Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
ADP 2013-08-13 agenda.pdf
District of Maple Ridge MAPLE RIDGE ADVISORY DESIGN PANEL AGENDA Tuesday, August 13, 2013 4:00 pm -Blaney Room, Lower Level Maple Ridge Municipal Hall The purpose of the Panel is to encourage quality design in the community by reviewing and making recommendations to Council on all new commercial, industrial and multi- family residential projects that require a Development Permit. 1. CALL TO ORDER & INTRODUCTIONS 2. AGENDA APPROVAL 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF July 9, 2013 4. NEW BUSINESS & UNFINISHED BUSINESS 4.1 Tandem Parking in the RM-1 zone 5. PROJECTS 5.1 Development Permit: Applicant: Project Architect: Landscape Architect: Proposal: Location: Planning Technician: 5.2 Development Permit: Applicant: Project Architect: Landscape Architect: Proposal: Location: Planning Technician: 2012-068-DP Ron Hoffart John Gustavson Al Tanzer Roya/Bank 20370 Lougheed Highway Amelia Bowden 2013-063-DP David Mah David Mah Lian Chang Landscape Architects Browns Socia/ House 20490 Lougheed Highway Amelia Bowden 6. PRESENTA T/ONS -Nil 7. CORRESPONDENCE -Nil 8. NEXT" MEETING Agenda deadline: 9. ADJOURNMENT /jg Tuesday, September 10, 2013 Monday, August 19, 2013 District of Maple Ridge MAPLE RIDGE ADVISORY DESIGN PANEL The Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Maple Ridge Advisory Design Panel held in the Blaney Room at Maple Ridge Municipal Hall, 11995 Haney Place, Maple Ridge, British Columbia, on Tuesday, July 9, 2013 at 4:00 pm. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT Chris Mramor, Vice-Chair Blair Arbuthnot Johnny Leung Colleen Dixon COMMITTEE MEMBERS ABSENT Peter Lovick, Chair STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT Rasika Acharya Joanne Georgelin 1. Call to Order and Introductions Landscape Architect Landscape Architect Architect Architect Architect Planner II & ADP Staff Liaison Committee Clerk The meeting was called to order at 4:02 pm. 2. Agenda Approval Moved and Seconded: That the July 9, 2013 agenda be approved. 3. Approval of the Minutes -June 11, 2013 Moved and Seconded: That the revised Minutes of the meeting of June 11, 2013 be approved. 4. New Business CARRIED CARRIED Rasika Acharya gave an update the Tandem parking in residential lots and asked for Design Panel members for their input at the upcoming meeting in August. Advisory Design Panel Minutes Page 1 of5 Maple Ridge Advisory Design Panel Tuesday, July 9, 2013 -Draft 5. Projects 5.1 Development Permit: Applicant: Project Architect: Landscape Architect: Proposal: Location: Planner & File Manager: 2013-021-RZ Gord Knuttila, Silver Valley Homes Ltd. Harvey Hatch. Rory Dafoe To construct a two storey "Treatment Centre" building in the P-2 (Special Institutional) zone. 20581 Maple Crescent Rasika Acharya The following applicants were present at the meeting: ► Gord Knuttila, Silver Valley Homes Ltd . ► Harvey Hatch, Architect ► Rory Dafoe, Landscape Architect Rasika Acharya reviewed the Advisory Design Panel Memo dated June 4, 2013 attached to the agenda, with respect to the location, context, surrounding buildings, OCP designation and TCA Civic Core DP guidelines, site access, site size, proposed design and density, form, phases, off-site upgrades, rezoning application, building materials, new sanitary sewer connections, landscaping and parking. Harvey Hatch, Architect, presented the proposed design details to the Panel. Rory Dafoe, Landscape Architect, presented the proposed details of the on-site landscaping to the Panel. Moved and Seconded: The application be supported and the following concerns be addressed as the design develops and submitted to Planning staff for follow-up: • Consider the addition of a clear story or other for articulation at the kitchen laundry location at the first floor, north facade. • Consider handicap or accessible requirements and/or opportunities to the building. • Consider phase 2 addition in a different architectural detailing to differentiate from phase 1. • Consider defined pedestrian drop-off at Battle Avenue including direct access, and on sidewalk along north side of the building • Consider improved west corner at Maple Crescent and Battle Avenue including relocating fence east, and _further landscape enhancements. • Consider the addition of street trees for Maple Crescent and Battle Avenue sidewalk edges. • Consider the addition of patios on north and west side of building for staff and tenants. • Consider architectural enhancement of north entrance. CARRIED Maple Ridge Advisory Design Panel Minutes Page2of5 Maple Ridge Advisory Design Panel Tuesday, July 9, 2013 -Draft 5.2 Development Permit: Applicant: Project Architect: Landscape Architect: Proposal: Location: Planning Technician & File Manager: 2012-062-DP David J. Ho Architect Inc. David J. Ho Architect Inc. Harry Lee Haggard To construct a mixed use building with 5 commercial units on main floor and 5 rental residential units above. 23227 Dogwood Avenue Michelle Baski The following applicants were present at the meeting: ► David J. Ho, Architect Rasika Acharya reviewed the Advisory Design Panel Memo dated June 17, 2013 attached to the agenda, with respect to the location, context, surrounding buildings, OCP designation and TCA Civic Core DP guidelines, site access, proposed design and density, form, phases, off-site upgrades, fagade treatment, and building materials. David J. Ho, Architect, presented the proposed design details and on-site landscaping to the Panel. Moved and Seconded: The application be supported and the following concerns be addressed as the design develops and submitted to Planning staff for follow-up: • Consider additional architectural/articulation to the residential entry. • Consider additional landscape improvements at residential entry. • Consider means to increase depth of parking stalls and loading zones and surface parking. • Consider ways to separate tenant underground parking from visitors and commercial parking. • Consider a means to provide for safe pedestrian crossing at mid to east side block of Dogwood from residential to Black Sheep Pub. • • Consider providing further details on paving plan for pedestrian and vehicular paving. • Provide further landscape enhancements at Dogwood and 232nd to provide focus at the corner. • Provide signage details for development for CRU component. • Consider further architectural detailing of retaining walls to north property. • Consider the feasibility of shifting the building to the west, closer to 232nd street. • Consider ways to increase height of screen at roof levels height to mechanical screens. • Consider providing alternative street trees more suitable on Dogwood Avenue. Maple Ridge Advisory Design Panel Minutes Page3 of5 Maple Ridge Advisory Design Panel Tuesday, July 9, 2013 -Draft 5.3 • Consider consistent planking of hedge material used in retaining wall locations. • Provide planting specification for climbing vines on retaining walls. • Provide grading plan for site including planter walls. • Consider including column details that use complimentary materials of adjacent Black Sheep Pub that are additional to the architectural columns. Development Permit: Applicant: Project Designer: Landscape Architect: 2013-051-DP Darren Cruickshanks, Krahn Group Darren Cruickshanks, Krahn Group Stephen Watt CARRIED Proposal: To construct a two storey industrial warehouse/office building for "Pitt Meadows Plumbing" on a site with an existing industrial building in the Maple Ridge Business Park area. Location: • Planner & File Manager: 20295 113B Avenue Rasika Acharya The following applicants were present at the meeting: ► Darren Cruickshanks, Project Designer ► Stephen Watt, Landscape Architect ► Steve Robinson, Owner Rasika Acharya reviewed the Advisory Design Panel Memo dated June 18, 2013 attached to the agenda, with respect to the location, existing building, context, surrounding buildings, OCP designation, site access, proposed design and density, form, phases, landscaping, parking, off-site upgrades and building materials. Darren Cruickshanks, Architect, presented the proposed design details to the Panel. Stephen Watt, Landscape Architect, presented the proposed details of the on-site landscaping to the Panel. Moved and Seconded: The following concerns be addressed and digital versions of revised drawings & memo be submitted to Planning staff; and further that Planning staff forward this on to the Advisory Design Panel for information: • Consider opportunities of an elevator. • Provide details for protection of existing street trees. • Be mindful of door swing to allow access to picnic amenity. • Consider alternative material to precast pavers along west building walkway. • Consider expanding rain garden to capture 40-50% of roof area in order to meet intent of storing water collection filtration. Maple Ridge Advisory Design Panel Minutes Page4 of5 Maple Ridge Advisory Design Panel Tuesday, July 9, 2013 -Draft • Consider means to achieve visual expression of 2 story atrium. • Provide paving detail for front entry plaza and picnic area. • Consider providing curbside sidewalk along Steward Crescent and direct pedestrian access to front entry from that sidewalk. • Consider ways to simplify and achieve a modern expression of a landscape at the main entrance and picnic amenity area. • Consider alternate larger tree in triangular island. 6. PRESENTATIONS ~ CORRESPONDENCE 8. Next Meeting: Agenda deadline: Adjournment: /jg Tuesday, August 13, 2013 Monday, July 22, 2013 7:24pm Maple Ridge Advisory Design Panel Minutes CARRIED Page 5 of5 TANDEM PARKING REVIEW for RM-1 (TOWNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL) ZONE in MAPLE RIDGE-SUMMARY 1. Staff report was presented at the Council Workshop on May 27, 2013 and on May 28, 2013, Council resolved that "staff be directed to prepare the relevant bylaw revisions to the RM-1(Townhouse Residential District) zone and the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw, as described in Section E of the "Tandem and Off-Street Parking Discussion Paper" dated May 27, 2013. 2. Section E of the report was the "preferred approach" and recommended the following: A maximum of 70% units with tandem parking spaces may be permitted with the following required for each unit having tandem parking spaces, except in the Town Centre Area: • Block size not to exceed six attached units; . • Driveway apron length of 5.5 metres; and • Usable open space of 65 m2 for each three bedroom or bigger units and 50m2 for each two bedroom or smaller units. Note that 100% tandem parking in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone would still be permitted in the Town Centre Area, due to access to transit and policy support for a dense housing form. It is important to note that setback variances would be considered on a site specific basis and are subject to Council approval. 3. Council had concerns on how this recommended option would work on sloping sites (based on concerns expressed by a local developer). Other concerns were: Enforcement of tandem parking by the strata, Restrictive Covenant to safeguard the internal tandem space from converting into a habitable area and its effectiveness/strata's role; not much input was sought from the industry/local stake holders, etc. 4. Staff is following up to analyse how this recommendation works on sloping sites as the initial analysis was based on a hypothetical flat piece of land, 1 acre in size. Staff is considering presenting the proposed amendments (tandem parking in the RM-1 zone) in the Builder's Forum in October 2013, to get feedback on concerns from local developers/builders. 5. First Reading report with zoning amendments is likely to be reviewed by Council in September 2013. Staff is seeking input from the panel on the recommended option and its impacts. Thank you. Planner & ADP staff Liaison, Maple Ridge Bnti5h, Columbla TO: District of Maple Ridge His Worship Mayor Ernie Daykin and Members of Council MEETING DATE: FILE NO: FROM: Chief Administrative Officer MEETING: May 27, 2013 Workshop SUBJECT: Tandem and Off-Street Parking Discussion Paper EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Planning Department 2013 Business Plan directed staff to prepare a report on tandem and off- street parking in Maple Ridge, based on concerns with tandem parking in multi-family (townhouse) developments _ in the District. This was triggered by several recent townhouse development applications proposing all or a significant percentage of the units with tandem parking. Tandem parking is currently permitted in a few single family zones, duplex zone and the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone. Given that recent discussion has noted concerns with tandem parking in townhouse projects, the focus of this report is on tandem and off-street parking in the 'RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone. Townhouse units with tandem pa rking are a fairly common form of housing in many jurisdictions within the region. Typical ly the tandem parking arrangement results in a taller, narrower unit with a minimal driveway apron in front of the tandem garage. The perception is that tandem townhouse units typically sell for less, than the units with a double car garage and it is often a preferred option with developers to maximize the unit yield. Staff discussions with some of the private sector stakeholders suggest that tandem units are more affordable, however, there is no concrete evidence that tandem units sell for less in the market. General discussions with staff from other jurisdictions and the private sector stakeholders indicated that while there is a general perception of overall acceptance of tandem townhouse units in the market, there are concerns with a 100% tandem townhouse developments across the region. This report focuses on the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone and includes the following: • Review of the existing regulations for tandem and off-street parking and loading regulations; • Review of tandem parking regulations in other jurisdictions within the region; • Identification of concerns/issues with tandem parking; • Review of scenarios/ options for the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone with graphic examples of each scenario; • Review of_ the ·recomm~nded option for tandem parking in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential) zone. RECOMMENDATION: That the "Tandem and Off-Street Parking Discussion Paper" dated May 27, 2013 be received for information and discussion. BACKGROUND: The Maple Ridge Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw No. 4350-1990 permits tandem parking in specific single family zones, duplex zone and the RM -1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone. Tandem Parking has not been a concern in single family zones where the roads meet the_ municipal _ standards and the driveways may be wider. In some cases, there is parking along the streets as well. 1 4.2 However within the townhouse zone it appears to be a concern. The District has seen a steady rise in townhouse development projects with all tandem parking units. • DISCUSSION: A) Review of the existing tandem and Off-Street Parking and Loading regulations: The Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw provides for tandem parking in certain single family zones, duplex zone and the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone. The bylaw reads: PART IV, Section 4.1(iii)(b)(iv), of Maple