D - Proposed Subdivision Plan Appendix E - Building Site Plans and Elevations Appendix F - ADP Design Comments Appendix G - DIM Meeting Summary Appendix H - Watercourse Map Appendix I - Habitat Compensation and Enhancement Areas Appendix J - Translink Referral Comments and City Response 2018-458-RZ Page 12 of 12 �/ � 0 v z m Legend Canal Edge �-- Ditch Centreline Edge of River ----- Edge of Marsh Canal iLake or Reservoir Marsh - River SUBJECT PROPERTY 11310 KINGSTON ST FILE: 2018-458-RZ DATE: Nov 6, 2018 PLANNING DEPARTMENT � . � mapleridge.ca Scale: 1:5,500 Major Rivers &Lakes BY: RA PAT, w LLLL 14 vim An AA t I . .�•. �r_e - vs_w VARAjoIF Tame Ai Ai _. �l! _ V,ntoo wit A, A If At A AN VIA VL 0 IV re I AL 1.c f onj�` Ak •t. , cy ♦ , ����� .. [[ T A, Ae rr r t° om; 4 . -;. ,•, t =t 1� TV i doo IV -10 y t ,{ sApA i-', ^ • a� �"'Y fir' PA d ` tv ' t • '' % ne. 4 VIA .le y 3lye �.V"V At All I * ` ' id{al • AM fee I At -qF AAA A At�r .INON .: , A AN A. AAA t t; me Awn n I �L t A An Ae Av !11 Ten, 9 V. -Alit �1 ` " "-- IV _ _fm ►, 1. � G��- r"f ld n� i f a iu trio a C CU MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia / _ CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7522-2018 A Bylaw to amend Schedule "A" Zoning Map 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. 7522-2018." 2. That parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: Lot 2 District Lot 280 And 281 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan BCP50883 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1787 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby rezoned to M-3 (Business Park Industrial). 3. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 7600-2019, as amended, and Map "A" attached thereto are hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the 11th day of December, 2018. READ a second time the day of , 20 PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , 20 READ a third time the day of , 20 ADOPTED, the day of , 20 PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER City of Pitt Meadows Bylaw No. Map No. From. To: aA� RanZ Q9 1a OC9z AEPP %. 4l4 c. 9CP 5a80] P P. R P P JS �� a WP 25170 Pd.A Ud51B09 A 9 Pcl.t W P 25175 9CP 23057 na� y`c 2 9CP 5a8& 9 WHARF ST � o A 2 2 'y RP 0]a14 y 41 S]2 V S33 A 2 1 1131 v v P94 ] P 37 1 a 7522-2018 1787 RS-3 (Single Detached Rural Residential) M-3 (Business Park Industrial) 13 4 R ,p9 B �` 1�� `TrP ow N SCALE 1:6,000 �•� r � � ,y N rr o � w� W 3 N C a a v�"�' 0 3 ON Nv V �� N '' A ~ m3 co " D N N I.O. coil N m D ,ni, =- - Ir � cn � 0 ,``'\ w rn w w 3 o� ww �� --� N .:�`\ D m to �� v w \ N A A — _ SHARED CROSS ACCESS, � U1 � N °' r __ 0 .. A N � .'\ :� �� 3 �\ :% ' SHARED CROS5ACC�ESS ON'LOI 7 N D �o �' r o Ic N � V V 3 J LJ LJ \ (q � N `\ D 'N °'• �` r • a' --- w I V A O W � � `'�__ LINE ,_ _ Oho O� \ �� � �GN LNCO� � 7) ( SN N N � N CO Q Z �� n � N "'�. -'��� � N O l 7 0 �� �� �V �w n � m3 m mo � , to ��`�'_� -i tton /� J/% BOO Zvx—i lin l� � C��/ y � �z �z�p z� � oo to I8 � � . O � .� A i ��? m jm io , �� A z � �� Y y O yy '� i� ^' irzni� s � O N � a 90 yo IZ cv m m $ u Z �__� m -- - a C1— WATENWI ixt it at I IIImom, _ N PF �'to 'et, El Y of i(oD loss�1 m ,C oz 3 A ' Pn - j c O ! t % ( bo M 1 .� C l A p 3 �" i 0 3 oo N N Q 11 °s"m �i F a uD ZmF In � to of Z M F 4 a ire NOZ� y� z v e � a � � N � i D i I I a oo c m q o$°" 3� j°a �m a EQV Coy v v am ? am Z m r7 .�,�n 1 °m ° �c ° 3 Nc I � a o o m r 0 m o. o c m 6 o a s t o o c c ai y m + a H \/�\ - `e 1; I ^\ o `` �•j� V, " \ a " t 00 ys d� 00 �� t11 oo,q N go w eso li �o O i m 0 mm t>'0fn m m go i xZ 1 0" "J oomot z r Es ME IF ? E N 3 f�D N 3 Oi r A 6 O o = V 3 N o O cD � T � 3 N, O� f o t�NIP U. T Vjr ,a 'a+c o ' am H 3 o , 3 g o� ay ° o0 o0 0 r r _"W to -il f; m -I VS IZ �7p oyh9� �0 IA O aS51 ° im m � 1533 m im eo asa z Iz m � m lm'�j oti N I 0 Iz m m O� f o t�NIP U. T Vjr ,a 'a+c o ' am H 3 o , 3 g o� ay ° o0 o0 0 r r _"W to -il f; m -I VS IZ �7p oyh9� �0 IA O aS51 ° im m � 1533 m im eo asa z Iz m � m lm'�j oti N I 0 Iz m m 3 3 Z Z �t o s - m u N ��n V OI N s W N+ m a= m � a o a n a W a ll ip W W W 10 N ► .----. W W 0 - rI Im m WI w W I Z I Z aIL zi ll z olwl w \I WIMP m O O 0aaaNX w 0.ZZW nN� `ZIz WU E BUILD m la N E t7 E A N a m c m a' m E y N m w m a J Iri C7 ' z z_ Q J R q,m�tmm m c A n u O E U � m n v Z F Q Oclolm, is � E a c � u m I a c N 9 N m 4 c n U U 1 m OI' G C 9 3 m m O 0��38 9g� �i�FF �r XQ Ino mm o rn a N c EEE � � c N `o m ma E E E ° c n m m N N OI O a m am a mTZ S T C — n u x m Z u a' E a o=om E N N m ° k N N 1° X z ' m a ' m L m m a o C O C9 O C J O O C a Y Y m a a 7 `o o� c m a — u A �2 Ns c m E � �. oHa E°- Meg « T9 E W own Z O N z E"I E ZN gM N N m o m 0 0 0 O E E A f� ' r r mQ < I c I 6 S lL WSE LS' in as a33 fOmZv.;c w =weOK W.n J W Q N I I I co M Z E E aNEE E cIE _ E K ga col 3 wo o I I Nr ma m m m '' �\ Z Ir um Q m W m N N N v�i r a !D ymj - z Fwn� 'c \\ I I N Y O 0 N m Y Y C (�09 L) �N v �" m'Go w yWm m a v vy t° o U m O f]�m m ms c ZLu 'Y NMoo aLLJ m •` O O m u m — �`1\t. Nam J J'-m a LL =Ii{ _Lo a � y � 0! I N E @ g — cq 8 e— Zo -- UQI D i I 'R I I I e J> JW I 9 w� wQ wm I I I e olu Z J Z J G1 bJ i✓ i IJu � G rn °°00 1Z� OCQ.�0 w pV r N W CO w H N w w w m 7I 0 O wI wZ w ZI a � � w a ❑�wi w a a I a. wo O (D Q J ZI ZW a PI FU 3 z xxN X ZIW WU J J 3 fv ly�rR� a `a C9oo zww (7aa� ¢aa�^ s ~g��o �w{wc� aaw Nr W W UOLLIQ 9zzoazwz q O O ¢ > a U U LL� a O m a a 0 3 = y UULLM alE0 l `✓E' � a � v _ 9 0 I I FO � � W W � m� w �� I m W, N m � w W�Z� Z a J 7 /� m ,-� � � � a �\\ Wiai a �a m � alal aw ��z� zW a'N1 NU (z� X X z Z I W I W U � m W Z � m am Em NN E E E � E E N mr= m a � E �� �vEi n �� m o`: ci cvm � ce F o f0 K (aJ N � � N M N M N G Z y m - 1[I m y`. � O1 i:�Z m Am G � i N �_ � ma m o m9 � o m s m: m °c — m m N9 � m ~ .. 0.� m� � �� m O A mU " nQ o Q n� a r c c c ea v U °'o m'o � N� a o m ° 6 o m' m o c Q- Q- z I-i- o.c a`K a a`z w � � K am' p� 3 a3 0.3 mm O Otn .. m b 0 >°1{-- JO N o � n m a � @° m K N a U K c : m a x n �` C a Q v Q v,W NZ my .o m N�jNj 'mO Nomp ••�Z� Km V� O O� o •' N u Y a C m n y •-' N u 9` G G o v m u W K Q ` .. W Y J N F Y m '. � = N C O L u Q = = n C� O LLl N m �' t 'O � (Q7 F W � e m a m � � m� m a m C � C N H 2 w W fl rn K K � W O E X m m m �� m Q O O V1 � O N d � J J 3 K li = N `N R' :\ LL' J= N W N K K R' nZt � W Q N !A J S LL >`l\ l� V / AN ` ` O \\\✓//) � O� �,� T� % ,nr ydp'. /// \ od �/ WZ 4= . ado oa � E E N � R �� ai Q � uNi CI C a m m I J 00 I E dm - m i > Q J J J 3NIl Alil3dOild c'°asano�y3irM ^�7Pp _ ��-� .- N� NCI __ __ N'�-- _. ?c O > Zo i -_ N �(� _ _ U 6 = � - � �� �,� � � I I � � 4 � � � I � I 9 -=� �, � � $ I u E z - - � � � I R � '_ Of ��,, m w e � N � � F a � - _ ``�``` � ,`` � - rC - —V .T � � n N � �� � i .�----- ----rt---� ��,;, � � � � a �; 1 II Nw I = U JJ, ,� > I U a r, �,(' N �I III >m � W m - QW; � F- Z U I m"` 4 N �,. � OU W __ _,� � _ _ v - ��- — ,�_II m __, '�Z '� l% �, 7 _ n4 V CV _ z (? � R � f I �. \ � r � � � �N( // a" — _ _.. _ — ��! ur - ---F �, � .4 ZD c i' I'O I I , - '�a �� � ,I� '� / I � . � .`� �, w 9£'YZ I wZ0'06 N N wY49 N � E E N � m � � � � � N Q � Of c v 47 V 6 O m E c, E � N 6 w u m u a' � Z Q` O SOin N r `. � Q c m � a m a 'n � U O U N m a c c g � j m m N y E m o� o m o m OI "" YO . u N C IL � c E E E v rim{�v m N co cJ � � m N v � b Q 5 m u K c C m 6 m u_ � 2 � i O � O tq `_ �i���' 2 �, �_ ' ���t 11� �Gj.. ).. r: ��� �r �. ���i': �`{.. �' ' .%!f� '�� . ���/ /) `l, �' m N C N� H m m N •- m C � � O m O U = .+c a o `a nn � a �� v�i xa n ins �'E % � % � % % m m N � � r 9 e v � ',y m N L' N C � �. � "'U m m > am m � a m A U � Q mY � E` a >« m umi ai E�° c oF7 E= .fl O K N ? :o .. .. � S a KKK` J �� �y d o U U U � N � � m o m e o, � � �� o a x Gmmy v cY Zam Nx� -� V � � .m.. T L nm. oaaa= m' as zE—m m� woW a a alz i (F P W m m �IW it l N 07 U ZR— O C�— W N li i- W f5g iw LZ11 � N a a coo zFF t7aa aJ � K j j r j F F Q 00 0 W FWF U ¢0 W N� W UI�1 OW W Q W U V ~p K m Z Z O? W Z m ¢ >0 N UU LL20(n N 07 U ZR— O C�— W N li i- W f5g iw LZ11 � N a a coo zFF t7aa aJ � K j j r j F F Q 00 0 W FWF U ¢0 W N� W UI�1 OW W Q W U V ~p K m Z Z O? W Z m ¢ >0 N UU LL20(n a q isi F C1 � N F = N UULL 2O(n a mE w m W m 0 W �z K � W 0 o: o a Ow zw N U _ pp Xz - Z I I31 W U Y m m �00 U W Z �m jo mle IM V) Em m H m Z a y mz= m u E �� �m c QR C m KU N� �� N m M C ZU) ~ O 0m mo a o m g .. a y F- C6 a3'mm o K. _ Q a aO m b Oat2m O3 to ''v°V 0 0 � �VV,a H�zF-rc 0.E o: 0: 0: s OON J0 ¢aFWpKv a Y aa IV F JrnWNZ m a 'o IV Q a WIs IVN WYCY ad nq O m _IV H`VC aOmOW ma N w F wmm m a ck:�J� L. N U. O.W N K C O: 6 W N NW c+� i EE JNCZmE0 NQ> mvm.6 N�- VIVO . _m E n J E n J E E E F w 939 S33 ul z ��mLL E BB�n m o�oo A S N E E E m m m 0 IL VIVO m E c e m v m m u� a m m m E m m � Q � c K u C — 3 m � Q. ��Nenm U K y K V N mN ? H M L N iV v d m U ro � rn E C K N a ° i K K K o a 0 m a otJON i oaaaaa a a a x� 0 U a C O m a Y - E� 0 0 > y A O yy 6m Y m E n o � O O z o... I . m W E o E rQ go�¢� #��Ho wtr' wLzo j'�SdZd 3 do 9 n — I I I �I \ � .� / z . /WZI ( ; : w��WI III \� \ / §|§| §2 � >! \l) - ¥§22 ) o))k k\\ !k( { !4!! | | § � a)§ ))§ _ }\) � ! ;;; /j$\/ �!¢!! #i\ƒ 77\)( \ � ( ƒ_ !�G \k)§k !& £2 !� ;, a $,#� \ � � ( k§/ f,fk( \\\}� (]§2 m� w w 0 +/% m Y WI W I J m piwl w wi w acr a aW OI0 � ccI zI zW aIps Pw ;: m N z z w wU YI m m E NOW E N ees�� N as coo z w w ¢a (7 as E t O z ::3 F' 00 O N W W Q m ❑ w w N Q z z W z J ❑ N O O O w w 0 z [7aa Cl Y la NUo0N I I I 1- w 9Z OL . W ¢r ? �3Nn A183dMla _ —"d34d6l3�'70C3A- a _ of I '--JJII f 21 I a i v E - t� W W m� �I I m 0 m w SQ. I W 1 m Wdz1 z mw w m I W 1 Q. 1 Q. `IiLJ11 Ia Q 0. d[ w O17II.1 C7J Z d,Z1FW IU ZIXLA TZ I W U W Z DIm dm EE EE EE wE E E c EE EPr Q<Q11 M " $ �� EE to mm m M N y�M m O FIM F �(O rm G U Od m ra eE E E Z0 o oiIfId m C)Um M N N IrIV E.N.. O. 6 a rzz mE 0 N d N ca g m o 41 V an d m m m o o v p 0 com E u m 2 NU R OS �S pV 0p� 10 P S S Spm U C. p0 pfmO ON a dK d0: dK a.d' S m K K 0:dm o � d3 d3 N 0 J— N •x J a N �f0 6 U K C O 'O •• 'Q U O V 6 'O >1 A @ a m Oc a W a 0AVIV e u $ S p a H N ~ N N 9 a v a N p C N y v N � F 1W� rn H m 0 0 m o J m N O 0 0 0 Z � " m 1"rYJ v N41 NN A m 9 p N u u EN m� m m p W K > 'Om (aA F W C 1 r m a C a p a Y O C J J a 'C W S W Y1 ��1uu U C� W p 0 `p 0 m p `0 c p.. x 0 0 a> a NQQ O vWi C 0 N w LL C 2 � (n K � � J= N W N O: '• O: O: d� W a N � f/1 J S LL S E E m _ e CO C m J m E N N - m a0>i a J J J h EEEE mVrIV mCd m a N OI m c m u C A J O I m A E � m_ R O'JO=t a o=om 8 �ees� sew« ddna� xQx. m m e rn A O N N E y N Op � u a a y N O' rc � E E E c N d LL c E E E C 9 nm m E° O U O m U O U 3 a m � C N U m vJE m d" o=ov, I E S S E m I > o j at E m m a 1n I aco z I I I I I I I Nr I I E V L N � 3 rn L rn C m > 0 Q a z U YWJ QU< ZO WW U XmZ m U a = E U E N n W > W 0 m a a I 0 Z U Q if0 iU i0 IW I IW In N In In !A li O E V 3 U a `0 � Y •O O N e 9 N O O O J x v o a c'2 xz x 0111 to x_ M t p •O IVA C O p 3 VI ma c v` 0 m p > Na J a �' "L° Ea- m N N e C a C7 Y = C m m mrn �a— •O K K K C 0 - Ta J q n E E oUUU a m H �� 0 eo' N G Z, C— Ol Ol O) a O7 p 012d m 1a z O' O. TIII VIP O C7 N 'd021d O m z m 0 m wl w cc z m alw) U wpwq w rua� a J N O O a s x w ...:� �4zl zW a1.�l �NcZ LU z W W U _ � m IX L Ltb I _ 111-_�_I I �w LE'El _ � 1 a- u�— v� - K 3 i i s I I 1 71, I MM� W 400 E II I fC a�y _ ; I d, �nQ g—W 311 I ia3d�bI1ad W ^ g LI I w tlNil LU3deNJI Z II I I N o ao I I o Q3s dOi1d M3N a I� W O O O O =x Kl wl waa m W, Z I Z i s I a 7 o N p m mall S o / m n K K 88�c �uI (1) Wa i a N �¢¢� O a KaW e • a o O Kczc zOw m a, N 1 N Z d n S R Q a zI w E E E E E E E m E m m Nil m irlll m m m N Z N N N Nm M N h N C U O Wei m m ro m U am E� EE E� E' E No E' a m .n o n� cnn m �mo� m mcNi mn m in a s`o Oo din � �w �n m c mo5 Fm- a 'rlllo Qrn c Q` m in�m 9 mom a '+c U KU �a �m N N 2fo rc O N v c mvm Nam e c vY m Um mE n rn K x Q y Nth A p � 2 a m C o Y X x a x 0 ivg oa nm ��V�G_�©fJ°iJNoaIKa-i. n�F oao mm soLL _5••mm3 v a m u mu @a•x• -N v r T .a o aLL� vo mm ro No 00 eor a mU C)W>•.�oc iD'aoC�a's�, yEcm.A. -com •a oQ? Q a-0pn. a Z F� aK aM dK K K Kac mGC mO ON y m am Em7 nmr w?o mPc _ ca'w K @ llllam NGN ? EcN N m me 00U m s•x�ca c U Nn NIA w K > E E c oob mY o c Cm Z w m NCN Jaw i`O AMa O 5,N OA —u UO N R N Z` N'L `mw Wm 0 Q O O N 'p �mp6WQ�N J S Jm AA oNWNK O _Om _Cm�- , Nllll M. a Z n.. Im I I �r �— i II I I NC/ I I 3NI1 A1213dp2id 03S0d0iI4 M3N in Q9 Imo.'! e 4 3' 1h 3 t 3' , I 'a i W. a o EK }'� - 1 - I a I I la I ,e I ELL 4` N E -I --j O E Li U nIm I w I I w I w I 1 w I I w W r `Y lqFlll m m m m m a a a a a ^'rN: - Z I Z IZZ Q Q U U U EE E Z O a�•�� am I {p E I I N m -- - ua E : r+ co PEPR •: I I I 19 CCOO I N w J IN IN w 1 mma /•I U. Z I L I AllYllll I I I I I I l U u EIt � VT ' a 0 Y - �m 3^09V iNpO �.Nill /�0 I00 ,Z htga:l/�f�3A3llO�r111� \�`� Cr l3l3jd�3 IN hLnO />:, (I Irn I 3 3 cy I I I I I NOVO tpl tn1 to� rul col <ol Wnc a��l tol c�nl tol col �1 C'1 r = i� m OZ .3 O co � N Q: o }i E REM .. •do�d O ^orye n�oo_ - 0 w WEI to iwZLh Mir I m T— u�_ I •4 w 0 r m w z J I I a 0 �p a (J J I Z W NU w ZI w wl3 a a plw a a a a a • z� - nEc - - - e e I I I I a I I I I 3NI A N3dOMd tj J 03S ddO d M3 o *, IW IEEI w w LZT �Z I • 1 � I" f� �dij�n$ F aaa z_ w w r Oa< c�aag � r r r y F�g�0o F opaow y p W Q a w w w p U p a W of IxK U) W x fZwD W OOO K >z wo QW Qp N 00 U w a 0 a w O O a May U z t7 y� 7M r p x Y F HUUUIOi.�Oa n 3 I s I I I i�_ 3NI U3< o E � r 00 a_ �a N (0 �o w lE'El I qp'I I�wWr 1A1�3d02f�{I._� OdOLd M3N II w w m Z 7I O F �121 Z KI W QI wlal a al al aW I Z I Z W ZII"(Q W U S ¢ m nE E m E c 0 2 Fm - M K E E z'N N N m E E n c m ° 0 Ixo rca m u �� r C C L A r y PiN @ m U m 9 9 t } r a £ Q¢ e @ m IS c m W R' NC o d v c mez..�a� W w c >0 a Z J C W K . m 4 N q ri x r y i a am VV a 9 O N9 00 0� a3 a¢ w ¢ v o U L rn o IIW-- m J S IUi i N E � E r ' A Qoaii Q � N 9 m m N � N A j b 01 J J � i e oim 1� boa C 9 m A 6 U O m E 3 A A N n S U ¢ osorn rn 9 u° mIN x x '� x Ir�i m 3 C4 P L' (V p c A U w c a q 3 — m m E w v K a K of cco c c c a onA. aaa V m `o Y D m c V m Q U x n c x o € tn> �s �3 c E 0 o m m a a a o o a c n c o E nm A J m N Y a E m r c c c Z° y v s a Z z W ZIJ WI W lz a J a � pew W�a pIK a. a aiz �� xN_x 2 I W W a1 O w z w � NEo f7w _ �� Z ; Qy U � iil i d r J Y ri r r E i r h ._ m Q d W o O wEo 3 9 l3dOa CI -� N �I I I m w lE'Cl I n w I I I p �� CW66S wlZ�- I I I I _�q r I I I N —_ n I I N N wI O � too qa Q (J p� 0 � � N t3 J Z IW- IW-. N w Z Z Z 2 � m N G a a a a =�JY w J � � � � X 2i�¢� K qa a a a a� F�pc7z Z J 7» J N K W_ F J J J J N J O Z}yQp N Z ����1=gig ��¢_� Z o �u�u�u OwpW rc�p3W � a ��Gi ril Gippug¢ rc����¢¢ k Z U W U U U U m� K r=ii 0000 W a w m p z z z z o_ w z ����3 F l7 W m 0 0 0 0 K¢» Z Z Z Z¢ � J O N U U U U LL a O N ���� 0 W W ¢¢¢¢V � � N n V ZZZZV: n = Oaaaaw� mmmmt¢i Y ta- NUUUULL�OtNli aaaaf � .dam aEc _ o 2 I I I I I I I I w lCf II wES'9 IW LZ'6 III I anli� uaadoxie -I ma3g�oNd�r3'• o I I `, o Y w I � I I I N �y � , i31 \ 111 v -- m— n 6 I — ,��-fir � ti � - �- ��I ._ I� •= I I =_ m �-- � N - C � t��'__ II � _-_ — I I�' Vl W p ,� � I I �: 'M r i N � I I` R � �y W� � O a 3NIl Ala3dOad ' d'3sSdOFfd'n73T F- Z K w a j • + F� r, c F� r, c ALE tE I II I I I I I 2 h N S 00 00 J U U Qozz a LL LL a a Eo I I I I Fl II I I I I I I III I I I W� 6 3� �rc 0o 00 n 22 rc QQ 2Z � LL as 'sue < aNF aE I I LJ I I I I II I II I I I I I I iI II �N 4 Q II I I I I I I II I I Il I I i I I I I II I I I I I log) m p a �m APPENDIX F KA+ v CRAIG TAYLOR M.A.I.B.C. October 31, 2019 City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney PI, Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Email: dhall@mapleridge.ca Att: Diana Hall Re: Kingston Industrial File No. 2018-458-DP The following resolution was passed in regards to File No. 2018-458-DP at the September 11, 2019 meeting of the Advisory Design Panel. Please forward this information on to the applicant. The Panel noted that the applicant did not consider sustainable stormwater management techniques ie: bioswales._ It was moved and seconded That application 2018-458-DP be supported and the following concerns be addressed as the design develops and submitted to Planning staff for follow-up: Landscape Comments: 1. Ensure that onsite stormwater management is coordinated during the development permit process and that all City departments have reviewed and approved the design so that minimum requirements are achieved; The on -site stormwater management plans have been updated and submitted to engineering for detailed review and comment. Once comments are received back, we will make the required revisions and resubmit a separate report for each development lot. 2. Provide a rational on why stormwater infiltration beyond a tank was not considered; We have revisited the on -site stormwater management planning with input form the geotechnical consultant, and have now incorporated a measure of infiltration into the on -site designs. The infiltration will serve to address Tier A of the City's 3-Tier Stormwater Management Design Criteria 3. Ensure guardrails are provided at trail access point off Kingston Street; Guard rails have been provided where necessary along public trails. 4. Consider painted line crosswalks at Kingston Street trail for all five crossings: Wanstead, Lorne, Ospring, Hampton and Ditton; Painted line crosswalks will be considered in consultation with city staff S. Provide pedestrian wayfinding at trail and crossings; Wayfinding signs have been provided, see L11 for further information 6. Consider additional shrub planting at foundations of buildings at Lots 4-7, similar in character to Lot 3; Additional shrub planting that is similar in character to Lot 3 has been added to Lots 4-7. Refer to Landscape drawings. 7. Consider using higher percentage of recommended native plant material to match character of environmental ecological areas; TKA+D ARCHITECTURE + DESIGN INC. 305 - 1930 PANDORA STREET VANCOUVER BC I V5L OC7 I P. 604.569.3499 1 E. MAIL@TAYLORKURTZ.COM I W. WWW.TAYLORKURTZ.COM i(A+D Plant material has been reviewed and higher percentages of native plants have been added. Refer to landscape drawings. 8. Consider planting Hemlocks in more sheltered locations on site and consider an alternate species at building facades; Hemlocks have been moved to an alternate location in some cases, and swapped for an alternate species in others. Refer to Landscape drawings. 9. Consider adding berms in Lot 7 Amenity area at circuit path to increase screening and visual interest; Berms have been added to Lot 7 amenity area. Refer to L9.1. 10. Consider concrete attenuation fence, Sound attenuation fence will be concrete material or o suitable alternative. To be determined in conjunction with a sound engineer. 11. Cross section F — plant material seems low growth, consider substituting with taller growing plant material to screen the attenuation fence. Plant material and graphics have been reviewed. Some larger shrubs have been added as well as a larger shrub graphic for the section. Due to the smaller amount of soil available trees are not advised. Architectural Comments: 1. Provide updated landscape cross sections of context from closest proposed building corner to property lines; Please refer to Landscape drawings for cross sections of context on sheets L16-L20 2. Update architectural drawings to indicate neighbouring context ie: neighbouring houses; Please refer to architectural site plan showing existing neighbouring houses. 3. Enhance shadow study to show existing houses and bridge context; Please refer to shadow studies on sheet A800 showing existing houses and Golden Ears bridge. 4. Building corners facing neighbouring property lines should be further scaled ie: horizontal or vertical line work/materials; The use of dark wall paint on the concrete tilt panels and reveal lines break up the overall height of each building. The corners of the buildings facing the neighbouring residential areas are 33'-8" to top of parapet, 10'-0" lower than the top of parapet for the rest of the building in lots 5-7, which primarily face Hazelwood. 5. Articulate the roof line of the south fagade of building Lot 7; Roof line of the south fagade of Building 7 is articulated through the use of dropping the 3'-0" glazing strips 1'-0" below the top of parapet. By dropping the height of the glazing, the roofline undulates and forms breaks along the top of parapet, while maintaining the rhythm of the fagade design. 6. As previously noted, historical reference and character as identified within the Hammond Area Plan has not been reflected in the design. Please refer to Landscape drawings for details on sheet cd, i Kindest Regards Craig Taylor ArchitectAiB.c J�MIR�'16 President Documents p I f t t t CICT 3 1 2Nq APPENDIX G i AQUILINI Kingston — Summary of Development Information Meeting Project: Kingston Industrial Date and Time of Meeting: Thursday June 20", 2019 7:00 pm — 9:00 pm Venue of Meeting: Open Door —11391 Dartford Street Attending Graeme Clendenan —AQ Development Lisa Jones —Taylor Kurtz Architecture from Project Heidi Martin —AQ Development Jessica Thiessen — Krahn Landscape Team: John Morley —AQ Civil James Lee — Bunt Engineering Craig Taylor - Taylor Kurtz Architecture Meeting Style: Boards were set up in main hall with members of the project team in attendance to discuss the project and listen to concern and feedback. Approximately 50 people from the community were in present. Many discussions were held and all attendees were encouraged to fill out comment cards regarding their thoughts on the project. Summary of Feedback: All comments received are submitted as part of the package. There were four primary concern raised by the community. 1) Traffic A consistent message delivered by the group in attendance was regarding their concern with the proposed connection of the Kingston Road extension to Wharf Street. The community was concerned that this nex connection would become a popular route for traffic that becomes congested along 113b. It is our understanding that the connection has been required by City Staff, due to the requirement for another emergency access point into the neighbourhood. The project team is willing to discuss this connection with City Staff in more detail to find a solution that does not negatively impact the existing neighbourhood. 2) Storm Water Management Due to the existing poor water management around on the site the concern is the proposed development will increase these problems. The project team is committed to providing a detailed solution for both the sites storm water management, but also in providing an infrastructure upgrade to the neighbourhood with the support of a DCC credit. 3) Trail Network The community requested additional details on the design and maintenance of the trail networks both within and surrounding the site. Similar requests were received by Advisory Design Panel. Further details, material selections etc. will be provided as part of the 2"d reading application for Council 4) Building orientation, setbacks, lighting, and noise. Some concerns were raised regarding the type of buildings and the potential for impact on the adjacent residential areas. These concerns are shared by the project team and we are actively working on further details and product selections to present to Council. We look forward to continuing these discussions with the community as we refine our proposed industrial employment area. Sincerely, Graeme Clendenon Senior Development Manager — Aquilini Development 11310 Kingston Street Community Meeting - Comments Comment # Summary of Concern Response to Concern 1 Concern over increased traffic in the residential.neighbourhood due to Further discussion is required with City of Maple Ridge regarding restricting traffic along Wharf connection of Kingston Street extension to Wharf Street but allowing access Street to the residential neighbourhood. Concern over increased traffic in the residential neighbourhood due to Further discussion is required with City of Maple Ridge regarding restricting traffic along Wharf 2 connection of Kingston Street extension to Wharf Street. Nd sidewalks and Street to the residential neighbourhood. Residents proposed solution is a gate on Wharf Street lighting is poor in the neighbourhood. Ithat can be unlocked by emergency vehicles. 1) Concern over increased traffic through the Hammond Neighbourhood 1) Further discussion is required with City of Maple Ridge regarding restricting traffic along 3 due to connection of Kingston extension to Wharf Street. 2) Concern over Wharf Street to the residential neighbourhood. 2) Further sections will be created showing the the height and size of the proposed buildings relative to the residential area change in elevation and planting elements between residential and industrial. 3) Will discuss 3) Would like access to information online as the project progresses. with the City of Maple Ridge on how to make information more accessible to residents. 1) Agree with the development. 2) Concern using Kingston St as thru road 2) Further discussion is required with City of Maple Ridge regarding restricting traffic along 4 along Wharf Street due to the age of the streets in the Hammond Wharf Street to the residential neighbourhood. Residents proposed solution is a gate on Wharf Neighbourhood. If the city wants Street that can be unlocked by emergency vehicles. 1) Concern over increased traffic due to connection of Kingston extension to 1) Further discussion is required with City of Maple Ridge regarding restricting traffic along 5 Wharf Street. 2) Concern over the height of the proposed buildings relative Wharf Street to the residential neighbourhood. 2) Further sections will be created showing the to the residential area and the walls that will surround the development, change in elevation and planting elements between residential and industrial. Concern over increased traffic in the residential neighbourhood due to Further discussion is required with City of Maple Ridge regarding restricting traffic along Wharf 6 connection of Kingston Street extension to Wharf Street. No sidewalks on Street to the residential neighbourhood. Lorne, Ditton, Wharf 7 Discussion required With Environmental Consultant and City Environmental Group to see if Concern about open ditch along back of properties on Ospring. drainage can be located underground. Concern over increased traffic in the residential neighbourhood due to Further discussion is required with City of Maple Ridge regarding restricting traffic along Wharf 8 connection of Kingston Street extension to Wharf Street Street to the residential neighbourhood. 9 Sections will be created and analyized to show how the proposed development will be situated Concern over loading bay locating on Lot 1 facing residences on Ospring St. and correspond to the exisiting neighbourhood. 1) Civil consultant has designed and is refining storm water management plan, in order to meet 1) Green Roofs to deal with rainfall, concern over flooding 2) Green space Maple Ridge Bylaws. We believe green Roofs are not economically feasible. 2) Pathways will 10 connecting to Pitt Meadows 3 Concern with connecting to pathways g ) g have planting on either side 3 Further discussion is required with City of Maple Ridge regarding P g ) q Y P g g g Kingston Street to Wharf Street. restricting traffic along Wharf Street to the residential neighbourhood. 1) Concern with amount of greenspace and maintaince of that space. 2) 1) Civil consultant has designed and is refining storm water management plan, in order to meet 11 Concern regarding access to Hammond Neighbourhood through connection Maple Ridge Bylaws. 2) Further discussion is required with City of Maple Ridge regarding from Kingston to Wharf Street. restricting traffic along Wharf Street to the residential neighbourhood. Concern regarding access to Hammond Neighbourhood through connection Further discussion is required with City of Maple Ridge regarding restricting traffic along Wharf 12 from Kingston to Wharf Street. Street to the residential neighbourhood. 1) Concern about storm water management 2) Concern for ongoing 1) Civil consultant has designed and is refining storm water management plan, in order to meet maintenance for landscaping 3) Connection of pathways and trails south of Maple Ridge Bylaws. 2) Further discussion required to Maple Ridge to determine property lines 13 Kingston, Bike Lane to 113b 4) Room for recycling infrastructure and responsibilites for maintenance post warranty. 3) Pathways through development will be accessible for bike and pedestrian traffic. 4) Each building will have garbage and recycling facilities within its footprint. 14 ITrail Along Metro SRW to be bikable ITrall will be bikeable. 1) Fire Access to Area, keeping traffic out of residential area 2) Storm Water 1) Further discussion is required with City of Maple Ridge regarding restricting traffic along 15 management 3) Use Kingston for access and regress to Building Area 3) Wharf Street to the residential neighbourhood. 2) Civil consultant has designed and is refining Directing noise away from residential area storm water management plan, in order to meet Maple Ridge Bylaws 3) Sound attenuation walls are designed between industrial and residential uses. 16 1) Traffic concerns 2) Prefer purchase of building as long term business + 1) Bunt Engineering is engaged on the project to propose solutions for City of Maple Ridge's employees in area. review. 2) Buildings will be leased, but long term leases will be available. 1) Lighting 2) Drainage 3) Noise 1) Light design will be designed to minimize light polution 2) Civil consultant has designed and is 17 refining storm water management plan, in order to meet Maple Ridge Bylaws 3) Sound attenuation walls are designed between industrial and residential uses. 18 1) Noise 2) Lighting 3) Drainage 4) Traffic See previous responses. Concern regarding access to Hammond Neighbourhood through connection Further discussion is required with City of Maple Ridge regarding restricting traffic along Wharf 19 from Kingston to Wharf, Street and its impact on the existing Street to the residential neighbourhood. Should be no access at Wharf Street and New Kingston to allow commuter Further discussion is required with City of Maple Ridge regarding restricting traffic along Wharf 20 traffic. Concern for increased traffic through Hammond. Vehicle access to Street to the residential neighbourhood. The intention of the development is to have access to the proposed industrial site should be from old Kingston Street Only. the new buildings from old Kingston St. 21 Concern over traffic management Further discussion is required with City of Maple Ridge regarding restricting traffic along Wharf Street to the residential neighbourhood. 22 Asking if AIG would be interested in purchasing waterfront property 23 Concern regarding access to Hammond Neighbourhood through connection Further discussion is required with City of Maple Ridge regarding restricting traffic along Wharf from Kingston to Wharf Street and its impact on the existing Street to the residential neighbourhood. AQVIL*rKA+D INI COMMENT ARD: TAYLOR KURTZ ARCHI.TECTURE-t DESIGM ING RE 'ProDosed Development at 11310 16uston Street Please note that a// comment Jnd attendance sheets produce as o result of this Development Information ae8 in g, W t be provided to the City of Maple Ridge crud form part of the public record that is available for viewing by the J, upp�� e- 4C request. CONTACT INFORMATION (Optional) Name: Tel.,— Email:.— AQUILINI-) COMMENT CARD RE: Proposed Development at 11310 Kingston Street COMMENTS: 'A, TKA+D TAYLOR. KURTZARCHITECTU RE+ DESIGN INC .. ....... . . .......... V.( 6_0 t 0 this Developmont Informqfion Meeting will Please note that a// comment and attendance sheets produced as a resul be provided to the City o aple Ridge andform part of the.public record that is available for viewing by the public upon request. CONTACT INFORMATION (00tional), mail: N TKA+D COMMENT CARD TAYLOR KURTZAR'CHITECTURE+ DESIGN. INC RC; :Proposed Development at 11310 Kingston Street A j 0 UV"t COMMENTS, 1 0 pj 1, 1 t, Pot t�, I"), I-,, v-5 I I-if-114111 no, fj I) e (w"s rdLtl f4nW: AF!;q­,.,,,t,,/�) 4;-n(d-VV,J A Imp ler,14 &r/ 6,-J, 45. Q tz U 0 4,1, PJu'l 6 1110 A 4,1 cr �.0 z— 'rky-rw, 0—, A Pf, ? L'b"Lk L ell 4,j, (A L) �,t. G J) IJJW�WA friv wo�w- '50cr (114 AV 4 117 (��J 41. X, do 0 :Z. L JaZ �,6 - "J �5 9 f J� T",) 1;' 1 1 hr 6,0 M ri, � V1. JX Please note that oil comment and attendance sheets produced as a result of this In Develo ment Information Meeting will p 0 - be provided to the City of Mople Ridge crud firm part of the public record that is available for viewing by the pvbllc.0 Pon request. CONTACT INFORMATION (Optional) Name, Tel: Email: 0 AQUILINlY COMMENT CARD RE: Proposed Development at 11310 Kingston Street COMMENTS: -1 ... _r) I- -') - V1 \ - .- - � ( -< - TKA+D TAYLOR KURTZARCHITECTU RE+ DESIGN [NO t, Please note that of/ comment and attendance sheets produced as a result of this Development Information Meeting will be provided to the City of Maple Ridge and form part of the public record that is avaijoblefor viewing by the public upon request CONTACT INFORMATION (Optional) Name—, —_—Tel: a COMMENT CARD RE: Proposed Development at 11310 Kingston Street TAYLOR KURTZ ARCHITr=CTUR8+ DE51GN INC COMMENTS: 1--Ow� HAy*-A&Ao,-J(,D OV:, r-r- iE A-94FY�- 'S -V,J I T'i-j T- &AAA +�-r-J C, A(-L 5'rY2 8s Rbrs�-. rvk t L -S A r-!.� I Gi (r? *-(T 0 ems i l iJ c -rA. C�- C> FIT- Ar PC -S AP tFA- 4G V-P A-fZAE,- A- PztSto,-A 6-yi, Ark-& - x.3iu r- Please note that all comment and attendance sheets produced as a result of this Development lnforroarion Meeting will be provided to the City of Maple Ridge and form port of the public record that is available for viewing by the public upon .request, , CONTACT INFORMATION (optional} Name: 5cx-Qr-oD,-j Tel: a AQUILINI') COMMENT CARD RE: Proposed Development at 11310 Kingston Street A"IQ COMMENTS: VA W-V-1� olcl� --k TKA+D TAYLOR KURTZ ARCHITECTURE+ DESIGN INC Please note that all comment and -attendance sheets produced as a result of this Development Information fleeting will be provided to the City of Mapte Ridge and form part of the public record that is available for viewing by the public upon request. CONTACT INFORMATION (Optional) Name: , - -- Tel-. Em a il.- TKA+D . TAYLOR KURTZ ARCH ITECTUREt DESIGN INC. AQUILINI COMMENT CARD RE: Proposed Development at I p 1310 Kingston Street U COMMENTS: Please note that a// Comment and attendance sheets produced as a.resulto this Development Inform. ation Meeting gwl .f e in if be provided to the City of Maple Ridge and form part of the public record that is available f6r viewing by the pob/ic up6tr request. CONTACT INFORMATION (Optional) Name-. Tel: Mail: ICI AQUILINI COMMENT CARD RE: Proposed Development at 11310 Kingston Street COMMENTS:— �-7 TKA+D TAYLOR KURTZ ARCH ITECTU RE+ DESIGN INC Please note that all comment and attendance sheets produced as a result of this Development Information Meeting will be provided to the City of Maple Ridge and form part of the public record that is available for viewing by the public upon .request. CONTACT INFORMATION (Optional) Name: Tel: —Email: a AQUILINI.,, * COMMENT CARD tKA+D TAYLOR KURTZ ARC HITECTU RE+ DESIGN INC RE: Proposed Development at 11310 Kingston Street - Please note that all comment and attendance sheets produced as a result of this. Development, Information Meeting will be provided to the City of Maple Ridge and form part of the public record that is available far viewing by the public upon request. CONTACT INFORMATION (Optional) Name: �Tek I =� AQUILINIf COMMENT CARD RE: Proposed Development at 11310 Kingston Street 't"' IA*D TAYLOR KURTZ ARCHITECTURE+ DESIGN INC COMMENTS, ccy�f _/_0 &z'l I t_-41 (A 0A.