Ridge off-Street Parking & Loading Bylaw No. 4350- 1990, "the RS-1 (one Family Urban Residential) zone, RS-1a (One Family Amenity Residential) zone, RS-1b (One Family Urban Residential-Medium Density) zone, R-1 (Residential District) zone, RT-1 (Two Family Urban Residential) zone and RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone, may have obstructed access where the primary parking space is a carport or garage and the obstruction is an intervening parking space". Out of the above noted zones, the RS-1, RS-1b, R-1 and RT-1 are single family or duplex zones. Each of the above mentioned zones require a minimum of two parking spaces per unit and an additional parking space for a permitted Accessory Residential use such as a Home Occupation, Secondary Suite or Detached Garden Suite (if permitted in the zone). For the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone, two spaces per unit plus a 0.2 space per unit for visitors is required. It is important to note that out of all the available multi-family zones in the District, only the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone permits tandem parking. B) Review of tandem parking regulations in other jurisdictions within the region: The following identifies the tandem regulations used in other municipalities within the region (Appendix A): I. City of Pitt Meadows: allows tandem parking in the townhouse zone. The townhouse zone requires a ratio of 1.75 spaces per unit for residents and 0.2 spaces per unit for visitors. ii. City of Port Coquitlam: does not have tandem parking regulations in the Zoning Bylaw, but permits it on a site by site basis. Recently their Council has expressed concerns with tandem parking in the townhouse zones and the City staff has been encouraging a balanced proportion of double and tandem garages on a project by project basis. iii. City of Coquitlam: does not have tandem parking regulations in the Zoning Bylaw, but permits it on a site by site basis. In most cases, tandem spaces may be provided as extra spaces and are not included in the parking calculations. They are sometimes proposed in addition to the minimum parking spaces required in the zone, as a marketing tool. iv. Township of Langley: permits tandem parking in the townhouse zone but requires a higher ratio i.e. in the townhouse zone, units with tandem parking garages require a ratio of 2.5 spaces per unit instead of 2.0 spaces per unit for a double garage unit. The Township requires a Restrictive Covenant on the tandem space, to discourage conversion of it to a habitable space. The bylaw is silent on permitting tandem parking in any other zones. 2 v. City of Burnaby: does not permit tandem parking except for specific projects on site by site basis through a Comprehensive Development zoning. It forms a part of specific site design with a Restrictive Covenant registered on title to ensure that the tandem space is not converted in to a habitable space. The required minimum parking ratio for ground- oriented townhouse zones is 1. 75 spaces per unit (including 0.25 spaces per unit for visitor parking) except for a specific zone permitted in the business district where it is reduced to 1.0 space per unit. These ratios are much lower parking ratios than Maple Ridge and other jurisdictions and tandem parking is in general discouraged. vi. Corporation of Delta: permits tandem parking in single family zones, duplex zone, strata house and townhouse zones. There are more than one townhouse zones with varying densities from 25 to 40 units per net hectare, depending on the specific zone. Visitor parking ratio is similar to Maple Ridge's req~irements. vii. City of Abbotsford: permits tandem P<'!rking in single fa mily and townhouse residential zones. The townhouse residential use is required to provide two spaces per unit, of which one is located in a garage or und er-ground parking and 20% of the total parking is required to be for visitors, which is same as the Maple Ridge's requirements. viii. District of Mission: permits tandem parking for ground-oriented townhouse zones, but with a restriction on the percentage of tandem units in two zones. These zones permit up to 50% tandem units which are limited to internal units only. The densities vary in the three townhouse zones they offer and parking ratios are comparable to the District's requirements. ix. City of Richmond: has four sub-zones with the townhouse form and tandem parking is permitted within certain geographical locations in site-specific zones. These zones are permitted in the city centre and other busy areas that have fairly good connectivity by public t ransit. Standard minimum lengths and widths of the parking spaces are specified and densities vary in the various townhouse zones. It is interesting to note that the amenity space is expressed as a floor space ratio of 0.1. x. City of Surrey: permits tandem parking in ground oriented multiple unit residential use with a greater apron length on the driveway. The bylaw states "In a tandem parking arrangement where the second vehicle is parked outside a garage in the driveway a minimum length of 6.0 metres (19. 7 feet) shall be provided for each parking space". The City has recently been dealing with enforcement issues with tandem parking in Clayton Heights area. The tandem spaces have become living spaces and there are . • renters with cars on the same site. City of Surrey has some additional regulations with respect to tandem parking permitted in the ground-oriented multiple unit residential zones, such as: restrictions on location of tandem parking spaces on an arterial road; restriction that both the tandem spaces be enclosed and attached to the unit; requirement that both tandem spaces be held by the same owner and that tandem parking is not permitted for units located within 6.0 metres from lot entrances/exits. In reviewing other municipal parking bylaws it is clear that approaches vary by community with some not permitting tandem parking, some permitting tandem parking on a project by project basis, some permitting tandem parking by requiring a higher parking ratio or limiting the amount of ta ndem; requiring additional common amenity area and/or driveway aprons. Discussion with som e of the staff from other municipalities confirms that several jurisdictions are exp ressing concerns over 100% tandem unit developments. 3 C) Identification of concerns/issues with tandem parking: The following section of the report notes the issues and preferences relating to tandem parking, that were identified through research and consultation with developers, architects, Building and Fire departments. The issues have been organized into the following categories: i. BC Building Code requirements: Often the tandem or double parking garages on townhouse sites are built to meet the minimum B.C. Building Code requirements for width, depth and height. A driveway apron is the area in front of a tandem garage. It may or may not be adequate to park one vehicle. Under the bylaw, the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone does not require the driveway apron length to accommodate a parking space. If it is not adequate to park one vehicle, this may result in individual vehicles possibly encroaching into the 6.0 metre wide strata road. ii. Unit sizes, architectural design and streetscape: Townhouse units with a tandem garage are typically narrower (12.5 to 15 feet wide) and taller (3 or 3.5 storey) in form. The architectural form for tandem and double garage units differ significantly, one being a two storey massing while the other with tandem parking is a taller, narrow three-storey massing. The tandem units offer a denser, compact, taller form. The townhouse form is often envisioned and encouraged as a transition between single family and apartment building forms.' A 100% tandem development maximizes on the density or the unit count on site which can at times be at the expense of creating interesting, pedestrian-friendly streetscapes. A combination of tandem and double garage units have greater potential to create an interesting streetscape with staggered units and inter-linking green spaces. Block sizes that exceed six units can create a monotonous fa<;ade. Smaller blocks of units create well-articulated facades separated with green buffers in between the blocks that promote natural light, ventilation and views. iii. Restrictive Covenant on the tandem space; enforcement of tandem spaces and visitor parking spaces: The Licences, Permits and Bylaws Department respond to formal written complaints seeking enforcement. However, they cannot enforce parking regulations on strata property. The District prefers the Strata Councils to try to resolve their own parking disputes. Units with a tandem garage often lose a parking space due to conversion into a habitable area, after the owner moves in. Complaints are received by the District about the lack of parking on site and in the streets, after this happens. Sometimes the visitor parking stalls are used by residents or cars are parked within the 6.0 metre wide, strata road. In such instances, Strata Councils are responsible for enforcing parking on the property; however they are not always successful. For the District it becomes a safety concern, yet enforcement is a challenge. Long-term preservation of tandem parking space cannot necessarily be secured through the use of a Restrictive Covenant. A covenant however, can be informative to the unit owners but the District would be required to undertake enforcement and/or legal action. However, the District is under no obligation to. enforce such a covenant even if in place. 4 D) ANALYSIS: Review of scenarios/options for the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone with graphic examples of each scenario: As explained earlier the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone permits a townhouse development with ground-oriented units that have 100% tandem parking spaces. The density permitted is a floor space ratio (FSR) of 0.6 times the net lot area, with an additional 50m2 per· unit basement habitable space. To review the impact of tandem parking spaces on a townhouse development, several factors need to be considered. Some important factors are: density (floor space ratio), usable open space, common activity area, setbacks, size of the block of units, driveway apron length, on-site parking for residents and visitors. The graphic examples attached as appendices help to illustrate the potential impacts of tandem parking along with recommended measures to minimize impacts. For the purpose of this review, four categories were analysed for the various scenarios: a) A townhouse development with 100% tandem parking spaces (currently permitted); b) A townhouse development with up to a maximum of 70% tandem parking spaces; c) A townhouse development with up to a maximum of 50% tandem parking spaces; d) A townhouse development with no tandem parking spaces (100% double garages). To assist in this review graphic illustrations have been provided utilizing some fixed and variable elements. These have been applied to a hypothetical piece of land. It should be not.ed that for simplification purpose, the development site is assumed to be a flat, one acre rectangular shaped piece of land with road frontage on one side. The following fixed elements included are: 1) Lot Size: 4047 m2 (1 acre or 43562.97 ft2) 2) FSR: 0.6 (50 m2 extra for habitable basement area per unit) 3) Unit sizes: 2 bedroom =1000 ft2 and 3 bedroom=1500 ft2 (50% of each type) 4) Setbacks: 7.5 m from all property lines 5) Parking: 2 spaces per unit (residential) and 0.2 spaces per unit (visitor) 6) 6.0 m wide strata road (no parking along strata road) 7) Max lot coverage: 40% 8) Units in one block: 2 minimum and 6 maximum (2-6 units) Some variable elements that could have a potential impact on addressing previously identified concerns with tandem parking are: 1) Percentage (%) of tandem parking spaces on site 2) Usable Open Space Area for units with tandem parking spaces 3) Common Activity Area for units with tandem parking spaces 4) Visitor parking ratio for units with tandem parking spaces 5) Driveway apron length for units with tandem parking spaces 6) Setback variances A total of 18 scenarios were considered in the review of tandem parking; however, one scenario clearly resulted in a reasonable rriix of tandem and double wide units, maximization of green 5 space/useable open space and a well-articulated, livable design, while maintaining a viable unit yield (refer to item i on page 7). Concern has been expressed with the 100% tandem parking (i.e. category a), which is what is currently permitted. In reality no tandem parking (i.e. category d) is not realistic, as most developments prefer to maximize on the number of units on site. Therefore, a mix of tandem and double wide parking scenarios are explored in greater detail (Appendix C-J). In each of the four scenarios, one variable was introduced to see the overall impact (see Appendix C-J). It was evident that introducing one variable in each of the scenarios did not help mitigate the potential impacts of units with tandem parking spaces. However, when three variables such as requiring a driveway apron, increasing the useable open space and limiting the amount of tandem parking, the overall improvements to the site design were clearly visible. Included below is an illustration of 100% units with tandem parking spaces, as permitted today. 75m ,----r-Tnteri~de1AW;;.----·-----~7 I ----l 1--, -· I I [>~ ,i+,-,-+-,\,,...,,,.,____,.,~__,_.,___,_~~-"-+~-"-;',-,-":----,+-',~1----'---'-!-,-,-'-!--L_l_~ .. ~., :::i I (Y) 1.11 r+---,--:;"--'-"'r-,-:..__:.-.;:.:.;:---;..,,..:....,.....,.-.-e--,,-'-c--'--'-":J...,---4,----,---.-,.:-....-,--r-r:-;--·]··1 Ji 7.Sm I Site Plan Reconciliation Provided Required #Units 21 Units Site Area 4,047 m.2 = 43,560 sq ft # of 3 8edrooms 11 Units GFA 2,462 m.2 = 28,o()O sq ft #of2 8edrooms 10 Units Road Area: 473 m2 = 5;0-95 sq ft '%, of tandem stall to units 100 % Driveway Area: 150m2=1;611 sqlt % of double stall to units 0 ~'e, Site Coverage: 1,263 m2 = 13,593 sq ft Usable Open Space 2,011 m2 795 m2 Unit/Ha: 51 .892 Common Activity Area 105 m2 105 m2 Road Site Coverage: 11.7% Visitor Parkin,g @ 02 5 stalls 4.2 stalls Driveway Site Coverage: 3.7'% FSR: 0.608 0.600 Total Hard Surface Coverage: 15A% Building Site Coverage: 31 .2% 40.0% 6 It is clear ih the site plan above, 21 units can be achieved on a one acre parcel. It is important to note that this scenario maximizes the unit count, density, gross floor area and provides minimal articulation to the streetscap_e for the residents. The required useable open space and common activity area are met by including all the setback.areas and not permitting any setback reductions via a Development Variance Permit. i) Scenario 2E: maximum of 70% units with tandem parking spaces with a driveway apron of 5.5 metres required for units with tandem spaces; usable open space increased by 15 m2 per unit and all the other regulations in the RM-1 zone permitted currently. 75m r-----~·~ ~ -·---·--~----------------.--, E Interior -Side Lot Line . i I I I I I I 1.~. " " ' . J • l.-\ /\ 11 131 . ! ', 'li. ,., , 1 t \ I I l ,-,;:-i 1, i i 132 ! ' V, t-= Site Plan Reconciliation Provided #Units 17 Units #of3 Bedrooms 7 Units # of 2 Bedr-ooms 10 Units o/o of tandem stall to units 65 "1l. % of double stall to units 35% Usabl:e Open Space 2,0~7 m2 01;immon Activity Area 85 m2 Visitor Parking@ 02 4 stalls FSA: 0.471 Suildlng Site Coverage: 23.3% Required 955 m2 B5m2 3.4 stalls 0,600 40.0% Site Area BFA Road Area: Driveway Area: Site Coverage: Unit/ Ha: Road Site Coverage: 7 I I I I I I I I 4,047 m2 ::a43,560 sq tt '1,905 m2 -20,500 sq ft 567 m2 ""6,103 sq ft 273 m.2 =1,944 sqft 943 m2 "' 10, 154 sq ft 42,008 14.0 % Driveway Site Coverage: 6.B ~-~ iotal Hard Surface CQverage: 20.6% The graphic example above shows 65% of the units have tandem garages. It is clear in the site plan above that, by introducing a requirement that permits a maximum of 70% units with tandem parking spaces and by requiring a driveway apron length of 5.5 metres only for units with tandem parking 7 spaces, and by increasing the usable open space by 15m2 per unit only for units with tandem parking.spaces, 17 to 18 units can be achieved on a one acre parcel. The following can be inferred from scenario 2E above: • A combination of the three variables i.e. driveway apron requirement for units with tandem parking spaces; proportionate increase in the usable open space for units with tandem parking spaces and permitting up to a maximum of 70% of the total number of units to have tandem parking spaces; the density is not significantly compromised, yet a more architecturally attractive development may be achieved. • Note that setback variances have not been shown. It should be noted that with setback variances the unit yields are very similar to those achieved under the current bylaw (refer to Appendix K). It is clear from Appendix K that when setback variances are granted for scenario 2E, three more units can be achieved, increasing the unit count to 20 (instead of 17 units in scenario 2E above). E) PREFERRED APPROACH: Based on the above analysis it is clear that limiting the amount of tandem parking, and offsetting it with other requirements results in a development that can achieve densities similar to the current bylaw (with variances) and at the same time address the on-site congestion, form, streetscape, and parking concerns. Recognizing that each site is different and that the Development Community prefers flexibility, it is recommended that staff prepare amending bylaws that will limit the amount of tandem parking as stated below: A maximum of 70% units with tandem parking spaces may be permitted with the following required for each unit having tandem parking spaces, except in the Town Centre Area: • Block size not to exceed six attached units; • Driveway apron length of 5.5 metres; and • Usable open space of 65 m2 for each three bedroom or bigger units and 50m2 for each two bedroom or smaller units. Note that 100% tandem parking in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone would still be permitted in the Town Centre Area, due to access to transit and policy support for a dense housing form. It is important to note that setback variances would be considered on a site specific basis and are subject to Council approval. Should Council wish to explore the above noted changes to the bylaws, the following resolution would provide staff with direction to prepare the required amending bylaws: That Council direct staff to prepare the relevant bylaw revisions to the RM-1(Townhouse Residential District) zone and the Off-Street Parking and Loading Bylaw, as described in Section E of the "Tandem and Off-Street Parking Discussion Paper" dated May 27, 2013. 8 CONCLUSION: Tandem parking has been permitted in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone an d a few others single family zones as mentioned in this report. For most of the single fa mily zones that permit tandem parking, it has not been a concern due to wider road standards and longer driveway apron lengths. The biggest impact is seen in the RM-1 (Townhouse Residential District) zone that is serviced by a 6.0 metre wide strata road and there is no requirement for a driveway apron. It is importa nt to maintain the pri mary intention of the RM-1 (Town house Residential District) zone, which is to provide for a low-density multi-family housing option. A review of other jurisdictions shows that there are similar concerns about developments with 100% units that have a tandem parking arrangement on site. There needs to be a functional balance of both; tandem and double garage units, to achieve a financially feasible, safe and good quality development. The recommended option (scenario 2E) has been discussed in section E of the report. "original signed by Rasika Acharya" Prepared by: Rasika Acharya, 8-Arch, M-Tech, UD, LEED® AP, MCIP, RPP Planner "original signed by Christine Carter" Approved by: Christine carter, M.PL, MCIP, RPP Director of Planning "original signed by Frank Quinn" Approved by: Frank Quinn, MBA, P.Eng GM, Public Works & Development Services "original signed by J.l. (Jim) Rule" Concurrence: J.L. (Jim) Rule Chief Administrative Officer The following appendices are attached hereto: Appendix A -Regional review-matrix showing tandem regulations in other jurisdictions; Appendix B -Scenario Comparison Chart Appendix C -Scenario 2A Appendix D -Scenario 28 Appendix E -Scenario 2C Appendix F -Scenario 2D Appendix G -Scenario 3A Appendix H -Scenario 38 Appendix I -Scenario 3C Appendix J -Scenario 3D Appendix K -Scenario 2F 9 APPENDIX A Regional Overview-tandem parking regulations in various jurisdictions /IUNICIPALITY TANDEM PARKING LOT COVERAGE DENSITY RESIDENT PARKING RATIO VISITOR PARKING REQUIRED USABLE OPEN SPACE Surrey City Centre area) the Surrey City Centre area) indoor-3.0 rn2 per unit Note: It is important to note that some Jurisdictions such as Richmond, Surrey, Burnaby, Coqultlam, Port C.oquitlam, Mission and Abbotsford have moret han one townhouse zones to allow for varying density and housing form within various geographical locations within their Jurisdictions. Based on the location, the parking ratios may vary for each of these zones. APPENDIX B ....._s_cE_N_A_R_1o_c_o_M_PA_R_1_so_N_c_H_A_R_T_--A-PP_E_N_o_ix_s ________________ __..JI Scenario 1JA Sc-1mar:io ltB- Scenari,o u,c Scenario ]D Scenari o 2A Sc,enario 2B Scenario ZC Scenario 2:D .Sc,enario ZE Scenario 2Eb Scenario 2F Scenario 2Fb Sc,ema rio 3A Scenario 38 Scenario 3C Scenario SD Scenar.io 3E Sce.nari,o 3Eb Scenario 3F Sc,enario 3Fb Scenar1,o 4A Scena:r:io 4B Sc,er.,a ri o 4C Sc.enan,o 4D FSR 0.608 OJ3.G8 ·IJ.574 0,51! 7 ,0,5E12 G.S6,2 O.S74 0.539 DA1I ,0.517 0.574 ,Q,574 Q•,Q7 4 l},574 (ls.57 4_ ,0,4:9,4 0A7l ,0.494 {}.55 T n,s39 o.539 0,539 0,539 OA25 Uriit I Ha:: 5LSl 5L9 ,49.,4: ,44,5 Urnit / Acre 2l 2l zn 1 8 ,49,,4 2U 49.4 ZQ ,49.4 20, •47.0 1 9 42.0 1 7 44,.5 1 B ,49.,4 2(} ·49,A 20 49.4 zo, ,49.4 -20 '41.!:3.A 20 •42.o 1 7 39,5 1 Ei •4-2. 0 1 7 ·47,.0 1 9 47.0 19 47.Q T 9 47.,0 1 9 4.?.0 1 9 37.l 1 s #or 3 # of 2 bdrms bdrms. 11 11 10 ~ 9 9 lG 9 7 9 10 10 ·10 1-a, '10 9 9 9 10 9 9 9 9 7 lU 10 w 9 TT Tl TD 1G tn 9 t G TG l{) lQ llJ 8 8 g 1 □ 10 w l U s %of Tandem stails -100% lC-0% lG.0% 100% 70% 70% 70 g.,a;. 74% 65% 72% 7(}% 70% 50% 50% 50% 53% 69% 53 g.,~ 53% 47% 0% 'i)% (}% n % Usable Open Spac;e e\0111 m2 2.DH m2 li1980 m2 l ~886 mZ f\04$. m2 21,048, rn2 118.9·3 mZ T1,6,fl9 m2 21,0Eff m2 21,01J9· m2 1,703 m2 lfSIO m2 li,99·3 mZ l 1tf9'$ m2 l1,S,'Ji8 m2 ~\(Hf m2 21,048, mZ 21094 m2 l 1.7~l5 m2 J:1,857 mZ 11885 m2 J,,88-5 m2 1,,73] m2 1~943 mZ _ Total Hard C ,Ste surraces (Excludes o,erage Site Coverage) 31 % 31: % 30% 27% 28% 28.% 27% 26% 28% 21;1% 28% 28,% 24% 23 % 24% 27% 26 % 25 % 25 % 25 g;f, 19 % 15 % 15% 17 % 22 % 18 g,,&, 18% 21 % 24% 21 1lf:, 21 % 24% 22 % 19% 19% 23% 22% 21 % 22% 24% 25 1lo 24% 26%, 26 '.'l,'l:, 17 May, 2013 8:48 AM APPENDIXC 7.5. Scenario 2A -70% tandem units as the RM-1 zone permits today Variables 1) Parking Type: 70% of Tandem & 30% of Double Wide parking stalls 2) Usable Open Space: 45 m2 / 3 Bedroom & 30 m2 for 2 Bedroom 3) Common activity area: 5 m2 / unit 4) Parking: 0.2 visitor stalls / unit 5) Driveway Apron : 1.0m unit driveway 75m --Tnt~r~i~TotTirie-----~---7 7 l I I I t I t I t ~ I I :.:q -_-, ~----/,.-._-~--_""'· I ~ I ~ ~ -· .. ---· ro t ~1 7.Sm t · I • t I: I • . ............,_,.;,;;;;,,;,;,,...-.,.::....L_,______----i I t Usalile 17":___ , . --t L ____ ~~~_lnteri or 9 de~~ne _________ J Scenario 2A -Site Plan o s 10 1s 20 2s 3o m Scale: 1 :500 Site Plan Reconciliation Provided Required #Units 20 Units Site Area 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft # of 3 Bedrooms 1 O Units GFA 2,323 m2 = 25,000 sq ft # of 2 Bedrooms 10 Units Road Area: 579 m2 = 6,236 sq ft % of tandem stall to units 70% Driveway Area: 173 m2 = 1,860 sq ft % of double stall to units 30 % Site Coverage: 1,146 m2 = 12,337 sq ft Usable Open Space 1,972 m2 750 m2 Unit/ Ha: 49.421 Common Activity Area 100 m2 100 m2 Road Site Coverage: 14.3% Visitor Parking @ 0.2 4 stalls 4 stalls Driveway Site Coverage: 4.3% FSR: 0.574 0.600 Total Hard Surface Coverage: 18.6 % Building Site Coverage: 28.3 % 40.0 % Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture Page 12 of 34 17 May, 2013 8:48 AM APPENDIXD 7.6. Scenario 28 -70% tandem units with increased UOS & CAA Variables 1) • Parking Type: 70% of Tandem & 30% of Double Wide parking stalls 2) Usable Open Space: 50 m2 / 3 Bedroom & 3~ m2 for 2 Bedroom 3) Common activity area: 10 m2 /unit 4) Parking: 0.2 visitor stalls / unit 5) Driveway Apron: 1.0m unit driveway 75m --Tnt~orSi~TotTine---------7 I t I I r-' ________ ....,. I I I -,~-..... -~--~------.. ---_-_;-_-_---.-, 1---~ E l/') I'- I I ..,-·'!_. ~'---.:. :>~ ~ I :.J I \, ; ' ) ,. .,.._ ____ .. -------I 3 I 'it ~l ~, c \1 ..-+------....... -1 1--1----------~ 1 . ~~ :11::1 \-\~f. i /,\7 ~ I , 1 V -1 V -,..---------1r-1 1--11---..... ----➔ 7 .Sm ' --~ • ..,.._'!!-' __ ..,..r-1 j. I I -I I ~ /D · i I I ~-ic---~ .------_ --· ·1 L . _____ _:_ -~eri~~~~i~ _____ _:_ ___ _J Scenario 2B -Site Plan o s 10 ,s 20 2s 30 m Scale: 1 :500 Site Plan Reconciliation Provided Required #Units 20 Units Site Area 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft # of 3 Bedrooms 10 Units GFA 2,323 m2 = 25,000 sq ft # of 2 Bedrooms 10 Units Road Area: 579 m2 = 6,236 sq ft % of tandem stall to units 70% Driveway Area: 173 m2 = 1 ,860 sq ft % of double stall to units 30 % Site Coverage: 1,146 m2 = 12,337 sq ft Usable Open Space 1,972 m2 850 m2 Unit/ Ha: 49.421 Common Activity Area 200 m2 200 m2 Road Site Coverage: 14.3 % Visitor Pa'rking @ 0.2 4 stalls 4 stalls Driveway Site Coverage: 4.3% FSR: 0.574 0.600 Total Hard Surface Coverage: 18.6 % Building Site Coverage: 28.3 % 40.0% Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture Page 13 of 34 17 May, 2013 8:48 AM APPENDIX E 7. 7. Scenario 2G -70% tandem units with increased visitor parking ratio Variables 1) Parking Type: 70% of Tandem & 30% of Double Wide parking stalls 2) Usable Open Space: 45 m2 / 3 Bedroom & 30 m2 for 2 Bedroom 3) Common activity area: 5 m2 I unit 4) Parking: 0.5 visitor stalls/ unit . 5) Driveway Apron : 1.0m unit driveway 75m r--.-..-~·-~· ----.--...-..-... ~-----~------·-~·--~----, Interior Side· L,ot Line · ' I ' 1--~ Site Plan Reconciliation Provided Required # Units 20 Units # of 3 Bedrooms 10 Units # of 2 Bedrooms 10 Units % of tandem stall to units 70% % of double stall to units 30% Usable Open Space 1,893 m2 750 m2 Common Activity Area 100 m2 100 m2 Visitor Parking @ 0.5 10 stalls 10 stalls FSR: 0.574 0,600 Building Site Coverage: 28.3 % 40,0 % Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture Site Area GFA Road Area: Driveway Area: Site Coverage: Unit/ Ha: Road Site Coverage: :::,{:: --· _ _:-- 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft 2,323 m2 = 25,000 sq ft 674 m2 = 7,250 sq ft 165 m2 = 1 ,777 sq ft 1,146 m2 = 12,337 sq ft 49.421 16.6 % Driveway Site Coverage: 4.1 % Total Hard Surface Coverage: 20.7% (l) C :::J -1-' 0 _J I... ro (l) i:l:: 7.5m Page 14 of 34 17 May, 2013 8:48 AM APPENDIXF 7.8. Scenario 20 -70% tandem units with increased apron length Variables 1) Parking Type: 70% of Tandem & 30% of Double Wide parking stalls 2) Usable Open Space: 45 m2 / 3 Bedroom & 30 m2 for 2 Bedroom 3) Common activity area: 5 m2 / unit 4) Parking: 0.2 visitor stalls / unit 5) Driveway Apron: 5.5m unit driveway t----L :: .,,;,, . "l--. • _______ ,,_ ,-3~ r -·,:.._~,-- 1-----1_::=..-..---• I ~...:........a, ............ ~;;;....:;;........&.o..i~~~ ;,·_ -_: ·:~~~{::;= I ' -------------t I ~I ~~ I . . ~ , •• r-,.. Interior Side Lot Line f ..._______ ------·----------------' Scenario 2D -Site Plan o s ,o 15 20 25 30 m Scale: 1 :500 Site Plan Reconciliation Provided Required #Units 19 Units Site Area 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft # of 3 Bedrooms 9 Units GFA 2,183 m2 = 23,500 sq ft # of 2 Bedrooms 10 Units Road Area: 554 m2 = 5,967 sq ft % of tandem stall to units 74% Driveway Area: 416 m2 = 4,482 sq ft % of double stall to units 26% Site Coverage:. 1,083 m2 = 11,654 sq ft Usable Open Space 1,699 m2 705 m2 Unit/ Ha: 46.95 Common Activity Area 95 m2 95 m2 Road Site Coverage: 13.7% Visitor Parking @ 0.2 5 stalls 3.8 stalls Driveway Site Coverage: 10.3 % FSA: 0.539 0.600 Total Hard Surface Coverage: 24.0% Building Site Coverage: 26.8 % 40.0 % Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture Page 15 of 34 17 May, 2013 8:48 AM APPENDIXG 7.13. Scenario 3A -50% tandem units as the RM-1 zone permits today Variables 1) Parking Type: 50% of Tandem & 50% of Double Wide parking stalls 2) Usable Open Space: 45 m2 / 3 Bedroom & 30 m2 for 2 Bedroom 3) Common activity area: 5 m2 / unit 4) Parking: 0.2 visitor stalls/ unit 5) Driveway Apron: 1 .Om unit driveway 75m 01!!!· liiii!!!liiii!!!s§iiiiiiiiiiiii.:1~0!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!15siiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii2ilo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!52s;;;;;;iiiiiiii~30. m Site Plan Reconciliation Provided Required # Units 20 Units Site Area 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft # of 3 Bedrooms 10 Units GFA 2,323 m2 = 25,000 sq ft # of 2 Bedrooms 10 Units Road Area: 581 m2 = 6,253 sq ft % of tandem stall to units 50% Driveway Area: 188 m2 = 2,019 sq ft % of double stall to units 50% Site Coverage: 1,125 m2 = 12,110 sq ft Usable Open Space 1,993 m2 750 m2 Unit/ Ha: 49.421 Common Activity Area 100 m2 100 m2 Road Site Coverage: 14.4 % Visitor Parking @ 0.2 4 stalls 4 stalls Driveway Site Coverage: 4.6% FSR: 0.574 0.600 Total Hard Surface Coverage: 19.0 % Building Site Coverage: 27.8 % 40.0 % Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture Page 20 of 34 17 May, 2013 8:48 AM APPENDIX H 7. 14. Scenario 38 -50% tandem units with increased UOS & CAA Variables 1) Parking Type: 50% of Tandem & 50% of Double Wide parking stalls 2) Usable Open Space: 50 m2 / 3 Bedroom & 35 m2 for 2 Bedroom 3) Common activity area: 10 m2 / unit 4) Parking: 0.2 visitor stalls / unit 5) Driveway Apron: 1.0m unit driveway 75m 05~~5~;;;;;;.1zo!!!!!!!!~~1siiiiiiiiiiii;;;;;;~w~!!!!!!!!~2s~;;;;;;~30m Site Plan Reconciliation Provided Required # Units 20 Units Site Area 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft # of 3 Bedrooms 10 Units GFA 2,323 m2 = 25,000 sq ft # of 2 Bedrooms 10 Units Road Area: 581 m2 = 6,253 sq ft % of tandem stall to units 50 % Driveway Area: 188 m2 = 2,019 sq ft % of double stall to units 50 % Site Coverage: 1,125m2 =12,110sq ft Usable Open Space 1,993 m2 850 m2 Unit/ Ha: 49.421 Common Activity Area 200 m2 200 m2 Road Site Coverage: 14.4 % Visitor Parking @ 0.2 4 stalls 4 stalls Driveway Site Coverage: 4.6% FSR: 0.574 0.600 Total Hard Surface Coverage: 19.0% Building Site Coverage: 27.8 % 40.0 % Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture Page 21 of 34 17 May, 2013 8:48 AM APPENDIX I 7. 