- tyAA­Oj C)[--)r- be provided to the City -of Maple Ridge and form part of the public record that is available for viewing by the public upon request., CONTACT INFORMATION (Optional) Name: ....Tel: Email:' 11 AQUILINI.) f COMMENT CARD RE, Proposed Development at 11310 Kingston Street CCfMMANTS cc TKA+D TAYLOR KURTZARCHITIECTURE+ DESIGNING G'%. Please note that all comment and attendance sheets produced as a result of this Development Information Meeting will .be provided to the City of Maple Ridge and form part of the public record that is available for viewing by the public upon request. CONTACT INFORMATION (optional) Name:., COMM ENT CARD RE: Proposed Development at 11310 Kingston Street COMMENTS: TKA+D TAYLOR KURTZARCHITECTUREf DESIGN INC Please note that all comment and attendance sheets produced as a result of this Development Information Meeting will be provided to the City of Maple Ridge and form part of the public record that is available for viewing by the public upon request. CONTACT INFORMATION (Optional) Namt,, Tel iiail: COMMENT CARD RE: Proposed Development at 11310 Kingston Street TKA+D TA)I-OR KORTZ.ARCHITECTURE+ DESIGN INC as a result of this Developmeht r '&ion Meeting will e. note that aY on mea, and atte. donee s isproducedi be provided to the City of Maple.Ridge anti farm par of the public record that is ovailable for viewing by the Public upoP request. CONTACT INFORMATION (Optional) 111 (A� I�j jy(Ai Name:. —Tel: Email; f US t AQUILINI COMMENT CARD RC: Proposed Development at 11310 Kingston Street COMMENTS: r TKA+D TAYLOR KURTZARCHITECTLJRE+DESIGN INC 6:1 Please note that all comment and attendance .sheets produced as a result of this Development Information Meeting will be provided to the City of Maple Ridge and faun part of the public record that is available for viewing by Me public upon request. CONTACT INFORMATION (Optional) Name: Tel: Email:. COMMENT CARD RE: Proposed Development at 11310 Kingston Stre%---+L C0MMENTS-:---(. 0 "rKA+D TAYLOR XURVARCHITECTURE+ DESIGN INC 4 UAE:4- 5 112 6. a ten-6v�E-e sheers proZcA�lr)Wlofthls Development Information Meeting will P' realshk en&-,U6Xte` be provided to the Cityof Maple Ridge anti form part of the public record that is available for viewing by the public upon request. CONTACT INFORMATION (Optional) .Name:- Tel. Email: 16 COMMENT CARD RE: Proposed Development at 11310 Kingston Street h A COMMENTS: �Q�i b l i(el 'vJw' r <11 !U n ire u KA+ TAYLOR KURTZARC HITECTURE+ DESIGN INC lk ter. . -A ' r Please note that all comment and attendance sheets produced as a result of this Development In ormatiora Me Ling will be provided to the City of Maple Ridge and form part of the public record that is available for viewing by the public upon request. CONTACT INFORMATION (Optional) Name: Te r Email: - F1-7 AQUILINI COMMENT CARD RE:. Proposed Development at 11310 Kingston Street COMMENTS* A - IQ'. 0 TKA+D TAYWR.K.URTZARCHITECTU RE+ DESIGN INC r, Please note that all comment and attendance sheets produced as a result of this. Development Information Meeting will be provided to the: City of Maple Ridge and form part of the public record that is available for viewing by the public upon request. CONTACT INFORMATION (Optional) Name: —T e', .... ... jrnall:.e, TKA+D AQU I Ll N COMMENT CARD TAYLOR KURTZ ARCHITECTURE+ DESIGN WC Ple6se note that all comment and attendance sheets produced as a result of this Development Information Meeting will be provided to the City of Maple Ridgy and farm part of the public record that is available fpr viewing by the public upon request, CONTAqT" INFORMA\TJO�, (4fion"O Name:— mail. �T 19 IN AQUILI COMMENT CARD RE: Proposed Development at 11310 Kingston Street TKA+D TAYLOR KUfRTZARCHITECTURE+ DESIGN INC W YAC, nA A Please note that all comment and attendance sheets produced as a result of this Development in form ation.Mee (in g will be provided to the City of Maple Ridge and form part of the public record that is available for viewing by the public upon request. CONTACT INFORMATION (Optional) Name: Tel: Email: COMMENT CARD RE: Proposed Development at 11310 Kingston We8t COMMENTS: "I./, 4' ZA L. S2 4,zZ7, —,-5- TAYLOR KUIRTZARCHtTECTURE+ DESIGN ING 277- Please note that all comment and attendance sheets produced as a result of this Development Information Meeting will be provided to the City of Maple Ridge Arid form part of the public record that is available for viewing by the public c upon request. CONTACT INFORMATION (Optional) Name:, Tek— Email: TIC +D COMMENT CARD WA-0R., KURTZ ARCHITECTURE+ DESIGNING RE; Proposed Development at 11310 Kingston Street COMMENTS, A 6"l, jl�� W-X') 5, ai).v Please note that oll.comment and attendance sheets pr6duced as a result of this Development Information Meeting will. be provided to the -City of Maple Ridge and form part of the public record that is available for viewing by the public upon request, CONTACT INFORMATION (9ptional) Name: Tel:Email: 22 AQUILIN1.) RE: Proposed Development at 11310 Kingston Street COMMENTS: /-`s A20vI /A/ 1"KAi-D TAYLOR KURTZ ARCHITECTURE+ DESIGN ING Please note that all comment and attendance sheets produced as a result of this Development Information lWeeting will be provided to the City of Maple- Ridge and form part of she public record that is available for viewing by the public upon request. CONTACT INFORMATION (Optional) Name:,.. Tel- 1 23 1 AQUILINI COMMENT CARD RE: Proposed Development at 11310 Kingston Street COMMENTS"s, -AAK 6 \L TKA+D TAYLOR KURTZ ARCH ITECTU RE+ DESIGN INC Please note that all comment and attendance sheets produced as a result of this Development Information Meeting will be provided to the City of Maple Ridge and form part of the public record that is available for viewing by the public upon request. CONTACT INFORMATION (Optional) Name: f Tel: Email:_ 1 SKETCH PLAN SHOWING WATERCOURSES AND MAPLE RIDGE SETBACKS OF LOT 2 DISTRICT LOT 280 AND 281 GROUP 1 NEW WESTMINSTER DISTRICT PLAN BCP50683 L W IDT AFAOOR3 FaA8W pNC AMI10 NIZLLROOO STWT. JAVIt ROM Pur¢L owmLR oye-ass-sis BOGS 92 G.028 \ •— — ---• IM1B Qrcqy w�� fe k ii w;.wa<fo, ar W wII score 1:1250 A u:l i LOT 1 PUN BCP50393 LFOGD ........................ roa RArra uvm ®Lunn RDO£ scrsv�a M. soe Gl."w by Btu 0*9g . Smca i,c LOT C900O s OM M FROM RM sw5m ALL DTAM LOT LAt1 W IOW SMtM PLN-SfS 11w ! AWOM LS LAD SLRLONC LID. K LINO stw4y s IM)AI R DOME Rw PIRYIE: ((QI) Rf6-O:RiI M e0-p5J FYE HTOS/-0/-OI-RI Ilj l I PH! IIII I FP iql) LOT 2 I'M BCP51WR1 D. L 280 & 281. CP. 1 APPEN®IX I to cro it - C it u.a o JQY a r s ° z 0 to •3 - u(9 2w zzw _ _ r s{ ¢ N z� owz, J Yw rra¢; 'j 4.1 too I 1 ILLUXLLLLR1W11llillMULW W I� wN W J _ 0 Y0 W O W 0 of<� � 0 6` _ tooto oWW0 cc\ ccnQn z a z LU \ \ Y U O- W oW 0z w0 K Z y w wp� ¢N ¢w F FAO w�J Z O Z � 5�cim w it sir Z W c c.� W J O F- w� LLo w �W Q � W J K H Q Z ow N 0 W > az �W oD UD Q F. �0 mz =a olooto O J �w Z Q f f f f f f c a� �1 c � J f— Z � W � LL, Z W LL F- O O > �a Z w W 0 Z W Q K Z � Z W o W zZv0 a w 2 U Z Z U W Q W llLllLl1ill111111ll111LH+F�1 _ 0 Boa I p o _ 'DJJ - o�� J2W W O LL W Z N {_ m UJFQ- ` OJ 4'W - V W W w W Q 0to K� � z Z ` 1 O �LL U) e 30W�� { W �QFO Mc°OZ - Q l \� � m ¢ W F �Q m F U x WZW zQ¢m Q N J of F Z O n w H i Z W ZO W U Z W Z (~n Qd wK ?ZOOZ� YW UF- W fL� � �OQ F- OLLp _ m �O I„ A�, wc. i _ Z W M Ic .r� U- m - t U `tj J QrO _`` OKWon I.. w mC:;< C S 4g J W W l"X. �Y O � o 2 l — ` U0W`` O l%. .."� W UMK �a�w r` to °BS MB S S a 1 4 w W to N 0 AIB or _ \ 0 O tot _ 1 —ol tool M ZS out W j F- 4 Z N W O aQw W xJQ0 a to �Fo> Z WZ W w Z LL m OZ� Fr ■ LL' 0EL zz(rzw c Y W Q Q K i i/ I I \ `I I I a H W N F-Cpa >W�a� > Q N J xZoQ W O WNW wwWo Q OOZ Y U H W n bP t Z Qi �C 2 V3 !_ (Y ssss�� `� W >y a Blfi Sa v 4 om W W III i' 3 pp�• M z Cd PCs �Isps E a ziE � OU s. rid Y Sc ro¢ ZZ z z 3 f n N N g - c; qn` d g L r �� B e.. E N=So c `an= N N � m$c MA 0 Y gnv �°;vo E'a3 ;`�E oac n 3E o a cC c g on'c :o cEcy c"a-6 !e any Eu�a— c U= <= Y C_ a 0 = u 0 3 YEv E> 34�m o. u Yloa Ee>oni w m E Q e c N g D c Fo VMS Li 5 ooI ki eoY'' N I_ o_u Q Nu�u_ Z 'c Z c c8ct LLI Lxa< O cga°X w v�f ao; z - cuEum _ t!g"n a NV=E'2 LLI z O w / R m J a+ en�� g��z y„ao o as <<z i` a 0 a Q ammmw = �" o g ,2EVEn N I- � Qa 3� "c0 0 "g z nEeE O V a]IS Y"qq t W e� e Q ■ z aOZ $ 9g u t s a .o.c o o E 3 E�a�a m 3 L- A - J - 7 3gm 0ae3 a;s� W re3a3 F E v ai F N a H co Q O Y N H Y a • � vi c E Y " C Mao Y 3 3 8$ 3 t g'� © 5 9 6 3 vat Y v`u c gg a F m Y cf3 i� YY YE v aag Bfi t � ° �� y cp e���� V" w a aa ; SSE d Y� c•v E z v Q Y O coo Qoo_ Q at V 0 0n •an vc; LL +, a oca vab p tj(; o YS- L_ CU�ry�" U o O ,.: a $ J y 6 EAd ,, tnO5 z eEN • ' _ 13 duoSEER O r s Ynam jcuzon Z •3¢W Yva Z WOM ° O Zmao x+... u4CY W9g o3g6 !�• Eli A , O � y EEF Q M°Or- w + cnn ~ Et �In L cn Qco Q o•En° " w n o En B = N t o° P�Z nNN m 2 c O 3 U = SAcw F W F- F c Q Z 3 CD p 3i 2 3 aj F N r .� �E€ € mat zm zZ s kp J z? z 0� sw La z Q - O ZK ari Q� it a z z tJtLj ; t �� ....ww ui z s,z BAN s F S 7 4 tit w $yea Lu o � z —sad z =,eery rm •e��id=5° t^a a w �s�sg ;EaB� z t�•i�i s E K vls'S2E9�S Z��O;L > � a; o w me= n; u W gii E7 SI i-` Esc01 (( g wit gsS¢ @ E�' . � .�� § e Eta ��� � a �" s �`��, � � � 4Z .tip• a` a� � g s � $ � " � d E � 0 3 ate' p - O�onA Q a lva:i aria=<e:$ ft!s�.ec LLd t F p Z a 7 'S ° t s a E�'$• 3 9 S11$[ g 111 z y t $$ 5 ,LEi i,3S 9 �x WS Y <i•j+ E € z a�;Am�;ix�d R ;EI#ga iJknl g ac . �z G 3jE i N j Q C N Q ��►Qzm , a o�Aeva� W C:Ldq<<;��e w 'i. '_ nu OOGa� z g9ogana = s ` 0t w n°y';aBEa Z tngo 3s • � q 3: 3: " q a z � 1pWCEW "61�! F : V wo 3>z F j ern P y L d xLU v CYpl�a`o d 11.11'5 Oct; $ N N L w " m co C PY�QE _ ooqy: i "►:� ESN. ° v v,2 ii iw �u$pfnc 9 zo WPa"Oc no $ ai v r �r�i F Y C • oa /J z as E too P 5 _ 3 3 g m� d e B i ado 0 s =A�s 30 �A dq" sea d cdn� + ,� ou maE Ea o s ono? P 4 S 8 a¢ p u O 7 r2 5 n �s FL ry 1:£FI` F.. { o a Z min W "� Z 3 t y N C d L A tU 0 d O Pin K p IL oQ w itti $ 00=V f.0 i:` td4s< I -id 1;avoc�5a 8 dnO;utO mcg5—imt mS giiE�a W to UJI p�= N`cg EP'Nq �� esw zs ►� "N EQ £ j d= E.S 2i ig yi oq�o g OJ u aE z :Zywo n$8`o„ S OF� as, Bid w Em�z�sS a€ EB; pcoZx Z', '+1 SctF F Y IL Piuoin F Y. �\ N ,pG�EiIDO)� J 1'RANS� LINK October 16, 2020 Michelle Baski Planner Planning & Development, City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, B.C., V2X 6A9 Dear Ms. Baski, Tranft i 400 - 287 Nelson's Court New Westminster, BC V3L OE7 Canada Tel 778.375.7500 translink.ca South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Re: Proposed Rezoning, Subdivision and Development Permit of 11310 Kingston Street (Reference #2018-458-RZ) Thank you for your correspondence dated June 9, 2020 and for the opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed rezoning, subdivision and development permit for the property located at 11310 Kingston Street. Our understanding is that this development application is intended to rezone the site from residential to industrial and create seven industrial park lots. We appreciate the outreach and engagement, and provide TransLink comments based on: • Our legislated mandate to review OCP amendments and development proposals for regional transportation implications, and to support Metro Vancouver's Regional Growth Strategy (RGS); • Policy direction in the Regional Transportation Strategy (RTS) to work with partner agencies in advancing shared regional objectives and integrated land use and transportation planning; and • The Transit -Oriented Communities Design Guidelines (TOCDGs), a tool to support the planning and design of communities that integrate land use with sustainable transportation. After reviewing the project materials included with your referral, we have the following feedback. Transportation and Land Use Integration TransLink supports the focus of trip -generating growth in locations where sustainable transportation options are available, to advance the shared regional goals of the RGS and RTS. The rezoning and subdivision of the subject property into seven industrial properties is expected to increase trip generation to and from the site, and sustainable transportation options for these trips appears limited. Michelle Baski, City of Maple Ridge October 16, 2020 Page 2 of 5 Neither Kingston Street nor 113b Avenue are part of the Frequent Transit Network (FTN), the region's network of corridors where transit service runs at least every 15 minutes in both J:&A, +' +I.. L. , -i l4mk *4J , . A ;r +^ +l-) inrr n%inni r OX1 of tkiM �n/eek The dictanre from tha U11tfULIUIIJ LIIrUUgIIUUL LIIU UCIY allU IIILU LI e evening, �.V .., y .. Y v1 u v proposed development site to the FTN at Maple Meadows Station is 1.2 kilometres from the north end of the site and 2.1 kilometres from the south end of the site. TransLink's Transit -Oriented Community Design Guidelines speak to focusing transit -oriented growth within an 800 metre walkshed of the FTN. The bus routes operating closest to the site are routes 743 and 744, with bus stops located near Hammond Road/203 Street. Both routes provide service between Maple Meadows Station and downtown Maple Ridge. The walk between the bus stop and the site is approximately 800 metres to the north end of the site and 1.5 kilometres to the south end of the site. Routes 743 and 744 provide 30-minute service during the AM and PM weekday peak periods, and 40-60-minute service at all other times. Service is provided between 5:30 AM and 10:00 PM on weekdays and 8:00 AM to 7900 PM on Saturdays; service does not operate on Sundays. With these service frequencies and hours of operation, it would likely be difficult to serve industrial workers with shift start/end times late in the evening or on weekends. Based on recent monitoring, routes 743 and 744 provide service for an average load of 8 customers or less throughout the day and would have sufficient capacity to accommodate additional ridership generated due to the proposed development. It is expected, however, that this development would have minimal impact on ridership given that the service frequencies and walking distances would not be likely to encourage such ridership. TransLink's Phase Two Plan for the 10-Year Vision for Metro Vancouver Transportation included changes to routes 743 and 744; TransLink will be following up later this month with City staff to provide additional information on the status of those service changes. Walking and Cycling The subject site offers high cycling potential, being located near the region's Major Bike Network (MBN) corridors along Golden Ears Way and Airport Way. Although outside project limits, there is an opportunity for the City to pursue an upgrade to the overall cycling network by upgrading the painted bike lanes on 113b Avenue and the MBN on Golden Ears Way into protected cycling facilities that are comfortable for all ages and abilities (AAA), as well as to provide smooth connections from the MBN to the multi -use path running parallel to Golden Ears Way. It could be beneficial for the City of Maple Ridge to coordinate with the City of Pitt Meadows on cycling upgrades to ensure continuous AAA facilities along Airport Way and 113b Avenue from Harris Road to 203 Street. Noting that any bikeways would need to be designed to minimize conflicts with buses, it would be particularly important to provide safe, accessible, and comfortable active transportation routes from the site to: • the FTN and the West Coast Express at Maple Meadows Station; • the R3 Rapid Bus on Lougheed Highway at 203 Street; and 0 the adjacent Port Hammond community to the east of the site. Michelle Baski, City of Maple Ridge October 16, 2020 Page 3 of 5 To improve safety and encourage active transportation, consideration could be given to adding signalized crosswalks to the intersection of Kingston Street and 113b Avenue, and a sidewalk to the west side of Kingston Street. Active transportation improvements would be particularly important in this area to help alleviate the known congestion issues on 113b Avenue at peak commuting times, primarily vehicles exiting Golden Ears Bridge. While there are no bus stops within the site limits, shelters could be provided for nearby bus stops on Ditton Street, Princess Street, Lorne Avenue, Hammond Road, Maple Crescent, and 203 Street, to make transit a more comfortable and attractive travel option for people accessing the proposed development. The bus stops could also be made accessible. The developer could provide continuous walking facilities around and within the site, ideally on both sides of each street, where appropriate. Secure bike parking could be provided as appropriate for the various buildings, as well as benches, bike racks, and drinking fountains throughout the site. Lighting could be provided along the active transportation routes. Active transportation improvements provided by the developer could be complemented by other cycling and pedestrian improvements thatTransLink could cost share with the City of Maple Ridge, in order to provide complete and continuous cycling and walking connections. Please feel free to contact us to learn more about TransLink's municipal funding programs. Transportation Demand Management TransLink has a regional Transportation Demand Management (TDM) mandate and role in assisting municipalities and developers to build TDM plans into developments. These plans are essentially suggested agreements that can be made between the municipality and the developer that effectively trade dedicated parking stalls for amenities and services that stimulate less trips, more transit use, more shared vehicle use and more active transportation. Guidance based on 'TransLink TravelSmart Development TDM Plans' (Attachment 1) recommend primary measures that prioritize sustainable transportation as part of rezoning and/or development permit applications. At a high level, these include: • Amenities: One-off infrastructure investments in amenities such as bicycle parking and changing facilities, priority parking spaces for pooled and shared vehicles, EV charging points, wayfinding, pedestrian links and transit information; • Services: Car share vehicle contracts, vehicle pools, carpooling programs, campus shuttle modelled on demand, bike lockers and stalls; and • Administration/Marketing: the above services can/should be monitored (usually annually) either by the municipality or by the developer to assess the value or effectiveness of each travel option. Given the above -discussed limitations on existing sustainable transportation options in this area, as well as the expected increase in trip generation from this development, we encourage the City Michelle BaSkl, City of Maple Ridge October 16, 2020 Page 4 of 5 of Maple Ridge to consider implementing TDM plans in this development. Please contact the TravelSmart team at travelsmart@translink.ca for further information and/or guidance. Major Road Network The South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority Act requires that a municipality have TransLink approval to take, authorize or permit any action that. • Reduces the capacity of the Major Road Network (MRN) to move people; and/or • Prohibits the movement of trucks on any road (except for Provincial highways). The proposed development abuts Golden Ears Way, which is part of the Major Road Network (MRN); however, there is no direct access to the MRN from the proposed development site. Given that the access to the MRN is via 113B Avenue, which fronts the development site, TransLink in general has no MRN related concerns regarding this project. Adjacent and Integrated Development TransLinl<'s Adjacent and Integrated Development (AID) program applies to development adjacent to and/or integrated with TransLink's infrastructure, with the purpose being to manage and protect TransLink's property rights during development and to preserve the safe, secure and uninterrupted operation of the transit system during construction. Based on the proximity of the development to Golden Ears Way, the development may have impacts to TransLink infrastructure and/or property rights. We are aware that the applicant has been in contact with TransLink's Real Estate team on this and is aware that this development must undergo TransLink's AID Project Consent Process to ensure that associated technical and design risks are addressed and public transit assets remain safeguarded. Please engage the AID team at AlDreview@translink.ca. Additional Transportation Related Considerations In 2019, the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MoTI) conducted the Katzie Access Study (Attachment 2) to identify potential vehicular access options for the parcel of land owned by the Katzie First Nation (KFN) located west of Golden Ears Way. MoTI involved the City of Pitt Meadows, the City of Maple Ridge, the KFN, and TransLink in the study scope as the KFN land is located between the border of Pitt Meadows and Maple Ridge and adjacent to TransLink owned infrastructure (Golden Ears Way). We encourage the City of Maple Ridge to refer this application to the City of Pitt Meadows, MoTI and KFN, given that one of the access options noted in the Ministry's Katzie Access Study referenced the access to the 11310 Kingston Street development. Continued Collaboration We appreciate the opportunity to provide comment on the rezoning, subdivision and development permit at 11310 Kingston Street and look forward to continued coordination with Michelle BaSkl, City of Maple Ridge October 16, 2020 Page 5 of 5 the City of Maple Ridge. Please contact me at stefanie.ekeli@translink.ca should you have any questions or wish to discuss further. Kind regards, Stefanie EI<eli Planner, Partner Planning Attachments: Attachment 1—TransLink TravelSmart Development TDM Plans Attachment 2 — Katzie Access Study MAPLE RIDGE mapleridge.ca City of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Michael Morden MEETING DATE: May 17, 2022 and Members of Council FILE NO: 2018-489-RZ FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: C o W SUBJECT: Second Reading Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7523-2018 20278 and 20292 Patterson Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: An application has been received to rezone the subject properties, located at 20278 and 20292 Patterson Avenue from RS-1 (Single Detached Residential) to RM-2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential), to permit a future four -storey apartment building, with approximately 88 units. Council granted first reading to Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7523-2018 on January 28, 2020. This application is in compliance with the Medium Density Multi -Family land use designation within the North Hammond Precinct of the Hammond Area Plan in the Official Community Plan. Pursuant to Council Policy 6.31, this application will be subject to the Community Amenity Contribution (CAC) Program at the rate adopted by the time this application receives third reading. RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7523-2018 as amended, be given second reading and forwarded to Public Hearing; 2. 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) Approval from the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure; III) Road dedication on Patterson Avenue and 203 Street, 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 Acoustic Study prepared for the subject properties; vii) Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for Stormwater Management; All) Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for Visitor Parking; 2018-489-RZ Page 1 of 9 1104 ix) Registration of a Restrictive Covenant for the sanitary and storm pump; x) Removal of existing buildings; xi) The septic systems serving the existing dwellings must be decommissioned and removed, in accordance with Ministry of Health requirements, immediately upon connecting to the municipal Sanitary Sewer; xii) If the Director of Waste Management from the Ministry of Environment determines that a site investigation is required based on the submitted Site Disclosure Statement, a rezoning, development, or development variance permit cannot be approved until a release is obtained for the subject properties; xiii) In addition to the Ministry of Environment Site Disclosure Statement, 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; and xiv) That a voluntary contribution be provided in keeping with the Council Policy with regard to Community Amenity Contributions, at the rate adopted by Council at the time this application receives third reading. DISCUSSION: 1. Background Context: Applicant: W. Bissky, Bissky Architecture and Urban Design Inc. Legal Descriptions: Lot 55 Except Part Dedicated Road on Plan 78633, District Lot 222, Group 1, New Westminster District Plan 35806; and Lot 56, District Lot 222, Group 1, New Westminster District Plan 35806 OCP: Existing: Medium Density Multi -Family Proposed: Medium Density Multi -Family Zoning: Existing: RS-1 (Single Detached Residential) Proposed: RM-2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-1(Single Detached Residential) Designation: Low Density Multi -Family and Medium Density Multi -Family South: Use: Single Family Residential Zone: RS-1 (Single Detached Residential), RS-1b (Single Detached (Medium Density) Residential) Designation: Medium Density Multi -Family, Single -Family and Compact Residential 2018-489-RZ Page 2 of 9 East: Use: Zone: Designation: West: Use: Zone: Designation: Existing Use of Properties: Proposed Use of Properties: Site Area: Access: Servicing requirement: Companion Applications: Single Family Residential RS-1(Single Detached Residential) Medium Density Multi -Family Single Family Residential RS-1(Single Detached Residential) Low Density Multi -Family Single Family Residential Multi -Family Residential 0.37 ha (0.91 acres) Patterson Avenue Urban Standard 2018-489-DP/DVP 2. Project History and Description: The two subject properties, located at 20278 and 20292 Patterson Avenue, at the intersection of Patterson Avenue and 203 Street, together make up a development site approximately 0.37 ha (0.91 acres) in size (see Appendices A and B). The subject properties are mainly flat, with an existing single family dwelling on each of them. The subject properties are surrounded by single family dwellings on all sides. A Katzie First Nation's cemetery is located to the southeast of the subject properties, across 203 Street. Maple Ridge Fire Hall No. 3 is located two properties to the south of the subject properties, and the City has recently acquired the property located to the south, at 11789 203 Street, to allow for expansion of the Fire Hall. Patterson Avenue is a local road which ends in a cul-de-sac to the west. 203 Street is a main north/south arterial road in the western end of the City, connecting lower Hammond, the Maple Meadows Business Park, the commercial services along Lougheed Highway and Dewdney Trunk Road, and the residential and agricultural areas to the north. This application first came to Council on January 29, 2019, to rezone the subject properties from RS-1 (Single Detached Residential) to RM-2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential) to permit an apartment building. Council deferred the application, pending the outcomes of the Lougheed Transit Corridor Study. The Lougheed Transit Corridor Study was discussed at Council Workshop on December 3, 2019. Council referred the Lougheed Transit Corridor Study Area back to staff for further work to incorporate higher densities. This subject application was further discussed at Council Workshop on December 10, 2019. At this meeting, it was determined that the land use designation of Medium Density Multi -Family in the Hammond Area Plan would remain on the properties, and that the applicant could work with staff to amend the design of the building to be more sensitive to the surrounding single family residences. The original development proposal was for a four -storey apartment building with approximately 6,597 m2 (71,008 ft2) of gross floor area, and a floor space ratio of approximately 1.8, with 82 units. Council direction provided at the December 10, 2019 Workshop meeting, was that the project will need to be revised to be more sensitive to the surrounding built form and height of the single family residential properties to the west and south. The application has been revised to reduce the unit size, and overall building, providing a gross floor area of 5,860 m2 (63,080 ft2), a decrease in size of 737 m2 (7,933 ft2) and a floor space ratio of approximately 1.75, but with an increase to 88 units. The unit mix consists of 20 one -bedroom units and 68 two -bedroom units. The building meets the setbacks required adjacent to the single-family homes to the west and south, but is requiring setback variances fronting the streets, as discussed below. 2018-489-RZ Page 3 of 9 3. Planning Analysis: i) Official Community Plan: The subject properties are located in the North Hammond Precinct of the Hammond Area Plan in the Official Community Plan (OCP). The properties are designated Medium Density Residential to reflect their location on a Major Corridor and their proximity to Lougheed Highway. This Medium Density Residential land use designation aligns with a townhouse and rowhouse form of development to a maximum of three storeys, as well as an apartment form of housing to a maximum of four storeys. The Hammond Area Plan currently has the following policy under the Medium Density Residential designation to create a sensitive transition as existing neighbourhoods experience redevelopment: 3-26 Ensuring that higher densities are compatible with existing character is an important consideration. Design for new development should include: a) Orienting living and activity spaces toward streets and laneways, so that opportunities for "eyes on the street" are created wherever possible; b) Careful consideration of size, location, and orientation of on -site open space areas to ensure new development allows ample sunlight and a variety of plant materials and trees that are complementary to the existing mature landscaping that contributes to the neighbourhood character; c) Design that is sensitive to surrounding built form and height, particularly for buildings that are three (3) or more storeys in height; d) Parking for residents is provided in a concealed or underground structure. In addition to the above -noted compatibility policy, the Hammond Area Plan includes Development Permit (DP) guidelines to shape the design of new buildings so that they integrate with the character of each Hammond neighbourhood. The following DP building massing guidelines are particularly relevant in the context of the proposed development: 2.2.4 Apartment buildings over two storeys should articulate or step back upper storeys of buildings (the third storey and above) to reduce the scale and massing of the building. 2.2.5 New development should provide a transition in scale to adjacent land uses with a different land use designation. This can be achieved through: • Building design articulation of building features; • Setback or buffer to adjacent development; and • A combination of the above with landscaping and trees. The applicant was encouraged to step back the building on the south-western corner; however, the applicant wanted to proceed with the attached plans, preferring to weigh the advantages of housing affordability over the DP guidelines. The proposal does address most of these policies by breaking up the building with an internal courtyard fronting Patterson Avenue. Units front onto the streets and courtyard, providing "eyes on the street". Although setback variances are being sought for the street frontages, the required setbacks to the west and south are being met and significant landscaping is being provided. 2018-489-RZ Page 4 of 9 Lougheed Transit Corridor Study In September 2018, a land use study was endorsed by Council for the Lougheed Corridor, encompassing lands west of the Town Centre primarily between Dewdney Trunk Road and Lougheed Highway and adjacent to these two roadways. At the time of endorsement, Council further added two sub -areas south of Lougheed Highway, and the subject properties fall into one of these sub- areas referred to as the South-West Lougheed Residential Sub -area. This sub -area included properties along Patterson Avenue, West Street, 119A Avenue, Bruce Avenue and Bruce Place, and properties north of 118 Avenue, between 203 Street and 207 Street (see Figure 1 below). 9L. Ar E S N` J( r - II w — 11 I jaL f. HJ I i Figure 1-South-West Lougheed Residential Sub -Area With the addition of this sub -area into the Lougheed Transit Corridor study, focused consultation events were held with area residents. At these events, staff heard that many of the residents have lived in the area for twenty to forty years, and have experienced firsthand increased traffic and congestion as the population has grown and new regional road connections have been built. Area residents also expressed concerns for new development in their neighbourhood, the new rapid bus stop at 203 Street and Lougheed Highway, and future re -development of surrounding properties, particularly a large adjacent property that has been vacant for some time. Given this feedback and City-wide consultation, the proposed land use concept for the Lougheed Transit Corridor focuses density between Dewdney Trunk Road and the Lougheed Highway, allowing for transitional height south of Lougheed Highway and into existing single family neighbourhoods. ii) Zoning Bylaw: The current application proposes to rezone the subject properties from RS-1 (Single Detached Residential) to RM-2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential) (see Appendix C) to permit an apartment building. Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7523-2018 has been amended to update the reference to the new Zoning Bylaw No. 7600-2019, which was adopted in December 2020, as the Zone Amending Bylaw was originally amending Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985. Any variations from the requirements of the proposed zone will require a Development Variance Permit application, as discussed below. Off -Street Parking and Loading Bylaw: The Off -Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990 requires 1.5 parking spaces per dwelling unit, plus 0.2 parking spaces per dwelling unit designated for visitor parking. Based on 88 units, 132 parking stalls are required for the residents, with an additional 18 stalls required for visitor parking, and 3 accessible parking stalls. The development is meeting the parking requirements of the Off - Street Parking and Loading Bylaw with two levels of underground parking. Long-term bike storage is also provided on the main level of the building, for 28 bikes. Short-term bike racks are also provided near the main entrance to the building and within the courtyard area, for 16 bikes. 