15. Scenario 3G -50% tandem units with increased visitor parking ratio Variables • 1) Parking Type: 50% of Tandem & 50% of Double Wide parking stalls 2) Usable Open Space: 45 m2 / 3 Bedroom & 30 m2 for 2 Bedroom 3) Common activity area: 5 m2 / unit 4) Parking: 0.5 visitor stalls I unit 5) Driveway Apron: 1.0m unit driveway 75m --lnteriorSidelotli'nT----.-----~ Site Plan Reconciliation Provided # Units 20 Units # of 3 Bedrooms 10 Units # of 2 Bedrooms 10 Units % of tandem stall to units 50% % of double stall to units 50% Usable Open Space "1,819 m2 Common Activity Area 100 m2 Visitor Parking @ 0.5 10 stalls FSR: 0.574 Building Site Coverage: 27.8 % Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture Required 750 m2 100 m2 10 stalls 0.600 40.0 % Site Area 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft GFA 2,323 m2 = 25,000 sq ft Road Area: 718 m2 = 7,731 sq ft Driveway Area: 205 m2 = 2,205 sq ft Site Coverage: 1,125 m2 = 12,110 sq ft Unit/ Ha: 49.421 Road Site Coverage: 17.7% Driveway Site Coverage: 5.1 % Total Hard Surface Coverage: 22.8 % Cl) C :.J ..... 0 _J L.. ro Q.) er. Page 22 of 34 ('V') LI') 17 May, 2013 8:48 AM APPENDIXJ 7. 16. Scenario 30 -50% tandem units with increased apron length Variables 1) Parking Type: 50% of Tandem & 50% of Double Wide parking stalls 2) Usable Open Space: 45 m2 / 3 Bedroom & 30 m2 for 2 Bedroom 3) Common activity area: 5 m2 / unit 4) Parking: 0.2 visitor stalls I unit 5) Driveway Apron: 5.5m unit driveway ?Sm E .-·-Trite7ior'side1:ot·rine---~·--------, If) r-,-. Site Plan Reconciliation Provided # Units 17 Units # of 3 Bedrooms 9 Units # of 2 Bedrooms 8 Units % of tandem stall to units 53 % % of double stall to units 47 % Usable Open Space 2,016 m2 Common Activity Area 85 m2 Visitor Parking @ 0.2 4 stalls FSR: 0.494 Building Site Coverage: 23.9 % Required 645 m2 85 m2 3.4 stalls 0.600 40.0 % o5 ~l!Ss __ 1~0~!!!!!!!!51 s:;_._;;,20~!!!!!!!!~2:::;;s -~30 m Site Area 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft GFA 1,997 m2 = 21,500 sq ft Road Area: 438 m2 = 4,713 sq ft Driveway Area: 437 m2 = 4,707 sq fl Site Coverage: 969 m2 = 10,427 sq ft Unit/ Ha: 42.008 Road Site Coverage: 10.8 % Driveway Site Coverage: 10.8% Total Hard Surface Coverage: 21 .6 % Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture Page 23 of 34 t> E <..D O'l (Y') L.f) 17 May, 2013 8:48 AM APPENDIXK 7. 11. Scenario 2F -70% tandem units with variances Variables 1) Parking Type: 70% of Tandem & 30% of Double Wide parking stalls 2) Usable Open Space: 65 m2 / 3 Bedroom & 50 m2 for 2 Bedroom 3) Common activity area: 5 m2 / unit 4) Parking: 0.2 visitor stalls/ unit Visitor parking complies with setbacks 5) Driveway Apron: 5.5m unit driveway, tandem garage only 6) Variances: Front Yard Setback 4.5m, all other setbacks 6.0m 75m --·----·----··_,_-·--·-----------...-.-----,-. Interior Side Lot Line E (.0 -------~~----~~,--A-.-~:~--~,,--A~'--.A-~-~~"--,~,--.;~,-.~ -\ \•:· /\ /.\. /\ /'\ •. ;:\. {\·"; • I '·\ r .\ I \' / \ ,, \ r \; /. \ -r. -:,.~ 1 1.,-J -;-l L-.J l ,-J , L-,-J l--r-J :. ·,111'.. '-11< / 11 /.\ /I 11 ' • /\ •• ,~ Cl' . c4· • 6~ be . bl.z ' ea , : c~· • 610 ,,.·•,_\·.,:··\~ / \ r· t; .. , ·,;;-, /··<.-' :1 •·\ / :r ·•· ,__'"l'-i'_.,....._.-!<c-I R, I "i. / c~ \ ( I/. "Ii I I I I I I I I Q) C :.:J ..., 0 _J '-ro Q) Cl!'. 1.+--i"- '. I i \/ I L ____ _. ____ .J ...._ ____ ~-----..L-----I E _____________________ J I , . <..0 Interior Side Lot Line i '-'-·--·--·-·---·--·--·--·--·--~--·--~--·--- Scenario 2F -Site Plan 0 S 10 1 S 20 25 30 m l!Q"iiiil'5.iiiiiiiiiii~~~--~~§iiiiiiiii,iiiji.;j Scale: 1 :500 Site Plan Reconciliation Provided Required #Units 20 Units Site Area 4,047 m2 = 43,560 sq ft # of 3 Bedrooms 10 Units GFA 2,323 m2 = 25,000 sq ft # of 2 Bedrooms 10 Units Road Area: 635 m2 = 6,831 sq ft % of tandem stall to units 70% Driveway Area: 331 m2 = 3,560 sq ft % of double stall to units 30 % Site Coverage: 1,146 m2 = 12,337 sq ft Usable Open Space 1,703 m2 1150 m2 Unit/ Ha: 49.421 Common Activity Area 100 m2 100 m2 Road Site Coverage: 15.7 % Visitor Parking @ 0.2 4 stalls 4 stalls Driveway Site Coverage: 8.2% FSA: 0.574 0.600 Total Hard Surface Coverage: 23.9% Building Site Coverage: 28.3 % 40.0 % Wayne Stephen Bissky Architecture Page 18 of 34 District of .Maple Ridge Advisory Design Panel Application -2013 1. This application is i.n support of: (please quote file number if available) g Development Permit~/ W\'2..-O~g ~ DP 2. 3. Brief description of project (i.e., commercial, apartment house, townhouse, industrial) and site context. I S1;\0DlVIQ6-..z e,e,;zp,-.;e exlSTINV lp-:[ 1 Pie'S)Qo';?\? Tt7 \ Lo r~ ~ 5Y\AiA:V--1 o:::1~-5:nz!'Z e.+ Cmrv\~;12.?::U?d,., BIJ \ v\71 rJ b-AT w3 ~~ L,O\,tbt-t~ ~vvr: Presenting Architect -ei~H\~.c~ ~IV .S.( ~J\~\~1~, c,,lBVA:N 6 , (please print) 4. Presehting Landscape Ar.chitect: __ ..._At..-~___,'O<N..,___,,_=2-'~~--'=------------ (please print) 5. M_andatory enclosures include the following: / GI' 7 copies of the re·quired presentation materials (as per Guidelines) in 11 x 17 format for distribution to Panel Members. Each individual package should be stapled and 3-hole punched. ulDesign Rationale 6. Contc1ct person for this project: (please print) Name: CYrv'O \ lotvtJoN-lv\oo~ Company: Yt£A:-HttM Heefta:rl.'( Mtf[H1AfeN ~11U;f"S Address: ?PO -lo\4,o IS2-A:4f:-l?'.\A~@.,r Phone No. {po 4 G%1 ~P--~ Fax No. lot. 4: I;;~\ ~ 1 L\::i (Date) rev. 2011-12-20 2013 Meeting Dates Agenda Deadlines by Noon on Tu~ Jan 08 Mon Dec 10 Tues Feb 12 Mon Jan 21 T.ues Mar 12 Mon Feb 18 Tues Apr09 Mon Mar 18 Tues May 14 Mon APr 22 Tues Jun 11 Mon May20 Tues Jul 09 Mon Jun 17 Tues Aug13 Mon Jul 22 Tues Sep 10 Mon Aug 19 Tues Oct 08 Mon Sep 16 Tues Nov 12 Mon Oct21 Tues Dec 10 Mon Nov 18 Time & Location: 4:00 pm in the Blaney Room Lower Level Maple Ridge Municipal Hall RBC Meadow Ridge Design Rationale 20370 Lougheed Highway, Maple Ridge. The RSC RbD (Retail by Design) Target Operating Model takes a fresh look at the bank branch experience with its new "Retail Store" concept, which features interactive advice areas, touch screen technology and much more open space to attract customers. The RbD design uses a mix of progressive design, visual merchandising and digital interactivity to create a unique, new retail experience for the venerated Canadian banking brand, changing the RBC client experience from "banking" to "shopping" by transforming a traditional branch space into a retail environment. The concept is described as a hybrid of best-in-class retail shopping and financial services, designed to support customers' life events. Customers are able to select from a range of self-assisted and full-service options. The RSC RbD exterior uses scale, texture, and glazing to project a progressive, customer friendly retail experience. The design incorporates traditional elements such as a under lit cornice that surrounds the building, high pre-cast concrete base and a soft toned brick masonry veneer to convey RBC's Canadian heritage and position the bank as a trusted authority. The brand's history is further supported by the two fully integrated precast concrete towers which ground the structure and reinforce the brand's strength and heritage. Although continuous weather protection is not provided, excellent proximity to parking areas & pedestrian thoroughfares, and automatic sliding entrance doors, ensure customers easy access into the branch during inclement weather. RSC recognizes encouraging customers to visit physical branches is becoming a challenge as more services become available on-line and through automated banking. Part of the solution called for a more transparent and welcoming store exterior which supports the RBC approach of inviting the public to come in and explore the interactive and modern-looking space. The glazed facade at the entrance to the building offers an inviting, open and approachable attitude featuring clear glazing grounded by a portal which supports and reinforces the history of the brand. To create an inviting atmosphere, RSC chose warm tones, contrasting wood details, soft/curved features on fixtures, and oversized crown mouldings and baseboards. Private meeting rooms and semi-private meeting spaces have been made more open and accessible, allowing for impromptu meetings and to support the customer centric experience. The RSC RbD design has been established to evolve the branch network into a best-in-class retail store and advice centre designed to meet their clients' needs by creating a personalized banking experience that is informative, friendly and accessible. MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia District of Maple Ridge TO: FILE NO: Advisory Design Panel 2012-068-DP MEETING DATE: August 13, 2013 SUBJECT: 20370 Lougheed Highway PURPOSE: An Advisory Design Panel application has been received for the above noted property to permit the construction of a Royal Bank in the C-2 (Community Commercial) zone. The rezoning application supporting this proposal was given First Reading by Council on September 10, 2012. BACKGROUND: Applicant: Owner: Legal Description: OCP: f:;xisting: Zoning: Existing: Proposed: Surrounding Uses: North: South: East: West: Designation: Commercial Existing Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Site Area: Access: Servicing requirement: Ron Hoffart M R Landmark 2000 Centre Ltd Parcel A District Lot 222 Group 1 New Westminster District Plan BCP30168 Commercial CS-1 (Service Commercial) C-2 (Community Commercial) Use: Zone: Designation: Use: Zone: Designation: • Use: Zone: Designation: Use: Zone: Commercial Commercial 1.67 4 hectares Shopping Mall C-2 (Community Commercial) Commercial Single-Family Residential RS-1 (One Family Urban Residential) Urban Residential, Commercial Retail Commercial CS-1 (Service Commercial) Commercial Service Station, Vacant CS-1 (Service Commercial) Lougheed Highway, 203 Street Urban Page 1of 4 DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AREA: In accordance with the Official Community Plan Section 8.5 a Commercial Development Permit is required for this proposal and it will be subject to the following Key Guideline concepts of Commercial Development Permit Guidelines: 1. Avoid conflicts with adjacent uses through sound attenuation, appropriate lighting, landscaping, traffic calming and the transition of building massing to fit with adjacent development. The proposed commercial building is situated in a commercial area to alleviate conflicts with non- commercial uses. The building height is one storey, with vertical elements that project higher. The one storey height is consistent with buildings at the intersection, and provides a stepped transition to the two storey car dealership on the east side of the site. 2. Encourage a pedestrian scale through providing outdoor amenities, minimizing the visual impact of parking areas, creating landmarks and visual interest along street fronts. The building is sited in the north-west corner of the site in close proximity to both Lougheed Highway and 203 Street to create an engaged streetscape and an attractive pedestrian realm. Proposed outdoor amenities including benches, trellises, and a bike lock up. The proposed cornice is not sufficient in overhang to provide weather protection for pedestrians, which is a concern for staff. 3. Promote sustainable development with multimodal transportation circulation, and low impact building design. The applicant proposes to add some landscaped areas in the parking lot and surrounding the proposed building. As the site is currently predominantly paved, the additional landscaping will increase the amount of permeable surfaces on the subject site. 4. Respect the need for private areas in mixed use development and adjacent residential areas. The proposed building is entirely commercial and abuts a residential area along the south property line. Given the large size of the subject site, the building has been sited approximately 90 metres from the south property line and this location will minimize impact on the residential area. 5. The form and treatment of new buildings should reflect the desired character and pattern of development in the area by incorporating appropriate architectural styles, features, materials, proportions and building articulation. The proposed building includes a number of vertical parapet elements that extend above the roofline to create visually interesting features and articulation. The vertical elements are similar to those of the existing car dealership's, therefore reflecting the existing form and character. The colours selected for the proposed building are brown, beige, and blue; which complement the white and beige of the car dealership building on the same site. The applicant has submitted a checklist for the Commercial Development Permit Guidelines and has identified the policies that the project meets. The checklist is attached to the Advisory Design Panel package. Pa_ge 2 of 4 PLANNING COMMENTS: Official Community Plan : The development site is designated Commercial and falls within the General Commercial category due to its location along Lougheed Highway within the Urban Area Boundary and outside of the Town Centre. The objective of the General Commercial category as stated in the OCP is to "respond to emerging market trends and shopping preferences and to permit greater flexibility in the range of commercial uses". The proposed development is subject to the following OCP policy: Policy 6-24 Maple Ridge will review bylaws and regulations aligning with the General Commercial land use designation to respond to market demand and differentiate those uses from retail uses typically found in the Town Centre. The C-2 (Community Commercial) zone aligns with the General Commercial category. Context: The subject site is located in the General Commercial area of west Maple Ridge along the Lougheed Highway, an arterial road. Service commercial and highway oriented commercial uses are predominant in the area, although some C-2 Community Commercial lands do exist. The site is currently used for a car dealership, which is proposed to be maintained. Proposal: The applicant proposes to rezone the north-west corner of the subject site to allow for future construction of a one storey Royal Bank. The building will be sited in the far north western corner of the site, with parking to the rear of the building. Vehicular access to the building will be via Lougheed Highway and 203 Street. The main building entrance is proposed on the east side of the building, with a staff door on the south side of the building. The main building entrance will be highlighted with a parapet extending beyond the roof line. Significant landscaping is proposed on the north and west frontages of the building to create an attractive street corner. Landscaping will also be present throughout a portion of the parking area on the proposed newly created site. • The Royal Bank will use light beige colour masonry for the exterior wall cladding with blue-grey spandrel glass. The exterior wall materials will be complemented by dark brown and light grey cast panels for the parapets and beacons. Parking: The parking required for this site is 26 spaces based on a ratio of one space per 20 m2 of gross floor area. The applicant has provided 40 parking spaces including one accessible parking space in close proximity to the main building entrance. A bike lock up is also proposed near the building entrance. Garbage & Recycling: The garbage and recycling enclosure is proposed to be located in the parking lot and elevations details are included in the architectural plans. Page 3 of 4 Off-Site Upgrades: The C-2 (Community Commercial) zone is an urban zone and full urban servicing standard is required . Requested Variances: A height variance will be required for the building's parapets, which have a total height of 8.5 metres. Planning Analysis: The Planning Department requests that the Advisory Design Panel provide comments on the development proposal. Particularly, staff are seeking feedback from the Advisory Design Panel members regarding opportunities to increase weather protection for pedestrians at key locations, such as the east and south sides of the building. Staff are also seeking feedback regarding the proposed location of the building entrance and the impact on both street frontages. ~ Prepared by: Amelia Bowden Planning Technician Page 4 of4 Scale: 1 :2,000 20370 LOUGHEED HWY MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: Jul 23, 2013 FILE: 2012-068-DP BY: PC Pursuant with Section 8.5 of the Official Community Plan, commercial developments wi.11 be assessed against the following form and character guidelines. • This checklist is intended to aid in the review of commercial development permits and is to be completed by the architect of r¢cord for the project It is noted that the r Jject will also be reviewed for consistency with the guidelines by the Planning Department staff and .~. Advisory Design Panel. Ke~· Guideline Concepts I Consistent ' IfN01 provide Yes No justification for inconsistency l. Avoid conflicts with adjacent uses through sound attenuation, appropriate lighting, landscaping, traffic calming and the transition of building massing to fit with adjacent development. / 2. Encourage a pedestrian scale through providing outdoor amenities, minimizing the visual impact of J' parking areas, creating landmarks and visual interest along street fronts. 3. Promote sustainable development witll multimodal ✓ transportation circulation, and low impact building desigri. 4. Respect the need for private areas in mixed use development and adjacent residential areas. /\//~· 5. The fonn and treatment of new buildings should reflect the desired character and pattern of development in the area by incorporating appropriate ✓ architectural styles, features, materials, proportions and building articulation. Guidelines Consistent if No, p o,'.idc Yes No justification for incomtlstency A "-• BLtilrling Deslgn, Massing and Siting 1. The form and treamient of new buildings should reflect the desired character and pattern of development in ✓ the area by incorporating appropriate architectural styles, roof forms, facade modulation, architect.urn! features, fenestration patterns, building elements and proportions and building atticulation. 2. Exterior finishes should be wood, brick, natural stone or other materials of warm appearance. Substantial ✓ areas of concrete should be avoided. Expanses of solid wall or glass are unacceptable. -I - I 3. New buildings adjacent to existing small scale buildings such as houses should be designed to provide visual interl;!St whilst protecting the privacy and livability of both properties. 4. Significant comers should be given added emphasis with vertical architectural fealures and roofscape features. At intersections the definition of corners should be reinfore<:d by buildings chn1 front on both streets. 5. Devclqpinent should be sited to have the building frontage on the main street alignment. 6. Projects located oil slopes should be developed in a manner which creates a step in perceived height, bulk and scale between development. 7. Design and constmction ofb1,1ildings should account for maximum sound attenuation between commercial and adjacent residential uses. To ensur<l that noise generated on the site is addressed in the most appropriate manner, Council may request that a noise attenuation study be prepared. 8. Continuous weather protection, such as canopies, structural awnings, or building overhangs, is strongly promoted where at-grade retail uses are included in a development and over common entries to commercial and/or mixed-use developments that front a public sidewalk or open space. 9. Developments adjacent ta treed slopes, ravines and watercourses must respect natural vegetation, use natural landscaping to retain soils on the site arid may require additional setbacks as established by agencies having jurisdiction. Creeks and ravines are encoura,ged to be retained in thelr natural state. l O. Developments are encouraged to redirect water from rooftop runoff and downspouts into vegetated areas or rain barrels for later irrigation use. 11. Buildings shouhi be designed and located on a site to: a} preserve a11d incorporate natural features or views; b) ensure proper orientation and relationship to adjoining residential uses; c) minimize impacts on natural features and agricullural lands; d) accommodate natural grades to ensure minimal grading is required. B. Refuse, Recycling and Ser"ic:ing Are.as l. The design of a roof, placement of mechanical units and satellite dishes. etc. should take into account -2- ,./ \;/ ./ ✓ .x ✓ ✓ /IA /L 4 €;.~t,~ t'~1}{W(lt- -to 1'Ml¥-li'\O\ /><f'-:eP(f;; ~ ~"f~U'l>l 1'-ttt?~U~, f-1>-~, q ~\) M<.:r>Mfi1\U :,)UPl ~I ic:e t'.-1~'1.'\'t>M~ 1;,~ut 'D~f!ttlc\ ~Le 1'1/1~1 6'-19.1 ~,J ~ P....<... \!J+j) ,r;i,l:;:, \~~ t,.J~f:li~ f{A views of the roof from adjacent buildings. v' 2. Service areas should have differentiated access lo minimize visual impact as well as conflicts with pedestrians. ✓ 3. Refuse receptacles must be located indoors or within service areas out of view from pedestrian access. Garbage and waste material should be stored in containers that are ,veatherproof and animal-resistant. 4. Mechanical equipment, drive-through uses, service 01· car wash bays, restrooms, vending machines, unenclosed storage, and public telephones should be oriented on the site to face away from adjacent residential development. Whenever possible, these uses should not be visible from an adjacent residential property. C. Street .Front I. Particular attention should be made to the image / presented to the street front. 2. New development should emphasize the street frontages by incorporating differentiated front, side and rear oriented facades. Facades should incorporate v/ vertical and horizontal relief in a well-proportioned rhythm appropriate to the intended scale of development. 3. Buildings with o.ver 15 metres of street frontage should break the horizontal mass of the building with V vertical elements in a rhythmic pattern. 4. Streetfro~~ landsc~ping will _incorporate street trees / for defimt1on of scte boundanes and enhancement of v public space. 5. Vehicle access on a street frontage should be located to the side of the building away from the pedestrian / entrance and should be designed to minimize the .._,/ impact on streetscape appearance and disruption to pedestrian movement. D. Signage :md Lighting 1. Signage should be integrated with the design of .a building, preferably at ground level only, and its size J and design should complement the scale and architectural detail of the building. 2. High intensity illumination directed at adjoining properties should be avoided. Colnniercial signage and high intensity illumination adjacent to residential / uses should be minimized in order to protect residential amenity. N. ( Fr 3. Lighting and signage should be designed so as to have no direct source oflight visible from the public right-/ of~way. 4. All signage must confom, to the Maple Ridge Sign Bylaw. rn the event of a conflict between the M"ple Ridge Sigi1 Byla1·i and these guidelines, the hitter V should take precedent. ' s. In multiple-ren:mt commercial or mixed-use buildings, signs should be designed. to present a /lA unified appearance. Signage space sho1lld be provided for upper storey tenancies, E. Vehicle Access, Parki11g, nnd Circulation L BuHdings and structures should be located to ensure safe traffic circulotion and access and adequate on-/ site parking. Parking should be encouraged in smaller units to avoid a monotonous appearance. 2. Parking and storage areas should be appropriately screened. Low level landscape screening should be ✓ provided to parking areas adjacent to public streets. 3. Where possible, parking and servicing should be located underground or to the rear of buildings to ✓ minimize the impact on streetscape appear.mce and pi:destrian amenity. In all new buildings the portion of the stmcture used for par~ing and servicing should be adequately screened and should be architecturally compatible with the rest of the building. 4. Existing lanes should be used for vehicle access, loading and serYicing. Upgrading of lanes in terms of .r!A attractive treatment and screening of parking access and loading and service areas is encou raged. .5. Vehicle access should be located to the side of the builc.ling away from the pedestrian entrance. and J should be designed to minimize the impact on streetscape appearance_ and disruption to pedes!rian movement. 6. Lanes, and driveways should conform to the existing grades as closely as possible to ensure minimal /' disruption of slopes and vegetation. On steep terrain, access should be aligned, wherever possible, to run parallel rather than counter to, natural contours nnd existing grades. 7. Shared vehicle access belween adjoining sites should J be considered where access for parking at the rear of the property is limited. Joint or shared access should also be considered between a<.\ioinin2 developments to minimize disruption of pedestrian sidewalks and to maximiz~ landscaping and permeable surfaces. fotegration of driving aisles and pedestrian walkways between adjacent sites is also strongly encouraged. 8. Minimize the amount of asphalt surfaces in parking areas by integrating a variety of paving materials such as concrete, decorative pavers or by using alternate surface treatments. 9. Above ground parking structures should not front public streets at grade, Non-parking uses or special fa~ade treatments must be provided along street frontages to enhance the buildints appearance to the public realm. On non-street fronting facades, parking structures should be treated to avoid long blank walls at grade, such as massed landscape treatments or attention to design detailing on the fai;mde. 10. Parking control equipment, such as ticket dispensers and card readers, should be located at a sufficient distance from a public street to prevent parking queues extending onto lhe street. Similarly, a minimunl disiance of one car length, and preferably two car lengths, should be provided between an exit gate and the street edge to accommodate cars waiting to merge into 1raffic. 11. Rooftop parking structures should include design elements, including landscaping, to reduce the visual impact from the street and surrounding uses, F, Pedestrian and Bkyck Access i. Development should improve pedestrian amenity through interesting design detail at ground level, / easily identifiable entrances, shop fronts with clear [\. u□tinted glazing, concentration of signage at ground level, attractive landscaping and well defined pedestrian crossings for driveways and roadways. 2. A well defined pedestrian access to the commercial use will be provided from the public sidewalk. Design will ensure that pedestrian use is given precedence over vehicular use. Where possible, at least one pedestrian connection should be provided through the main block of buildings. 3. Facilities for cyclists should be ~onsidered for all developments. G. L:mdm1ping and Open Space L Landscaping should be supplemented to identify and define public soace. 16 oresent a oleasimt ima!l:e and -5 - X to soften the transition from adjacent land uses to the commercial development. 2. Adjacent residential uses should be adequately / protected by significant landscaping or the provision of screening or both. 3. Street tresls will be a required component of all new development for"definition of site boundaries and enhancement of public space. Simplicity in ✓ landsci;iping materials is desirable and should be encouraged for screening purposes, Deciduous tree species should be considered in landscape plantings to permit light penetration in winter. Mature vegetation should be retained where possible. 4. Aesthetic values along fromages and on-site ought to be enhanced by significant landscaping on all ✓ property lines and around buildings. Street trees should be used to provide the landscaping variety that would soften the character and scale of the area. 5. Landscape planting and screening should be used to create interesting views and focal points into and out / of the site for pedestrians, passing driwrs and building tenants on Ute site or adjacent to it. 6. Open space should be usable, attractive imd well- integrat~d wilh the design of the building. Open ;VA space, in many cases, will be achieved with courtyards, recessed balconies, terraced balconies, rooftop gardens, and atria. 7. Landscaping should reinforce design continuity with neighbouring properties and the sll'Cetscnpc by J providing consistency in s1Tcc1 trees, plant materials and other landscaping elements. 8. Laodsc11ping should define the purpose and emphasize the desired character and fW1ction of public and private space. All private and semi-private open space should be clearly defined as such and should be controllable by thost: inconl to benefit and be responsible for it, thus encouraging use, pride and safety; 9. Distinguish public and semi-public spaces from private spaces. Design symbolic barriers through: a) building nnd site design; //.A b) changes in paving, vegetation, or grading; or c) architectural features, such as low walls, bollards or raised planters. -6- H. Crime Prevention through C1nironmenrnl D~Igu (CPTED} i. Developments should be designed to max1m1ze opportunities for natural surveillance allo\ving people to easily view what is happening around !hem during / the course of everyday activities. Crime Prevention ,J through Environmental Design principles and techniques are encouraged. 2. Crime Prevention through Environmental Design / (CPTED) principles should be incorporated into the V design of all parking facilities. 3. Design the interior spaces and exits from any underground and above ground parking structures for maximum visibility within the parkitig area. Entries J.../ A should be highly visible, well lit tind spaced at I " /o:'j' convenient intervals; Hidden spaces, obscured alcoves and blind comers should be avoided in the design and layout of the parking facilities. 4. Walls and ceilings of parking structurcS, particularly underground structures, should be painted white to enhance pr reflect light. J, Uuiversull~• Accessible Design 1. All non-vehicl.llar routes be fully accessible. Sidewalks and pathways should be wide enough for whedchair / scooters an.d should include a tactile strip J for the visually impaired. Curb-cuts and curb let- downs should be provided in appropriate locations to facilitate safe, convenient, and direct access from parking spaces to buildings for people with disabilities. 2, Locate parking spaces allocated for people with disabilities as close as possible to the main entrance to , . / a building. \/ 3. Building entries should be: a) clearly addressed with large numbers visible from the street; / b) directly accessed from the street without stairs; v· and c) provided with weather protection, exterior lighting, and power-assisted door openers. -7 - J. Bicycle Stornge-nnd Parldllg I. Provide short tenn bicycle parking facilities, such as bicycle racks, ai grade close 10 building entrances. I Bicycle parking should be in well-lit loca1ions and ✓ clearly visible from a main building entrance and/or public roads. Bicycle reeks should be made of sturdy, theft-resistant material, securely anchored to the floor or grounds. 