2018-489-RZ Page 5 of 9 iv) Proposed Variances: A Development Variance Permit application has been received for this project and involves the following relaxations (see Appendix D): a) Zoning Bylaw No. 7600-2019: • Part 4 - Residential Zones, Section 618 RM-2 Medium Density Apartment Residential o 618.7 1. a. and d. To reduce the minimum front (203 Street) and exterior (Patterson Avenue) side setbacks from 7.5 m (24.6 ft.) down to 4 m (13.1 ft.) to the building face and to 2.75 m (9.0 ft.) to the roof overhang. The requested variances to reduce the front and exterior yard setbacks will be the subject of a future report to Council. v) Development Permits: Pursuant to Section 8.13 of the OCP, a Hammond Development Permit Area application is required for all Medium Density Multi -Family developments located in the Hammond Area Plan. Through this design process, efforts will be made to reduce the scale and massing of the proposed building to be more sensitive to the single-family houses in the area. The Development Permit will be the subject of a future report to Council; however Building Elevations and the Landscape Plan have been attached to this report (see Appendix E). vi) Advisory Design Panel: The application was reviewed by the Advisory Design Panel (ADP) at a meeting held on January 19, 2022, and their comments and the applicant's responses are attached to this report (see Appendix F). A detailed description of the project's form and character will be included in a future report to Council. vii) Development Information Meeting: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, it was not possible for the developer to host an in -person Development Information Meeting. In lieu of Development Information Meetings, an interim process has been established to allow for a ten day Public Comment Opportunity. The notification requirements are the same as for the Development Information Meeting and include a mail -out, newspaper advertisements, and notice on the development signs that provides the contact information for the developer and the Public Comment period. The Public Comment Opportunity was held between March 14 and March 30, 2022. Originally the date range was proposed for March 14 to March 24, 2022; however, since this date range was over the School District's Spring Break, the date range was extended to March 30, 2022, to allow residents time to respond once they had potentially returned from vacation. A summary of the main comments and discussions with the attendees was provided by the applicant (see Appendix G). The main concerns were around traffic impacting the residents of Patterson Avenue, and neighbourhood fit. The public will have an additional opportunity to share their concerns with the Mayor and Council at the Public Hearing, should Council forward this report. 2018-489-RZ Page 6 of 9 4. Interdepartmental Implications: i) Engineering Department: The Engineering Department has indicated that the following servicing upgrades will be required through the Rezoning Servicing Agreement: • Road dedication as required to meet the design criteria of the Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw No. 4800-1993; • Utility servicing as required to meet the design criteria of the Subdivision and Development Servicing Bylaw No. 4800-1993 (or will be a condition of the future subdivision); and • Frontage upgrades to Patterson Avenue to a collector road standard. ii) License, Permits and Bylaws Department: The License, Permits, and Bylaws Department identified that if the foundation drain the and parkade's run-off is going to be pumped, the pump station's design and back-up system needs to be submitted and a covenant will be required. Additionally, the shoring and excavation plan needs to be submitted and any encroachment to neighbouring properties will require legal agreements. iii) Fire Department: The Fire Department recommended that an acoustic study be conducted, acknowledging the proximity to Fire Hall No. 3 and the plans for future expansion to the lot to the north of the Fire Hall. The applicant has provided an acoustic study, and this will be registered as a restrictive covenant on title. iv) Environmental Section: No trees are proposed to be retained on site or on City required for tree removal; however, the Landscape Plan replacement tree requirement. 5. Other Agencies: i) Traffic Impact: Right -of -Ways, therefore a Tree Permit is has enough trees proposed to satisfy the As the subject properties are located within 800 m of the sent to the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure. Bylaw will be required as a condition of final reading. preliminary approval of the development application. ii) School District No. 42 Comments: Lougheed Highway, a referral has been Ministry approval of the Zone Amending At this time, the Ministry has granted Pursuant to Section 476 of the Local Government Act, consultation with School District No. 42 is required at the time of preparing or amending the OCP. Although there is no OCP amendment, a referral was sent to School District No. 42 and the following response was provided: "The proposed application would affect the student population for the currently served by Hammond Elementary and Westview Secondary School. catchment areas 2018-489-RZ Page 7 of 9 Hammond Elementary has an operating capacity of 444 students. For the 2020-21 school year, the student enrolment at Hammond Elementary is 411 students (93% utilization) including 169 students from out of catchment. Westview Secondary School has an operating capacity of 1200 students. For the 2020-21 school year, the student enrolment at Westview Secondary School is 651 students (54% utilization) including 412 students from out of catchment." iii) Provincial Archaeology Branch There are no known archaeological sites identified in the vicinity on the Province's Archaeological Data site; however, the'City has designated the Katzie Cemetery as a Heritage site in the Heritage Inventory. Should there be a confirmed chance find discovery, all work in the immediate area would need to be halted until an appropriate Heritage Conservation Act (HCA) Permit is obtained. All applications for HCA Permits are forwarded by the Archaeology Branch to appropriate First Nations for review. 6. Citizen/Customer Implications: As discussed above, with the addition of this sub -area into the Lougheed Transit Corridor study, focused consultation events were held with area residents. A summary of the consultation information was provided to Council at the Council Workshop meeting of December 10, 2019. Additionally, a Public Comment Opportunity was held to provide feedback to the Developer, and residents will be able to voice their opinions on the development at the Public Hearing, should Council forward this report on to a Public Hearing. It should be noted that there have been lengthy discussions around Building Scheme restrictive covenants that were originally on the Certificates of Title for the subject properties, which were later discharged by the Land Titles Office. This restrictive covenant was between private property owners, and not the City. There is still a notation on the Certificates of Title referring to the Building Scheme. The surrounding neighbourhood has concerns with the proposed development which would not adhere to the Building Scheme. The developer should be aware that Council may rezone the subject properties and authorize the City to issue the Development Permit and Building Permit to allow the proposed development, despite the Building Scheme being on Title. However, the Building Scheme is a private agreement, so it is possible that any other owner may explore the option to delay or prevent the development. 2018-489-RZ Page 8 of 9 CONCLUSION: It is recommended that second reading be given to Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7523-2018 as amended, and that application 2018-489-RZ be forwarded to Public Hearing. "Original signed by Michelle Baski" Prepared by: Michelle Baski, AScT, MA Planner "Original signed by Mark McMullen" for Reviewed by: Charles R. Goddard, BA, MA Director of Planning "Original signed by Charles Goddard" for Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP GM Planning & Development Services "Original signed by Scott Hartman" Concurrence: Scott Hartman Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A - Subject Map Appendix B - Ortho Map Appendix C - Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7523-2018 Appendix D - Proposed Site Plan Appendix E - Proposed Building Elevations and Landscape Plan Appendix F - Advisory Design Panel Resolution and Applicant Response Appendix G - Development Information Meeting Summary 2018-489-RZ Page 9 of 9 �° p��� l� 0�� Q o cOUGyF�O o0 N y/Gywq y ti a 0 � N O N 11940 I1934 Ili 923 I 111926 I \ ^ / 11913 in ^ 1� z119 } 6 �7g�2 � 1'�9 Z � 119I0 w O � � '� w 11906 O O N � N N m J� 9 � m co ? 02 v � F O � j � p�9 N N O O N N N N N 7 N O O pe' NO � h N �Yg69 Y7ggY >Yg2> 35 ���GyEE� NwY '/ N O / N N �`/ I II�� f ' , f1871 1����������' _�������� 4 � c0 � N O N N N N PATTERSOt! AVE. O � � N � `" o O N o N N N SUBJECT PROPERTIES ---- -- � J N N N N r1a34 N o f1626 N N M 11808 N O r17e9 N N O a _ o c`ro c'o ^ � m � a � N ��'^, '� � � � m N 20286 N �- N p p O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 20287 ASHLEY CR. o � v o c o o 0 0 ^ 0 20289 t� O ^ a N N N N N N N N 2O 1 SO � N N N N N N N N N N N 20291 � 20140 U } w 20134 2 < 20130 \ `-'O / �9 c k \ Y�66' ,01� �e 9`F � ,tia ry0 � ti� �\ __ M � N O ON N 0 N 11777 M �n � rn � �, �, a o c � u., ^ N N N N c � p, !� h N <'1 M V O N O N N O N N N � � N N N N N N N N N N 17 726 203�d ST. STANTON AVE. o � � (p � m � � � o0i O � N O M � �.' O N O N N N N N �G N N N N N N N N O N N N N � N N O � N N 20309 / 1) trJ �� dip ��� ^� 2 ti ��Eg7 r 1�65 � ��6jg a 11680 � � N N N 1168 AVE. `,�`� N m v � voi h `L66 N ry � O O O O O �0 N N N N N N •- H � ti749 �� n � �� .�'` 11723 �� � 11661 mN 1 11667 cw Legend ---- Ditch Centreline NI NI NI Ny1719 NI NI N 11677 11744 i /1732 11712 11702 11682 NO 0 N N N I � I ON ONI N NI NI N � h � cam., c��-, N N (Oy � N N MI NIN N N .�- N N 118 AVE. 0 0 N ry N I O N � rn � 4 Q � N N � N N N � VVALtJUT CR. N � O � � 1 Q p O ON N N N F- 0 � � ^ � N � ON 0 0 N � 0 N N � N Q N N N N N DALE DR. �J W tp N 'o � b; � h � � h V N O O O O O N N N N N Z 11770 � O 11717 1f716 11715 11714 a 11717 O 11710 � \1\- '� 0 2 111 ^yo 0 �� � 1� � ��1 .. GPG� ,{1,2 11721 9 9 ,,105 20292 & 20278 PATTERSON AVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT �. � � � � - ,,.. mapleridge.ca Scale: 1:3,000 FILE: 2018-489-RZ DATE: Nov 27, 2018 BY: RA no I of JIM It lor If If 31,46 gn No If If d , • If r for If Kz JIM& wit IrILI fooff rl no"I ti .ser4 MIT W. wnn ty T oflip goof r If low If now no • ■■ s _, . � , I VT' I am off -, IF lob Ip In i a - ., Syr - ` "�C•' - -- L� All i FIN "A aw If st r — r = �} MW A i {� If I �on a 1. �- Iff Mn. ff MAW/4 r + Ito, rr Ls ►� M �,?If yIf OfIfIMF IM It VW IMP P6 w `­ t T +Oft• IN goom an !�- '�• u, �o' ,oFIT go goi •our- now 4 ` is I It G;" • lR Op Aw 1 Ito e'InIffevf MMOP ` 4 I If �Id Ail ''` - Rao All 6 rt - • JIM s ' ; Woo.fog rs IMF If ONE not 46 kw I& + AID MGM +, . In L 111, •L�ilu If Of . . War 10 Ml If N Mov3 `� . r : l �:° tl. f ro to In AM IM ISIMMF nama ejyi.0 y �- MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia BMW CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7523-2018 A Bylaw to amend Schedule `A' Zoning Map forming part of Zoning Bylaw No. 7600 - 2019, as amended W�IEREAS, 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. 7523-2018." 2. Those parcels or tracts of land and premises known and described as: Lot 55 Except: Part Dedicated Road On Plan 78633, District Lot 222 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 35806;and Lot 56 District Lot 222 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 35806 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1788 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, are hereby rezoned to RM-2 (Medium Density Apartment 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 28th day of January, 2020. READ a second time the PUBLIC HEARING held the READ a third time the day of , 20 day of , 20 APPROVED by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure this 20 ADOPTED, the day of PRESIDING MEMBER 20 CORPORATE OFFICER (P 26936 P 69704 2 3 Cb 4 5 it 1 d 11910 O o U 11906 N 7 — 6 rl m � — 1 ,j P 6— 970 Co o 90� 7 3N10 N 9 80 P 69704 P 8687 / o t A4P 437 / N Co LP 85936 47 48 49 t, Co 0 N O N N N PATTERSON AVE. Co p) N N N 0 N N N 61 l 60 I 59 II BCP 8713 (lease) LMP 34007 I 1 U VV4— — 3436 I RW 83334 — Rw 617 �Mp32057 78 / Rem 1 N o EP\450gg LMP 33673 Rem Pcl ONE — RP 7774 Epp 0 R o w43436 / EPP 45070 � P 62569 P 35806 50 51 52 53 Co O t\ 1Co 0 Co N N N N N E.pP 4'S0z1 / O C 11871 , \ m 2 EPP 45071 W/ I/ Rem 54 _ _ _ _ _ / _ LMP 21498 N O N O O N 58 57 56 Rem 55 P 35806 693 3 M 3 ,�0 2 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 N �// � 117as o Ca ° rn N /20285 N e- N Cr) N N N N N 4 O N O O N N N N N N N N N N N r 5 r� ASHLEY CR. 20287 1 O 0 o N o 20289 W 0. CO o 0 0 0 a1 0 N N N N N N N Co O N N N N N N N N N~ 7 3, 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 19� zo2s1 1n77 8 69333 � p 5 a 1 2 3 74 95 6 7 8 9 10 �8 8Co 9� �10 �11 i_ O O OOj O O Co Co (`7 vt O N O N N N N ^O O O O O O N N N N O N N N N N N N N STANTON AVE. N O O �t N N OM48f�- N LO Co N N N N �O Co O O O O O � o 0 0 0 o Co Co 1615 N14N13N12 60 29 28 27 26 25 24677 4 gP7323 0754717SC5 0511749 4�4243 46� �53 0 Q 4mt 2 11723 03 C 45 w _n rJ 39 11834 61 l 60 I 59 II BCP 8713 (lease) LMP 34007 I 1 U VV4— — 3436 I RW 83334 — Rw 617 �Mp32057 78 / Rem 1 N o EP\450gg LMP 33673 Rem Pcl ONE — RP 7774 Epp 0 R o w43436 / EPP 45070 � P 62569 P 35806 50 51 52 53 Co O t\ 1Co 0 Co N N N N N E.pP 4'S0z1 / O C 11871 , \ m 2 EPP 45071 W/ I/ Rem 54 _ _ _ _ _ / _ LMP 21498 N O N O O N 58 57 56 Rem 55 P 35806 693 3 M 3 ,�0 2 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 N �// � 117as o Ca ° rn N /20285 N e- N Cr) N N N N N 4 O N O O N N N N N N N N N N N r 5 r� ASHLEY CR. 20287 1 O 0 o N o 20289 W 0. CO o 0 0 0 a1 0 N N N N N N N Co O N N N N N N N N N~ 7 3, 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 19� zo2s1 1n77 8 69333 � p 5 a 1 2 3 74 95 6 7 8 9 10 �8 8Co 9� �10 �11 i_ O O OOj O O Co Co (`7 vt O N O N N N N ^O O O O O O N N N N O N N N N N N N N STANTON AVE. N O O �t N N OM48f�- N LO Co N N N N �O Co O O O O O � o 0 0 0 o Co Co 1615 N14N13N12 60 29 28 27 26 25 24677 4 gP7323 0754717SC5 0511749 4�4243 46� �53 0 Q 4mt 2 11723 03 C 45 w _n rJ 39 11834 E.pP 4'S0z1 / O C 11871 , \ m 2 EPP 45071 W/ I/ Rem 54 _ _ _ _ _ / _ LMP 21498 N O N O O N 58 57 56 Rem 55 P 35806 693 3 M 3 ,�0 2 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1 2 N �// � 117as o Ca ° rn N /20285 N e- N Cr) N N N N N 4 O N O O N N N N N N N N N N N r 5 r� ASHLEY CR. 20287 1 O 0 o N o 20289 W 0. CO o 0 0 0 a1 0 N N N N N N N Co O N N N N N N N N N~ 7 3, 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 19� zo2s1 1n77 8 69333 � p 5 a 1 2 3 74 95 6 7 8 9 10 �8 8Co 9� �10 �11 i_ O O OOj O O Co Co (`7 vt O N O N N N N ^O O O O O O N N N N O N N N N N N N N STANTON AVE. N O O �t N N OM48f�- N LO Co N N N N �O Co O O O O O � o 0 0 0 o Co Co 1615 N14N13N12 60 29 28 27 26 25 24677 4 gP7323 0754717SC5 0511749 4�4243 46� �53 0 Q 4mt 2 11723 03 C 45 w _n rJ 39 11834 32170 40 I 28 P 28876 11826 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 LO Co LO CO to M Co LO C%j CV CV Rem 29 M O �' N N N N N N 11808 RW 80244 118 AVE. P. 80104 (p O vft I' N O Cr) O O Coo o O O N N N N N N N N 1 2 3 4 1 5 6 1 2 P 8656 I P 7672 d' O Rem A P 69448 69 48 g 7 8 110 11 73921 N to W o_ g 5 t` 4 � Z o 0 o o I o 0 0 0 W RP 209yi N N N)5\)A rn RW 68ALNUT CR. � oCL M I O O P 25049 Vq- N NN a 802 5 1 4 3 N N6 7 8 O 11726 203rd ST.1P 6 448_ 739 1 L R 73 2 P P 44511611511411: 122 121 I 120� 119��,Co O) Q) O 123 O'� N N N N C 20309 RW 68075 DALE DR. 20308 11744189 I 124 MAPLE RIDGE ZONE AMENDING Bylaw No. 7523-2018 Map No. 1788 From: RS-1(Single Detached Residential) cb O ON cp cbM� I OOOOOO � IN V N N N N N N To: RM-2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential) N SCALE 1:2,500 n��fcrimnnr � B1659>U604SI9 rz-LOO '#Old w a )A dnoi eF1A�FW leuqd "' i wF++`�`wN VJI 1«e �bnm�m Pw>+aeeun 9Ueld ueld08. 1 QZZZ IoI VVITO �cv[vrx®nawVlnvsceW aa�+d aw R• ��+.P 'EC94L ueld pentl P3InIPaO Ved ]dnrj SS Yth A O'.4n.Cnt a ?S a4�4a wsnl WI79 C d09 ueld O/.ltll d JO ZZL Ial PMG 9S W1'ssmPPVR6al 'r:gywPwlatru MZl .Rs •q P.+.nnPP<PMm +Na lnM WnH •'"� uos,.ned Ise3'8 y}nog suoiJena13 rc = E was w �...a •11+1 P. r." „+4Na wn Z6ZOZ49LZOZ M�MPV314O N71S3O N011131NI 'JN NNVId W P+ 'JNI N`JIS3a NvaNn Y 3an1J311HDAV oq .pl. Pe ngaaw'a. _Fp.6 Y6. H Y re�m J IYSSl9 N3Hd1S 3NAVM oe �(IN0iNNVH glil d �NH I - i e z°<o amax°3333� mm3 3' 80 c �� S �Z ii e _ - - 5 m r' E o cN iws oes,`�ts�� tjt G c E E b °c Em°tL a u�i3 a I i c° LLLL��.ism5w Wa ad ____: a5mm of m�oE �R o O m m ma_ `Lo occ xQO, z sm \\ LLl m¢_" ~o moo¢ Ez9 zz°cvmm Qm6 of APPENDIX E 1T•l�ll $ s6u"E�ea U3' � 91659 G 90N a s lP tz-lw :Mold t7 awn.k u. a n..,..,, WP sHi °`ry'-auo l ZZZ i0ijd - • •o.ve .ry Ri vY L mld m o8ctt V3 veld uo peoy PainlPaO Ned 7da"3 SS jpd 'c } upW B4nP 1°1890USL d�8 ueld OI.IN ldlwl�Zb lal VYIzId 4S Wl 'ssaIPPV Re°'I 011 y,mw kff QMm) •n •Pw.. �I eo A� .A.4 o•M n PM c r.!i .anV u°slalted _ proYc n. W*a0gwlc�. W�Ad t4�kW _ +a•i �v.B a.p�s ^al•.0 PN+>ad ••AP+ Z6ZOZ4 aLZOZ :ssaipQy ails 'y 3 8 �rPow W'�Nvawawsuvs.+a ANOWWb'H a41 II —l.0 _ 3 rn9lw 3 scxviaw o rc w d e n:nw .l� aa'.aoanz a 'LyylLrO^taArz1� � }saM *Q WON suOIJeAGl�] NOIS3O NOIN3INI ONINNVId 'JNI NDISM NV9an N 3mn1J31IH:)JV _ AYSSI9 NIMIS 3NAVM a a ; o m U m a U E m n E d ¢uzzm°r ao_ E r 0 Wo L':Ni•1.11 • ,iGNONINVH Raj —}me Il All: r MEMO tta P too, jIlj 1 • l -rre M6%i Mai af mm� ter.id `----, . , . '� uuu�uuu op Ar s r.* All Iwo to x J;: ► ,C - yj� + =Mae OF. It Aft moo tar. lWill oil WIN JI { IN I :ramWool ISBN 4 1 ate►� ,• p all slas 4A (7: W �win S, As • • It ,'41 Will �I ••�I�G A'•�K• { s, iloaf .•'••'� ` ('I 4� -�•wl mom It apsuill 18 �( 4 Not, my 4 lot MOM I l ii MM nF IF ri ■ � imis m—` aipP� i APPENDIX F WAY N E STEPHEN BISSKY RESPONSE TO ADP RESOLUTION ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN 106 1 1893 237TH STREET, MAPLE RIDGE, LIC PH 604-467-8300 FAX 604-467-8305 Wendy Cooper, M.Sc., MCIP, RPP, Planner Planning Department City of Maple Ridge Planning Department 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 Thursday, February 10, 2022 Response to ADP Comments for: Properties Civic Address 1 20278 Patterson Ave 2 20292 Patterson Ave Legal Description Lot 56 District Lot 222 Group 1 NWD Plan BCP 35806 PID 007-245-815 Lot 55 Except: Part Dedicated Road on Plan 78633, District Lot 222 Group 1 NWD Plan 35806 PID 000-485-918 Our Project No.: 1807 City Ref No.: Development Permit No: 2018-489-RZ Dear Wendy; We have adjusted the architectural and landscape plans in response to the resolutions following. Please note that I have commented how each one has been dealt with. The PDF files can be viewed and/or downloaded at the dropbox links following. Can you please let is know whether you need hard copies of each in addition to these links and we can have those printed and delivered to you asap. Link to Architectural Plans Link to Landscape Plans Please see our itemized response as follows with regard to : Development Permit No: 2018-489-RZ / 22058 119 Avenue " R/2022-005. It was moved and seconded That the Advisory Design Panel has reviewed application 2018-489-RZ and recommends that the application be supported and the following concerns be addressed as the design develops and submitted to Planning staff for follow-up:." No. ADP General Resolutions Architectural Comments Consider enhancement of exterior architecture through colour and articulation; 2. ;Consider enhancing prominence of main entry; 3. Provide ramp into main entrance for equal opportunity access; Explore the interface with street for a more lively frontage; We have acljustecl the colour selections to a higher key and tone to acld greater contrast to the materials and emphasize the various elements. This includes the railings, winclows, siding and entry features at grade. Weave also adjusted the material placements in a few areas. - - - -- - - - -- - - -- - - - - --- - We have added more brick along the north facade with the emphasis at the main entry and have adjusted the canopy and the fenestration to provide more prominence, while also being aware of the scale of entries on the surrounding homes. We did not want it to overwhelm the existing buildings or neighbourhood. A ramp has been added at the main entry along Patterson. We have added pergolas to the gates at the various entry points to adcl a vertical element and pattern to the frontages of the development. The building's colours have also been changed to add more contrast as noted above. Page 1 of 2 WAYNE STEPHEN BISSKY ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN 106 - 11393 227TH STREET, MAPLE RIDGE, BC PH 604-467-8300 FAX 604-467-8305 No. Comment Resoonse ... , > Our proposal meets the minimum number required by the city for this building !type in this area. Please note that the City of Maple Ridge Parking bylaw I currently only requires bike storage in the town centre. There is nothing specified 5 Ensure number of bike racks meets minimum requirements (for areas outside the town centre. While there is reference to bike storage in the and consider a -bike parking; Hammond Guidelines, no specifics are provided regarding numbers. However, we i are providing for 28 long term bikes on the main floor adjacent to the courtyard I i entry and short term stalls near the main entry with an a -bike provision at the ---- -------- — ---- -- --- — courtyard entry. I i Thank -you for this observation. We have discussed this with the clients and they ( would like to maintain the current layout. We did explore many plan options 6 Consider third elevator and review code requirements for i during the design process with them and understanding that "design is length of corridor and accessibility and convenience; compromise" this one provided the best balance between accessibility, and efficiency, in particular as it impacted the parking. It does comply fully with BCBC and the Elevating Devices Safety Regulation for BC 7. Consider compromised layout of units A and C, including sunlight and privacy_ I Please see our response to comment 6. Landscape Comments: i 1. Address limited diversity of tree species, in particular on slab; Tree selection has been modified, to increase variety of species and distribution on slab. 2 Provide adequate soil volume for trees (10 m3 of soil per tree); Planters provide 10m3 per tree. 3 Ensure plant material is appropriate for light levels in Plant selection of trees and shrubs are suitable for limited light in the courtyard, northern courtyard; _ with tree species modified as discussed at ADP. (Courtyard space has been revised to provide more amenity, with additional 4. Explore opportunities for increasing programming, e.g. seating areas and picnic/activity tables to encourage social opportunities. i Children's play space has been provided with the addition of a synthetic lawn for children's play space or other; informal play, to confirm use as a play space, and can be used for various social L events and activities. 5. �Provide screening to temporary garbage pad on street Metal screens added to ramp and street sides of refuse pad frontage; _ 66. ' Consider expanding single row of shrubs in narrow terraced retaining wall planters. i I Plant material added. Sincerely, ay e S. ' ky ect, AI C, MRAIC Page 2 of 2 APPENDIX G WAY N E Public Comments Opportunity Summary mepar- S T EPHEN BISSKY ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN HEAL) OFFICE: 106 - 11968 227th STREET, MAPLE RIDGE BC PH 604-46.•-8300 FAX 604-467-8305 March 31, 2022 Michelle Baski Maple Ridge Planning Department 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, BCV2X 6A9 Ph:604-463-5221 Civic Address: 20278 and 20292 Patterson Avenue, Maple Ridge File No.: 2018-489-RZ Public Comments Opportunity Period: March 14 to March 30, 2022 Number of Responses: We received ten responses. Comments Sheets and Correspondence: I have attached copies of the emails received from respondents, along with our replies. Summary of how issues and concerns identified will be addressed: The issues identified respondents are noted in the table below, along with how we have addressing them. Sincer , ayne Bissky Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture Urban Design Inc 106 - 11893 227th Street Maple Ridge, BCV2X 6H9 Ph: 604-467-8300 Email: wayne@bisskyarchitecture.ca Summary, Analysis, and Response to Public Comments Opportunity Comments Item Analysis and Response Bike Lanes Along 203rd Street The Engineering Department has the authority to decide the road standard that will be applied to any One respondent suggested that the bike lane development application. Our design team simply has to design whatever they require. on 203rd north of DewdneyTrunk Road be extended further south. Building and Parking Access The front of the building, including the front door and access to the underground will be on Patterson Avenue. Some respondents asked about the location of Planning and engineering departments typically don't want to see access to underground parkades located on the parking ramp and front entry to the major streets, like 203rd Street, to avoid backing up traffic as people drive in and out. building. Bus Service This location enjoys far greater transit service than most every other neighbourhood in town. Our hope is that One respondent expressed concern that there the added density that this building will bring to the community will increase ridership. was low ridership on the various bus routes that serve the properties Consultation with First Nations In accordance with the City's policy, all property owners within 100m of the site were notified and invited to Two respondents asked if local First Nations comment, two ads were placed in the local newspaper and ran on March 4th and 11 th, and notification was had been notified placed on the two development application signs on site. In addition, I understand the Hammond Area Plan was developed in consultation with the Katzie First Nation. Covenants on the Properties There are no covenants currently registered on title for either property restricting the style of construction. Some respondents wondered if there was a Copies of the certificates of title have been provided to City staff as part of the application. covenant registered on title that would restrict the type of building on the property. Page 1 of 3 WAY>� G�����>>Do�� << orr►�r�_� O(nrr�'����'� rr'�r���o��,�rruurri��� '���C(�r� S l EPHE t=1 BISSKY ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN -ir.an nr=rrr 1i)G - 11968 227th STREET. MAPLE RIDGE BC PH 604-467-8300 FAX 604-467-8305 Item Analysis and Response Infrastructure The Engineering Department requires that each new development ensure adequate infrastructure is in place to Some respondents wondered if the existing accommodate it. If the existing infrastructure needs to be upgraded, it's done so at the expense of the infrastructure would be sufficient to support the developer. The civil engineer for this project has analyzed the sanitary and stormwater systerns in place and is application. recommending that sections of sanitary sewer on West Street be replaced and upsized, and sections of the storm sewer- on Patterson Avenue be replaced and upsized. In addition the Engineering Department is requiring upgrades to the curbs and gutters on Patterson Avenue; upgrades to the street frontages along the site at Patterson and 203rd; new sidewalks to be installed in front of the site along Patterson; new ornamental streetlights on Patterson and 203rd in front of the site; street trees; underground wiring, hydro, internet, and telephone provisions; and a communications conduit for future municipal use along 203rd. All of these will be provided at the developer's expense. The City will not permit the development to occur without adequate infrastructure. In addition to the physical infrastructure upgrades, the developer will be responsible for paying a number of fees to the City and other- authorities to help pay for other new infrastructure or upgrades throughout the City. Based on today's rates, these fees would include approximately: $768,595 in municipal development cost charges, $375,672 for Metro Vancouver development cost charges, a $272,800 community amenity fee, $52,800 to School District 42, and $135,960 forTransLink development cost charges. These amounts will be confirmed before the project received final approval. Long Term Bike Stalls We are currently providing 28 long-term bike stalls. We appreciate the feedback and the suggestion. Given One respondent suggested that we increase the the limited amount of buildable space on site, it's a difficult balance between providing the density needed to number of long term parking stalls. provide more housing and fitting in all of the other components the City requires in the building (1.7 parking stalls/unit, indoor and outdoor amenity area, garbage and recycling areas, and so on). Because some of the neighbours have expressed concerns about parking related to the building, City Staff let us know they won't support a reduction in parking requirement on the site, so there is little room to add more long term stalls. The long-term bike storage room is located on the main floor near the front entry. Multi -Family Apartment Housing on the Site The value of homes in Maple Ridge have skyrocketed in recent years. Thirty years ago the value of a home in Some respondents felt that a multi -family Maple Ridge after was around 3x the average annual family income. That ratio has climbed to approximately building shouldn't be constructed at this 15x the average family income today. The problem with all the increasing value homeowners have enjoyed is location. that the goal of homeownership has become less and less realistic for non -affluent younger generations. Housing prices have soared primarily because far too little housing has been built to keep up with demand. We could try to address this by continuing to allow the City to sprawl further and further eastward, but this puts a greater strain on municipal infrastructure and is harder on the environment as we encroach more and more into the forest, and people have to drive farther in their daily commutes. A better option is to build multi -family housing in the town centre and along traffic corridors like Lougheed Highway and 203rd Street, areas that are close to transit and commercial hubs. This is why the City has rightly designated this site for multi -family housing. Increasing density is the only route to a more environmentally sustainable city and to allow younger generations into the housing market. Many of the respondents noted that they were able to buy a home 20, 30, 40, and even 50 years ago when prices were more affordable. These homeowners now oppose the increased density necessary to allow future families to live here too. My goal is to change this. I would like our community to welcome new generations of homeowners. During the approval process we refer to the project as having 88 "units," but to the teachers, police officers, municipal workers, and so on who will live there, it will be 88 homes. They'll start families in these homes and begin to build equity in them, like many of us have done. I feel that those who have benefited so much from this housing market ought not work to exclude the next generation of people just like us from also owning a home. Noise The developer has retained an acoustic engineer, who has recommended acoustic upgrades to the windows Some respondents wondered about noise and siding in various areas of the building, including the south face. These upgrades will help reduce noise coming from the building. transmission both from the new building and to it from the nearby firehall. OCP Consultation Process I can't speak to the public consultation during Hammond Area Plan/OCP process as this was conducted by Some respondents felt that they have not been City Staff and Council at the time they was completed, but my understanding is that City Staff held several consulted during the OCP hand Hammond open houses, initiated social medial campaigns, sent email notifications, placed postings on neighbourhood Area Plan Processes community Facebook pages, handed out postcard invitations, placed newspaper advertisements, and mailed letters to the members of the community to solicit feedback. OCP Designation The OCP designates this site "Medium Density Multi -Family" which includes the RM-2 zone, which we are Some respondents wondered if the site was proposing. I've attached an excerpt from the OCP noting this. As such, it's in compliance with the OCR designated for multi -family housing in the OCR Parking IThe zoning bylaw requires that RM-2 buildings provide 1.7 off-street parking stalls per unit. For this project, Some respondents expressed concern about that works out to a requirement of 150 stalls, which is what is being provided. There will also be 17 visitor increased street parking resulting from the stalls. All resident and visitor parking for the building will be in an underground parkade. building. Public Comments Opportunity Notification Before beginning the PCO, we decided to have an extended public comments opportunity (17 days instead of Requirements only ten days) to allow more time for the community to provide feedback. The City's policy for the public One respondent express concern that not comments opportunity requires that notification letters to be mailed to all property owners and residents enough people had been notified about the within 100 metres of the development site. The Planning Department generates the list and provides it us with application. the mailing labels, then we mail out the letters. The policy also requires us to place two ads in the local newspaper, and a notification sticker on the development information sign, which we've done. To clarify: this application hasn't yet reached the Public Hearing stage at which residents have the opportunity to speak directly to Council. That will come at a later, yet to be determined date and will be advertised on the development sign and in the local paper. Parks While there isn't a park on Patterson Avenue, it is easy walking distance to Hammond Park and the One respondent expressed concern about a playground at Hammond Elementary. lack of parks. Page 2 of 3 wAY N c P bDJ cV (; C r�U= �a rents Op ov rr� '�R,�HJ I )U��V=� STEPH r N BISSK`( ARCHITECTURE URBAN DESIGN PLANNING INTERIOR DESIGN c-11L.'en nr_circ. inr, _ HOAR' >)7th STRFFT. A4APLE RIDGE BC PFI 604-46:-8300 FAX 604- 467-8305 Item Analysis and Response Relationship the Neighbourhood In terms of respecting the characteristics of the neighbourhood, the design team has purposefully designed a Some respondents felt that the building didn't quieter building and avoided a strong or controversial architectural design statement. The materials, colours, fit in with the existing homes. and detailing have been chosen to reflect Hammond's heritage influence. They've tried to sensitively design the building to respect the existing neighbourhood scale, massing, and character, and added a generous landscaped buffer with large trees along the south and west sides. It's important to note as well that this intersection enjoys added space long it's frontages with only two property lines with single family sites. Additionally, the southern property line is adjacent to municipal property and the firehall. Setbacks The RM-2 zone permits a 7.5m setback from the property line on all sides of a building. We are requesting a Some respondents expressed concern about reduction to the setbacks the north and east sides to 4m to pull the building closer to Patterson Avenue and the requested setback variance along 203rd 203rd Street. The Engineering Department is requiring a 2.5m dedication along Patterson Avenue and a 3m Street and Patterson Avenue dedication along 203rd Street to widen the City's road right-of-way and install a wider boulevard and sidewalk. With the 4m setbacks on those two sides, the building will be 6.5m from the current property line on Patterson (4m setback+ 2.5m dedication) and 7m from the current property line on 203rd (4m setback + 3m dedication). Standing Water on Neighbouring Property The City will not permit this site to discharge stormwater water onto adjacent properties. Instead rainwater One respondent noted that they have a that falls onto this site will either be retained on site and used to nourish the landscaping and bioswale or will drainage issue on their property and they be captured and directed into a stormwater detention tank on the north site of the property. From the tank, the expressed concern that the development would stormwater will be slowly released into the municipal storm system. make the problem worse. Short Term Bike Storage There are two short-term bike racks: one at the front entrance and one in the outdoor amenity area courtyard. One respondent requested more short-term The landscape architect tells me these are designed to accommodate around 4 bikes per side, for a total 16 bike storage stalls. As this project is outside the downtown core the short-term requirements don't apply, but we wanted to make sure there was still some accommodation for short-term bikes given how. close this project is to transit and commercial hubs. Support for the Application We agree. One respondent commented that they support the application, noting that it makes sense to increase density at this location. Trees An arborist has prepared a report and survey of the existing trees on site. The report rated the retention Some respondents noted that they enjoyed the suitability of all of the existing onsite trees as either "poor" or "moderate" and recommends removing all of existing trees on the property. them. However, the report identifies five offsite trees that could be retained with arborist oversight. We are proposing to plant approximately 58 new onsite trees and 10 new offsite trees. In particular, the landscape architect has chosen larger trees to plant along the south side of the building to increase privacy. Traffic The developer has retained a traffic engineer to study the impact of traffic from this project. The traffic Some respondents expressed concern about engineer has calculated that the site should generate approximately 33 vehicle trips during the a.m. peak hour how traffic might be affected by the and 40 vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour, and that all unsignalized intersections affected by the development. development would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service through 2033. The report does note that the intersection of 203rd and Lougheed is already over capacity, but that is occurring even without traffic generated by this site (which would have little impact on it), so it recommends that the Ministry of Transportation complete a more comprehensive planning study for that intersection. Page 3 of 3 From: Subject: Development App No: 2018-489-RZ Date: March 28, 2022 at 7:55 PM To: jared@btektonpm.com From: Maple Ridge, BC Sirs: Thank you for soliciting our feedback on the proposed development at Patterson and 203rd Street. This is the first time we have had the opportunity to comment on the project. This community has had a difficult time getting its voice heard from the time of the change to the Hammond Area Plan to the specifics of this proposal.By way of background, most feel that the notification of the Area Plan was inadequate and the definition of what constitutes "Hammond" was not consistent with our understanding of the community. The lack of feedback from this area to the Hammond Area Plan should have triggered some concerns at the City. To say that Hammond is in favour of the plan ignores the lack of input that was made to it. We are writing with our concerns over the proposed redevelopment of 20278/20292 Patterson Avenue and the rezoning request. We are opposed to such a development. Specifically, we do not feel the construction of an 88 unit apartment building in our neighbourhood is consistent with the character and atmosphere for which we came to Maple Ridge 35 years ago. We understand things will change over time and indeed have witnessed changes to our area that we accepted as inevitable. The construction of a 4 story apartment building is not one of these. In addition, this development would appear to contravene the Guiding Principals of the zoning mission statement. There is no transition or fit between this proposal and the character of the rest of the neighbourhoods on Patterson, Ashley or Stanton. This appears to be a hodge-podge of planning. The concept of "densification" should not result in the imposition of a project that is not supported by the infrastructure in the area. There are increasing traffic concerns, absence of parks, and privacy concerns and general safety concerns that are not addressed. This project is less a solution to densification and more of a self-serving cash grab by developers anxious to fit as many apartments on the properties as they can regardless of the imposition on the neighbourhood. The 88 units in this proposal exceeds the number of homes on Patterson and Ashley combined. The addition of 100 -120 vehicles to an already congested 203rd Street will make a bad situation worse. It is currently difficult to turn onto 203rd from a side street due to traffic from Golden Ears bridge and the industrial park. The volume of traffic in place has made the intersection at Lougheed and 203rd the 2nd highest in Maple Ridge for accidents according to ICBC (Dec 2017) and the 4th worst intersection for accidents between the Pitt River bridge and Hatzic. 203rd is a two lane road with street parking available. This street parking is fully availed all day by employees of the Ford dealership. It is also a bike route. The relocation of the Royal Bank to the corner further complicates the traffic pattern at an intersection that was never designed to handle this type of volume. We have children in our neighbourhood who now have to negotiate with the significant traffic to cross to go to their elementary school. The traffic information in your presentation seems to be based on patterns pre -Golden Ears Bridge (or pre -toll free bridge) or on reduced traffic as a result of the pandemic. Patterson is a dead-end road with one street light (at the far end). With this proposal, the entrance to Patterson will become more congested and restrict the ability of emergency vehicles to enter the street or resident to leave in an emergency. It is interesting that your proposal provides a view from the north and west sides. Omitted is the view from the south and east sides, the sides that infringe on the privacy of the existing neighbours, The violation of the privacy we expect in our yards and homes is one of the most concerning items we have with this development. In addition to the overview of adjoining yards, the inevitable noise from TV's, washing/machines, even conversations are unreasonable. While it may seem that a 4-story building is a low rise, in a neighbourhood with two story homes, it stands out like a sore thumb. It is proposed to rise two stories above the existing homes and tree lines and seems to require a change to the existing set -back on the houses now in place to meet the 88 units they propose. We also oppose the change to the set -back requirements. If such a change is necessary to make this project, it reinforces why this development is not a fit to the existing community. Sincerely, From: Michelle Baski mbaski@mapleridge.ca Subject: FW: proposed RESIDENTIAL BUILDING @ 20292 / 20278 Patterson Avenue Date: March 31, 2022 at 8:36 AM To: Jared Bissky jared@tektonpm.com Fyi, for your summary package. Thanks, Michelle From: Planning Enquiries Mailbox <planning@mapleridge.ca> Sent: March 31, 2022 8:30 AM To: Michelle Baski <mbaski@mapleridge.ca> Subject: FW: proposed RESIDENTIAL BUILDING @ 20292 / 20278 Patterson Avenue From: Sent: March 30, 2022 3:57 PM To: Planning Enquiries Mailbox <planning_@mapleridge.ca>; , Subject: proposed RESIDENTIAL BUILDING @ 20292 / 20278 Patterson Avenue 'XTER= IAL F'AAIL.- Don't click on links or open attachments you don't truss. COUR I-H EYTER4'9E: Ne cliquez pas sur les liens et n'ouvrez pas les pieces jointes suspects. File Number 2018-489-RZ Planning@mapleridge.ca Home Owner: MY PUBLIC OPINION FOR THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPEMENT ON 203RD AND PATTERSON Has this been going on since 2018, Why so long? The owners in this area did not have an open dialogue with the city with redevelopment plans for this area. Nobody really new what the consequences could be for this area. Adding a residential structure on 203rd and Patterson will add much more congestion on a street that is a major road to Langley. The Street has only 2 lanes and parking is allowed on both sides of the street for local businesses There are times when leaving for work at 7:30 in the morning that traffic is lined up to Patterson going toward Langley. Patterson is a dead end street. The fire hall needs easy access for emergency's. The City wants to add 88 residences right beside the fire hall. Lougheed and 203rd is a major accident corner. I have to take special awareness when crossing at that intersection. Its unfortunate that Maple Ridge has one major highway, all other street either run into Lougheed or cross. Buses were finally added to Lougheed Hwy to increase for higher densities in select areas. So far I would think the Lougheed line is losing money Hardly any passengers? Its a great bus service if you live near one of the stops. If you live somewhere between these stops, the service doesn't make sense. I guess its a work in process? The buses should go at least to Bruce's and maybe Mission? That would mean more buses and drivers to serve Maple Ridge. Coquitlam to Haney Mall. The drivers must like this run. Very few stops. The service is great if you are shopping at Coquitlam Mall, Haney Mall is a different situation. What happens when the other side of Patterson goes up fore sale? That would add another 88 residences to the street? Have any of the planners done a walking tour of this area? I sure wouldn't want to check out this area at rush hour. One lone apartment (Residential doesn't say exactly who will reside in the units) next to a fire hall with plans to redevelop their site? Maybe you can add apartments above the new fire hall when it get redeveloped? Idea only, for future firemen and firewomen and their families who need affordable housing. Why do I get the idea that this email is a waste of time. Anyways? Congestion, Privacy, 203rd is an emergency highway, Parking, redevelop area around Shell Station. This looks like the start of a major change from private homes to Apartments and Condos. Makes sense to me, Shopping, rail service, Must be at least 4 bus lines close by? Langley, Haney Mall, Downtown, Braid Station, Coquitlam Station, I wonder if the bus will stop at the new dealerships under construction. More congestion? Anyways the owners in this area are teaming up together to push for a change on council for this fall. apologize for any errors I made. This is strictly my thoughts and I don't want to offend city hall. I hope that Maple Ridge Council will make these opinions open for the public to review? Prepared by Friday, April 1, 2022 3:20 PM Jared Biss_ky Michelle Baski Re: Public Comment; nppv;-r�uni+y re. n�! �nic;pal Reference No.2018� 489-RZ//20278 and 20292 Patterson Ave March 14-20 Public Comment Opportunity ��lll�rta.1iY'� ��}�!� �� ° �Q ��Li��N��1!J1�11L'=�!aiC!° °�dRL4.P.g4:Ka}t ,�f� sS�Jt��lf!' (cl o,��J �$i �L l �' � � �1�.�s ��_' !u�!�� o T �4 �5 i!i� � � , :a � c� t1!1 0 �!�Fi`' i' �� I ° Thanks for your additional comments Jared. Just some additional thoughts/comments below on your responses: On Mar 30, 2022, at 9:38 PM, Jared Bisslcy <jared(�tektonpm.com> wrote: Hi Thanks for your email, we appreciate your willingness to participate in the process. All neighbourhood feedback we receive will be summarized and provided to City Staff and Council, so you can be assured that they'll see your input. I'll respond to the technical items in your email, then end with an argument in favour of multi -family housing at this location in principle. 1. Developmertit R,pplication Signs and PC® iVotification - We understand that the development application signs that had been installed when the application was first submitted were stolen. Unfortunately, this happens at many development application sites. We installed new ones in advance of the Public Comments Opportunity. In terms of notification, we followed the Clty's notification requirements for PCOs. However, to give residents more time to participate, we decided (before the PCO began) to have an extended public comments opportunity: 17 days instead of only the 10 days required. Thanks for that. 2. Covenants —There are no covenants registered on title for either property restricting the style of construction. The point we've tried to make is that there were covenants on each property on Patterson when the street was built. Owners of homes on Patterson were not able to remove them in past years, so we are going to look into how it was that these 2 subject properties have had these covenants discharged. This would have an impact on any possible future Patterson development. 3. b�elatior�ship to the ieighbourhood � OCP Compliance — In terms of respecting the characteristics of the neighbourhood, the design team has purposefully designed a quieter building and avoided a strong or controversial architectural design statement. The materials, colours, and detailing.have been chosen to reflect Hammond's heritage influence. They've tried to sensitively design the building to respect the existing neighbourhood scale, massing, and character, and added a generous landscaped buffer around the building including large trees along the south and west sides. They've pulled the building closer to 203rd Street and Patterson Avenue and away from the existing houses on the south and west sides in accordance with guidance the advisory design panel. Pulling the building closer to Patterson Ave is definitely not supported. As mentioned, all of the homes have generous front lawns and houses are set well back from the road. A four -storey high building is too high for this residential street, especially situated at the entrance/exit of Patterson Ave. Materials, colours and detailing are not the concern here (and what do you mean by designing'a "quieter" building?).:. it's about the SIZE of this proposed building of apartments not being sensitive to the existing neighbourhood scale of single-family houses. 4. Sidewalk, Street Lights, and Street Trees -The street trees, street lights, sidewalks, and boulevards are all standard road requirements from the Engineering Department. We could ask if they would consider allowing the project to install provisions for a future streetlight that could be installed if future development occurs on the street. Residents do not wish to have any streetlights installed on Patterson Ave, LED streetlights would shine too brightly into the front bedroom/living room windows of the houses directly across on Patterson and this is not something Patterson Ave residents have ever requested to have installed. When Patterson Ave was built, none of these road requirements were in place, therefore adding a few trees, lights, sidewalks etc. in front of the first 2 houses on the south side of Patterson would look completely out of place and disrupt the flow of the street. 5. Courtyard and Patios - The zoning bylaw requires that these types of buildings include both shared and private outdoor spaces for the benefit of the residents. Just a point to note, that in the entire area surrounding the Northwest precinct of "Hammond", there are NO outdoor public park spaces, no playgrounds for children etc. The nearest outdoor play area is at the elementary school, however this is not really a park. With an 88-unit apartment complex, these new residents on Patterson wouldn't be well served with no walking distance parks, again necessitating more vehicle traffic. 6. Parkade Access - The folks at the Engineering Department don't like to have properties accessed off major corridors, like 203rd Street, and they like to see the accesses located away from intersections to ease traffic transitions, hence the access to the parkade is located on Patterson Avenue, at the west side of the property. Having a parkade access on Patterson Ave rather than 203 would mean that vehicles exiting the building parkade would always have their headlights shining directly into house windows immediately in front on the north side of Patterson Ave. This would be particularly disruptive during the darker morning & evening hours during the fall/winter months each year. Patterson Ave residents have garages and vehicles "back out" of their driveways onto the street. Another potential problem with vehicle accidents with parkade exit on Patterson. 7. Setbacks - We are requesting a reduction to the setbacks on the north and east sides to 4m to pull the building closer to Patterson Avenue and 2033rd Street. You may noticed in the materials package that the City is taking a 2.5m dedication along Patterson Avenue and a 3m dedication along 203rd Streetlo widen the City's road right-of-way and install a wider boulevard and sidewalk. In other words, the property is shrinking by 2.5m along Patterson Avenue and 3m along 203rd Street. So with the 4m setbacks on those two sides, the building will be 6.5m from the current property line on Patterson (4m setback + 2.5m dedication) and 7m from the current property line on 203rd (4m setback +3m dedication). Requesting a "reduction to the setbacks" on the north and east sides of such a large building? Refer to point #3. Does not fit the design of the remainder of houses along Patterson Ave. The building would be too close to the road, especially as vehicles head east on Patterson to approach the intersection at 203, further reducing visibility of vehicles coming from the south on 203. 8. Traffic - The developer has retained a traffic engineer to study the impact of traffic from this project. A copy is included in the link above. According to the report, which has been accepted by the Engineering Department and Ministry of Transportation, the traffic data was collected on Tuesday, February 2, 2021. The traffic engineer has calculated that the site should generate approximately 33 vehicle trips during the a.m. peak hour and 40 vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour, and that all unsignalized intersections affected by the development would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service through 2033. The report does note that the intersection of 203rd and Lougheed is already over capacity; but that is occurring even without traffic generated by this site (which would have little impact on it), so it recommends that the Ministry of Transportation complete a more comprehensive planning study for that intersection. Noted: Lougheed & 203rd Intersection already "overcapacity". Already 2nd highest accident location in Maple Ridge! (ICBC 2016-2020 stats). 9. Parking - The zoning bylaw requires that RM-2 buildings provide 1.7 off-street parking stalls per unit. For this project, that works out to a requirement of 150 stalls, which is what is being provided. There will also be 17 visitor stalls. All resident and visitor parking for the building will be in an underground pa rkade. 17 visitor stalls in an apartment building of 88 units? Where would "additional" visitors end up parking... Patterson Ave? Further compounding Patterson concerns. 10. Infrastructure - The Engineering Department requires that each new development ensure adequate infrastructure is in place to accommodate it. If the existing infrastructure needs to be upgraded, it's done so at the expense of the developer. The civil engineer for this project has analyzed the sanitary and stormwater systems in place and is recommending that approximately 21m of sanitary sewer on West Street be replaced and upsized, and 162m of storm sewer on Patterson Avenue be replaced and upsized. In addition the Engineering Department is requiring upgrades to the curbs and gutters on Patterson Avenue; upgrades to the street frontages along the site at Patterson and 203rd; new sidewalks to be installed in front of the site along Patterson; new ornamental streetlights on Patterson and 203rd in front of the site; street trees; underground wiring, hydro, internet, and telephone provisions; and a communications conduit for future municipal use along 203rd. All of these will be provided at the developer's expense. The City will not permit the development to occur without adequate infrastructure. In addition to the physical infrastructure upgrades, the developer will be responsible for paying a number of fees to the City and other authorities to help pay for other new infrastructure or upgrades throughout the City, Based on today's rates, these fees would include: $768,595 in municipal development cost charges-, $375,672 for Metro Vancouver development cost charges, a $272,800 community amenity fee, $52,800 to School District 42, and $135,960 for TransLink development cost charges. Infrastructure upgrades: As we noted, the proposed development of such a scale would mean far too much major construction disruption that the residents of Patterson Ave & Ashley Crescent would have to endure. This type of development was never remotely anticipated by any of the homeowners who chose to purchase their home on these quiet residential streets so many years ago. Many of the residents are 50+ age, and are retired, living & enjoying their lives at their homes during the daytime. The noise, dirt/dust, sediment- runoff, traffic delays particularly on Patterson, at the ONLY entrance/exit point etc. will most certainly be detrimental and harmful to their well-being. In fact, many of these residents have already experienced significant anxiety and worries (sleepless nights) about this proposed development. Having said all of this, I realize a technical response may not alleviate your concerns about the project, so I would like to present a brief argument for higher density multi -family housing at this location in principle. I live within walking distance from the site. I often pass by it on my morning runs or after work when I take my dog and young kids for a walk before dinner, so I come to this development as a member of the community and of this neighbourhood. You mentioned you bought a home over 50 years ago; I bought mine 3 15 years ago and I'm very glad I did. There's simply no way I'd be able to afford it now. Along with every other homeowner in our neighbourhood I've seen the value of my home skyrocket in recent years, through no effort of my own. The problem with all the increasing value we've enjoyed is that the goal of homeownership has become less and less realistic for younger generations. I would love for young families to have the same opportunities that you had, but that's not the reality anymore. Perhaps your own kids or grandkids have already experienced this as they try to enter the housing market. Housing prices have soared primarily because far too little housing has been built to keep up with demand. We could try to address this by continuing to allow the City to sprawl further and further eastward, but this puts a greater strain on municipal infrastructure and is harder on the environment as we encroach more and more into the forest, and people have to drive farther in their daily commutes. A better option is to build multi -family housing in the town centre and along traffic corridors like Lougheed Highway and 203rd Street, areas that are close.to transit and commercial hubs. This is why the City has identified this site for multi -family housing — they didn't err in designating it so. Unfortunately, many homeowners fail to see that opposing multi -family infill housing runs counter to best practices for building a sustainable and liveable City for everyone who wants to live there. Increasing density is the only route to a more environmentally sustainable city and to allow younger generations into the housing market. There are many homeowners of older generations, perhaps like yourself, who were able to buy a home 30, 40, or even 50 years ago when prices were more affordable. Many of these homeowners now oppose the increased density necessary to allow future families to live here too. My goal is to change this. I would like our community to welcome new generations of homeowners. During the approval process we refer to the project as having 88 "units," but to the teachers, police officers, municipal workers, and so on who will live there, it will be 88 homes. They'll start families in these homes and begin to build equity in them, like you and I have. done. I feel that those of us who have enjoyed the benefits of being able to enter this housing market should not work to exclude the next generation of people just like us from also owning a home. Jared, you have clearly stated your "personal goal" is to "change the opposition to increased density" to allow future families to live here. The important missing perspective in this objective seems to be in ensuring that Maple Ridge continues to be a "liveable city", without "over-densified zoning". (*City councillor Gordy Robson, Maple Ridge News, Feb.11/22). Residents are already frustrated with lack of infrastructure, there's major traffic congestion/bottlenecks/accidents. We recognize that 203rd street is a major corridor and there will be additional future developments occurring basically right across from the intersection area of Patterson at 203rd'. This will be a future traffic nightmare at this location, particularly with vehicles heading north to Lougheed Hwy. intersection. PLEASE, our position is the Patterson Avenue development proposal must not be allowed to proceed as it's currently proposed. 4 Regards, Jared Bissky, BA, GSC I Tekton Project Management Inc. 106 - 11893 227th Street Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6H9 Ph.604-467-8306 Cell. 604-377-3719 iared@)tektonpm.com www.tektonpm.com This a -mail maybe privileged and/or confidentlaI, and the sender does not waive any related rights and obligations. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than an intended recipient is unauthorized. If you received this a -mall in error, please advise me (by return e-mail or otherwise) immediately. On Mar 30, 2022, at 3:22 PM, "kindly acknowledge receipt. Thank you. On Mar 30, 2022, at 1:52 PM, wrote: Name: Address: Initial thoughts: wrote: We happened to notice on the yard sign at 20278 Patterson Ave. that there is a 10-day invitation to participate in a Public Comment Opportunity to review and discuss the proposed development at 20278 and 20292 Patterson Ave. Maple Ridge... to seek input from the area residents on the proposed amendments from the area residents... Firstly; there has a been a development sign on the above mentioned property since approximately 2019 and another usually situated on 203 at the east side of 20292 Patterson. With minimal pedestrian traffic walking by these signs, Patterson Ave residents and other affected neighbourhood residents such as on Ashley Crescent and Stanton Ave would hardly have been "alerted" to even notice the NEW information recently added to these signs about this Public Comment Opportunity as they drive by. There hasn't been any local newspaper delivery on Patterson Avenue and the surrounding neighbourhood streets for several years now, so any notifications re: POC placed in the newspaper would not been seen by concerned/affected area residents. Furthermore, only a few residents on Patterson & other area properties which would be significantly affected by this proposed development received the mailed information. With Patterson Avenue lots being half - acre properties, the MR Planning Department policy of seeking comments of neighbours with 100 meters of the development is clearly not sufficiently encompassing in this case. Finally, as noted by the MR Planning Dept., the timing of the dates for this PCO were essentially during the school district's Spring Break, extended only just 3 days to March 30th. We feel this really doesn't represent a genuine effort by Maple Ridge Planning Department to actively seek input from all the area residents that would be affected by this development proposal. HISTORY/BACKGROUND: We are the original owners of our home at since September 1970, when approximately 20 half -acre, single-family lots were being built on this very unique, exclusive street in Northwest Maple Ridge. We built our "forever home" on Patterson Avenue, a single-entrance/exit cul-de-sac street with beautiful houses and well manicured properties. In fact, there are still at least 3 other Patterson Ave "original" owners of their forever homes, also carefully & lovingly built on Patterson Avenue. There is history of very little turnover of the 20 houses on this street, with most residents residing for 20-30-40+ years in their homes. The houses are set well back from the street, there are no sidewalks, no street lights, no trees lining the road. We are a small and close neighbourhood community, we share the same one street, entering & exiting the only access to our street. The property along our back property line (the northside of Patterson Ave.) on Lougheed Hwy. is considered Maple Ridge, not Hammond. We have always self -identified as residents of Maple Ridge, and not of Hammond. We now realize that the Hammond Area Planning process initiated in 2014, during which local area residents, who "self -identified" as "Hammond residents" expressed a desire to discuss appropriate forms, density and locations for future development. Residents of Patterson Avenue were not part of that public consultation process regarding the Hammond Area growth plan. Patterson Ave residents, do not self -identify as Hammond residents, therefore did not attend open houses, did not participate in Hammond Neighbours Facebook page,and did not receive invitations to attend to provide input. Furthermore, we were not notified of any potential residential land zoning changes or attempts to discharge the Building Scheme restrictive covenants that were originally on the Certificates of Title for all of the properties on Patterson. Ave. These "single family covenants" had been placed on each of the properties in 1970 when the houses were built and sold; any changes would drastically impact each and every Patterson Avenue resident & neighbouring area residents who have been long-time owners of these properties. Of note, when the property on the southeast corner of Patterson & 203rd (20292) was listed for sale in 2017/18(?), even their realtor, (a former MR councillor and Mayor), was unaware of any rezoning changes & subsequent covenant discharge on the subject property. The house was sold, then very shortly thereafter re -listed and sold to the current developer. Only one of the two subject properties (20292 Patterson) has a property line along 203 6 St. which is considered a major corridor for higher density zoning. The house front (address) is on Patterson Ave, not 203rd. As for the second property obtained by the developer, it is entirely on Patterson Ave, an established neighbourhood of Restrictive Covenant "single family residential" all around it. We consider the proposed 88-unit apartment structure to be "detrimental" to the residents of Patterson Ave. As noted in the City of Maple Ridge First Reading Zone Amending Bylaw Meeting of January 21, 2020, File No: 2018-489-RZ, The Building Scheme is a private agreement, and Patterson Avenue owners will explore all options to PREVENTTHIS DEVELOPMENT! We strongly OBJECT and OPPOSE this proposed development. During the First Reading to rezone the subject properties located at 20278 and 20292 Patterson Ave, affected residents from the surrounding area attended in great numbers and packed the council chambers to express their opposition. Mayor and Council had received numerous letters of concern at that time and a signed petition opposing this development application. The concerns raised at that time remain the same. The residents remain united with opposition to this development. However, we appreciate the developer, project architect and MR Planning Department asking for our thoughts at this time, indicating that our thoughts are "important" to you. In view of the comments made above, and while also recognizing that this is not a Public Hearing notice, we ask that you carefully and thoughtfully consider the input of those who have been made aware of this Public Comment Opportunity and have taken the time to contact you either by phone or email on this proposal prior to you proceeding to Council for further consideration. The Proposed Development, a four -storey apartment block on the first two lots on Patterson Avenue is NOT supported by area residents, particularly Patterson Avenue and Ashley & Stanton neighbourhood directly south of the proposed apartment. We wish to" retain the existing character" of the Patterson Ave neighbourhood, in keeping with what the Hammond Area Plan encourages. In consideration of the opening statements above, below are some of the main concerns and supporting arguments to our strong OPPOSITION to this proposal: Urban Residential land Use Policies in Maple Ridge Official Community Plan The Urban Residential infill policies support change within existing neighbourhoods, potentially including higher densities, however, compatibility must be considered to ensure that redevelopment "fits" with existing neighbourhood character. ..."rather the housing form is similar in size, scale, massing and architectural elements". From Section 3.1.4 of the OCP This proposed 88-unit apartment does not fit the existing "Patterson Ave neighbourhood" character. Strongly OPPOSE. Neighbourhood Residential Infill - Policies 3-18 through 3-21 ...and of a similar configuration to what exists in the neighbourhood today AND the proposed development form is compatible with the existing surrounding housing form. This may result in ..a proposal to rezone to enable subdivision to slightly smaller single-family lots than what currently exists. This does not describe the proposed four -storey 88-unit apartment. Pursuant to Section 1.5, The Role of the Area Plan, the Hammond Area Plan process produced 10 Guiding Principles to inform policy development for the Hammond Area Plan. For the purpose of opposing the apartment building proposed, we focus primarily on the following at this time: Neighbourhood Character is Retained. Ensure new buildings fit with the character of existing buildings. • New Development within the North Hammond Precinct should be sensitive to existing character... Building heights should not appear imposing to smaller existing buildings. (Policy 3-5 b) "There are no such apartment developments anywhere in our surrounding area. The nearest four -storey apartment on the Northwest side of Maple Ridge is at the corner of 203 and Dewdney Trunk Road, a major transportation corridor intersection, where the parkade faces DTR. There are mainly churches, gas stations, shopping surrounding this four -storey apartment building, not a quiet, single-family housing street with one entrance/exit to the street.This proposed four -storey apartment will absolutely NOT fit with the character of existing houses on Patterson Ave. The Katzie First Nation cemetery located on 203 St. within meters to the east of Patterson Ave. is a heritage site identified in this area. (Policy 3-8). The geotechnical study on November 12, 2018 did not include environmental evaluation of the site. A two -level underground parkade is part of this proposed development. We OPPOSE. The proposal includes the following components: Rezoning from RS-1 to RM-2 to permit a four storey apartment building - We OPPOSE. Eighty-eight residential units - this is even 8 more units than originally proposed!