2. Provide long tenri bicycle parking f!lcilitles in secure storage areas within buildings. Bicycle storage areas provided as part of a parking structure should be located close to elevators and access points. In mixed-X use buildings, bicycle storage facilities for residents are to be separate from those for the commercial uses. 3. Large-scale developments are ene-0uraged to prQvide end-of-trip facilities, such as showers and lockers, f-/A within the development for the convenience of . , employees. Date:. ____________ _ Architect Name/Company _,b,~n..,,_~ ..... :tft:_.....,\l..._S .... o .... N"'--"'-'Q=--..l+1 (L,oCJU.Pi-"--'f'-~..a=utlre:vr& lN.0 . Municipal File No. __________ _ Plan Description: ___________________ _ -8- ~.k--=.=.. ~=~-E?::::,. &,··* .. :: ... ~-·.;?,-. '.G~ . ..:...:.l:z___-~ ..... _-'C.... .. :z.:---' 6MW1 --·-----_ rtq:1--1n ---_.__ ______ _ ----~ --------------.-· -------- EB SITE PLAN SCALE: 1:300 LEGEND D CONCRETE :::PAVERS LAN-SCAPING GRASS ----- :z ----- ---. --- ~ ~ CS1 HIGHWAY COMMERCIAL USE WEST COAST FORD FLOOR ELEVATION: 15.600 C'::--, < ~------------------------ 11_3077 RECONCILIATION· EXISTING CIVIC A,,r'RESS: 20370 LOUGHEEr HIGHWAY, MAPLE Rl,"1GE, B c. LEGAL nESCRIPTION: PARCEL I'7ENTIFIER: 027-077-578 PARCEL A, CISTRICT LOT 222, GROUP 1, NEW WESTMINSTER 1·IsTRICT PLAN BCP3016B CURRENT r·ONE: LOT AREA EXISTING: GROSS FLOOR AREA nEALERSHIP: BUIL,-,ING AREA FOR:~ nEALERSHIP: LOT COVERAGE EXISTING: CS1 (PARCEL A) 16,733,0M2 3,551.3 M2 2,811.7 M2 1s.an RECONCILIATION . PROPOSED PROPOSE, -:ONE: CS1 ANc C2 PROPOSE"r PARCEL "A" <ONE:CS1 PROPOSE·: LOT "8" f ONE:C2 PROPOSE,, ROA-, ,EnlCATION 13,186.3 M2 ~ (16,62B.1 M2) ~ 16,733.r·M2 - RECONCILIATION PROPOSED PARCEL 'A' ,·ONE: CS1 LOT AREA PROPOSEr:: 13,186.3 M2 BUIL--ING AREA FOR,, -:EALERSHIP: 2,811.7 M2 LOT COVERAGE PROPOSEn: 21.32,r RECONCILIATION PROPOSED LOT 'B' PROPOSEG ~ONE: C2 LOT AREA PROPOSE,,: BUILC,INGAREA nGROSS FLOOR AREA: 3,441.8 M2 510.rBM2 14 r4,· 17 SPACES (510,,7lM2 '30M2) LOT COVERAGE: PARKING RE<UIRE:-,: PARKING REnUIREn MOT: 32 SPACES (5,500 Sn. FT. C'l,000 sn.FT.X 5,67) PARKING PROVlnEn: 40 SPACES Cl r R r d r •c1 ' ; , Gt ti r M Al f(a."" d n till ·d ~T fa . " .. GHMA. t I R 1-1 f Ar M r M lot SUBMIT TO Pl.ANNING I ULY 22. 2013 - -1-... •"O z 0 ~ (9 u z ::::, 0.. .::::; 0.. <! :::::, l:: ID ::a: u 0:: ID w 0:: O..ci :r: 1-1-Z-' I-w. z ~ :a:~ 0.. CD <( I-Or---':::i ....J(O ci.o W'° -->~ w>-_w,-.. ~<( a:Oo • C/J....J N -..- (0 0 g z N % 0 ~ 0.. ,;: ;: 0 <( i ; i ! i ~ I I . ! • a i ' ... . w z ::, t=, ..J EB SITE SECTION SCALE: 1:100 nRIVEWAY r'"1SHE. FLOOR: 14.501. ,,.. .... I II UJ g; I ~I ,,., LOUGHEEIJ HIGHWAY CU l:rllllRl C[rl I d .. ' I ' a, " "" ,. -I • ,, ... . .,_ T I • ., ., SUBMIT TO PLANNING WLY 22, 2013 <( ~ ~ -.. " . Q . z 0 ~ 0 ::::; Cl.. Cl.. 0 <( I-~ ::E 22 0:: ! w Cl..ci I-I-► z Z-' ~ 0 w . :::;;~ ~ ~ c..<O w 0 Or-I w -''° (/) W'° ~Gj~ g w I f-i Ob -ui N N CD 0 z N CL • 0 ,: ::= □ .. <( 8 0 FUTURE TELEPRESCENCE SCREEN ONLY RB STAN: AR ELEMENTS (EG: FILE CABINETS, STORAGE UNITS, COIN LOCKER, ETC} CAN BE RE-tJS£ IN TH£ Nell rut BRANCHES NO SUBSTITUTIONS - MUST FOLLOW THE RB STAN AR S GROSS (GLA) SF, TOT AL USABLE SF: (5500SF) (5150 SF) 1 CLERESTORY ________ j _____ _ UEUING ~ <X)() 6'·0" 6'·9" [] SCALE: ~ 0 2 10 1 MEADOWRIDGE RELOCATION: RBD SPACE PLAN A2.01 SCALE: 3/16" -1•-0• 20 ,. SPANDREL 1, __J ______________ J _____ ~ ISCOVERY TABLE ~ OLB UNIT ~ @:I QS> --------- 8'-4" VESTIBULE Q§J .ATE: UNE4, 2013 PRO ECT NAME: MEK OWRI GE RELOCATION MAPLERI GE, BC NOTE: NOT INT!:N E FOR CONSTRUCTION· PRELIMINARY ONLY imperial All DIMENSIONS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ARE IN FEET AND INCH~ • THIS IS A COPYRIGHT DRAWING AND SHALL NOT BE USED, REPRODUCED. OR REVISED WITHOUTWP.ITTEN PERMISSION • THE CONTRACTOR SH.All CHECK AND VElUfY AU. DIMENSIONS AND REPORT AU ERROR'S AfO OMISSIONS TOTliE ARCHITTCT PRIOR TO COMMENC!NG THEWORt:: • TI-IESE DRAWNGS ARE NOT TO 8E SCALED. □IALO □·· 200, 90'2 • 11 Avem,e SW, Tel:/<!03) 2~5-5501 :Z 6'00' Sire elf IIXXl ◄ Tet (~16) 961r-OZ20 10154108SlreelNW, 1el:(l80J2~9-1~ Coig:uy,A!beno. m@ fax:1<03]229~ TtX"onlo,On!orio, t.'.4W IA8 Fax::f~l&)m-0223 Edmonton. Alber1o, T5J 1L3 Fox:(7&1)~2M~B GUSTAVSON WYLIE ARCHITECTS INC. .c.•,C;itr£CTURE I PLAr,M!NG I INTERIORS GUSTAVSON WYLIE ARCHITECTS INC, 4TH FLOOR, 576 SEYMOUR STREET VANCOUVER, BC VfiB 3K1 PH: (604) 687-2511 I FAX: (604) 667-4200 REVISED FOR: ISSUED FOR: I. DIALOG REVlEW 2,PLANH'NGREVlE'W I • • TR2920 RBC MEADOWRIDGE RELOCATION 20370 LOUGHEED HIGHWAY, MAPLE RIDGE, BC FLOOR PLAN DRAWN: CE CHECKED: CE PLOTDATE: MAY Hl,2013 JllLV 18.2013 SHEETNllMBER ORBNTATION A2.01 NORTH PROJECTNUMBER: 12118 I' 0 SP I' 11 I' SP EAST ELEVATION A4.01 SCALE: J/16• ., 1•-0· $ zs~-o· T/0- ~ @ 21•-11· ~ T/0 r-,, $ ,, .. _ ... ~ -----i7oMMNP~ ... .:. r-8 ~ I ~ , I , , I ~ I ~ l, I l! e I I I I , $ y-o• T/0 PR£C<ST 8'5E i i ~ a·-o-· T/0 f'VI. f\JI. T/0 nN, rut. PC1 2 NORTH ELEVATION A4.0I SCALE, J/11" -1•-0• <r m·-0· ~ T/0 OCACON €0 1 "'' 10'---4. ~ I 0""'1 PA.W'O e m 10 cp O'-o· T/0 flN. f1.R. FINISH LEGEND """ _. ... ,lft~CEMOO--UME WIX FF BY OA"'15 00l0RS ""' CEMENT CAST PANELS n sm..£: FORMOlAS CUSTOM COLOUR: UGlfT GREY T'rPE: FRP SJ-4824-0 owe OCWOOfl!lilQCM'~ f2 5T'l1.£: f'ORMGL.AS CUSTOM COLOUR: 9ROW1'I rn>E: FRP 53--51909-0 (CAlff1il'. r,.noiN FOR SE~0,1,RY --c,wt DOW CC,1l)M CW, t,P-t..,._I EJF'SC~ El'1 PROF'l.E: AS DRAWN COLOUR: TO J,l,\TCH FORM~ UC:lfT GRO' '"'"" pc, F'ROfltE:,SO!f.Qffl" CONCRETE COl.Ol/R.! LIGHT BIECE PN"1S MIX: J/8 IMr.QCt.. ORISl<N iNo, COHi:RE'TE ~ ..-WHTE CDl!Yr. Pll:1M0.t .$\l,L"'l..E. fQR. ~ ""' ,_,, ....... CO\.llt.JR: TO W.TCM (F1) """""'""" GaEY PAEJINMED.l. •F-> CO' • .OU!t: -PRVNISHED WIT.Al lU WiT~H FV.SH~G Cl.EAR AHOOl2ED AUJl,ftr,JM '""' ,_, PAffl CO'..OUR TO MAlCft A0JACENT" STIYIEvtNEER.. .AWMltf.JM ~-1 COlO\JR: Cl.D.R ANODIZED AU.JM'NUM INSULATED jW:1< PAINTED GLASS l~;~DREI.. ~~~~ ~c~,;,u - 10.II' WU!) TI. THERt.W.LY BROKOI DOUBLE """ GLAZEDSfAUDUNIT KEYNOTES SIGH.IIGEIJYO»IERS WJN BEACON BEYOND. DEC>.l !JY OWNER cr,,-w,u a,oo,c J011£:RB,t,CKJt,IG, SEAOOM SECONDARY FiK>f".U: ARCH - OC'l'Eff.OR WAl..l. BASE -- ~OOOR ~~ \li.tU. 6: W,t,l)QW .,._ ...... 'WA!..t.&,rlJOtW '"ES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ATM 0;:ir'YETiiA\I OPO/iNC, CONFIRM D?DINC: SIZE WITH ATM W..'flS'ACl\lRER SlOEWAJ..K & CUll9 ~ BOUAAO. NOT USED ~ WETER, RU'ER TO MECtW«:Al. DRAWING'S- SCIJPPER ORAi.'!, REFER TO DITM.. fi/A6.06. roRMGV.S "'""""" ~IJ,/MOORE KA,WtlEEJI ""'""" G @) @) @ @ ~ 3/◄ 0mJ1011 ~ ~'tlllDOO IIO;INO 10 M0WJE MX>mOf.l SUPPORT &: ANCHCAACC (OR: itCWGE ~ M ;,~ IID1:il 'JO a:i;TICllf t/~. imperial All DIMENSKJNS UNLESS OTHERW~E NOTED ARE IN mr AND INCHE • lHts iS ACOf'YRIGHT Dii!AWLNGANO SH All NOT BE USED, REPRODUCED. OR RfVl:SEO WITHOUT WRIITEH PERMISSION • TliE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECI. AND VRIFY AU. OIMfNSlONS AND REPORT AU.ERroRSANDOM4SJONS TOTiifAROiffECTP~IOilOC0,1/MENC~\'G rn:WOR( • THESE CRA'n1:Q ARE HOT 10 BE SCALED. DIA L O □'· 200.902-llA\'CnueSW, lel:f'°3lm-SSOI 261oorSieelEIOXU Tet(t1&)9dlt-0220 10I54100SlreeIHW, let(750)249·151l'.1 Cogay,Nb:110. 12R0:7 fwcf.co3J229-0SO.: TCt'onio OnJorio. ~w 1"8 Fae (~161966-0223 E-dmonlon,111t1ef10,JSJll.J Fox:17801(29-2848 GUSTAVSON WYLIE ARCHITECTS INC. ARCHITECTURE I PLANMJNG I INTERIORS GUSTAVSON WYLIE ARCHITECTS INC. 4TH FLOOR. 576 SEYMOUR STREET VANCOUVER, BC V6B 3K1 PH:{604)687-2511 I FAX:(604)687-4203 REVISED FOR: ISSUED FOR: l,llAL.OGl1EV1EW 2 Pl.ANN HG Rc\lEW I • • TR2920 RBC MEADOWRIDGE RELOCATION 20370 LOUGHEED HIGHWAY, MAPLE RIDGE, BC NORTH & EAST EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS DRAWN: CE CHECKED: CE PLOTDATE: MAYl0,2013 JULYlB,2013 Sf(EETNUMBcR OREJf!ATIOO A4.01 NORTH PROJECT NUMBER: 12118 " \(F1J I ' / ' ' ~ ' ' ~ 0 00 ~ ~ I -,, ' ' ' ' ~ =--== 1%:: ' ' rx ' ' e f-B .....,, ~ ' ' ' ' ' I~ ' ' '-' '\ ' " " SP SP SP SP SP '\ ' ' ' " " e SP SP SP -SP SP SP " SP " • SP ' sio .... tt-,Y, I I I, I I ' cp ...,. T/0 m. Rll e 8 WEST ELEVATION -00 ~ .... 2••-11· ~ V T/010Will 0-I'-I "'= / <§$8 ' e ~ "-g l (es I" / / / SP SP SP SP e ~ e I" ,., I" I' = TC TIJ lO ... ~ I/ i [iac) '\. @ SP I' SP I' SP .I" SP / . I I I I I I q:> $ tt--o· I T/0 llH. rut 2 SOUTH ELEVATION A4.02 --------------------------- 0 --y--r------------' I ,,,_., / ---vo f-0 ~ e € ' ~ ---~ S Of' CORHQ: ' ' SP SP SP SP @B e SP SP SP SP I/ ~) '\. 'SP SP SP "\ SP I I q:> e @ '-~/ 0-I-I" I SP ~ = ~~ ,, SP k0 ~ f-B e / / / /. / / ~ SP SP SP SP SP SP l:i I" ,, ,, I" ,, I" e TO 10 "' IC 10 Im SP / SP/ SP I' SP / SP I" SP I" I I. I I "" = e " SP '=== T/0 I .,G) • --0 ~ T/08£1,CON ~ rr-r .... -t-T/0 PORI"-V ~ ~,-~ ~ p::;;; ~ ,. ,:, 1l !! 13•-o· ..1. -UfSOFCORNq; ~ ~ 3·-0· ~ -•-~ Pm[:AST B.a5f ~ " 0'-()· ~ 1/0 fl<, nA T/0 fl: fl.JI. FINISH LEGEND """ .. lb.SOHR'I' lH1' Ml STYI..E: AOWSSAHCE COLOUR:s.tJ«lRIFT" FINISH: DRESSED CODE: IIEN1156 ltlCAllO>< OOER.'OR WMJ.. Cl.AOD't'G ~ TTPE N PO!m.»ID C£MENT-U"4E" IJIX ~ .art>JI CASf P~El.S " ..... ...... OF'S CORNICE "' PRECAST "'" CONCRETE PA«ElS PC2 l'At='TN MU).L ,i.ASHINC MF-1 '""' r-, COLOUR.: TRVE TONE IN DAVIS COU)RS :!♦♦7'1'El.J..OWBUFr 1lBPER70TOD◄LBS GRAY WASOtlRY Cn.100 SM.£: fDRMGUS CVSTOW COlOUR! UCKT GRt."Y nPE: mP s~-•82+-D OCIICCIIDQNO"CW'S,MJN,.,.._ STYLE: FOFU.tGVS CUSTCt,1 COlOUR: 8ROWN TYPE: FRP SJ-51009--0 (Glr,lfflDI: ftnDN fOR SECONDAAY """"'Ma<) Dl)W'CG8M,tr: tw, ,~, ....... f'f!OFltE::~ORAW'N t:oLCJUR: ltl M,\TCK FOfll.lGV.S LIGHT I.REY ~Fll.E:ASDAAWN OUR: UCHT BIECI: j,IDC:~/8UI.ISTOHE,ow..KN~. CONCRrn'. SA.ND .t. WHITE eooff. PIIOl4lltSAMPI.E£OR,t,pPRO»'Al. PROfll.E:AScRAJni COlDUR: 10 MATCH (Fl) FORMGI.ASUGHrCll£'1' COLOUR: PREFJ,IISHED M£TAL. TO t.lATCH Cl£AR N-IOOIZED AI.Ut,ONUM JWNT COLOUR TO wJ'Cti m.JACENT 'Sl"OOEVENcE.R- T~MCl<INC, BEACON SfCO/iDNfl' PROF1l.E AACI-I loo OOOR "'""'"" fORM<VoS BENJAMIN MOORE AL.IJMIHUt.l COLO.Ill: Q£UI ~ ~ ~ WALL. 6= Wl'IOOW KAWHEDI ~ Is> alCll:PNh1El>GI.AS5. l~R,.~~fl~--.,...rv .. ™ERtilA1..LY BROKO, 00081.L CI.AZED Sr>LED Utm" itlJRT,t,1.'1 WK!. il WINDOW KAWNEDI: "'" KEYNOTES 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ @ @ @ @ @ S:cw.cE 9'I' OniERS MA.IN BEACON BEYOND AlUl,ONUM PANEL CECAL SY DWN£R TOWER BEYOND ATM CRIV£lliRU OPOllNG CONFIRM OPEJ,'ING SIZE WITH AlM I.IANUF'ACTURER S!DEWAl.K & CUIUi EXTERIOR CORNICE CONTROL JOIITTS, CAS I-IEIER. REnR TO MECHA.~ICAL CRAW.NCS SCUFPER OIUJN. RU'ER TO OETAI. 6/A8D5, """'' PROl'l'OC 3/'-0(rt1t'OR GIWlE k"t'W000 WIOli::: TO rRCNIDE ADOIT10N SUPPORT .!< AHCHOAACE FOO IIICPOU NO IJIP PANEL &Utll 'l'O SlCflOH t/Al..04. imperial All DIMENSIONS UNLESS OlHERW~E NOTED ARE IN FEfl ANO INCH8 , THIS IS A COPYRiG!if Di AWING ANO SHAI.L NOT BE USED, REPRODUCED. CW RtV\SEO Wl1HOUI WPJTTEN PERMiSSION • THE COHTP.AC10~ SH.6.1.l CHECK ANO VER FY All DIMENSIONS ANO REP CRT All ERRORS AND OMiSSION) 10 TliEARCHITECT PRIOR TO COMMENCING THEWOR~ • Tii5EORA'HiNGSARENOTTOlESCA.lED □IALO □·· 200.902·11AvenueSW, Tel: (-<03) 2~s-550l 26foor51rccl E IOCO~ Te!:(4")966--0220 101~roasree1NW. Tet.!7!)l2-<9-1580 Cogoiy.Af()!Ifo,TlR0=l fo,:(W)Zo'-0504 Toronlo. Onlorio, M~W lA!I Fai:(416)966-0223 Eclff'()r.10fl.Alb~a,15Jll3 Fm:(7601429+2~8 GUSTAVSON WYLIE ARCHITECTS INC. ARCHITECTURE I PLAMl'-JING I lNTERIORS GUSTAVSON WYLIE ARCHITECTS INC. 4TH FLOOR 576 SEYMOUR STREET VANCOUVER, BC V6S 31<1 PH: (604) 687-2511 I FAX: (604) 687-4203 REVISED FOR: ISSUED FOR: I.DIALOG REVIEW '..l. PI.ANl.fNGREViEW TR2920 RBC MEADOWRIDGE RELOCATION 20370 LOUGHEED HIGHWAY, MAPLE RIDGE, BC SOUTH & WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS DRAWN: CE CHECKED: CE PLOT DATE: MAYI0.2013 JLlY 18.2013 SHi:fiNU\IBER Ol?SNTATION PROJECT NUMBER: 12118 1 NORTH WEST ELEVATION A+~03 SCALE: J/16· • 1·-0• FINISH LEGEND """ ~UNIT ""'l'HCIS " r., ""U( ... _ m SM.£: FORMGLlS CUSTOM COt.OUR: LICHT GREY TYPE: FRP "-<ta24-0 __ ... mlE! FOfU,IGIAS CUSTOM COlO~; BROWN T'r1'E: FRP SJ-51009--0 (CAR'l'lm PAMRN fOR SECON[)M'f BEACON ARc;J;) l)Oll'COltlQIG. CW,: l.574W-1 PROl"ll£: AS OftA.WN COUJVR: TO t.lATCH. FORl,l(,V,S ui;HTCRE.Y """""""'--__ .. TOWER llACl<ING. WCON SECONOAR'I' !'ROAU: ARCH PRECAST ''" PROfll.£: AS ORAM! OOERIOR WALL BASE COHCRITE ''""' PRmN METAL FLASHING """ ALUMINUM i;: KEYNOTES P<:2 MF-1 .... , ..... ... .. COLOURi UCKT BIEGE MIX: l/8 UMSTONE, ORISXN ~ OOHO.ETE SANO &. WHITE COID(J. PRO'IIDE SAWPlff'ORW'f>Ra,/M... COLOUR: PREflllSHED MErAL TO MATCH CI.EAA ANODIZED ALUMINUM PAINT COLOUR 10 MATCH ..-A)JACENT =<"'"""'- COLOUR: C:l.W ANOOIZED AL.Ul,lt,11.Jl.1 THERW.U.Y SROkCH ooueu CLAZEDSOOIDUpfl' 0 SIICCl«l'fOMM 0t.lAINKilClfilSEYONO 0~tlMQ.. 0 OECAJ.B'fa.,,,.i[R 0TO\VER13£YONO. .....,, OOOR lf:WAU..a:WINOOW 0 ATM DRrvETHAU OPENING, CONFIRM OPEN:NG SIZE WJTH ATM w.HIJFACTIJRER 0 SIDEWALK k CURS 0 SWA'!O. 0 p.fCJTUSED @ EXIDOOR CORN<£ G CONTROLJOINTS @ e-.1WCIJl.ll7UllO~W @ SCUPPER ORAl'f REFER TO DETAIL 5/Ae oe ® GRADE ""'"""" fORl,IC.J..AS IIENJAMIN t.400RE r,';;\ PROVIDE 3/4 ~ GRADE Pi.YwOOO ~ ff> P-11:MDE ADOffiON SUPPORT & N-ICHOR>.GC \,:_V FOR SIGNAGE NO rll!P PANEL RiffA TO i£fle:.t tj;t,; Oto imperial All DIMENSIONS UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED ARE IN FEEr AND INCHc • lHlS IS A COPYRIGHl DRA'h1NG AND SHALL NOT~ USED.REPRODUCED. OR REVtSEO WUHOUT WiJT@.I PER~M!ON • THE CONIRACTOiSHAll CHECK AIID VERIFY All OfMEl'-ISIOMS AND REPORT ALL H!RORS ANDOM!SS\ONS 10 me ARCHl'IECT POOR m COMME~NG Tl"iEWORK • TI-me DRAV-1NGS ARE NOTlO ee SCALED. □IALO □'· ZXl.ffl2·11AvenueSW Tetj.t03J2AS,,5SOI 211005heelE\C00.4 Te!:(mJ966-0220 101S.CI08S~~lNW, TeCl18llW•1SOO Colga!y,Alt:ltllo.T'2RO!'I Fax:(~)JW-coot Tomnlo, Onlcrio. M(W 1A8 Fox:l,1619&6-0223 Edmcnlon.Aberlc,ISJ1U Fax:[7a:J)t19-~ GUSTAVSON WYLIE ARCHITECTS INC. ARCHITE.CTUP.E I PL4..NN!NG I INTERIORS GUSTAVSON WYLIE ARCHITECTS INC. 4TH FLOOR. 576 SEYMOUR STREET VANCOUVER, BC V68 3K1 PH: (604) 687-2511 I FAX: (604) 687-4203 REVISED FOR: ISSUED FOR: I.OIAlOGRE\liEW 2, PlANN'NG REV1EW TR2920 RBC MEADOWRIDGE RELOCATION 20370 LOUGHEED HIGHWAY. MAPLE RIDGE. BC NORTH-WEST EXTERIOR ELEVATION DRAWN: CE CHECKED: CE PLOTDATE: MAYI0.2013 JULYlS,2013 SHEETNUMBER ORBNTAllON ~ A4.03 NORTH PROJECT NUMBER: 12118 4)~---US OF EIFS CORNICE 4.!!..:!'" -1omweR _Ji~ --US OF STEB. • ECK -0.~·0-_ -US OF EJFS CORNICE ..QI.~ --TO PRECAST BASE T I I ... Toa~~ lOPA~~ To FJNISHE: ,:0: + CROSS SECTION-EAST WEST € ,....,.,,..,..,...,,,_c;c;;;c;;...,..;.......;;~=;::..::;c--J~ TOO:;;:.+ '_,. TQpNfJ.H.T ... -us0FSTEE1. ll:l'I: 2 CROSS SECTION -NORTH SOUTH M 04 SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0~ imperial All DIMENSIONS UNLESS OTHERWISENOTED ARE IN FEET AND INC • UUSISAC0?YRIGHf DiAWINGAN0SHAl.l NOTBEU56>, REM!OOUCED, 0~ REVISEOWOHOUJWi1metPERMISSIOH. • THECONJRACTORSttAU.CliECKANDVERIN AIJ.OIMENS'ON$ AND REPORT ALLER!IORS ANDO.V..IS5ON5TOD'fAiCHlfECTPPJORTOC0MMENa~ THEWORI:. • lHESl:DRAWlNGSARENOTTOBESCALEO □IALOC:l· 200 9C2•11AvenueSW, Teti«IJl2J,5.~1 29:oorS~IEIOOl-4 Te~f.4161966-0220 101~ 109S~eelMW. Tel:[7S?)2◄i'-1500 Colg(ry,AheJia.W fo<[<OJ["9-<l Tororllo.Onlcrio,M-<W fcx:{◄16]966-0 Emionlon.A!ber1o,15J Fax:1780)-429·2 GUSTAVSON WYUE ARCHITECTS IN ARCl.