- We strongly OPPOSE. Therefore, considering the above mentioned policies regarding new development being sensitive to existing character, we have taken some time to review the online "material package" emailed to us from Bissky Architecture for the purposes of this POC. While we are clearly not architects able to fully comprehend the full ramifications of all the drawings and infrastructure that will be required to be in place for this proposed development, we have been able to note the following: 1. Sidewalk and street tree requirements to be confirmed by the City. Patterson Avenue does not have any sidewalks nor street trees lining the fronts of individual properties. While there are, of course, various landscaping front yard designs with primarily low bushes, shrubs, gardens, there is no consistent pattern of street trees lining the road. If this were to be done in front of the development only the first 2 properties, this would be very out -of -place and not fitting, nor sensitive to the existing character of the area. 2. Entry courtyard and amenity patio. Again, not consistent with any of the current single-family houses, where patios for outdoor social space are in backyards, not street -facing. 3. Front of the Building: As already mentioned above, there are no similar structures in the entire area other than at Dewdney and 203 intersection. These are busy, major transportation corridors, yet the building front and underground parkade access is located on the busier corridor of the two, namely Dewdney. This location is completely different than Patterson Ave at 203rd, Patterson being a single entrance/exit, quiet, cul- de sac, single-family home street. We are completely opposed to the proposed Patterson Ave access design. 4. Setbacks Variance on Patterson and 203rd. The RM-2 zone permits a 7.5m setback from the property line on all sides of a building. The proposed development has reduced this to only 4m on Patterson Ave and 203rd. This would allow the building to be moved even closer to the street. This design, again, does NOT respect the neighbourhood. This new building would not fit the existing character of the homes on Patterson Ave, where there are no boulevards or sidewalks and front lawns and the houses are set back many more meters than the proposed 4m. We OPPOSE. 5. Parkade Access on Patterson: Currently with 20 individual homes on Patterson Ave, and incoming/outgoing vehicles per day, there are already significant delays primarily exiting Patterson onto 203, particularly at key times during the day (school/work start/end hours and throughout the afternoon/evening commute times with WestCoast Express 9 arrivals from the south of 203 each -day. as noted on the design for the parkade, the addition of 88 units and associated 150 parking stalls, this will cause a significant increase in traffic on Patterson. With traffic heading south on 203 and traffic heading north to the already overburdened Lougheed Hwy/203 intersection, this is a great concern regarding safety of residents. With only a single Entrance and Exit at the top (East) of Patterson, this would negatively impact the response in an Emergency situation, where all residents of Patterson Ave would be forced to exit the street at once onto the major corridor of 203rd Street. 6. Traffic Impact: In addition, ICBC crash records from 2016 - 2020 indicate the 203 St & Lougheed Hwy is the second highest accident location in Maple Ridge. Does Maple Ridge Planning Department honestly recognize the impact of this development on the traffic burden at this already problematic intersection? We would expect greater bottleneck and subsequent accidents with this addition of an 88 unit apartment not even one block from this major intersection. This is not even considering the additional traffic from future developments on 203rd Street. There are no traffic control measures in place at 203 and Patterson, nor should there be, as the Maple Ridge Fire Hall #3 would need quick and unimpeded access to Lougheed Hwy. 7. Infrastructure: The existing infrastructure will require major upgrading. For example, the addition of ornamental street lights along the front of the site will negatively impact the current homes, specifically those directly across the subject properties on Patterson Ave. There will be substantial work required in the area of sewer and water service. The residents of Patterson Ave will have to endure many months of disruption and the inconvenience of a major construction zone on their safe, quiet street Once again, as noted above, these residents have purchased their homes on Patterson Avenue with the knowledge and understanding of the Building Scheme Covenants on their properties and the expectation that Patterson Avenue would remain single -dwelling lots. In Conclusion: We have been Maple Ridge citizens for over 50 years; we have strongly supported local businesses, we have had our children and grandchildren attend local Maple Ridge elementary and highschools. We understand and appreciate that Hammond Land Use and Maple Ridge Council supports and plans for "aging -in -place" for its residents, and this is what we have planned for and expect will be respected by MR Council and Planning Department. Long-time Patterson Ave home owners like ourselves expected to "age -in -place" without such a massive disruption in and around our homes due to this proposed development and the construction it would entail. 10 While the Hammond Official Plan may make look good on paper, the reality is the proposed rezoning & development is going to have a major negative impact on the affected residents of the area. Once again, we appreciate the opportunity to present to you our thoughts and concerns regarding this development proposal. A letter to the Editor, the News, January 8, 2020 "What's Vision for Hammond?" concluded with: "We need to wake up and seethe so- called "public input process" for what it is - a sham, created to give residents the illusion of meaningful input, while planners go ahead with their own pre -determined ideas of what is best for our community". We sincerely hope this will not be the case. Respectfully submitted, 11 City of Maple Ridge 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, BC V2X 6A9 March 16, 2022, Attention: Mayor and Council Subject: 20278 Patterson Avenue Development (2018-489-RZ/DP) We are the property owners at . in Maple Ridge. We have lived in our home for thirty-six years. This is the home that we raised our children in and had hoped to enjoy retirement for many more years. In regards to the proposed four storey apartment building at the intersection of Patterson Avenue and 203 Street, the new Hammond community plan (section 3.1.3) states the following: Ensuring that higher densities are compatible with existing character is an important consideration. Design for new development should include: a) Orienting living and activity spaces toward streets and laneways, so that opportunities for "eyes on the street" are created wherever possible; b) Careful consideration of size, location, and orientation of on -site space areas to ensure new development allows ample sunlight and a variety of plant materials and trees that are complementary to the existing mature landscaping that contributes to the neighbourhood character; c) Design that is sensitive to surrounding built form and height; particularly for building that are three (3) or more storeys in height; d) Parking for residents is provided in a concealed underground structure. We and our neighbors strongly reject this proposed development for a variety of reasons. First of which is that a development with the density that is being proposed should not be adjacent to single family detached homes. Especially when those homes are expected to remain as part of the ultimate build out of the area. All manner of privacy for us and our neighbors will be removed with the construction of a building that will tower over our property with windows allowing people to peer into our homes and yards. The existing elevation of the subject property is approximately three metres higher than Ashley Crescent. This means that while the building is four storeys, the effect to the residents on Ashley Crescent will be more like a five storey building. Apartment buildings should not be constructed next to single family homes. Density should be increased gradually as it is for most of the Hammond community plan. If the proposed development was something such as townhouses or rowhomes, that would be more appropriate and fitting in with the character of the neighborhood. 203 Street has had traffic problems for years. The problems worsened after construction of the Golden Ears bridge and the commercial property on the south east corner of Lougheed Highway and 203 Street. 203 Street has become a primary thoroughfare for people heading west along Lougheed and wish to cross the Golden Ears bridge. The problem is worsened by the fact there is a rail crossing at 203 Street and Hammond Road. The crossing also carries West Coast Express traffic which pass frequently during rush hour. It's not uncommon to see 203 Street backed from Hammond Road to Lougheed Highway almost daily. Many of the people who work at the commercial development at the corner of Lougheed Highway and 203 Street park their vehicles along 203 Street which further impacts traffic. The addition of this development would significantly increase traffic volumes. There is no rapid transit in this area, meaning the majority of residents would be driving to and from work or school. The proposed development will have underground parking but it's typical for most buildings to only provide one parking stall for each unit for the majority of the building. That means units owned by people with multiple vehicles would be forced to park their vehicles on the road. The underground may have guest parking but it's common knowledge that there is never enough and people again would be forced to park along the road. To our knowledge a traffic assessment by a professional engineer has not been completed. If it has been completed, we would like to formally request it be sent to us for review. While the Area Plan designation for 20278 and 20292 Patterson Ave are Medium Density Multi -Family, the zoning for the property remains unchanged. We are aware that in order to have a multi -family use on the property, a rezoning application would need to be submitted to the City, and approved by Council. All rezoning applications require a Public Hearing (should Council grant second reading to the Bylaw), The Public Hearing would be advertised in the local newspaper and adjacent neighbours would receive a notification of the Public Hearing in the mail. The only notification we have received has been from the Architect of the proposed development. We would like to go on record as stating that we are adamantly opposed to any such change to the current zoning of Patterson and 203`d. We would find the construction of an apartment in particular very incompatible with the existing character of the neighbourhoods. It would not be sensitive to the surrounding builds at all and would create even more traffic congestion and parking issues. Furthermore, this will have serious impact property values for the reasons given above. It is our opinion, the proposed development at the intersection of Patterson Avenue and 203 Street should not be constructed for the reasons given above. We understand that there is a need to create additional housing in Maple Ridge but we don't feel it should be done at the expense of it's existing residents. We propose reducing the allowable density of the development to match those further along Patterson Avenue (townhomes, rowhomes, etc.). We currently have a great neighbourhood with wonderful neighbours and would see these changes as detrimental to our neighbourhood. This is certainly not what we would have expected to happen in our neighbourhood. I hope this letter has helped you better understand the impacts this development will have to our neighborhood and I hope to speak further on the issue with you in the future. Respectfully, Maple Ridge, BC From: Subject: Re: 2018-489-RZ; 20278 and 20292 Patterson Ave., Maple Ridge Date: March 21, 2022 at 5:17 PM To: Jared Bissky jared@tektonpm.com Hi Jared, Just wanted to add, this time not as a HUB member, that I do support this development proposal. It makes sense to increase density in this location. Best regards, Maple Ridge On Monday, March 21, 2022, 01:13:09 p.m. PDT, Jared Blssky <jared@tektop nm.colcl> wrote: Hi Thanks for your email, we appreciate your willingness to participate in the process. All community feedback we receive will be summarized and provided to City Staff and Council, so you can be assured that they'll see your input. Here's a link to a materials package for the project, including architectural, civil, and landscape plans, along with the geotechnical, traffic, and arborist reports. These should give you a fuller picture of what we're proposing. The architectural and landscape plans are probably the best place to start as they show where the building will sit in relation to the site, and include renderings the building. You may be interested to know that the building includes a 28 stall long-term bike storage room. Regards, Jared Bissky I Architecture Ph. 604-467-8306 Cell, 604-377-3719 Fax,604-467-8305 Ared@tel(tonpm.com This e-mail may be privileged and/or confidential, and the sender does not waive any related rights and obligations. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than an intended recipient Is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail In error, please advise me (by return e-mail or otherwise) immediately. On Mar 19, 2022, at 10:23 PM, wrote: Hi Jared, I'm interested in the above development r)robosal. Would it be oossible to send me available information on this project? Thanks, Maple Ridge From: Jared Bissky Jared@tektonpm.com Subject: Re: 2018-489-RZ; 20278 and 20292 Patterson Ave., Maple Ridge Date: March 22, 2022 at 11:20 AM To: Hi. Thanks for your email, we appreciate your willingness to participate in the process. And thank you for expressing your support of increasing density at this site. Generally, during public comments opportunities the only people who submit feedback are those who have concerns, so it's always nice when supporters reach out. In answer to your questions: 1. Increasing the number oflong-term bike stalls - We appreciate the feedback and the suggestion. Given the limited amount of buildable space on site, it's a difficult balance between providing the density needed to provide more housing and fitting in all of the other components the City requires in the building (1.7 parking stalls/unit, indoor and outdoor amenity area, garbage and recycling areas, and so on). Because some of the neighbours have expressed concerns about parking related to the building, City Staff let us know they won't support a reduction in parking requirement on the site, so there is little room to add more long term stalls. 2. Long -Term Bike Storage Room - The long-term bike storage room is located on the main floor near the front entry. 3. Short -Term Bike Storage - There are two short-term bike racks: one at the front entrance and one in the outdoor amenity area courtyard. The landscape architect tells me these are designed to accommodate around 4 bikes per side, for a total 16 stalls. As this project is outside the downtown core the short-term requirements don't apply, but we wanted to make sure there was still some accommodation for short-term bikes given how close this project is to transit and commercial hubs. 4. Bike Lanes - The Engineering Department has the authority to decide the road standard that will be applied to any development application. Our design team simply has to design whatever they require. As a dad who likes to bike around town with the kids in tow, I certainly appreciate the improved lanes on 203rd north of Dewdney Trunk Road, Regards, Jared Bissky, BA, GSC I Teicton Project Management Inc. 106 - 11893 227th Street Maple Ridge, BC V2X 61­19 Ph. 604-467-8306 Cell. 604-377-3719 Jared@teI(to npm.corn www.tektonpm.cona This e-mail may be privileged and/or confidential, and the sender does not waive any related rights and obligations. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than an intended recipient is unauthorized, If you received this a -mail in error, please advise me (by return a -mail or otherwise) immediately. On Mar 21, 2022, at 3:22 PM, Hi Jared, wrote: I'm happy to hear that long-term bike parking is on your list of amenjties to k�e provided! Very encouragI ng! When the City conducts a review of the parking requirements later this year, We anticipate that the Dike parking requjl^ements will be increased significantly, and Will include all of Maple midge in 1Lrture, From: Subject: proposed development at 20278 and 20292 Patterson ave Date: March 18, 2022 at 11:55 AM To: jared@tektonpm.com, MayorCouncilAndCaoDL@mapleridge.ca Cc: clerks@mapleridge.ca Subject: Public comment proposed development at 20278 and 20292 Patterson ave. Regarding development application no. 2018-489-RZ We live at Maple Ridge and so the development will be directly behind us We and our neighbours are against this development in its present form. This development would have a major impact on us. As we would be looking directly at a 4 story apartment building instead of trees and the peaks of the Golden Ears. Let alone the disruption due to the construction of this massive building. Many districts have a stepping policy which provides a buffer between single family homes and high density buildings. Why is this not being done here? Setbacks against existing homes must not be decreased and should be larger then the minimum allowed to provide some of the "stepping" as mentioned above. This development goes directly against several sections of the OCP, including: . 3.1.4 "Compatibility refers to development that "fits" with the character of a neighbourhood.etc." . 3.21 All neighbourhood and Major Corridor Residential infill developments will respect and reinforce the physical patterns and characteristics of established neighbourhoods, etc. . As well there are covenants in place regarding varying from the current style of construction on Patterson. Some of the other concerns we have brought up previously, in brief, are: . Lack of infrastructure in place . Noise . Traffic . Parking . Road safety . Lack of consultation with ourselves and our neighbours when the OCP was changed 2014- 2017 We have an issue with standing water in our back yard and feel that this proposed development would exacerbate this. Has a ground water survey been done? There are some beautiful trees on the property. Would these be left alone? Especially the ones in the south side and south west corner. Has a traffic survey been completed especially during a work day to see the current parking issues on 203 Street? Have the Katzie First Nations been included in the planning? What will happen if all the corners at 203 and Patterson develop as the OCP seems to allow? We would be willing to discuss options for developing this property. We are not opposed to change as we know this will happen. What we are opposed to is placing medium density buildings directly behind single family homes. What about townhouses or something not so dense? From: _ Subject: Development Application # 2018-489-RZ 20278 & 20292 Patterson Avenue Date: March 28, 2022 at 4:15 PM To: fared@tektonpm.com Cc: planning@mapleridge.ca I recently received a notification from one of the neighbours regarding the above development application. I would like more information on it and would like to point out a couple of things, simply from my own observation. 1) 1 have lived here for 6 years and my husband and I purchased the home because of the quiet street of homes that actually have a yard. Unless you live on the street, there is little or no reason to come down this way unless you are visiting in the area. It is as I say, quiet, tidy and such a nice little street. 2) A few years ago, we were very unhappy to learn that without our knowledge or consent the zoning on this street was changed to allow for MULTI unit structures... ie townhomes or apartment style buildings. 3) In about 2018 there was a few meetings at the city hall and it was almost defeated. This type of housing would not be allowed on Patterson Avenue. The one thing holding it back was one of the chair people who was not at all informed and "needed more information". The council agreed that more time was needed and it was stopped until the "Lougheed Corridor" was finished and then of course, COVID-19 hit. 4) The sign at the end of the street is back up and legible and indicates things are happening????? I have seen surveyors on the street (NOT looking at the same properties I might add) and to be honest it scares the devil out of me. 5) 1 understand the protocols of COVID-19 but this is a serious change to the neighborhood that is being proposed. REALLY???? A city hall meeting is absolutely required on this matter. If you have ever tried to go north on 203rd at Patterson Avenue in any type of rush hour traffic, you will have to WAIT, and WAIT. That is because there is a lot of traffic on 203rd already. I can only imagine if an 88 unit building went in on the corner. That is a lot of cars trying to jockey for position to get out in the mornings. 6) If you want to add more fun, there is the matter of the trains that at the best of times will keep you waiting for over 10 minutes at a time. The traffic is lined up to the fire hall sometimes and that is NOT a good thing. Think of the additional cars trying to again jockey for position to get out of the area. If you truly believe that this is a live, work and play community, you need to look again. 7) The latest thing I am seeing is that the developer wants to change the setbacks from 7.5 m to 4 m on 203rd and Patterson Avenue. Oh, and they will add an attractive landscape I am sure. ABSOLUTELY NOT, I would not be in favor of this at all! It is bad enough as it is, we don't need anything closer to the street. Local businesses already monopolize the - )nord .-A ;+ ;, h- 4 +^ +,--,-FR,. -;- 1+ -;11 - + ,.,,,, P CIIN]115 VII GVJ QI I I IJ 3UI I Icui I K:3 IICI Iu lV JCC LIOI Ilk, I.V I I I i I Is. I VV III sCL VVVI JC. 8) 1 would like to know what is being planned for the property (20247 Patterson) mid street, on the north side. My understanding is that it is more than the (1) one property and perhaps the same developer but I am not sure of that. I strongly feel that the neighborhood is not being considered in this, and the city is not looking at the entire situation here. I cannot see any good coming out of the additional traffic congestion that is already a nightmare. The 203rd stretch from Dewdney to the Golden Ears Bridge (113B) is not good now, and anywhere along the stretch of Lougheed Highway between LAITY AND HARRIS ROAD will be a nightmare. The people of Pitt Meadows have already been screaming about the trains and the fact that getting onto Lougheed Highway is bad from Ford Road all the way to the Pitt River Bridge. Let us try to find a better way to increase housing. I don't think Maple Ridge is going about this correctly. I await your additional information and comments. I truly hope the City of Maple Ridge will listen to the community comments and give us a hearing so you truly know how we feel about this. From: Jared Bissky Jared@tektonpm.com Subject: Re: Patterson Ave Development Date: March 15, 2022 at 3:06 PM To: Hi Thanks for your email, we appreciate your willingness to participate in the process. All neighbourhood feedback we receive will be summarized and provided to City Staff and Council. Here's a link to a material_ pac wbe for the project, including architectural, civil, and landscape plans, along with the geotechnical, traffic, and arborist reports. These should give you a fuller picture of the proposed building and how it relates to the street. In response to your questions about parking and traffic, the zoning bylaw requires that RM-2 buildings (like the one we are proposing) provide 1.7 off-street parking stalls per unit. For this project, that works out to 150 stalls, which we are providing in the underground parkade. There are also 17 visitor stalls in the underground parkade. As to traffic, the developer has retained a traffic engineer to study the impact of traffic from this project — a copy of the report in included in the materials package. The traffic engineer has calculated that the site should generate approximately 33 vehicle trips during the a.m. peak hour and 40 vehicle trips during the p.m. peak hour, and that all unsignalized intersections affected by the development would continue to operate at acceptable levels of service through 2033. The report does note that the intersection of 203rd and Lougheed is already over capacity, but that is occurring even without traffic generated by this site (which would have little impact on it), so it recommends that the Ministry of Transportation complete a more comprehensive planning study for that intersection. I hope this helps. Let me know if you have any other questions. Regards, Jared Bissky I Architecture Ph.604-467-8306 Cell. 604-377-3719 Fax. 604467-8305 jared(EDtelctonDili com This e-mail maybe privileged and/ confidential, and the sender does not waive any related rights and obligations. Any distribution, use or copying of this a -mail or the information it contains by other than an intended recipient is unauthorized. If you received this a -mail in error, please advise me (by return a -mail or otherwise) immediately. On Mar 15, 2022, at 2:28 PM, > wrote: Can you please send me an information package for this project, I do have specific questions about street parking and whether there has been arty consideration to enable us Io leave Patterson si.reet as this is a prohlern currently and will only t;et worse with the addition of this Lraf(ic on Patterson. Thanks From: Subject: RE: 20278 & 20292 Patterson Avenue, Maple Ridge Date: March 30, 2022 at 7:17 PM To: Jared Bissky jared@tektonpm.com Cc: MayorCouncilAndCaoDL@mapleridge.ca Hi Jared Thanks for the materials package and your comments regarding infrastructure & your request for Set Back variances for Patterson and 203rd The most significant comment I have regarding your 4 story building proposal is it completely ignores the incompatibility to the adjacent neighbours to the south and west side of the site. Since the time of the original development application our neighbourhood has voiced concerns regarding the height of the proposed building and how the adjacent neighbours will loose their privacy in their back yards. I have attached meeting notes from Committee of the Whole Meeting December 10, 2019 where, after meaningful discussions with the neighbourhood, the planning department recognized this negative impact and recommended " 3-25 Maximum building height for apartment form is four stories; however, the building must be stepped down to a maximum building height of three stories where the site directly abuts a single family form on lands designated Single -Family & Compact Residential or Low- Density Multi Family" We would like to understand how we got from Planning recommending a 3 story Building design to today where all our previous discussions & submissions with Planning are ignored and you are proposal is back to a 4 story complex??? In addition, this development goes directly against several sections of the OCP, including: . 3.1.4 "Compatibility refers to development that "fits" with the character of a neighbourhood." 3.21 All neighbourhood and Major Corridor Residential infill developments will respect and reinforce the physical patterns and characteristics of established neighbourhoods, etc. This does not describe an 80 unit apartment building. As well there are covenants in place regarding varying from the current style of construction on Patterson. Why can't there be a compatible building design for this property that fits into the neighbourhood, provides a buffer zone between the existing properties and meets the needs of families that are looking to live in the neighbourhood? Can you please confirm Katzie First Nation have been asked to comment on this development? As you know the Katzie Graveyard is within 100 meters of the development. Other Comments: If Engineering Department requires upgrades for infrastructure needed for this development — what happens when the other 2 lots on the north side of Patterson are developed with similar building designs and density? Will the sanitary and storm water systems have to be upgraded again?? What happens to the existing systems when other lots on Patterson are developed for Multi Family— Low density?? Additional upgrades? Increased taxes for existing property owners? Request for Set Back Variance — from 7.5 meters to 4.0 meters on 203rd. This request should not be granted, due to the angle of approach of 203rd from the south — there will not be enough safe sight distance for traffic leaving Patterson. We will not be able to see safe gaps in traffic to turn north on 203rd. Landscaping also cut back of i 20Jrd What is the plan for construction worker parking? West Coast Motors employees already fil street parking on 203rd and 118th. Obviously we don't want Patterson to be filled by street parking by the construction workers. We would asl< that all construction offices and site services remain on the property —not placed on the street. From: Jared Bissl<y <jaredC�tel<tonpm.com> dent: March 14, 2022 3857 PM �0: �uboect: Re: 20278 & 20292 Patterson Avenue, Maple Ridge Here's a link to a rnaterials package for the project, including architectural, civil, and landscape plans, along with the geotechnical, traffic, and arborist reports. These should give you a fuller picture of what we're proposing. The architectural plans are probably the best place to start as they show where the building will sit in relation to the site, and include street view renderings. In answer to your other questions: 1. Infrastructure —The Engineering Department requires that each new development ensure adequate infrastructure is in place to accommodate it. If the existing infrastructure needs to be upgraded, it's done so at the expense of the developer. The civil engineer for this project has analyzed the sanitary and stormwater systems in place and is recommending that approximately 21 m of sanitary sewer on West Street be replaced and upsized, and 162m of storm sewer on Patterson Avenue be replaced and upsized. In addition the Engineering Department is requiring upgrades to the curbs and gutters on Patterson Avenue; upgrades to the street frontages along the site at Patterson and 203rd; new sidewalks to be installed in front of the site along Patterson; new ornamental streetlights on Patterson and 203rd in front of the site; street trees; underground wiring, hydro, internet, and telephone provisions; and a communications conduit for future municipal use along 203rd. All of these will be provided at the developer's expense. The City will not permit the development to occur without adequate infrastructure. In addition to the physical infrastructure upgrades, the developer will be responsible for paying a number of fees to the City and other authorities to help pay other new infrastructure or upgrades. Based on the today's rates, these fees would include: $768,595 in municipal development cost charges, $375,672 for Metro Vancouver development cost charges, a $272,800 community amenity fee, $52,800 to School District 42, and $135,960 for Translink development cost charges. 2. Front of the Building and Parking Access - The front of the building, including the front door and access to the underground will be on Patterson Avenue. The folks at the planning and engineering departments typically don't want to see access to underground parkades located on major streets, like 203rd Street, to avoid backing up traffic as people drive in and out. 3. Setbacks Variance on 203rd and Patterson - The RM-2 zone permits a 7.5m setback from the property line on all sides of a building. We are requesting that this be reduced to 4m on Patterson Avenue and 203rd Street with the support of the planning department, while maintaining a landscaped 7.5m setback along the south and west sides. The purpose of the setbacks is to move the building closer to the street, and to include a slightly more prominent feel to the northeast corner of the building in accordance with guidance the advisory design panel. The design team has tried to maintain a balance between keeping the scale of the building down to respect the neighbourhood, while raising the roof and height of the glazing as the northeast corner of the building on the top floor. You'll also notice as you review the landscape plans that beyond the 4m landscaped setback along 203rd Street and Patterson Avenue there will be a boulevard with street trees and a sidewalk, so the building will still not have the feeling of being immediately up against the road. Regards, Jared Bissky, BA, GSC 17ekton Project Management Inc. 106 - 11893 227th Street Maple Ridge, BC V2X 61-19 Ph.604-467-8306 Cell. 604-377-3719 jared@tektonpm.com www.tektonpm.com This e-mail maybe privileged and/or confidential, and the sender does not waive any related rights and obligations. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than an intended recipient Is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please advise me (by return e-mail or otherwise) Immediately. On Mar 14, 2022, at 3:27 PM, _ wrote: Thanks Jared Its tough to provide meaningful comments without having at least a few details on the design of the building. Can you please send me a few street views of the building and show the layout on the property. What infrastructure will be part of the development? Sidewalks, left turn lanes on 203rd, street lighting etc. Is the front of the building on 203rd7 Access to underground parking off Patterson? Why are you asking for the set back variances??? Thanks From: Jared Bissky <jared @tektonpm.com> Sent: March 14, 2022 2:40 PM To: Subject: Re: 20278 & 20292 Patterson Avenue, Maple Ridge at Thanks for your email. In answer to your questions, the City's policy requires that notification letters to be mailed to all property owners and residents within 100 metres of the development site. The folks at the Planning Department generate the list and provide us with the mailing labels, then we mail out the letters. The policy also requires us to place two ads in the local newspaper, and a sticker on the Ut_VCIUPI IMl I IIIIU 1111OLIU I I -3%11, VVI HLlI VVC VC UUI M. If you have any questions or feedback, please feel free to email me again. All correspondence we receive will be summarized and provide to City Staff and Council, so you can be assured that they'll see your input. Regards, Jared Bissky, BA, GSC I Tekton Project Management Inc. 106 - 11893 227th Street Maple Ridge, BC V2X 61­19 Ph. 604-467-8306 Cell, 604-377-3719 jared@tektonpm.com www.tektonpm.com This e-mail maybe privileged and/or confidential, and the sender does not waive any related rights and obligations. Any distribution, use or copying of this e-mail or the information it contains by other than an intended recipient is unauthorized. If you received this e-mail in error, please advise me (by return a -mail or otherwise( Immediately. On Mar 14,2022, at 1:48 PM, wrote: From: Sent: March 5, 2022 3:14 PM To: 'jarod @te ktonp m.com' <jarod @tektonpm. com> Subject: 20278 & 20292 Patterson Avenue, Maple Ridge Thank you for sending your letter asking for comments on the above development application. Wondering if you can provide details on where or which neighbourhoods your letter was sent to. Just want to confirm who and to what extent you are asking for input. Best Regards From: Subject: Public comment proposed development at 20278 and 20292 Patterson ave. Maple Ridge development application no. 2018- 489-RZ Date: March 13, 2022 at 1:40 PM To: jared@tektonpm.com, MayorCouncilAndCaoDL@mapleridge.ca Regarding development application no. 2018-489-RZ My wife and I have resided at for 30 years. This is the home where we have raised our children and hope to enjoy retirement. We and our neighbours are 100% against this development. So reducing the setbacks will not be discussed. This development would have a major impact on us. As we would be looking directly at a 4 story apartment building instead of trees and the peaks of the Golden Ears. Let alone the disruption due to the construction of this massive building. This development goes directly against several sections of the OCP, including: . 3.1.4 "Compatibility refers to development that "fits" with the character of a neigh bourhood.etc." ® 3.21 All neighbourhood and Major Corridor Residential infill developments will respect and reinforce the physical patterns and characteristics of established neighbourhoods, etc. . As well there are covenants in place regarding varying from the current style of construction on Patterson. Some of the other concerns we have brought up previously, in brief, are: . Lack of infrastructure in place Noise Traffic Parking . Road safety . Lack of consultation with ourselves and our neighbours when the OCP was changed 2014- 2017 We would be willing to discuss options for developing this property but an apartment building would not be one of them. Be warned we will fight tooth and nail and press the mayor and council at every opportunity to have this development stopped. MAPLE RIDGE mapleridge.ca City of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING DATE: May 17, 2022 FILE NO: 2022-159-RZ MEETING: C o W SUBJECT: First and Second Reading Termination and Replacement of Land Use Contract Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7853-2022 21973 132 Avenue EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: In May 2014, the Province made changes to the Local Government Act to require all Land Use Contracts (LUCs) in British Columbia to automatically terminate on June 30, 2024 and for municipalities to enact zoning regulations for all properties affected by LUCs prior to June 30, 2022. Three bundles of rezoning bylaws have been adopted and the subject property is the last of these requiring rezoning. The subject property is currently designated Agricultural in the Official Community Plan (OCP), reflecting its inclusion within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR), and assessed as "Farm" under the Assessment Act (Farm Status). The LUC currently permits a variety of uses including a horse arena, a tennis court, a swimming pool, a meeting room, and a members -only kitchenette and lounge and the property has been operating as the Maple Ridge Equi Sports Centre for many years. The restaurant portion of the Equi Sports Centre is known as'The Ranch Pub and Grill', which started out as a members -only kitchenette and lounge in 1983, as permitted by the LUC and Agricultural Land Commission (ALC). This lounge and kitchenette have since evolved into the current restaurant use, which was the subject of the Non -Farm Use application. Because the current restaurant use does not align with the original more limited members -only lounge use, a Non -Farm Use Application was required, and the property owner made this application in August 2021 (ALCApplication 63251) and Council forwarded the application to the ALC in September 2021. On April 22, 2022, the ALC approved the full -service restaurant use, permitting up to 185 patrons, under three conditions: 1) that the restaurant building is not expanded; 2) the number of permitted patrons is not exceeded; and 3) the property owner agrees to rescind the ALC resolution from 1978 that permitted the construction of four covered racquet courts and swimming pool. The property owner has agreed to the ALC's conditions. The purpose of this report is to present a zone amending bylaw for the subject property at 21973 132 Avenue and the creation of a new zone, CD-1-22 (Appendix B). The proposed zone, in Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7853-2022, CD-1-22 (Equestrian Facility and Restaurant), is drafted to replicate the siting of what is currently permitted through the LUC, along with the equestrian and restaurant uses based on the present ALC decision and regulations. A restaurant use is considered a Non -Farm Use in the Agricultural Land Reserve and OCP Policy 6-10 permits Non -Farm Uses on properties designated Agricultural if approved by the Agricultural Land Commission and the City. Doc # 3069176 Page 1 of 6 1105 RECOMMENDATION: That Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7853-2022 be given first and second reading and forwarded to Public Hearing. 1.0 BACKGROUND: Between 1971 and 1978, the Municipal Act (now called the Local Government Act) allowed local governments to enter into LUCs with property owners. In May 2014, the Province made changes to the Local Government Act requiring municipalities to enact zoning regulations for all properties affected by LUCs prior to June 30, 2022 and that all LUCs will automatically be terminated after June 30, 2024. At the October 13, 2020 Council Workshop meeting, the process for early termination of LUCs and the strategy to meet provincial deadlines was presented. The strategy is to bring bundles of rezoning bylaws to Council meetings over the course of 2021 and 2022. To ensure the process and implications were clearly communicated to property owners, staff mailed tailored information packages to all property owners involved, created a page on the City's website that includes general information on LUCs and invited all affected property owners to an information session. However, the information session was cancelled due to low registration of property owners and staff have been meeting with interested property owners on a case -by -case basis. A Development Information Meeting is not required as no new development is being proposed. On April 27, 2021, the first bundle of seven rezoning bylaws for properties with a LUC was adopted. On July 27, 2021, the second bundle of seven rezoning bylaws for properties with a LUC was adopted. The third bundle involved five LUC's, wherein separate reports were prepared due to greater complexities with each one, and to date four of these have had underlying zoning adopted (as of March 29, 2022), leaving this final LUC to proceed through the rezoning process. The subject property within this report (as well as all other properties involved in the LUC removal process) will continue to be regulated by the current LUC, even upon adoption of new underlying zoning, until June 30, 2024, when all LUCs in the Province will be automatically terminated. Should a property owner want to voluntarily discharge the LUC on title prior to June 30, 2024, the property owner can sign a "Consent Agreement" with the City and a zone amending bylaw can go through four readings and a public hearing. This approach allows property owners the option to keep their LUC or discharge the LUC if they are considering new construction, subdivision, or uses (i.e. secondary suites, etc.). The subject property located at 21973 132 Avenue is currently regulated by a LUC established in 1974, and amended in 1982 and 1983 to permit the use of: • One Single Family Dwelling • One Office • One Instruction and meeting room, related only to the operation of the Centre • One Grooms quarters • One House Arena • One Tennis Court • The Boarding of Horses Doc # 3069176 Page 2 of 6 • The Training of Horses • Horse Riding Lessons • Horse Shows • Four covered Racquet Courts (ALC Decision 1978) • One Swimming Pool (ALC Decision 1978) • Kitchenette and lounge to a maximum of 50 scats for members only (LUC Amendment 19831 2.0 DISCUSSION: a) Background Context Within Urban Area Boundary: Area Plan: )CP Major Corridor: Existing OCP Designation: Existing Zoning: Proposed Zoning: Surrounding Uses North: South: East: West: Use: Zone: Designation: Use: Zone: Designation: Use: Zone: Designation: Use: Zone: Designation: No General Land Use Plan Yes Agriculture Land Use Contract (LUC) CD-1-22 (to permit Single Detached Residential, Agricultural, and Restaurant use) Agricultural (North Alouette Greenway) A-2 Upland Agricultural Agricultural Agricultural A-2 Upland Agricultural Agricultural Agricultural A-2 Upland Agricultural Agricultural Agricultural A-2 Upland Agricultural Agricultural Doc # 3069176 Page 3 of 6 b) Site Characteristics The subject property is located on the north side of 132 Avenue, east side of Park Lane, south of the North Alouette Greenway and south-west of the North Alouette River (See Appendix A). The topography is relatively flat and there are some trees located around the perimeter of the property. Access to the subject property is located from 220 Street. The total area is approximately 6.45 ha (16 acres) with the restaurant use located in the south-east corner. The subject property operates as the Maple Ridge Equi-Sports Centre, which is an equestrian -based facility that provides boarding, lessons and a range of competitions and horse shows throughout the year. The facility is made up of a series of riding rings, barns, a single-family dwelling and a full -service restaurant (The Ranch Pub and Grill). The larger facility has been in operation since 1974 with equestrian and recreational uses implemented through a LUC. A members -only kitchenette and lounge were permitted in 1983, as part of an amendment to the LUC, with permission from the ALC; however, it is noted that this lounge and kitchenette has evolved into a full -service restaurant. The subject property is assessed as "Farm" under the Assessment Act (Farm Status) for the training and boarding of horses. c) Official Community Plan: The subject property is located within the ALR and is designated Agricultural in the OCP. The City of Maple Ridge recognizes that agriculture is a vital component of the community's rural character and local economy. There is an acknowledgement that agriculture can occur in different forms throughout the community, and as such, Agri -Tourism is recognized as one such use. As stated in section 6.2.1 Economic Development Strategy of the OCP, "Agri -Tourism is a form of tourism that attracts visitors who are interested in experiencing forms of agriculture and agriculturally related aspects of an area". The subject application is currently providing equestrian -based agri-tourism uses, which are currently permitted through ALR regulations and the LUC. It should be noted that the restaurant use plays a complimentary and significant role to the existing agri-tourism uses through the provision of food and beverage services to those participating in the various facility activities and events. A restaurant use is considered a Non -Farm Use in the ALR and OCP Policy 6-10 permits Non -Farm Uses on properties designated Agricultural if approved by the ALC and the City. The following policies in the OCP are supportive of the existing equestrian -based uses and further supports the restaurant use in its complimentary role to the Maple Ridge Equi-Sports Centre. In Section 6.5 Additional Employment Generating Opportunities, OCP Policies 6-67 and 6-68 state the following: 6-67 Maple Ridge will actively promote and market the outdoor resource theme by. a) supporting and strengthening businesses that cater to tourists; b) supporting businesses involved with outdoor recreational activities and physical fitness; c) facilitating growth in the eco-tourism, cycling and equestrian industry. 6-68 Maple Ridge will promote agricultural tourism opportunities by: a) Aligning land use bylaws to permit supportive non -farm uses such as agri-tourism, bed and breakfasts, and on -farm sales; b) Assisting agricultural landowners to identify and develop agricultural opportunities (e.g. value added, agri-tourism, bed and breakfast, recreation). Doc # 3069176 Page 4 of 6 d) Agricultural Plan: The Maple Ridge Agricultural Plan identifies a long-term vision for Agriculture in Maple Ridge. Language within the Agricultural Plan includes reference to diversifying agricultural activities, whereby: Diverse agricultural activity occurs on farms of all sizes and uses many channels to distribute agricultural products and services to the consumer public. And further identified in 'Goal 8' of the Agricultural Plan: Pursuing diversity in local agriculture is a way of ensuring that agricultural land use is capable of adaptive response to, and recovery from, challenges to food security, and other amenities valued by society. More diversity creates more ability for successful response and promotes resiliency in agricultural land use. Diversified agricultural activity (equestrian, agro- tourism) will protect the land base through active use, create demand for services and workers, and support the infrastructure also required for food production. e) Planning Analysis The current primary use of the property is an equestrian facility and has been assessed as "Farm" under the Assessment Act (Farm Status) for several years. The restaurant/lounge is an accessory use that has been permitted since 1982 through a LUC amendment that was approved by the ALC. However, because the restaurant/lounge use has expanded over the years, the approval process for underlying zoning could not proceed with the current use of the restaurant/lounge without ALC approval through a Non -Farm Use application. A Non -Farm Use Application (ALC Application 63251) was received in August 2021 to permit the existing full -service restaurant within the Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) and Council forwarded the application to the ALC in September 2021. On April 22, 2022, the ALC approved the full -service restaurant use, permitting up to 185 patrons, under three conditions: 1) that the size of the restaurant is not expanded; 2) the number of permitted patrons is not exceeded; and 3) the property owner agrees to rescind the ALC resolution from 1978 that permitted the construction of four covered racquet courts and swimming pool. The property owner has agreed to the ALC's conditions. The proposed zone in Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7853-2022, CD-1-22 (Equestrian Facility and Restaurant) is drafted to replicate the sitingof buildings that are currently permitted through the LUC, as well as the equestrian and restaurant uses based on the recent ALC decision and current regulations. A restaurant use is considered a non -farm use in the ALR and OCP Policy 6-10 supports Non -Farm Uses on properties designated Agricultural if approved by the Agricultural Land Commission and the City. 3.0 CONCLUSION: In May 2014, the Province made changes to the Local Government Act to require all LUCs in British Columbia to automatically terminate on June 30, 2024 and for municipalities to enact zoning regulations for all properties affected by LUCs prior to June 30, 2022. The subject property is the last property in the third and final bundle of properties requiring underlying zoning in replacement of a LUC. Doc # 3069176 Page 5 of 6 This report presents Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7853-2022 for the subject property and the creation of a new zone, CD-1-22 (Appendix B). The underlying zoning that is proposed for the subject property replicates the uses currently allowed in the ALR and the April 2022 decision by the ALC to permit a non -farm (restaurant) use that is currently operating on the property. "Original signed by Krista Gowan" Prepared by: Krista Gowan, MA Planner 1 "Original signed by Mark McMullen" for 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 and Development "Original signed by Scott Hartman" Concurrence: Scott Hartman Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A - Subject Map and Ortho Map Appendix B - Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7853-2022 Doc # 3069176 Page 6 of 6 Legend F =Stream --�--• Ditch Centreline —� Edge of River ------ Edge of Marsh -- —Indefinite Creek Lake or Reservoir Marsh River 21973 132 Ave P I D : 001-264-486 PLANNING DEPARmTlliEAT MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia mapleridge.ca I -- River Centreline (Topographic) I FILE: 2022-159-RZ Scale: 1:3,500 DATE: Apr 25, 2022 BY: DT 1 I 1 134;5 ' I I_ ..._. ... - ' __ I L'.I I - YI - 13369 a � � SUBJECT PROPERTY �� 13360 � +' �� 1 w 13221/31 Z 5 13345 Y 1j CL a � �����.��� � I ����������� m o N ry N 132 nve. 132 AVE. a � m �_ �_ m `O o 0 ry ry ry N N r ' ' Scale: 1:3,500 Legend -- _ - � Stream —®- Ditch Centreline Edge of River ------ Edge of Marsh — -- Indefinite Creek o River Centreline (Topographic) _ Lake or Reservoir Marsh River 21973 132 Ave P I D : 001-264-486 PLANNING DEPARTMENT ''�� � • � ��.�' ov�apleridge.ca FILE: 2022-159-RZ DATE: Apr 25, 2022 BY: DT APPENDIX B CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7853-2022 A Bylaw to amend the text forming part of Zoning Bylaw No. 7600 - 2019 as amended WHEREAS, it is deemed desirable to create a new comprehensive development zone called "CD-1-22 Equestrian Facility and Restaurant"; AND WHEREAS, it is deemed desirable 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. 7853-2022." 2. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 7600-2019 is hereby amended by inserting the following definition after the "ENDS and ENNDS" definition in PART 202 DEFINTIONS: EQUESTRIAN FACILITY means a Use designed and intended for the display of equestrian skills and the hosting of events including, but not limited to, showjumping, dressage, and similar events of other equestrian disciplines. The facility may include the boarding of horses, one office, and one instruction room for the operation of the facility. Facilities for horse riding do not include a racetrack that is or must be licensed by the British Columbia Racing Commission. 3. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No. 7600-2019 is hereby amended by inserting the following CD Zone immediately following the last section in PART 10 COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT ZONES and numbering it in sequential order accordingly: 1OXX CD-1-22 Equestrian Facility and Restaurant 10X0(.1 PURPOSE 1. This zone provides for an "Equestrian Facility and Restaurant" use for Parcel "9" Section 30 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 66399, 21973 132 Avenue, Maple Ridge. 10XX.2 PRINCIPAL USES 1. The following Principal Uses Shall be permitted in this Zone; a. Agricultural b. Single Detached Residential 10XX.3 ACESSORY USES 1. Agricultural Employee Residential 2. Boarding 3. Detached Garden Suite 4. Produce Sales 5. Rental Stable 6. Restaurant, limited to 185 patrons 7. Secondary Suite 8. Tennis Court (maximum of one) 10XX.4 LOT AREA AND DIMENSIONS 1. Minimum Lot Area and dimensions shall be not less than; a. in Lot Area 6 hectares b. in Lot Width 75.0 metres c. in Lot Depth 150.0 metres 2. Refer to Section 407 Building Envelope of the Bylaw for required minimum Building Envelope dimensions 10XX.5 DENSITY N/A 10XX.6 LOT COVERAGE 1. All Principal Buildings and Principal Structures and Accessory Buildings and Accessory Structures together shall not exceed a Lot Coverage of 5%. 2. All buildings associated with an accessory restaurant use shall not be expanded unless approval is granted from the Agricultural Land Commission. 10XX.7 SETBACKS 1. Minimum Setbacks for all Principal Building and Principal Structures shall be not less than: a. from a Front Lot Line 35 metres b. from a Rear Lot Line 12 metres c. from an Interior Side Lot Line 20 metres d. from an Exterior Side Lot Line 26 metres 2. The minimum Setbacks for Accessory Use Buildings and Structures shall be not less than: a. from a Front Lot Line 7.5 metres b. from a Rear Lot Line 7.5 metres c. from an Interior Side Lot Line 1.5 metres d. from an Exterior Side Lot Line 4.5 metres e. from the Building Face of a Building for a Residential Use 3.0 metres 3. For Lots within the Agricultural Land Reserve and that are subject to the Agricultural Land Commission Act and its Regulations, Section 402 (Farm Home Plate) of this Bylaw shall apply. 10XX.8 HEIGHT 1. Building Height for Single Detached Residential use shall not exceed 9.5 metres. 2. Building Height for other Accessory Buildings and Accessory Structures shall not exceed 8.5 metres. 1OXX.9 PARKING AND LOADING 1. The Off -Street Parking and Off -Street Loading shall be provided with a maximum of 70 parking stalls with an agricultural and accessory restaurant use. 10XX.10 OTHER REQUIREMENTS 1. The Agricultural Land Commission Act and its Regulations shall prevail. 3. That parcels or tracts of land and premises known and described as: PARCEL "9" SECTION 30 TOWNSHIP 12 NEW WESTMINSTER DISTRICT PLAN 66399 and outlined in heavy black line on Map No. 1971 a copy of which is attached hereto and forms part of this Bylaw, is hereby rezoned to CD-1-22 Equestrian Facility and Restaurant. 4. Maple Ridge Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7600-2019 as amended is hereby amended accordingly. READ a first time the day of 20 READ a second time the day of 20 PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , 20 READ a third time the day of , 20 ADOPTED, the day of , 20 PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER 1 \ 1 \ P C 1 1 LO 1 \ 13425 1 \ P 21534 n 1 \ Lu 1 \ Z B g 1 \ � 1 1 13369 d \ 13360 i 1 A ' I P 17435 Pdo 9 I P 22035 I �I P 66399 al IU m I I 13221131 I I I� Rem 2 P 22035 13345 N i i N N P 13091 O1 � 1 N EPP 7 36 N 32 AVE, 1�3� AVE. N N *PP151 m N o 0 *PP152 A N A 6 9 5 RP 16831 Sk. 6442 1139 P 1088 1 7 P 3305 MAPLE Bylaw No. RIDGE 7853-2022 ZONE AMENDING Map No. 1971 From: LUC (Land Use Contract) To: CD-1-22 (Comprehensive District) MAPLERIDGEN British ... SCALE 1:3,500 IMAPLE RIDGE ritish Cotumbia mapleridge.ca City of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council FROM: Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: First, Second and Third Reading Housing Agreement Bylaw No. 7855-2022 12155 Edge Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: MEETING DATE: May 17, 2022 FILE NO: 2019-244-RZ MEETING: C o W A condition of third reading of Zoning Application 2019-244-RZ is that there be a Housing Agreement to secure 100% of the 209 units in the five -storey apartment building as market rental units. The agreement includes the following unit mix: 128 One -Bedroom Units, 40 Studio Units and 41 Two - Bedroom Units. With the Housing Agreement in place the application will be exempt from paying a Community Amenity Contribution to the City. A Housing Agreement must be created through a bylaw. Therefore, it is recommended that Housing Agreement Bylaw No. 7855-2022 be given first, second and third reading. RECOMMENDATION: That Housing Agreement Bylaw No. 7855-2022 be given first, second and third reading. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Applicant: Townline Homes Inc. c/o Mr Ross Moore Legal Description: Lot 305 Section 20 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 46852 OCP: Existing: Low -Rise Apartment Proposed: Low -Rise Apartment Zoning: Existing: Land Use Contract L74462 Proposed: RM-2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Apartment Zone: CD-1- 21 Medium Density Rental Apartment Residential Designation: Low -Rise Apartment South: Use: Vacant Land Zone: RS-1 (One Detached Residential) Designation: Park 2019-244-RZ Page 1 of 2 1106 East: Use: Zone: Designation: West: Use: Zone: Designation: Existing Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Site Area: Access: Servicing requirement: Concurrent Applications c) Project Description: Eric Langton Elementary School P-1(Park and School) Institutional Apartment CD-5-94 (Apartment Use & Elderly Citizens Rec Assoc. Centre) Medium and High -Rise Apartment Vacant Purpose built rental apartments 0.706 ha (1.72 acres) Edge Street Urban Standard 2019-244-RZ/DP/DVP The subject property is located at 12155 Edge Street and has an application to discharge Land Use Contract (LUC) L74462 and LUC Modification Agreement U101211 and rezone the subject property RM-2 (Medium Density Apartment Residential), to permit a five -storey, 209 market rental unit apartment building. The subject application is exempt from paying the Community Amenity Contribution, Policy 6.31, as the applicant is proposing 100% of the units as rental to be secured through a Housing Agreement with the City. The Housing Agreement must be created through a bylaw (Appendix C). CONCLUSION: The Housing Agreement will secure the 209 market rental apartment units, it recommended that first, second and third reading by given to Housing Agreement Bylaw No. 7855-2022. "Original signed by Wendy Cooper" Prepared by: Wendy Cooper, M.Sc., MCIP,RPP Planner "Original signed by Charles Goddard" Reviewed by: Charles R. Goddard, BA, MA Director of Planning "Original signed by Charles Goddard" for Approved by: Christine Carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP GM Planning & Development Services "Original signed by Scott Hartman" Concurrence: Scott Hartman Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A - Subject Map Appendix B - Ortho Map Appendix C - 12155 Edge Street Housing Agreement Bylaw No. 7855-2022 2019-244-RZ Page 2 of 2 APPENDIX A O V C 7 � � N N N N 12085 Legend — Stream --- Ditch Centreline — — • Indefinite Creek ® Active Applications (RZ/SD/DP/VP) 0 0 0 0 0 N (�N� N N N N N N f+ df Of t� _ � 4�'f i j � cp N N N N N ������ 12155 EDGE STREET PLANNING DEPARTMENT .- - � mapleridge.ca Scale: 1:2,500I I FILE:2019-244-RZ DATE: Jul 5, 2019 BY: DT 1, 0 0 9' F i 74 wow V At .- ■ .r 1 - _ - � Iy �' I. � �' � I ' ,r •. _� Sri' � i—II t �-, ar r - - - --.- to r. 1, r t,Awor +T t: Qt all all �... Al IPA c �+a -i :lop SO • _ t r_ FA - f Mile A •'. M oil . :;' ♦r A- t Fri � R •F • e 1 CA F 2, ,rr Ut -iq ice.... _ . _���< • u -;�_ . �� • t AW All CA 7; l YY 0 Am to mAi rAJ MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE BYLAW NO. 7855-2022 A Bylaw to authorize the City of Maple Ridge to enter into a Housing Agreement for 12155 Edge Street WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 483 of the Local Government Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c.323, as amended, Council may by bylaw, enter into a housing agreement under that Section; AND WHEREAS, Council and Edge Street Holdings LTD. Wish to enter into a housing agreement for the subject property at 12155 Edge Street; NOW THEREFORE, the Municipal Council of the City of Maple Ridge enacts as follows: 1. This Bylaw may be cited as "Housing Agreement Bylaw No. 7855-2022" 2. By this Bylaw Council authorizes the City to enter into a housing agreement Edge Street Holdings LTD. In respect to parcel or tract of land and premises known and described as: Lot 305 Section 20 Township 12 New Westminister District Plan 46852. 3. The Mayor and Corporate Officer are authorized to execute the Housing Agreement and all incidental instrument on behalf of the City of Maple Ridge. 4. "Schedule 1", attached to this Bylaw, is incorporated into and forms part of this Bylaw. 5. I his bylaw shall take affect as of the date of adoption hereof. READ a first time the day of , 20 READ a second time the day of , 20 PUBLIC HEARING held the day of , 20 READ a third time the day of , 20 ADOPTED the day of , 20 PRESIDING MEMBER CORPORATE OFFICER SCHEDULE 1 TERMS OF INSTRUMENT — PART 2 HOUSING AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, dated for reference the _ day of 2022, BETWEEN: EDGE STREET HOLDINGS LTD. Suite 1212 — 450 SW Marine Drive Vancouver, B.C. V5X OC3 (the "Owner") AND: THE CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE 11995 Haney Place Maple Ridge, B.C. V2X 6A9 (the "City") WITNESSES THAT WHEREAS: A. The Owner is the registered owner of the Lands. B. The City is a municipal corporation incorporated pursuant to the Act. C. As a condition of the Rezoning Bylaw, the Owner has agreed to enter into a housing agreement with the City in accordance with section 483 of the Act. D. Section 483 authorizes the City, by bylaw, to enter into a housing agreement in respect of the form of tenure of housing units, availability of such units to classes of identified person, administration and management of such units and the rent that may be charged for such units. E. Section 219 of the Land Title Act permits registration of a covenant in favour of a municipality in respect of the use of land or the use of a building on or to be erected on land and that land is or is not to be built on except in accordance with this Agreement. NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the sum of Ten Dollars ($10.00) now paid by the City to the Owner and for other good and valuable consideration (the receipt and sufficiency of which the Owner hereby acknowledges), the Owner and the City covenant each with the other as follows: 1. DEFINITIONS a) "Act" means the Local Government Act, RSBC. 2015 c.1 as amended from time to time; b) "Agreement" means this agreement as amended from time to time; c) "Commencement Date" has the meaning set out in section 2.1 herein; d) "Council" means the municipal council for the City; e) "Director of Planning" means thei chief administrator of the Department of Planning of the City and his or her successors in function and their respective nominees; f) "Dwelling Unit" means a dwelling unit as defined in the City's Zoning Bylaw No. 7600-2019 as amended from time to time; Terms of Instrument — Part 2, Housing Agreement - PID: 006-147-828 Lot 305 Section 20 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 46852 Page 1 of 7 g) "Lands" means those lands and premises legally described as: PID: 006-147-828 Lot 305 Section 20 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 46852; h) "Market Rental Units" means Dwelling Units that are rented to tenants for market rental rates as set by the Owner; i) "Rental Purposes" means an occupancy or intended occupancy which is or would be governed by a tenancy agreement as defined in Section 1 of the Residential Tenancy Act, SBC 2002 c. 78 as amended from time to time between the Owner and the tenant; j) "Rental Units" means the Market Rental Units; k) "Residential Building" means the 5 storey building to be constructed on the Lands to be used for Rental Purposes with 209 Dwelling Units, all of which Dwelling Units will be Market Rental Units; "RT Act" means the Residential Tenancy Act, SBC 2002 c. 78; and m) "Rezoning Bylaw" means the rezoning bylaw applicable to the Lands described as "Zone Amending Bylaw No. 7567-2019". 2. TERM 2.1 . This Agreement will commence upon adoption by Council of "Housing Agreement Bylaw No. 7855-2022", (the "Commencement Date") and will continue in perpetuity. 2.2. Notwithstanding the foregoing grant in perpetuity, this Agreement will terminate immediately upon the removal or destruction of the Residential Building provided the Residential Building is not repaired or rebuilt following the destruction thereof. 2.3. Subject to section 7.3, upon termination of this Agreement, this Agreement will be at an end and of no further force and effect. 3. USE OF LANDS 3.1. Pursuant to Section 219 of the Land Title Act, the Owner covenants and agrees with the City that during the term of this Agreement, notwithstanding the Rezoning Bylaw, the Lands shall be used and built on only in strict compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement and that: a. the Lands shall not be subdivided or stratified; b. the Residential Building shall be used for Rental Purposes only; and C. no Rental Unit in the Residential Building shall be occupied for any purpose except for Rental Purposes. 3.2. The Owner further covenants and agrees with the City that the Lands and any buildings or structures constructed thereon including the Residential Building shall be developed, built and maintained in accordance with all City bylaws, regulations and guidelines as amended from time to time. 4. TENANCY RESTRICTIONS 4.1. The unit mix for Rental Units in the Residential Building shall be no fewer than 128 one -bedroom units, 41 two -bedroom units and 40 studio units or as otherwise approved in writing by the Director of Planning in his or her discretion. Terms of Instrument — Part 2, Housing Agreement - PID: 006-147-828 Lot 305 Section 20 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 46852 Page 2 of 7 5. OWNER'S OBLIGATIONS Without limiting section 3.1 of this Agreement: a. Management and administration: the management, administration, and associated costs with the management and administration of the Rental Units will be borne by the Owner or its designated rental agent, unless otherwise approved by the City in writing; b. Compliance with applicable laws: without restricting the foregoing, the Owner will comply with all applicable provisions of the RT Act and any other provincial or municipal enactments imposing obligations on landlords in relation to residential tenancies; C. Performance: the Owner will perform its obligations under this Agreement diligently and in good faith; and d. Evidence of compliance: provided that the same can be done without breaching the Personal Information Protection Act (as amended from time to time) the Owner will, at Business License renewal or upon request by the City, supply to the City copies of any documentation in possession of the Owner necessary to establish compliance with the Owner's obligations under this Agreement. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES 6.1. The City may, acting reasonably, give to the Owner a written notice (in this section 6.1, the "Notice") requiring the Owner to cure a default under this Agreement within 30 days of receipt of the Notice. The Notice must specify the nature of the default. The Owner must act with diligence to correct the default within the time specified. 6.2. The Owner will pay to the City on demand by the City all the City's costs of exercising its rights or remedies under this Agreement, on a full indemnity basis. 6.3. The Owner acknowledges and agrees that in case of a breach of this Agreement which is not fully remediable by the mere payment of money and promptly so remedied, the harm sustained by the City and to the public interest will be irreparable and not susceptible of adequate monetary compensation. 6.4. Each party to this Agreement, in addition to its rights under this Agreement or at law, will be entitled to all equitable remedies including specific performance, injunction and declaratory relief, or any of them, to enforce its rights under this Agreement. 6.5. The Owner acknowledges and agrees that it is entering into this Agreement to benefit the public interest in providing housing for Rental Purposes, and that the City's rights and remedies under this Agreement are necessary to ensure that this purpose is carried out and that the City's rights and remedies under this Agreement are fair and reasonable and ought not to be construed as a penalty or forfeiture. 6.6. No reference to nor exercise of any specific right or remedy under this Agreement or at law or at equity by any party will prejudice, limit or preclude that party from exercising any other right or remedy. No right or remedy will be exclusive or dependent upon any other right or remedy, but any party, from time to time, may exercise any one or more of such rights or remedies independently, successively, or in combination. The Owner acknowledges that specific performance, injunctive relief (mandatory or otherwise) or other equitable relief may be the only adequate remedy of a default by the Owner under this Agreement. 7. LIABILITY 7.1 Except for the negligence of the City or its employees, agents or contractors, the Owner will indemnify and save harmless each of the City and its elected officials, board members, officers, directors, employees, and agents, and their heirs, executors, administrators, personal representatives, successors and assigns, from and against all claims, demands, actions, loss, damage, costs and liabilities, which all or any of them will or may be liable for or suffer or incur or be put to by reason of or arising out of: a. any act or omission by the Owner, or its officers, directors, employees, agents, contractors, or other persons for whom at law the Owner is responsible; and the Owner's ownership, operation, management or financing of the Lands for the provision of housing for Rental Purposes. Terms of Instrument — Part 2, Housing Agreement - PID: 006-147-828 Lot 305 Section 20 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 46852 Page 3 of 7 7.2. Except to the extent such advice or direction is given negligently, the Owner hereby releases and forever discharges the City, its elected officials, board members, officers, directors, employees and agents, and its and their heirs, executors, administrators, personal representatives, successors and assigns from and against all claims, demands, damages, actions or causes of action by reason of or arising out of advice or direction respecting the ownership, operation or management of the Lands for the provision of housing for Rental Purposes which has been or hereafter may be given to the Owner by all or any of them. 7.3. The covenants of the Owner set out in sections 7.1 and 7.2 of this Agreement will survive the expiration or the earlier termination of this Agreement and will continue to apply to any breach of the Agreement and to any claims arising under this Agreement during the ownership by the Owner of the Lands. 8. GENERAL PROVISIONS 8.1 . The Owner agrees to reimburse the City for all legal costs reasonably incurred by the City for the preparation, execution and registration of this Agreement. The Owner will bear their own costs, legal or otherwise, connected with the preparation, execution or registration of this Agreement. 8.2. Nothing in this Agreement: a. affects or limits any discretion, rights, powers, duties or obligations of the City under any enactment or at common law, including in relation to the use or subdivision of land; affects or limits any enactment relating to the use of the Lands or any condition contained in any approval including any development permit concerning the development of the Lands; or c relieves the Owner from complying with any enactment, including the City's bylaws in relation to the use of the Lands. 8.3 The Owner and the City agree that a. this Agreement is entered into only for the benefit of the City; this Agreement is not intended to protect the interests of the Owner, occupier or user of the Lands or any portion of it including the Rental Units and the Limited Common Property; and C. without limiting part 2 of this Agreement, the City may at any time execute a release and discharge of this Agreement in respect of the Lands, without liability to anyone for doing so. 8.4 This Agreement burdens and runs with the Lands and any part into which any of them may be subdivided or consolidated, by strata plan or otherwise. All of the covenants and agreements contained in this Agreement are made by the Owner for itself, its successors and assigns, and all persons who acquire an interest in the Lands after the date of this Agreement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the Owner will not be liable for any breach of any covenant, promise or agreement herein in respect of any portion of the Lands sold, assigned, considered or otherwise disposed of, occurring after the Owner has ceased to be the owner of the Lands. 8.5 The covenants and agreements on the part of the Owner in this Agreement have been made by the Owner as contractual obligations as well as being made pursuant to section 483 of the Act and as such will be binding on the Owner. 8.6 The Owner will, at its expense, do or cause to be done all acts reasonably necessary to ensure this Agreement is registered against the title to the Lands, including any amendments to this Agreement as may be required by the Land Title Office or the City to effect such registration. 8.7 The City and the Owner each intend by execution and delivery of this Agreement to create both a contract and a deed under seal. Terms of Instrument — Part 2, Housing Agreement - PID: 006-147-828 Lot 305 Section 20 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 46852 Page 4 of 7 8.8 An alleged waiver by a party of any breach by another party of its obligations under this Agreement will be effective only if it is an express waiver of the breach in writing. No waiver of a breach of this Agreement is deemed or construed to be a consent or waiver of any other breach of this Agreement. 8.9. If a Court of competent jurisdiction finds that any part of this Agreement is invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, that part is to be considered to have been severed from the rest of this Agreement and the rest of this Agreement remains in force unaffected by that holding or by the severance of that part. 8.10 Every obligation of a party which is set out in this Agreement will extend throughout the term of this Agreement and, to the extent that any obligation ought to have been observed or performed prior to or upon the expiry or earlier termination of the term of this Agreement, such obligation will survive the expiry or earlier termination of the term of this Agreement until it has been observed or performed. 8.11 All notices, demands, or requests of any kind, which a party may be required or permitted to serve on another in connection with this Agreement, must be in writing and may be served on the other parties by registered mail, by facsimile or e-mail transmission, or by personal service, to the addresses set out above or such other address or email address provided by either party from time to time. Service of any such notice, demand, or request will be deemed complete, if made by registered mail, 72 hours after the date and hour of mailing, except where there is a postal service disruption during such period, in which case service will be deemed to be complete only upon actual delivery of the notice, demand or request; if made by facsimile or e-mail transmission, on the first business day after the date when the facsimile or e-mail transmission was transmitted; and if made by personal service, upon personal service being effected. Any party, from time to time, by notice in writing served upon the other parties, may designate a different address or different or additional persons to which all notices, demands, or requests are to be addressed. 8.12 Upon request by the City, the Owner will promptly do such acts and execute such documents as may be reasonably necessary, in the opinion of the City, to give effect to this Agreement. 8.13 This Agreement will enure to the benefit of and be binding upon each of the parties and their successors and permitted assigns. 9. INTERPRETATION 9.1. Gender specific terms include both genders and include corporations. Words in the singular include the plural, and words in the plural include the singular. 9.2 The division of this Agreement into sections and the use of headings are for convenience of reference only and are not intended to govern, limit or aid in the construction of any provision. In all cases, the language in this Agreement is to be construed simply according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against either party. 9.3. The word "including" when following any general statement or term is not to be construed to limit the general statement or term to the specific items which immediately follow the general statement or term to similar items whether or not words such as "without limitation" or "but not limited to" are used, but rather the general statement or term is to be construed to refer to all other items that could reasonably fall within the broadest possible scope of the general statement or term. 9.4. The words "must" and "will' are to be construed as imperative. 9.5. Any reference in this Agreement to any statute or bylaw includes any subsequent amendment, reenactment, or replacement of that statute or bylaw. 9.6. This is the entire agreement between the City and the, Owner concerning its subject, and there are no warranties, representations, conditions or collateral agreements relating to the subject matter of this Agreement, except as included in this Agreement. This Agreement may be amended only by a document executed by the parties to this Agreement and by bylaw, such amendment to be effective only upon adoption by City Council of an amending bylaw to "Housing Agreement Bylaw No. 7855-2022". Terms of Instrument — Part 2, Housing Agreement - PID: 006-147-828 Lot 305 Section 20 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 46852 Page 5 of 7 9.7 This Agreement is to be governed by and construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of British Columbia. 9.8 This Agreement can be signed in counterpart. IN WITNESS WHEREOF each of the City and the Owner have executed this Agreement under seal by their duly authorized officers as of the reference date of this Agreement. 10. DEED AND CONTRACT By executing and delivering this Agreement each of the parties intends to create both a contract and a deed executed and delivered under seal. As evidence of their agreement to be bound by this Agreement, the Covenantor and the City have executed the Land Title Act Form C or D, as the case may be, attached to and forming part of this Agreement. EDGE STREET HOLDINGS LTD., By its authorized signatory(s): CITY OF MAPLE RIDGE By its authorized signatory(s): Terms of Instrument — Part 2, Housing Agreement - PID: 006-147-828 Lot 305 Section 20 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 46852 Page 6 of 7 CONSENT & PRIORITY The Lender in consideration of the payment of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00) and other good and valuable consideration (the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged) hereby consents to the registration of the Covenant herein granted under Section 219 of the Land Title Act, running with the said lands and against the said lands and the Lender hereby postpones all of its rights under the Mortgage and Assignment of Rents registered respectively under No. and (the "Lender Documents") to those rights of the District under the Covenant herein in the same manner and to the same extent and effect as if the Covenant herein had been dated, granted and registered prior to the Lender Documents. Terms of Instrument — Part 2, Housing Agreement - PID: 006-147-828 Lot 305 Section 20 Township 12 New Westminster District Plan 46852 Page 7 of 7 mapleridge.ca City of Maple Ridge TO: His Worship Mayor Michael Morden and Members of Council FROM: Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: Development Variance Permit 20425 Hampton Street EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: MEETING DATE: May 17, 2022 FILE NO: 2022-014-DVP MEETING: C o W Development Variance Permit application 2022-014-DVP has been received to permit the construction of a new single-family dwelling. The requested variance is to: 1. Increase the maximum principal building height in the RS-1 (Single Detached Residential) Zone from 8.0 metres to 9.6 metres. It is recommended that Development Variance Permit 2022-014-DVP be approved. RECOMMENDATION: 1. That the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal 2022-014-DVP respecting property located at 20425 Hampton Street; and 2. That a restrictive covenant be authorized to be registered on title to prohibit the construction of a Secondary Suite on the property. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context Applicant: Amrik Singh Kaurah Legal Description: Lot 320 District Lot 279 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan 114 OCP: Existing: Low Density Multi -Family Proposed: Low Density Multi -Family Zoning: Existing: RS-1(Single Detached Residential) Proposed: RS-1 (Single Detached Residential) Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Single -Family 2022-014-VP Page 1 of 3 1107 Zone: RS-1(Single Detached Residential) Designation Low Density Multi -Family South: Use: Single -Family, Vacant Lots Zone: RS-1(Single Detached Residential) Designation: Low Density Multi -Family East: Use: Single -Family Zone: RS-1(Single Detached Residential) Designation: Low Density Multi -Family West: Use: Single -Family Zone: RS-1(Single Detached Residential) Designation: Low Density Multi -Family Existing Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Site Area: Access: Servicing: Lot Size: Previous Applications: b) Project Description: Vacant Lot Single -Family Residential 668.5 m2 Hampton Street Urban Standard 668.5 m2 Board of Variance (October 5, 2021) The proposed building height variance is for the construction of a new single-family dwelling in the Hammond Area, located on Hampton Street (Appendices A and B). The applicant previously attended the Board of Variance meeting on October 5, 2021 (see Appendix D). At the Board of Variance meeting, the applicant noted that when they purchased the property, the previous Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985 allowed an 11.0 metres building height (to the top of the roof) and they had based their house drawings on this requirement. Under the new Zoning Bylaw No. 7600- 2019, adopted in December 2020, the maximum permitted height is now 8.0 metres (to the mid- point of the roof). During the Board of Variance meeting, the applicant also indicated that they were requesting a variance to the building height in order to accommodate a Secondary Suite on the ground floor. It was noted by the Building Department that a Secondary Suite would need to be constructed above the Flood Construction Level for this part of the Hammond Area. Because of the high Flood Construction Level, it would not be possible to construct a Secondary Suite on the ground floor of a new single-family house. Neighbours also indicated their opposition to a Secondary Suite at this location, as they have also not been able to construct a Secondary Suite due to the same issue on their properties. The Planning Department has therefore required the applicant to register a covenant on title that prohibits their ability to construct a Secondary Suite on the property. c) Variance Analysis: The Zoning Bylaw establishes general minimum and maximum regulations for single family development. A Development Variance Permit allows Council some flexibility in the approval process. The requested variance and rationale for support is described below (see Appendices B and C): 1. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw No 7600-2019, Part 6, Section 605, 605.8. 1): To increase the maximum height for a principal building from 8.0 metres to 9.6 metres. 2022-014-VP Page 2 of 3 The proposed variance is supportable as it is consistent with the 11.0 metres (to the top of the roof) that was permitted under the previous Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985. The applicant has submitted house plans that show the height to the top of the roof at 10.67 metres, which would have met the maximum height under the previous Zoning Bylaw No. 3510-1985. In addition, the applicant has agreed to register a covenant on title that will prevent the development of a Secondary Suite in the new single-family dwelling. d) Citizen/Customer Implications: In accordance with the Development Procedures Bylaw No. 5879-1999, notice of Council consideration of a resolution to issue a Development Variance Permit was mailed to all owners or tenants in occupation of all parcels, any parts of which are adjacent to the property that is subject to the permit. CONCLUSION: The proposed variance is supported because it will allow for the construction of a suitable two -storey house with no Secondary Suite. It is therefore recommended that this application be favourably considered and the Corporate Officer be authorized to sign and seal Development Variance Permit 2022-014-DVP. "Original signed by Rene Tardif" Prepared by: Rene Tardif, BA, M.PL Planner "Original signed by Mark McMullen" for 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 Scott Hartman" Concurrence: Scott Hartman Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A - Subject Map Appendix B - Ortho Map Appendix C - Elevation Drawing Showing Proposed Variance Appendix D - Board of Variance Meeting Minutes 2022-014-VP Page 3 of 3 F N\911 1111 L\ /\ �1 0 IL Fkp ��3�1 LO � o N N `ORNE pVE LORNE AVE �0 v N \ M si s 1 N O N N O N N SUBJECT PROPERTY \� �p TO \% \ 0 �23� 0N4Asa \ oas s F moo ��y9 ���p0 > '7 / 112 s ®----- Ditch Centreline 0425 HAMPTON STREET P I D 011-510-994 PLANNING DEPARTMENT British Columbia mapleridge.ca Scale: 1:2,000 FILE: 2022-014-VP DATE: Apr 29, 2022 BY: AH APpEND) 0 20425 HAMPTON STREET P I D 011-510-994 j PLANNING DEPARTMENT British Cotumbia mapleridge.ca Scale: 1:2,000 FILE:2022-014-VP DATE: Apr 29, 2022 BY: AH �Y C u ¢w [w�rq zr£ [W£rq arf [�9rz] ,906 [W6£'£] dru [LOZ'Z] ICL E� U)+'.0 E m 0 c:)E c Q. ap D Co U � *() >'���cEm 0 0 L Q O O bo mill IN r Q v+i a' Wa t t n [wti:rl] aL'£ [We'I] arE 'Iha f6 [WL9'0I] iZO'S£ - \2 ,6 a ^ � \50 Qo o Q v+i a' Wa t t n [wti:rl] aL'£ [We'I] arE 'Iha f6 [WL9'0I] iZO'S£ - \2 ,6 a ^ � \50 Qo o END) DD *MAPLE City Of Maple Ridge BOARD OF VARIANCE MEETING MINUTES The Minutes of the Virtual Online Regular Meeting of the Board of Variance held via video conference in the Blaney Room at Maple Ridge City Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, on Tuesday, October 5, 2021 at 9:00 a.m. BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT Robert Whitlock Ryan Carpenter Lillian Kan Tamara Leginus STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT Mark McMullen - Manager of Development & Environmental Services Bill Ozeroff - Manager of Permit Services Rene Tardiff - Planner 1 Catherine Schmidt - Recording Secretary 1. CALL TO ORDER Robert Whitlock, Chair, called the meeting to order at 9:08 a.m. and read out the protocol for virtual meetings. 2. ADOPTION OF IVII NUTES It was moved and seconded that the minutes of the Board of Variance meeting of September 14, 2021, be approved as circulated. CARRIED 3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS Board of Variance Minutes Page 1 of 5 Board of Variance Tuesday, October 5, 2021 APPEALS CARRIED Board of Variance Minutes Page 2 of 5 Board of Variance Tuesday, October 5, 2021 4.2 Amrik Kaurah, Agent For: Ajmer Singh Josan 20451 Westfield Avenue Maple Ridge, B.C. V2X 1K8 Property Location: 20425 Hampton Street Lot 320 District Lot 279 New Westminster District Plan 114 The property is currently zoned RS-1 (Single Detached Residential). The applicant is requesting a variance in order to construct a new house with a legal suite. Due to the Flood Construction Level (FCL) requirement they are unable to build a two level house with a crawl space within the 8.0 metre height requirement. Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw Section 605.8 (1) states Building Height for Principal Buildings and Principal Structures shall not exceed 8.0 metres. The variance requested is to increase the maximum height permitted from 8.0 metres to 9.6 metres - a variance of 1.6 metres. Discussion: Agent, Amrik Kaurah attended the meeting and stated when they purchased the property, the Maple Ridge Zoning Bylaw (3510-1985) allowed an 11.0 metre building height and they had drawings drawn up to support this. As of December 2020, a new Zoning Bylaw (7600-2019) was adopted with a maximum height requirement of 8.0 metres. The Agent states this does not allow them enough height to build a two level house in the Hammond Area flood plain. The Recordina Secretary advised there were 3 pieces of correspondence received , all against the appeal. The Planner 1 had no concerns but commented that the way the City measure's the height has changed between the old and new Zoning Bylaw, with a functional change of about a 1.5 metres in total. The Manager of Permit Services had no concerns. A board member asked if it was possible to build a 2 level house with a maximum height of 8.0 metres, without a suite? The Manager of Permit Services responded that this site was subdivided prior to the FCL coming into effect and would be exempt from FCL requirements for main floor living, however, a secondary suite is not permitted to be built below the FCL. spoke at the meeting and stated her main opposition is the suite in general as the zoning is sited as an RS-1 and Eltham is a very small and congested road with no options for parking. W further advised that they have struggled with the City to build a secondary suite themselves, and have not been allowed. The Applicant responded that there is the development of 8 new lots coming to Eltham Street. The Board discussed hardship and impact on neighbourhood. It was moved and seconded That the appeal to increase the maximum building height to accommodate a proposed new house, from 8.0 to 9.6 metres - a variance of 1.6 metres, for the property at 20425 Hampton Street, be allowed. DEFEATED Ryan Carpenter, Tamara Leginus and Lillian Kan - OPPOSED Board of Variance Minutes Page 3 of 5 Board of Variance Tuesday, October 5, 2021 Board of Variance Minutes Page 4 of 5 Board of Variance Tuesday, October 5, 2021 5. NEW BUSINESS - The Board voted unanimously to appoint Ryan Carpenter as Acting Chair. 6. ADJOURNMENT - 9:50 a.m. Certified Correct: Robert Whitlock, Chair Board of Variance Minutes Page 5 of 5 MAPLE RIDGE "British Cotumbia City of Maple Ridge mapleridge.ca TO: His Worship Mayor Michael Morden MEETING DATE: May 17, 2022 and Members of Council FILE NO: 06-2240-20 FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: Cow SUBJECT: Regional Public Works Mutual Aid Agreement EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Regional Public Works Mutual Aid Agreement is intended to guide the sharing of resources amongst local authorities and regional authorities when assistance has been requested during major emergent situations. In these circumstances, when an event is beyond the capability of a single local authority or regional authority, the agreement provides as a mechanism and guide for resource support. The City of Maple Ridge is currently signed onto the existing Regional Mutual Aid Agreement dated February 8, 2000; however, not all jurisdictions were party to the 2000 agreement, including Anmore, Belcarra, Bowen Island, Tswwassen First Nations, Lions Bay and UBC Endowment Lands. Given the recent atmospheric river events, the Regional Public Works Mutual Aid Agreement has been updated to include these local governments and provide some minor language improvements. The improvements include an opportunity for responding authorities to include a 10% mark-up on costs; a broader definition of emergent situations outside of Public Works to include incidents such as cyber attacks, and further indemnification for responding authorities through inclusion of a "Good Samaritan" clause. The purpose of this report is to obtain Council approval to enter into the modified Regional Public Works Mutual Aid Agreement. RECOMMENDATION: That the City enter into the modified Metro Vancouver Regional Public Works Mutual Aid Agreement. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: The Regional Public Works Mutual Aid Agreement is intended to guide the sharing of resources amongst local authorities and regional authorities when assistance has been requested during major emergent situations. In these circumstances, when an event is beyond the capability of a single local authority or regional authority, the agreement provides as a mechanism and guide for resource support. Doc#3018387 Page 1 of 3 1131 The City of Maple Ridge is currently signed onto the existing Regional Mutual Aid Agreement dated February 8, 2000; however, not all jurisdictions were party to the 2000 agreement, including Anmore, Belcarra, Bowen Island, Tswwassen First Nations, Lions Bay and UBC Endowment Lands. Given the recent atmospheric river events, the Regional Public Works Mutual Aid Agreement has been updated to include these local governments and provide some minor language improvements. The improvements include an opportunity for responding authorities to include a 10% mark- up on costs; a broader definition of emergent situations outside of Public Works to include incidents such as cyber attacks, and further indemnification through inclusion of a "good Samaritan" clause. The following principles guide the agreement: 1. Voluntary support base on each jurisdiction's situation 2. Approach neighbouring jurisdictions first 3. Responders take direction from requestors 4. Costs will be based on responders "rates of the day" plus a 10% mark up 5. All parties are expected to maintain sufficient insurance 6. Low maintenance agreement - no rates, no contact lists 7. Provision for Joinder Agreements Staff have reviewed the agreement and support endorsement. It is worth noting that the Fire Department is party to mutual aid agreements with neighbouring municipalities outside of this agreement. b) Strategic Alignment: The ability to request and respond to Public Works mutual aid requests across the Region aligns with the City's community safety and inter -government relations strategic priorities. c) Citizen/Customer Implications: Citizens/customers may benefit from the availability of additional resources during an event beyond the City's capabilities to respond to. d) Interdepartmental Implications: This agreement pertains to any work or property under the management or control of the Local Authority or Regional Authority, including but not limited to drinking water, wastewater, waste management services, transportation systems and networks and computer systems. Doc#3018387 Page 2 of 3 CONCLUSION: The existing Regional Mutual Aid Agreement dated February 8, 2000 has been revised to include local authorities not party to the original agreement and make a few minor improvements. Council approval to enter into the modified Regional Public Works Mutual Aid Agreement is recommended. Prepared by: Forrest Smith, P.Eng. �Dirto f E�ineering Approved by: David Pollock, P.Eng. General Manager Engineering Services Concurrence: Attachments: Scott Hartman 1) Regional Doc#3018387 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1 Execution Version REGIONAL PUBLIC WORKS MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT This Agreement is made as of the day of AMONG: WHEREAS: 2022, 1) Village of Anmore 2) Village of Belcarra 3) Bowen Island Municipality 4) City of Burnaby 5) City of Coquitlam 6) City of Delta 7) City of Langley 8) Township of Langley 9) Village of Lions Bay 10) City of Maple Ridge 11) City of New Westminster 12) City of North Vancouver 13) District of North Vancouver 14) City of Pitt Meadows 15) City of Port Coquitlam 16) City of Port Moody 17) City of Richmond 18) City of Surrey 19) Tsawwassen First Nation 20) City of Vancouver 21) District of West Vancouver 22) City of White Rock 23) Metro Vancouver Regional District (as to, Electoral Area A) 24) Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District 25) Greater Vancouver Water District 26) Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia, as represented by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (as to the University Endowment Land) 27) University of British Columbia A. Capitalized terms used in these recitals and this Agreement have the meanings ascribed to them in Section 1.0; B. The local government councils and board of the Metro Vancouver Regional District (with respect to Electoral Area A) are "local authorities" within the meaning of the Emergency Program Act, [RSBC 19961 Chapter 111; C. Local Authorities are required under the Local Authority Emergency Management Regulation [B.C. Reg. 380/951 to identify the procedures by which emergency resources, including personnel, equipment and facilities may be obtained from sources within or outside of the jurisdictional area Regional Public Works Mutual Aid Agreement 50672995 Page 1 of 21 Execution Version for which the Local Authority has responsibility; D. A Major Emergency affecting one or more Local Authorities or Regional Authorities is likely to affect the Metro Vancouver region as a whole and as such, the Parties agree that it is in the best interests for the Parties to implement a coordinated and supportive response; E. Pursuant to the Local Authority Emergency Management Regulation [BC Reg. 380/95], a Local Authority may enter into mutual aid agreements for Resources and subsequent cost recovery outside of the jurisdictional area for which the Local Authority has responsibility; F. Pursuant to the Local Government Act [RSBC 2015, Chapter 1], a board of a regional district has the statutory authority to enter into mutual aid agreements with a Local Authority; G. Pursuant to the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District Act [SBC 1956, Chapter 591 and the Greater Vancouver Water District Act [SBC 1924, Chapter 22], the GVS&DD and the GVWD, respectively, have the statutory authority to enter into mutual aid agreements with Local Authorities; H. Pursuant to the University Endowment Land Act [RSBC 1996 Ch. 469], the Minister of Municipal Affairs has the authority to enter into agreements respecting the administration of the University Endowment Land; Pursuant to the University Act [RSBC 1996 Ch. 4681, the Board of Governors of the University of British Columbia has the authority to enter into agreements on behalf of the university; and J. The Parties desire to enter into this Agreement for the purposes of providing for mutual support, aid and assistance to, among other things, ensure that Public Works are maintained in the event of a Major Emergency. NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the premises and of the sum of $10.00 and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, each of the above signing Parties hereto covenant and agree with each other as follows: 1.0 Definitions In this Agreement, unless something in the subject matter or context is inconsistent therewith, the capitalized terms herein will have the meanings set out below: (a) "Agreement" means this agreement and includes all recitals and schedules to this agreement; (b) "Authorized Representative" means the representative of the Local Authority or Regional Authority authorized by the municipal council, regional board, Minister of Municipal Affairs or Board of Governors of the University of British Columbia, as applicable, to coordinate, allocate, and prioritize assistance under the terms of this Agreement. (c) "Computer System" means any computer, hardware, software, communications system, electronic device, server, cloud, or microcontroller, including similar system or any configuration of the aforementioned and including any associated input, output, data Regional Public Works Mutual Aid Agreement 50672995 Page 2 of 21 Execution Version storage device, networking equipment or back up facility. (d) "Cyber Attack" means an attempt to disrupt, disable, destroy or maliciously control a Computer System and includes, without limitation, an attempt to destroy the integrity of data or to steal controlled information. (e) "Disaster" means a calamity that: (i) is caused by accident, fire, explosion ortechnical failure or bythe forces of nature; and (ii) has resulted in serious harm to the health, safety or welfare of people, or in widespread damage to property. (f) "Effective Date" has the meaning given in Section 9.1; (g) "Emergency" means a present or imminent event or circumstance that: (i) is caused by accident, fire, explosion, pandemic, technical failure or the forces of nature; and (ii) requires prompt coordination of action or special regulation of persons or property to protect the health, safety or welfare of a person or to limit damage to property. (h) "GVS&DD" means the Greater Vancouver Sewerage and Drainage District; (i) "GVWD" means the Greater Vancouver Water District; (j) "Joinder Agreement" means an agreement substantially in the form attached hereto as Schedule "A", pursuant to which a New Party agrees to join and be bound by the terms of this Agreement; (k) "Local Authority" means: (i) for a municipality, the municipal council; and (II) for an electoral area in a regional district, the board of the regional district; and for the purposes of this Agreement includes the following parties who are not are "local authorities" within the meaning of the Emergency Program Act, [RSBC 1996) Chapter 111: (III) for the University Endowment Lands, the Minister of Municipal Affairs; and (iv) for the University of British Columbia, its Board of Governors. (I) "Major Emergency" means an Emergency, Disaster or Other Serious Incident that involves one or more Local Authorities or Regional Authorities and requires resources beyond the capability of one or more of the Local Authorities or Regional Authorities Regional Public Works Mutual Aid Agreement 50672995 Page 3 of 21 Execution Version involved. (m) "New Party" has the meaning given in Section 9.3 below. (n) "Other Serious Incident" means any sudden, unexpected, or unintended incident, other than a Disaster or Emergency, and including a Cyber Attack, for which a Local Authority or Regional Authority may require assistance to protect the health, safety or welfare of a person or to limit damage to Public Works or other property. (o) "Parties" means those parties who have signed this Agreement or a Joinder Agreement, and "Party" means any one of them. (p) "Public Works" means any work or property under the management or control of the Local Authority or Regional Authority, including but not limited drinking water, wastewater waste management services, transportation systems and networks and Computer Systems. (q) "Regional Authority" means the Board of the GVS&DD or the Board of the GVWD. (r) "Requesting Authority" means a Requesting Local Authority or Requesting Regional Authority, as the case may be. (s) "Requesting Authority's Personnel" includes any elected officials, officers, employees or affiliated volunteers of a Requesting Authority. (t) "Requesting Local Authority" means a Local Authority under a Major Emergency situation that has, pursuant to this Agreement, requested assistance from another Local Authority or Regional Authority. (u) "Requesting Regional Authority" means a Regional Authority under a Major Emergency situation that has, pursuant to this Agreement, requested assistance from another Local Authority or Regional Authority. (v) "Resources" means a Local Authority's personnel, equipment, facilities, services and materials that are available or potentially available for utilization to ensure that Public Works are maintained. (w) "Responding Authority" means a Responding Local Authority or Responding Regional Authority, as the case may be. (x) "Responding Authority's Personnel" includes any elected officials, officers, employees or affiliated volunteers of a Responding Authority. (y) "Responding Local Authority" means a Local Authority that provides Resources to a Requesting Authority that has, pursuant to this Agreement, requested assistance to confront a Major Emergency. (z) "Responding Regional Authority" means a Regional Authority that provides Resources to a Requesting Authority that has, pursuant to this Agreement, requested assistance to Regional Public Works Mutual Aid Agreement 50672995 Page 4 of 21 Execution Version confront a Major Emergency. (a a) "Standby Expenses" means compensation paid or owing to an employee not scheduled for normal work but who is required to be immediately available for call -in work. 2.0 Intent of the Agreement 2.1 This Agreement is intended to guide the sharing of Resources amongst Local Authorities and Regional Authorities when assistance has been requested during Major Emergency situations for which the sharing of Resources is required. 