{!T[CTURE I PLANNING I !NTER!OI GUSTAVSON WYLIE ARCHITECTS INC. 4TH FLOOR, 576 SEYMOUR STREET VANCOUVER, BC V68 3K1 PH: (604) 687-2511 I FAX: (604) 687~203 REVISED FOR: ISSUED FOR: ·~-.xvev, ____ .u.r11,1t I TR2920 RBC MEADOWRIDGE RELOCATION 20370 LOUGHEED HIGHWAY, MAPLE RIDGE, BC CROSS SECTION DRAWN: CE CHECKED: CE PLOT DATE: SHEETNUM8£R ctBNTATION A4.04Jt- NORTH PROJECTNUMBER: 12118 .. -· . .;",-, ,--_,.. . -. ' ' ) , . -. ' ' .. GUSTAVSON WYLIE ARCHITECTS INC. SI' un r T/0 "l'l'IJ:AST~ - u· .. o· T - $ 22•-1· 'f/O POflTAL l ~ $ ,y .. o• 1o U/S Of CORl'ICC l;- l: 0 I g TR2920 RBC MEADOWRIDGE RELOCATION 20370 LOUGHEED HIGHWAY MAPLE RIDGE, BC f1 r ... , FINISH LEGENO ... , PREC>ST CONCRm P1',ru PRUl" MITAL f'L,\SI/INC I '1 STY\.£: FORMCI..AS CllSiOM COLOUR:UGHTC.=!tY TTPE: FRP SJ-4824-0 ~ STYLE:; FOR/ri!G1AS CUSTOM COLOUR: BftOWN TYPE: F!IP 53-,IS09-0 (CARTIER PATT'ERH FUR PORTA!.) PC1 F>R0fl.£:ASl)AAWN COI..OU!l: uc..rr ~ l,IIX: 3/8 LlllSTOHE. QI\ISk• ~ CONCRET! Slit«) 6: W!l«T[ e;o,,oa, litC1 ~ IO W..'OI ft MF-1 .... COL.DUR: PREf'INISMfll MaH. 'TU M11T01 ct.EAR A!'IOOIZfD Al,.l.11,tNIJ),I COI..OOR: fin11t" WKtt COLOUR: C\..£AR ANODl?ED >Ul~IN\JU PN#J COi.OUR TO MA.lCH IO.l&:00 sttltt.E vtNEER -"""""' --"""""" -- MAJONlltT~J,1111 SURWo .... ;t.• """"""' PARAPET SUMOUI«>, =a~ tO'NOiBAC~;. FOiU~C.V.S tEACONSEC:OHOAR'!' ffl.OFILE Af!CH IXTERJORWMi.6,iSE IIACI( Of £NTRANC£ ~CJ ltGH PAIW'<TS OT USED "' WEST CURT.IJN WAU &: WINDOW """""" -ES :-;;Rf~N WAl..l & WINIXIW Qi'i'r?fEER "'ts '""""' ~ anvoo• SENJAM,_. MOOR£. NORTH & EAST ELEVATIONS A4.01 C SCALE: 3/16" = 1 '-0" JULY 22, 2013 .....,.._ ~: ... :· . ~""':"· .. -·, ~: : --• . -~-. . . . . -. ~. ' --: ... ~. -. \ GUSTAVSON WYLIE ARCHITECTS INC \ l ! r "" ,, ., TR2920 RSC MEADOWRIDGE RELOCATION 20370 LOUGHEED HIGHWAY MAPLE RIDGE, BC " UI ur, .... l===e;;:,,::==:::::;l===========;===l==ir------VO""".~ ~ T/OP~il:.1518'5£ FINISH LEGEND .... """'°" .......... --., --""'""'WAil _, --..-............. ~ mnua _ .. Tlft: 11 JIIOilffl.NoG COIIDO-OIIC WO R CAST PANElS " !iT1'1.£: F'ORMCUS C1J$T01,1 '"""'"" COi.OUR: UCHT CRE'i' TYP£: FRP Sl-◄824-0 ...... ~ C011tN»c1 cws ·~w Fl sm.E: fORMGLAS CUSTOM T0Yr~BACKtlC.. FORM<i!JS COi.OUR: BROWN SEACON SCCOHO,lR'f TYPE: FRI" 5J-5190i-0 PROFll.£ ARCH {C,1,RTI[R PATTERN FOR PORT,1,1,..) """ a:,w ~ Cl'S t57J,J:U-1 PRECASr l'C1 PRCFLE, >S O~WN ---CONCREJ( col.DUA: I..ICKI' S.[GE PHlELS t,11){; 3/8 UMSTQ/IE. 011\SJ<llll SAA(:\ CONCRETE SANO a: VMTE ~- fREF'WISMCO ..,, ~"*-rotn ao.cK OF EHTRA.'tC[. N-10 METAL ftiGHF'A.IW"En CLAOO.NC PREAH M~Al. .,_, COLOUR: ffiUlt.lStE) METAL TO W.TCl-i Fl.ASHING Cl..l'.AAA.'vOClllCDM..LIIIIJNIAI l~~Ll[TAJ. l.!S-1 COLOUR: Wl-!ITE WHrr£ '"""" "'""' ALUl.t:NUM .. , COLOUR: CLEAA ANODIZED AUJMIN\JM CURTAIN WALL A: WINDOW "WNEER ~ES SPANDREl. ~' BACK PA!tn[D CUSS. ICUIWJN wm & WlNOOW µv.'NITR GLASS COLOUR Of" OPACIFlER: ""5 QP:•--•-•"f'3'llJ,U=>"•ca£'( """"""" ,. TH~'r BROl!Ol oou51.£ IU,WNEER """ ~ w.:.m u,;rr IU.UMltu,.l(O """"'" ~ "'"' '""' ... , PAlffT COLOlJR TO W.TCH EXIT 000ft 8a,i.rn,r'"l/00i{! AD.!ACENT STONE VENEER SOUTH & WEST ELEVATIONS A4.02 C .. .. SCALE: 3/16" = 1 '-0" JULY 22 , 2013 ~ .• -. _..,...... -~ .-·= . . . . -·_:--.-"' • , ':· ' ' . ( -:'... ' ' ~. • I ' •. --. GUSTAVSON WYLIE ARCHITECTS INC ___ .... - TR2920 RBC MEADOWRIDGE RELOCATION 20370 LOUGHEED HIGHWAY MAPLE RIDGE, BC . -7 -7--,7 I --1 _L.......--.;:___.,---;--7-_..J---,--l I VIEW OF THE ENTRANCE JULY 22, 2013 A4.01 P . .. .. ' . ·.,. . . . : ~ . . . ' . . . I . . ' • ' . . . ... - GUSTAVSON WVUE ARQJJT[CTS ltJC TR2920 RBC MEADOWRIDGE RELOCATION 20370 LOUGHEED HIGHWAY MAPLE RIDGE, BC --------------•:.. L - ---- VIEW FROM THE INTERSECTION A4.o3 P a ., ,. JULY 22, 2013 ,.,_ /ff ~ C'IJ ~ rv SHRUB BEDS W/ EVERGREENS AND SEASONAL FLOWERING PLANTS (TYP) I I -- TREES / I tpf : 1 ® ADJACENT SITE SHOW FOR REF. I I TRELLIS // (See Arch) BENCH (See Detail This Sheet) .... 0 01 CD I! I © /- . 0 I I I --/-----------I r-✓--r:t~======----------~-~------------~-------~--_-_-_-_-7--~- (:;), ,,0 ADJACENT SITE SHOW FOR REF. SYMBOL E) 0 ~ ® . (:-1 6 ~ @ EB ® @ . 0 @ ~ □ FRANCES ANDREW BENCH MODEL #CL 31-3A (Or Equivalent. ColorTl3D) PLANT LIST QTY. BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE " 3 24 165 319 246 12 33 12 11 20 15 60 64 Trees Acer rubrum 'Morgan' Maple Var 6cm cal/ 1.8m slnd Fraxlnus americana 'Autumn Blaze' White Ash Var. 6cm cal / 1 Bm stnd Fagu:. sylvalica 'Purpurea Trli:olour' Tricolour Beech Var, 7cm cal.11 em slnd PNntn IOCn.iwa "Pk'lik Pedctd:On' Flowc,ing Cherry Var, 6cm cal,./ 1 Bm slnd Glcdilsla 1,i 'Skyline' Honeylocust Var. 6cmc:al/1.8mslnd Slyrax japonlcus Japanese Snowbell 5cm cal / 1.2m stnct Shrubs Azalea japonica 'Coral Bells' Japanese Azalea #3 pol Bwcus sempevirens Boxwood Hedge &3 pot Fesluca 'Elijah Blue' Blue Fescue Vaar, #1 pol Iris s1bericc1 (lall) Siberian lr!s #1 pol lonicera plteala Evergreen Honeysuckle #2 pol Prunus I. 'Olio Luyken' Olto Luyken Laurel #3 pol Rhododendron 'Unique' Rhododendron (medium var.) #3 pol Rhododendron 'Anah Kruschke' Rhododendron (tall var.) #7 pol Row rneloilancf 'Seribna' Hardy French Rose var. #3 pol Spiraea x bumalda frobelli Spirea var. 13 pol Pieris japonica 'Temple Bells' Japanese Andromeda #3 pol Taxus media 'Hicksii' Yew Hedge 1.5m hL Vihumumdavidii David's Viburnum &2 pol Weigela 'Brislol Ruby' Weigela #3 po! Ground Covers Arclos1aphylos uva-ursi Vancouver Jade 10cm pol I 45cm o..c. Erica x carnea 'Krammer's Red' Winier Heather #1 pol/45cmoc Noles: !: !£>~~~ M~fh2~nm;::u:c:;~s~ Landscape Standards' and LandSpace Design Inc 1spec Noles'. 3. Landscape Areas lrrigaled, BIKE RACK Model: 4 Class B "Advantuge Ribbon 6" (Or Equivalent• CoiorTBD) Copyright Reserved TNsp'1111a110des:g11ar.11u!en.:l.0SiY• properly of G,-t>am Hoffat! Malhla$8/I Arth~ecis (Gt-lMA.) Md i:a11nc1 be used orreproaucedw'thoul wri~en con5entcl' GH~A Th 5 olfa sllon Cle in~crmed d any"alia(Mslrcm\h1tln!orma~on w..MO'l!Milfi,WfOcilM~ tlr.t,..-11$1. GHMA,apar1nen:llipof: Ron liollartArchilectlnc MarkMa\hias.enArctilectlnc SUBMIT TO PLANNING JULY 22. 2013 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT . ~ " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I-I ~ <( z w ti) <( 'i: !;, :a ~1~~1 z 0 ~ u ::::; IL IL <( ~ ~ ~ ~ a:: ~ w i IL 0 'z:; ~ w . :,,U ~ ILW ~ Or-..I <D ~ W"' ~-[ii~ i it Clo I N co N ! ;:::: (L < 0 (.'.) z iS =cc! ::J a:J u Ill a:: I I- z~ <l: I- o:'.6 m w >--~ t:: <l: 6 (/) _J ..... 0 8 0 a .....J i I i I ' • J n h w z ~ § "'" DRIVEWAY ~ 0 0 ~ 0 0 CD N 2400 ;n.:. ~ ...... r-..'Jlte__ 1 ~ \ MASONRY TO MATCH BUILDING CONCRETE BASE PROPOSED GARBAGE & RECYCLING ENCLOSURE SCALE: 1:50 - I 6000 5700 CLADDING TO MATCH BUILDING lsoo l 3000 >\ " ..... r □ 0 0 1100 N (T) l 1500 l ' ., ~FLOOR: 14.S0m 2100 75x75 HSS @300 O.C. 600x600 CONCRETE BASE EB PROPOSED TRELLIS SCALE: 1:50 LOUGHEED HIGHWAY Copyright Reserved Thcspl1nandduli;n■r111\e.W:U-lft'• Pfop4fty 01 Gre'lam Hoffart Malhl.uen Afd'l~.eds(GHMA) andr.annolbnw:-d orraproduadwi'.houl,,.rillcnoonsenllll CHW.. Thiscbsha9MirolctrMdof nnyvaMIO"l5/l!lmllWW~ shlmn on lhl$ IU#ln; Ila 001 ,~• C:r.ircin9'$ GHII\A.,ep■!Wl~oi: RonHolfartAn:hi:ectli,e. IU!dl;~~bl.c. SUBMIT TO PLANNING JULY22, 2013 z 0 ~ ::J ll. 11-<( I-~ 0:: w 11-c:i 1-1-Z--' LJ.J • :a:~ o._[D Or--...J<D LJ.J '° 11 ~~ fob ~- TR2920 RBC MEADOWRIDGE RELOCATION 20370 LOUGHEED HIGHWAY MAPLE RIDGE, BC T/;~~"' ~ IJ,,,==r====t============;=eet=""l-------VO .wN ,~ 7& .. 4• ~ f/O BOC:Ctt 22'-1" 0 T/0 PORTAL 0 ~ y " IJ'-o• ~ U/S Of ~,occ_ 'i l:I ~ ' ~ ~ ~ISHL£GENl ..... ~~--CASTPN<ElS " ...... n ..... """""" l'C1 CONCRETE ''""' -""' >.CW. ........ """"'"""-"'"' FIASHNl PffEJ'JH lotETAL ..,_, """' """"'" ,_, "'""""'-SI' ..,,. ""'""'" "' ...... ll.lAIO<l11D ,. "'""" '"" UIC,\~ ~ ..,.._......,.,.. .,.._ . .,._ _, _..,_, ----Q;)IX;:JIJll11'6 ffl"'lfll~(GIOri'~~ --ST'Y\.£:n'.A.GASClJSTOU ~;-t«,H-· ,_,.,., COI.JXm: UCKT CREY Tl"PE; fRP 53~2◄-0 l"Mlm' SllltltOUHO, "'"'°" C""""----STYLE: f<lRUGI.AS CUSTCM """''""'""'-"""""" --ICACOH SECOHIWl"I' lYPE:fRP ~.S1;oG-O ,,.,,.,_ (CARTER PATTCRN l"OA: PotnAIJ DOll'Ull&DQcml l~lUl•I PIIOfl£: Mi DIVM DTERIOR WALL 8,1,S( """"'"""""" ~~~~- ~JDw;Aa>fO IACM. Of OORANCE NlD tUCH P»w>ETS COlDU.'t PflD'HSliED W0M. l0 M T'CH 0.£1,R».Oi)lllllAIJ,IUNAI (X)lOOA, WHITE WHA'£ ,,,,.,.,,, '"""' m.Dl,R a.tt.tMOOCtm ~ ~lWl•WINOOW ........ ~ ~-UU.d!WIIIOOw .... .,,. """' ""'""' "'" f'Nlff COlOOR lO ~'lf>I ""'"""' --~SJON[.VE)IEIJI SOUTH & WEST ELEVATIONS A4.02 C • -SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" JULY 22, 2013 ... .,; ;;,. r -'~ ,., .... ... TR2920 RBC MEADOWRIDGE RELOCATION 20370 LOUGHEED HIGHWAY MAPLE RIDGE, BC r ,a•-o--~ 1/0- FINISH LEGEND """ "' WOll'QI l'l'ft II l'W't.NC awoa-uwr • _ e,.,sr l'Nru.S n &T'rl£! rOR1.1G1.AS OOSTOM ~:UOITT CREV ,..c,sr ,,,,c,rn: "'"'-' -KTH. woo,,g PWlN """-FlAS"'"' P'RfFJN LlETAl t'l'PE: fRP 53--482:♦-a f3 m\£:~C'USreJI ......,. """"""""'" ffltE: fRP SS.31909-0 (CNmER PATYCflN FOR PORTAL.) PROf'k£:,ASOfWl'N COLIJI..RUQl'Tfl(Q" -..OC::3/!L.MS10H£.ORISK<PIISANO, COHCAm:: SANO a ¥lfT[ CDle,'NT, tcllOUR: PRUHSHm MET"'-TO W..TCH at.AR ANOOIZm AWIJl«.IN 8oQ Of EWTIUM%NIO -·""""' 00T OOOR """""" "'""' ..... BDLIMIINiDOAt NORTH & EAST ELEVATIONS A4.01 C • SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0" JULY 22, 2013 District of' Maple Ridge Advisory Design Panel Application -2013 1. This application is in support of: (please quote file number if available) 0 Development Permit DP/ :ZO~~ ... l}(D~ ... pp 2. Brief description of project {Le., commercial, apartment house, townhouse, industrial) and site context. 3. ~A,.-,:c:au Of" 8~(':rr<0:4,. f?!'Z:ZL Ho:t: tZ.E57'42CA"'T t \~ k ~ '2 Seic...{4L-Hou$ rz_eS>T~ A.N:r:: Presenting Architect: ---~~a~::::i.M..z...i.t~r:z~~b:L.......:..• __.Jl':Mcl..:!::....E::::UH_.!,_--,,.,t:!.A::1!!!~!!:::'.'.!,,~ . .,,_1:::IJ?l....L:ll.al'.-T--- (please print) 4. Presenting Landscape Architect ___ _.,Ll~Ae:s.i::N~'-----"-C-:-d:::fAs::::1:...W[e!:§J);.~t~C-.A..~.,._ ______ _ (please print) 5. Mandatory enclosures include the following: llll'7 copies of the required presentation materials (as per Guidelines) in 1.1 x i7 format for distribution to Panel Members. Each individual package should be stapled and 3-hole punched. a'6esign Rationale 2013 Meeting Dates Agenda Deadlines byliQQn_on 6. Contact person for this project: (please print) TuesJan08 Mon Dec10 TuesFeb12 Mon Jan 21 TuesMar12 Mon Feb 18 Company: ~A'>' t <2 '7 • ~~ A~ rre.t-,'"?' Tues.Apr09 Mon Mar 18 Address: _~w,::;_~er&,,~~--,M--·..:.::;'44:=-=k'.°=1E:t'T""''-\---l'-"l:1:il,,_.,,,...,.,.L ___ _ ~.li<O e;;c... \/5'2:-A--6..r Tues May14 Mon Apr 22 Tues Jun 1.1 Mon May 20 Phone No. __ ,_.e,_'")..z...._~=--•........,.,t:i"-''2.......,[....:;•___,,,,b:::...L?:...-r;...e:._c=....,___ __ TuesJul09 Mon Jun 17 Fax No. __ i:>_o4----'----=--...J,k.__3-=-t;__I =g's,-.:=__;_ __ (uesAug~ Mon Jul 22 Email: ~cc.! .C-D:?V\. ;2.,, & yab-e» • ~ TuesSep10 MonAug19 Tues Oct08 Mon Sep 16 rH~ ,:u,( TuesNov12 Mon Oct 21 Tues Dec10 Mon Nov 18 (Applicant's Signature) Time & Location: 4:00 pm ln the Blaney Room Lower Level Maple Ridge Municipal Hall (Date) rev. 2011-12-20 PROJECT DATA: (PLEASE FILL IN ALL AREAS APPLICABLE TO YOUR PROPOSAL) 1 ) Site Data: Civi,c Address .204qo UXtGHefD t\\JY,,MAPL5 ~\CG~, ec. Area of the lot(s) ~ '5.05 m2 Lot width 25,05 m Lot Depth ~-4-1$' m Existing OCP Designation Proposed OCP Designation Existing Zone c,1 Proposed Zone CS1 Existing land use ~TAVAAtl'f Proposed land use ~Sf NJAANT Proposed dist. of Site-access from an existing intersection m 2 ) Building Data: Lot Coverage Required ~u.02.rn:2 Total lot Coverage proposed 1J5.f>1mz Reqd. front setback q.o m Proposed front setback lt:f ,l48S m Reqd. rear setback ,.om Proposed rear setback 41-~I m Reqd. side setback fl/Am Proposed side setback 1,35 m Reqd. side setback NIA m Proposed side setback S-,6+ m Reqd. building height 7,1 m Proposed building height 6,77 m Requested Variances to the proposed Zone A!lowed FSR in the Zone N/A 1112) Proposed fSR in the Zone .31-'. 02. (Total GFA allowed (Total GFA proposed m2) Reqd. Usable Open Space NIA m2 Proposed Usable Open Space 7.2..b5 m 2 Reqd. Common Activity Area t-i/A m2 Proposed Common Activity Area m2 3 ) Parking and Off-loading: -Underground Parking Y;W Reqd. Parking spaces for the zone 31 Proposed Parking spaces for the zone 3CZi- Reqd. small car stalls ~ Proposed small car stalls 4 Proposed scooter/bicycle storage area m2 Required Handicapped Parking I Proposed Handicapped Parking 2, Required Visitor Parking spaces fJtA Proposed Visitor Parking spaces NIA Proposed Variances to Parking fJIA 4 ) Covenants: ROW: Geotechnical Yf['JJ Storm sewer Y;tM Tree preservation YAC!J Sanita1y sewer Y,( D No Bu ild/ No Disturb y~ Drainage Yf w Any other Covenants on Title Y® Any other ROW 5 } Environmental: Within 50 m of a Watercourse/Wetland Y/~ (distance from the TOB of watercourse) rn Contours on the lot= less than j_5%/ 15-30 %/ 30 % or more. Existing landscaped area 'B'f.26m2 Proposed landscaped area 112..15 m2 Area of building to be demolished 3i.'81rn2 In the Flood Plain Y/(N../ In The Fraser Escarpment Area Y/(N -Proposed LEED points Note: Please provide plans/drawings/reports to explain the above items as required_ Scale: 1 :1,000 20490 Lough eed Hwy Bnli~h CQ\umbla DATE: Jul 2, 2013 CORPORATION OF THE DISTRICT OF MAPLE RIDGE PLANNING DEPARTMENT 2013-063-DP BY: JV DAVID S. MAH 663D Market Hill vancouver, b. c. MEMO TO: ATTN: FROM: DATE: District of Maple Ridge Amelia Bowden David Mah July 29, 2013. ARCHITECT v5z 4b5 phone/ fax 437 -1855 RE: Brown's Social House Restaurant -DP/ 2013 -063 -DP Design Rationale: The concept involves the renovation of the exterior of an existing Pizza Hut restaurant into a Brown's Social House restaurant. The renovation will involve the removal of a small part of the existing kitchen on the east side of the building to allow for a covered open patio area. Another smaller room will also be added to the northwest comer of the building to allow for an upgraded electrical room. The existing sloped roof will be added and modified so that vertical walls will be formed with new stucco and cultured stone materials to give a more modem updated look. The overall height will not rise beyond the existing height established. Extra landscaping has been added to the north and east sides of the building for a more pleasant transition between the parking areas and the restaurant. Additional planting will also be installed in the parking area in the rear to break up the existing parking layout. A new garbage / recycling enclosure, that is compatible with the design of the building, will also be built at the rear of the building adjacent to the loading area. We trust the above information is satisfactory and thank you for your consideration. Please call should you have any questions regarding the above. S incerelY., David S. ah Architect David S. Mah, maibc MAPLE RIDGE British Columbia TO: FILE NO: SUBJECT: PURPOSE: Advisory Design Panel 2013-063-DP 20490 Lougheed Highway District of Maple Ridge MEETING DATE: August 13, 2013 An Advisory Design Panel application has been received for the above noted property to permit a fagade improvement and renovation to an existing building. The building was originally constructed for Pizza Hut, and the new tenant is Browns Social House. The subject site is zoned for the proposed use, and therefore subject to a Commercial Development Permit only. BACKGROUND: Applicant: Owner: Legal Description: OCP: Existing: Zoning: Existing: Surrounding Uses: North: Use: Zone: Designation: .South: Use: Zone: Designation: East: Use: Zone: Designation: West: Use: Zone: Designation: Existing Use of Property: Proposed Use of Property: Site Area: Access: Servicing: David Mah