2.2 Resources are intended to be available in the event of a Major Emergency of such magnitude that it is, or is likely to be, beyond the capability of a single Local Authority or Regional Authority and requires the combined Resources of several or all of the Local Authorities and Regional Authorities to this Agreement. 3.0 Scope of the Agreement 3.1 Except as set out in Section 12.1 below, this Agreement shall not supplant, without mutual consent, existing agreements between the Parties for the exchange or provision of Resources on a reimbursable, exchange, or other basis. 3.2 Any activation of this Agreement under Section 4.0 will clearly state that the request for Resources is being made under this Agreement. 4.0 Activation 4.1 In the event of a Major Emergency, the Authorized Representative designated by the Requesting Authority may activate this Agreement by making a request for Resources to the Authorized Representative of one or more Parties to this Agreement. 4.2 If the Requesting Authority is a Local Authority, such Requesting Local Authority shall first request Resources from their bordering Local Authorities, before requesting Resources from more distant Local Authorities or from Regional Authorities. 4.3 If the Requesting Authority is a Regional Authority, the Requesting Regional Authority shall first request Resources from those Local Authorities adjacent to the location of the Major Emergency before requesting Resources from more distant Local Authorities. 4.4 Sections 4.2 and 4.3 shall not restrict a Requesting Authority from accepting the first available Resources from any Local Authority. 5.0 Resource Requests and Inventory 5.1 Each Party agrees that, in the event of a Major Emergency, it will, upon receipt of a written request from a Requesting Party, furnish such Resources as are available, provided that doing so would not unreasonably diminish the capacity of the Responding Authority to provide any required Resources to its own jurisdictional area. For certainty, the extent of the assistance given will be at the discretion of the Authorized Representative of the Responding Authority, having regard to Regional Public Works Mutual Aid Agreement 50672995 Page 5 of 21 Execution Version its own local needs and situation at the time. 5.2 The start date of the provision of Resources will be the date agreed to in writing by both the Requesting Authority and Responding Authority, The termination date for the provision of Resources will be determined by the Responding Authority and shall not exceed the end time of the Major Emergency, as agreed by the Responding Authority and Requesting Authority. 5.3 During a Major Emergency, all personnel from a Responding Authority shall report to and work under the direction of the Party within whose jurisdiction the Major Emergency is occurring, in cooperation with the Requesting Authority and any other Responding Authorities. 5.4 Each Party should maintain an inventory of Resources that may be made available in the event of a Major Emergency and share that inventory with its neighbouring Local Authorities and Regional Authorities. 5.5 If a request for Resources is made pursuant to this Agreement, the Requesting Party will, as necessary, make available to the Responding Authority: (a) maps of its jurisdiction indicating the nearest and most suitable roads to enable responders to get to an emergency as quickly as possible, together with locations of water supplies and access thereto; (b) applicable operating guidelines and communications protocols; (c) a copy of the Requesting Authority's emergency plan; and (d) names and contact information for the Requesting Authority's key personnel. 6.0 Reimbursement 6.1 The Requesting Authority will reimburse the Responding Authority for any actual costs incurred providing any Resources requested under this Agreement, plus a sum equal to 10% of those costs and expenses on account of the Responding Authority's overhead. 6.2 Without limiting the generality of Section 6.1, a Requesting Authority shall pay to the Responding Authority: (a) Regular Time — Salaries, wages and other regular time employment expenses (including benefits and statutory deductions) of employees or affiliated volunteers, at the current prevailing rates of the Responding Authority. (b) Overtime and Standby Expenses — Overtime employment expenses and Standby Expenses of employees or affiliated volunteers, at the current prevailing rates of the Responding Authority. There is no compensation for banked time of employees. (c) Supplies and Materials —Value of supplies or other materials which are not returnable to the Responding Authority. All charges will be at current market rates or at rates otherwise agreed to. Supplies or materials may be replaced with like supplies or materials, if agreed to by the Responding Authority. Regional Public Works Mutual Aid Agreement 50672995 Page 6 of 21 Execution Version (d) Equipment — Compensation for the use of equipment, vehicles, computers, or other hardware owned outright by the Responding Authority. Equipment reimbursement rates shall be at a rate agreed to by the Requesting Authority and Responding Authority for vehicles or other equipment. if a rate cannot be agreed, the rate will at the British Columbia standard for equipment reimbursement, as represented by the Blue Book— BC Equipment Rental Rate Guide. The Requesting Authority shall be responsible for the operating costs of equipment provided, including costs of repairs required as a result of the Requesting Authority's use, while in its possession. For certainty, a Requesting Authority is not responsible for the costs of equipment repairs that would have been undertaken by the Responding Authority as a matter of routine repair or maintenance. (e) Facilities — Compensation for the use of Responding Authority facilities. Reimbursement rates will be at the prevailing rate on the day the facility is rented, leased or otherwise made available to the Requesting Authority. 6.3 The Requesting Authority's obligation to reimburse the Responding Authority pursuant to this Agreement is irrespective of the Requesting Authority's entitlement to compensation or funding received from Emergency Management BC or any other funding agencies. Accordingly, the Requesting Authority will be responsible for any shortfall in any amounts payable by the Requesting Authority pursuant to this Agreement and any cost recovery by the Requesting Authority from Emergency Management BC or other funding agency. 6.4 The Requesting Authority shall be responsible for any loss or damage to Resources used in the response and shall pay any expense incurred in the operation and maintenance thereof, as well as any expense incurred in the provision of a service or other expense in answering the request for assistance from the Requesting Authority; An itemized claim for loss and damage to the Responding Authority's equipment at the response scene shall be filed within thirty (30) days of such loss or damage occurring. 6.5 All Resources noted in Subsections 6.2(d) and (e) provided to a Requesting Authority shall be returned in the same condition as when such Resources were delivered to the Requesting Authority. These Resources shall be deemed to be provided in good working order, unless otherwise noted by the Responding Authority at the time of delivery. 6.6 The Requesting Authority will arrange for and pay for all costs associated with any necessary repairs or restoration of Resources priorto returning such Resources to the Responding Authority. For certainty, a Requesting Authority is not responsible for the costs of repairs or restoration that would have been undertaken by the Responding Authority as a matter of routine repair or maintenance. 6.7 The Responding Authority will invoice the Requesting Authority detailing all costs incurred in providing Resources under this Agreement, including all overhead amounts referred to in Section 6.1. Payment of such invoices by the Requesting Authority is due in full sixty (60) days from the date of invoice, unless alternate arrangements have been made between the Requesting Authority and Responding Authority or the invoice is in dispute, as contemplated in Section 6.9. 6.8 Payment by the Requesting Authority will be by cheque mailed to the Responding Authority's address, as detailed in the invoice, or if the Responding Authority and Requesting Authority mutually agree, payment may be transferred electronically to the Responding Authorities' bank Regional Public Works Mutual Aid Agreement 50672995 Page 7 of 21 Execution Version account, as stipulated by the Responding Authority, 6.9 If a dispute ensues with respect to an invoice issued by a Responding Authority pursuant to Section 6.7, the Parties to the dispute will use best efforts to resolve the dispute as soon as possible in accordance with the dispute resolution process provided in Section 10.0, 6.10 The Parties acknowledge and agree that they are each individually responsible for staying apprised of the financial guidelines and eligibility requirements of Emergency Management BC and any other funding agencies related to potential cost recovery that may be available from such agencies in respect of any Resources provided under this Agreement. 7.0 Insurance. Liability and Indemnity 7.1 The Parties agree to obtain and maintain sufficient insurance to meet any obligations or liabilities that may arise in connection with this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Parties acknowledge and agrees that they each may self -insure part or all of the risks, subject always to equivalent terms and conditions as though such policies were obtained from licensed commercial insurers. 7.2 Any required insurance coverage pursuant to this Agreement will be arranged prior to the acceptance of the request for Resources under this Agreement. 7.3 When rendering aid outside their jurisdictional area, all personnel and affiliated volunteers will retain the same powers, duties, rights, privileges and immunities, including any coverage under the Worker's Compensation Act that they receive when they are on duty in their home jurisdiction. 7.4 A Requesting Authority shall pay to the Responding Authority: (a) the Workers' Compensation, death or disability benefits or any other form of compensation (including judgements, damages, costs, penalties and expenses) which the Responding Authority is legally obligated to pay to one of its employees or affiliated volunteers or the family or beneficiaries of such employees or volunteers by reason of the death or injury to an employee or volunteer while working on a Major Emergency on behalf of the Requesting Authority; and (b) all legal fees and disbursements incurred by the Responding Authority to defend any demands, claims, suits or actions arising from, related to or caused by any death or injury to an employee or volunteer while working on a Major Emergency on behalf of the Requesting Authority. 7.5 The Requesting Authority shall in no way be deemed liable or responsible for the personal property of Responding Authority Personnel which may be lost, stolen, or damaged while performing their duties in responding under the terms of this Agreement. 7.6 No Party to this Agreement shall be liable in damages to another Party, nor to the owner of property within the geographic jurisdiction of the Requesting Authority or another Party for failing to respond to a request for assistance under this Agreement or for failing to render adequate assistance. Regional Public Works Mutual Aid Agreement 50672995 Page 8 of 21 Execution version 7,7 When Resources are provided by a Responding Authority to a Requesting Authority pursuant to this Agreement, the Requesting Authority shall release, indemnify and save harmless the Responding Authority and the Responding Authority's Personnel from and against all liabilities, claims, losses, suits, actions, judgments, demands, debts, accounts, damages, costs, penalties and expenses (including all legal fees and disbursements) which may be made against the Responding Authority, or which the Responding Authority may suffer or incur, arising from, related to or caused by: (a) the provision of Resources by the Responding Authority to the Requesting Authority under this Agreement; (b) the breach, violation, contravention or non-performance by the Requesting Authority of any of its obligations, agreements, covenants, conditions, representations, warranties or any other term of this Agreement, or (c) the negligence or misconduct of the Requesting Authority's Personnel acting in the course of their duties pursuant to this Agreement, except where such liabilities, claims, losses, suits, actions, judgments, demands, debts, accounts, damages, costs, penalties and expenses (including all legal fees and disbursements) result from the negligence or misconduct of the Responding Authority's Personnel under this Agreement. The indemnities contemplated in this Section 7.7 will survive the termination or expiration of this Agreement or a Party's withdrawal from the Agreement pursuant to Section 9.2, 7.8 Subject to Section 7.7 above, the Responding Authority will not be liable or responsible in any way for all liabilities, claims, losses, suits, actions, judgments, demands, debts, accounts, damages, costs, penalties and expenses (including all legal fees and disbursements) which may be made against the Requesting Authority, or which the Requesting Authority may suffer or incur, including any personal injury that may be sustained by the Requesting Authority's Personnel, or by any other person, or for any loss or damage or injury to, property belonging to or in the possession of the Requesting Authority or the Requesting Authority's Personnel or any other person, including any equipment, materials, supplies, motor or other vehicles, arising from, related to or caused by the provision of Resources by the Responding Authority to the Requesting Authority under this Agreement, unless such liabilities, claims, losses, suits, actions, judgments, demands, debts, accounts, damages, injuries, costs, penalties and expenses (including all legal fees and disbursements) result from the negligence or misconduct of the Responding Authority or the Responding Authority's Personnel while acting in the course of their duties pursuant to this Agreement, 8.0 Modification and Review 8.1 This Agreement may only be amended upon the written consent of all signing Parties. 8,2 This Agreement may be reviewed by the Parties: (a) every five years, starting from the Effective Date, to ensure that it remains up to date and relevant for all Parties; or (b) any time upon the written request of any Party. Regional Public Works Mutual Aid Agreement 50672995 Page 9 of 21 Execution Version 8.3 The master copy of this Agreement, together with any Joinder Agreements, will be held by the Metro Vancouver Regional District and will be made available electronically to all Parties upon request. 9.0 Effective Date, Term and Addition of Parties 9.1 This Agreement shall come into effect as soon as it has been executed by two Parties (the "Effective Date"), 9.2 Any one of the Parties hereto may withdraw from this Agreement by giving not less than thirty (30) days prior written notice to the other Parties, following which the Agreement shall continue in force between the remaining Parties. 93 A Governmental Authority may be added as a new party (a "New Party") to this Agreement if such New Party executes and delivers to the Metro Vancouver Regional District a Joinder Agreement substantially in the form of Schedule "A" attached hereto. "Governmental Authority" means any federal, provincial, regional, municipal, local or other government, governmental or public department, authority, commission, council, board, bureau or agency. 10.0 Dispute Resolution 10.1 In the event of any dispute or material disagreement among two or more Parties regarding the interpretation or application of any provision of this Agreement, the Parties agree that: (a) the Parties, through their Authorized Representatives, will, in good faith, make all reasonable efforts to resolve the dispute by negotiation, during which time each Party will disclose to the other Party all relevant information relating to the dispute; (b) if the dispute remains unresolved, the Parties will meet with a qualified mediator in a timely manner and attempt, in good faith, to further negotiate a resolution of such dispute; and (c) if the mediator cannot resolve the dispute within 48 hours, then the dispute will, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, either: (i) be resolved in accordance with Division 3 of Part 9 of the Community Charter, [SBC 2003] Chapter 26; or (ii) for any dispute involving a Party to which Division 3 of Part 9 of the Community Charter, [SBC 2003] Chapter 26 does not apply, be submitted to final and binding arbitration by a sole arbitrator appointed pursuant to the Arbitration Act (British Columbia). 11.0 Approvals 11.1 The Parties signify their approval of this Agreement by the signatures of their respective authorized representatives below. Regional Public Works Mutual Aid Agreement 50672995 Page 10 of 21 Execution Version 12.0 General Provisions 12.1 Schedules. Schedule "A" is attached to and forms part of this Agreement. 12.2 Interpretation. (a) The words "include", "includes" and "including" as used in this Agreement shall be deemed to be followed by the phrase ", without limitation,". (b) The captions and headings contained in this Agreement are for convenience only and do not define or in any way limit or enlarge the scope or intent of any provision of this Agreement. 12.3 Survival of Obligations. All of the obligations of the Parties which expressly or by their nature survive termination or expiration of this Agreement, will continue in full force and effect subsequent to and notwithstanding such termination or expiration and until they are satisfied or by their nature expire. 12.4 Amendment. No amendment of this Agreement will be binding unless made in writing and executed by each of the Parties hereto. 12.5 Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement amongst the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and for certainty this Agreement supersedes the "Mutual Aid Agreement for Public Works Assistance" that was prepared by the Metro Vancouver Regional Engineers Advisory Committee in 2000 and entered into by participating Local Authorities. 12.6 Governing Law. This Agreement and any dispute arising out of or in connection with this Agreement will be governed exclusively in accordance with the laws of British Columbia and the laws of Canada applicable in British Columbia which will be deemed to be the proper law of this Agreement. 12.7 Severability. Each provision of this Agreement is intended to be severable and if any provision is determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or invalid or unenforceable for any reason whatsoever, such provision shall be severed from this Agreement and will not affect the legality or enforceability of the remainder of any other provision of this Agreement. 12.8 Time of Essence. Time shall be of the essence of this Agreement. 12.9 No Derogation. The Parties acknowledge and agree that nothing contained or implied in this Agreement will be construed as limiting or prejudicing the rights and powers of any Party in the exercise of their respective functions pursuant to the Local Government Act, the Community Charter, the Vancouver Charter and the Emergency Program Act, as the case may be, or any other right or power under any public or private statutes, bylaws, orders or regulations, all of which may be fully exercised as if this Agreement had not been entered into. 12.10 Assignment. This Agreement shall not be assignable. Regional Public Works Mutual Aid Agreement 50672995 Page 11 of 21 Execution Version 12.11 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and returned by email with a PDF attachment, each of which when executed and delivered shall constitute an original and all of which together shall constitute one and the same Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Agreement has been executed and delivered by the Parties as of the day and year first above written. Village of Anmore Per: Per: Authorized Signatory Authorized Signatory Village of Belcarra Per: Per: Authorized Signatory Authorized Signatory Bowen Island Municipality Per: Per: Authorized Signatory Authorized Signatory Regional Public Works Mutual Aid Agreement 50672995 Page 12 of 21 Execution Version City of Burnaby Per: Authorized Signatory Per: Authorized Signatory City of Coquitlam Per: Authorized Signatory Per: Authorized Signatory City of Delta Per: Authorized Signatory Per: Authorized Signatory Regional Public Works Mutual Aid Agreement 50672995 Page 13 of 21 Execution Version City of Langley Per: Per: Authorized Signatory Authorized Signatory Township of Langley Per: Authorized Signatory Per: Authorized Signatory Village of Lions Bay Per: Authorized Signatory Per: Authorized Signatory Regional Public Works Mutual Aid Agreement 50672995 Page 14 of 21 City of Maple Ridge Per: Authorized Signatory Per: Authorized Signatory City of New Westminster Per: Per: Authorized Signatory Authorized Signatory City of North Vancouver Per: Per: Authorized Signatory Authorized Signatory Execution Version Regional Public Works Mutual Aid Agreement 50672995 Page 15 of 21 District of North Vancouver Per: Per: Authorized Signatory Authorized Signatory City of Pitt Meadows Per: Per: Authorized Signatory Authorized Signatory City of Port Coquitiam Per: Per: Authorized Signatory Authorized Signatory Execution Version Regional Public Works Mutual Aid Agreement 50672995 Page 16 of 21 City of Port Moody Per: Per: Authorized Signatory Authorized Signatory City of Richmond Per: Per: Authorized Signatory Authorized Signatory City of Surrey Per: Per: Authorized Signatory Authorized Signatory Execution Version Regional Public Works Mutual Aid Agreement 50672995 Page 17 of 21 Tsawwassen First Nation Per: Per: Authorized Signatory Authorized Signatory City of Vancouver Per: Per: Authorized Signatory Authorized Signatory District of West Vancouver Per: Per: Authorized Signatory Authorized Signatory Execution Version Regional Public Works Mutual Aid Agreement 50672995 Page 18 of 21 City of White Rock Per: Per: Authorized Signatory Authorized Signatory Metro Vancouver Regional District Per: Per: Authorized Signatory Authorized Signatory Greater Vancouver Sewer and Drainage District Per: Per: Authorized Signatory Authorized Signatory Execution Version Regional Public Works Mutual Aid Agreement 50672995 Page 19 of 21 Greater Vancouver Water District Per: Per: Authorized Signatory Authorized Signatory Execution Version Her Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia, as represented by the Minister of Municipal Affairs Per: Per: Authorized Signatory Authorized Signatory University of British Columbia Per: Per: Authorized Signatory Authorized Signatory Regional Public Works Mutual Aid Agreement 50672995 Page 20 of 21 Execution Version SCHEDULE "A" JOINDER AGREEMENT This Joinder Agreement is made as of the day of Pursuant to and in accordance with Section 9.3 of the Regional Mutual Agreement for Major Emergencies made as of the _ day of (the "Mutual Aid Agreement") [insert name of new party joining the Agreement] hereby acknowledges and agrees that [insert name of new party joining the Agreement] has received and reviewed a complete copy of the Mutual Aid Agreement and shall be fully bound by, and subject to, all of the terms and conditions of the Mutual Aid Agreement as though it were an original party thereto, [insert name of new party] Per: Per: Authorized Signatory Authorized Signatory Regional Public Works Mutual Aid Agreement 50672995 Page 21 of 21 City of Maple Ridge mapleridge.ca TO: His Worship Mayor Michael Morden MEETING DATE: and Members of Council FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: Size of Council EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: May 17, 2022 MEETING: Committee of the Whole Maple Ridge currently has a Mayor and 6 Councillors established under Bylaw No. 5767-1999 (the "Council Size Bylaw" attached hereto as Schedule A). Under Section 118 of the Community Charter (attached hereto as Schedule B), a municipality may decide to change the size of its Council 6 months before the next general local election and the change would not become effective until that general local election. In the event that a municipality does not have a bylaw setting out the size of Council, Section 118 of the Community Charter sets out that a city or district with a population of more than 50,000 is to consist of a Mayor and 8 Councillors. Based on the 2021 Census information from Statistics Canada, Maple Ridge has a population of approximately 91,000. There is no requirement to increase council size to 9 (consisting of a Mayor and 8 Councillors) - as the Council Size Bylaw is in effect - however, several comparable municipalities have moved to increase the size of Council to 8 Councillors and Mayor. As we have passed the April 14, 2022 6-month mark prior to the 2022 general local election, it is recommended that an increase to 8 Councillors be implemented after the 2022 general local election and upon incorporating the costs into the financial plan for 2023 budget cycle. RECOMMENDATION: A) That staff prepare a new bylaw to increase the size of Council to Mayor and 8 Councillors and prepare an incremental budget package to cover associated costs prior to the 2026 general local election; OR B) That staff add a question to the 2022 general local election ballot asking the electorate if Council should increase to nine (9) members; OR C) That staff retain status quo and revisit prior to the 2026 general local election. DISCUSSION: a) Background Context: Council size has been established by the Council Size Bylaw. At the time of the bylaw's adoption, Maple Ridge had a population of 56,173, which would have allowed for Mayor plus eight (8) Councillors under the then current legislation, the Municipal Act. However, Council of that day chose to pass the bylaw establishing a Council size of Mayor and six (6) Councillors. Page 1 of 3 1191 On October 10, 2017, Council considered increasing the size of Council from 7 to 9 because of one of the recommendations put forward by the Open Government Task Force and a resolution passed on July 25, 2016 requiring staff to bring back a report on the financial implications of adding two more Council members. The resolution passed at that meeting, by a vote of 4-3, was to retain the size of Council as status quo and revisit prior to the 2022 general local election. This Council has not considered the issue during its term to date. Maple Ridge has continued to grow, and at present has a population of approximately 91,000. Staff have compared the population size and number of Councillors of several BC municipalities in Table 1 below. Several municipalities of similar population size to Maple Ridge now have 8 Councillors and Mayor. Table 1 City Approximatepopulation* Current # of Councillors Vancouver 662,000 10 Surrey 568,000 8 Burnaby 249,000 8 Richmond 209,000 8 Abbotsford 153,000 8 Coquitlam 148,000 8 Kelowna 144,000 8 Langley Township 132,000 8 Saanich 117,000 8 Delta 108,000 6 Nanaimo 99,000 8 Kamloops 98,000 6 Chilliwack 93,000 6 Victoria 92,000 8 Maple Ridge 91,000 6 North Vancouver District 88,000 8 New Westminster 79,000 6 *based on 2021 Census information from Statistics Canada, Statistics Canada. 2022. (table). Census Profile. 2021 Census of Population. Statistics Canada Catalogue no. 98-316- X2021001. Ottawa. Released April 27, 2022. An increase of two additional councillors would require significant modifications to the layout of the Council Chamber and will require additional technology. In addition, there will be salary and benefit costs of two more Councillors, plus monthly expenses. Preliminary cost implications are noted under Financial Implications below, however a more detailed analysis is required given that renovations to the Council Chamber would be required. b) Citizen/Customer Implications: An increase in the number of Council members will provide the citizens with more representation to deal with growing complexity of issues facing the community. c) Interdepartmental Implications: Information Technology would implement any technology upgrades required, and any facility modifications would be handled by Facilities Management. Page 2 of 3 d) Business Plan / Financial Implications. Preliminary estimates of increasing the number of Councillors by 2 are outlined below. A more detailed analysis can be conducted as part of the 2023 budget cycle: One Time Costs Set up Initial Council Chamber Renovations and equipment $ 47,000 Technology New Tablet and cell phone X 2 6 758 53,75R Ongoing Annual Costs (e.g. based on 2022 costs) Salaries $61,000 X 2 $122,000 Monthly costs tablet, cell phone, meetings, conferences, etc. X 2 12 O00 $1347000 Total estimated increase for 2022 187 758 e) Policy Implications: A new bylaw and a repeal of Bylaw 5767-1999 would be required to make any change to the number of council members. f) Alternatives: Council may direct staff to provide an additional public input opportunity when the item is considered at the Regular Council meeting. Council may also want to include a question on the 2022 ballot asking the electorate if they are in favour of increasing the number of Council members to nine (9), in which case any further action would be scheduled for the 2026 election. CONCLUSION: Under the thresholds in Section 118 of the Community Charter, and based on the City's current and projected population, Maple Ridge may add two additional Councillors to be in line with other municipalities of similar size prior to the 2026 general local election. A bylaw directing this change must be adopted no later than April 20, 2026 to allow for nine (9) Council members to be elected in the October 2026 general local election. Budget implications would need to be included in the 2022- 2026 Financial plan. Prepared by: Patrick Hlavac-Winsor General Council and Executive Director Legal and Legislative Services Concurrence: Scott Hartman Chief Administrative Officer Attachments: Schedule A -Maple Ridge Council Size Establishment Bylaw No. 5767-1999 Schedule B -Community Charter S. 118 [Size of council] Page 3 of 3 Schedule A CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE BY-LAW NO.5767-1999 A By-law to establish the number of Members of the Municipal Council WHEREAS pursuant to the authority of Section 207(2) of the Municipal Act, RS.B.C. 1979, Chapter 323, the Council may by by-law establish the number of Council Members; NOW THEREFORE, the Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge in open meeting assembled, ENACTS AS FOLLOWS: 1. This by-law may be cited for all purposes as "Maple Ridge Council Size Establishment By-law No. 5767 — 1999." 2. Notwithstanding Section 207(1) of the Municipal Act and the population of the District of Maple confirmed by Census Canada in early 1997 at 56,173, be it resolved that the Council of the Corporation of the District of Maple Ridge is hereby established at and shall continue to consist of a Mayor and six (6) Councillors. 3. The members of Council who are in office at the date of adoption of this by-law shall continue in office and their terms of office shall not be affected in any way. READ a first time the 23rd day of March, A.D. 1999. READ a second time the 23rd day of March, A.D. 1999. READ a third time the 23rd day of March, A.D. 1999. RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, the 13th day of April, A.D. 1999. MAYOR C Schedule B COMARWITY CHARTER COMMUNITY CHARTER CHAPTER 26 [SBC 2003] [includes 2021 Bill 10, c. 16 (B.C. Reg. 236/2021) amendments (effective September 29, 2021)] Part 5: Division 1 — Council Roles and Responsibilities Size of council 118. (1) Unless otherwise provided by letters patent or by a bylaw under this section, the council size for municipalities must be as follows: (a) for a city or district having a population of more than 50 000, the council is to consist of a mayor and 8 councillors; (b) for a city or district having a population of 50 000 or less, the council is to consist of a mayor and 6 councillors; (c) for a town or village, the council is to consist of a mayor and 4 councillors. (2) For the purposes of this section, any change to a council size under subsection (1) is to be based on the population of the municipality as at January 1 in a general local election year and the change takes effect for the purposes of that election. (3) A council may, by bylaw, establish the number of council members as a mayor and 4, 6, 8 or 10 councillors. (4) If a bylaw under subsection (3) would (a) reduce the number of council members, or (b) maintain the current number of council members, despite an increase that would otherwise result under subsection (2), it may only be adopted if it receives the assent of the electors. (5) A bylaw under subsection (3) (a) must be made at least 6 months before the next general local election, and (b) does not become effective until that general local election. (6) The size of council as established under subsection (3) applies despite any provision of a municipality's letters patent. 2003-26-118. 26 [SBC 2003] Page 2 of2 Quickscribe Services Ltd