Douglas and Margaret Price Lot: 1, D.L.: 222, Plan: NWP86291 Commercial CS-1 (Service Commercial) Strip Mall CS-1 (Service Commercial) Commercial Single Family Residential R-1 (Residential District) Urban Residential Drive-Through Re?taurant CS-1 (Service Commercial) Commercial Drive-Through Restaurant CS-1 (Service Commercial) Commercial Vacant (formerly Pizza Hut) Commercial (Browns Social House Restaurant) 2200 m2 Lougheed Highway Urban Page 1 of 3 Policy 6-24 Maple Ridge will review bylaws and regulations aligning with the General Commercial land use designation to respond to market demand and differentiate those uses from retail uses typically found in the Town Centre. The CS-1 (Service Commercial) zone aligns with the General Commercial category. Context: The subject site is located on Lougheed Highway in an established highway commercial corridor. Residential lots border the property on the south side, while commercial properties border the other three sides. The current building was previously used as a Pizza Hut, and the building design is distinctly designed for the former tenant's branding. Proposa l: The applicant proposes to significantly change the building fagade to reflect the corporate brand of the new tenant, Browns Social House. A portion of the eastern side of the building will be removed and will be replaced with a semi outdoor patio space. The patio space will be covered, with windows and a partial wall. New building materials include dark green stucco, dark grey cultured stone, and decorative metal. The restaurant will be accessed via the existing drive-way let down on Lougheed Highway, which is on the subject site and shared with the adjacent Dairy Queen restaurant. Landscaping is proposed to be added along the covered patio area, along the northern building elevation and in the parking area. Parking: Parking is provided to the rear and front of the building. The parking requirements for this project is one space per 4 seats. There are 124 seats proposed, for a required number of 31 spaces. In total, 38 spaces have been provided. Some modifications to the existing parking lot configuration are proposed, including additional parking spaces in the rear of the building to maximize the existing paved area. The parking area in the front of the building is proposed to be re-oriented to optimize number of spaces. Garbage & Recycling: The garbage and recycling facility is provided at the rear of the building. Off-Site Upgrades: The CS-1 (Service Commercial) zone requires an urban level of servicing, and therefore all urban services will be required at the time of Building Permit application. The Engineering Department has commented that a concrete sidewalk, curb and gutter will be required . Additionally, the project Engineer will need to confirm the size, location, and suitability of the existing servicing connections. Some upgrades to these services are expected at the time of Building Permit application. Requested Variances: There are no requested variances for this development permit application. The Planning Department requests that the Advisory Design Panel provide comments on the development proposal. Prepared by: Amelia Bowden Planning Technician Page 3 of 3 . -. Pursuant with Section 8.5 of the Official Community Pla~, commercial developments wili be assessed · against the following form and character guidelines. • This checklist is intended to aid in the review of commercial development.pennits and is to be completed by the architect of record for the project. It is noted that the project will also be reviewed for consistency with the gai~elines .by the Planning Department staff and the AdvisoryDesign_Panel. Key Guideline Concepts Consistent If No, provide . Yes No justification for ' inconsistency 1. Avoid conflicts with-adjacent . uses through sound attenuation, appropriate lighting, landscaping, traffic calming and the transition of building massing to fit v with adjacent development. , 2. Encourage a. pedestrian scale through providing outdoor amenities, minimizing the visual impact of v parking areas; creating landmarks and visual interest . along street fronts. 3. Promote sustainable development with multimodal transportation circulation, and low impact building ✓ design. 4. Respect the need for private areas Ill mixed use development and adjacent residential areas. ✓ 5. The form and treatment of new buildings should reflect the desired character and pattern of ✓ developmeI\t in the area by incorporating appropriate architectural styles, features, 1D4terials, proportions and building articulation. Guidelines Consistent If No, provide Yes No justification for inconsistency A. Building Design, Massing and Siting ; I. The form and treatment of new buildings should reflect the desired character and pattern of development in the area by.. incorporating appropriate architectural ✓ - styles, roof forms, facade modulation, architectural features,. fenestration patterns, building elements and· proportions and building articulation. 2. Exteri9r finishes should be wood, brick, natural stone or other materials of warm appearance. Substantial ✓ areas of ·concrete should be avoided. Expanses· -of .. solid wa~l or glf!,ss are_ unacceptable. . - ; -1 _ . ( ( 3. New buildings adjacent to existing small scale . buildings such as houses should be designed to .✓ provide visual interest whilst ·protecting the privacy and livability ofbothp~?perties. 4. Significant corners should be given added emphasis with vertical architectural.features and roofscape features: At intersections; the definition of comers v should be reinforced by buildings ~t front on .both streets. 5. Development should be sited to have the building ✓ frontage on the main street alignment. 6. Projects located on slopes ·should be developed in a ✓ manner which creates a step in perceived height, bulk and scale between development. 7. Design and.construction of buildings should account for maximum sound attenuation between commercial and adjacent residential uses. To ensure that noise • ✓ generated on the site is addressed in the most appropriate manner, Council may request that a noise attenuation study be prepared. 8. Continuous weather protection, such as canopies, structural a~gs, or building overhangs, is strongly promoted where at-grade retail uses are included in a v development and over common entries to commercial and/or mixed-use developments that front a public sidewalk or open space. 9. Developments adjacent to treed slopes, ravines and watercourses must respect natural vegetation, use • natural landscaping to retain soils on the site and WA may require additional setbacks as established by agencies having jurisdiction. Creeks and ravines are encouraged to be retained in their natural state .. 10. Developments are encouraged to redire~t ~ater fr9m rooftop runoff and downspouts into vegetated areas or ✓ rain barrels for later irrigation use. 11. Buildings shoul~ be designed and located on a site to: a) preserve and incorporate natural features or views; -b) ensure -·proper orientation-and relationship to -----· - adjoining residential uses; v c) minimize impacts agricultural lands; • on. natural • features and .. . .. . d) .. accommodate natural.grades to ensure minimal ·• --·--·-• --··•-H --0 -• .. grading is requi.J;ed. B. Refuse, Recycling and S~rvicing Areas /_ -. ---. 1. 1 :he design• of a roof, piacemerit of mechanical units and satellite dishes, etc. should take into account .... - -, 3. views of the roof from adjacent buildings. Service areas should have differentiated access to minimize VIsual impact-as well as conflicts with pedestrians. ✓ Refuse receptacles must be located indoors or within service . areas out of view from pedestrian access . Garbage and waste material should be stored m containers that are weatherproof and animal-resistant. . v 4. Mechanical equipment, drive-through uses, service or car wash bays, restrooms, vending machines, unenclosed storage, and public telephones should be: oriented on· the site to · face away from adjacent residential development. Whenever possible, these uses should not be. visible from an adjacent residential' property. C. Street Front 1. Particular attention should • be made to the image presented to the street front. 2. New development should emphasize the street frontages by incorporating differentiated front, side and rear oriented facades. Facades should incorporate vertical and horizontal relief in a well-proportioned rhythm appropriate to the intended scale of development. 3. Buildings with over 15 metres of street frontage should break the horizontal mass of the building with vertical elements in a rhythmic pattern. 4. Streetfront landscaping ·will incorporate street trees for 1e~tion of site bo~daries and enhancement of public space. 5. Vehicle access on a street frontage ·should be located to the side of the building away from the pedestrian entrance and should be designed to minimize the impact on streetscape appearance and disruption to pedestrian movement. D~ Signage and Lighting , 1. Signage. should be integrateq . with the des igt!_ of a building, preferably at ground level only, and its size and design . should co!llplement the scale and architectural detail of the building. ✓ V ✓ V -....... •:··-••• --· ... 2'.· lugh -inten sify .. illiimi:nafion·--diie·cted "at ·aajom.ing· • properties should be avoided. Commercial signage and high intensjty illumination adjacent to re~idential_ ✓ uses shuultl ·be-minimized in order to profoc;t residential amenity. ( -.. . .. . . .. ·--.. -. ... . . . .. . -: ( ( 3. Lighting and signage should be designed so as to have ' no_ direct source of light yisible from the public right-✓ of-way. . . . ' 4. All sign.age· must conform to the Maple Ridge Sign Bylaw. In the event of a conflict between the Maple v Ridge Sign Bylaw and these ·_guidelines, the latter should talce precedent. 5. In multiple-tenant commercial or mixed-use buildings, signs should be designed to present a unified appearance. -Signage space should be WA provided for upper storey tenancies. E. Vehicle Access, Parking, and Circul_ation 1. Buildings and. structures should be located to ensure safe traffic circulation and ac·cess and adequate on-✓ site parking. Padang should be encouraged_ in smaller units to avoid a monotonous appea~ance. 2. Parking and storage areas should be appropriately screened. Low level landscape screening sh_ould be v provided.to parking areas adjacent to public streets. 3. Where possible, parking and servicing should be located underground or to the rear of buildings to_ minimize the impact on streetscape-appearance and pedestrian amenity. • In all new buildings the portion v of the structure used for parking and servicing should be adequately screened and should be architecturally compatible with the rest of the building. 4. Existing lanes .should be used for vehicle access, loading and servicing. Upgrading of lanes in terms of attractive treatment a.pd screening of parking access V and loading and service areas is encouraged. 5. Vehicle access should be located to the side of the building away from the pedestrian entrance and should be designed to minimize the impact on V streets cape appearance and disruption to pedestrian movement. 6. Lanes, and d.riveways should conform to the existing . --grades as closely as possiole to • ensure ·minimal ----- disruption of slopes and vegetation. On steep terrain, . ✓ access should be aligned, wherever possible, to run parallel rather than counter to, natural .contours and ... • existing-grades.--·-... ---.. --··••·• .. --... ··-· -·-·--...... ... . ...... ··--1-. 7. Shared vehicle access between adjoining sites should be .considered where access for p_arking at the rear of ✓ --• • the property is iimited, Joint or ~hared access should aiso be considered between adjoining developments . -4-:· . --: . -- .. ,.... -------------'=---------------.------,-----.-------:--------, • to minimize disruption of pedestrian sidewalks and to maximize landscaping and· permeable surfaces. Integration of driving aisles and pedestrian· walkways between adjacent sites is also strongly encouraged. ✓ 8. Minimize the amount of asphalt surfaces in parking areas by integrating a variety of paving materials such ✓ as concrete, decorative pavers or by using alternate surface treatments. • • 9 .. Above-ground parking structures should not front public streets at grade. Non-parking uses or special fa9ade treatments must be provided along street frontages to enhance the building's appearance to the public·realm. On non-street fronting facades, parking · WA structures should be treated to avoid long blank walls at grade, such as massed landscape treatments or attention to design detailing on the fas;ade. 10. Parking control equipment, such as ticket dispensers and card readers, should be located at a sufficient distance from a public street to prevent parking queues extending onto the street: Similarly, a minimum distance of one car lengtq, and preferably two. car lengths, should be provided-between an exit gate and the street edge to accommodate cars waiting to merge into traffic. 11 . Rooftop parking structures should include design elements, including landscaping, to reduce the visual WA impact from the street and surrounding uses. • F. Pedestrian and Bicycle Access 1. Development should improve pedestrian amenity through interesting design detail at ground level, easily identifiable entrances, shop fronts with clear untirited glazing, concentration of signage at ground level, attractive landscaping and well de.fined pedestrian crossings for driveways and roadways. 2. A well defined pedestrian access to the co~ercial v use will be provided from the public sidewalk. Design will ensure that pedestrian use is given • ✓ precedence over vehicular use. Where possible, at . least .. on~_ pedestrian COQ:Q!:;ction shoutd--1>.~-provided through 1:he main block of buildings. 3. Facilities for cyclists should be considered for all de-velopments. ---· ----.. -··----·-·--·-·•-•,:,• ··--~-----·---· .. --··••·•• -··---··--··-------···-- G. Landscaping and Open Space 1. Lantlscaping should be supplemeIIted to identify. and define public space, to present a pleasing image and ...: -5.-- •·- . .. •• -✓- ( H. Crime Prevention through Environmental Design .(CPTED) l. Developments should be designed to rnaXllDlZe opportunities for natural surveillance allowing people to easily view what is happening around them during the course of everyday activities. Crime Prevention through Environmental Design . principles and . techniques are encouraged .. 2. Crime Prevention . through Environmental Design (CPTED) principles should be incorporated into the design of all parking faciliti~s. v 3. Design the interior spaces and exits from • any underground and above ground parking structures for maximum visibility within the parking area. Entries should be highly visible, well lit and spaced . at . V convenient intervals. Hidden spaces, obscured alcoves and blind comers should be avoided in the design and layout of the parking facilities. 4. Walls and ceilings of parking structures, particularly underground structures, should be painted white to enhance or reflect light. • I. ·universally Accessible Design 1. All non-vehicular routes be fully accessible. Sidewalks and pathways should be wide enough for wheelchair/ scooters and should include a tactile-strip ✓- for the visually impaired. Curb-cuts and curb let- downs should be. provided in appropriate locations to facilitate safo, convenient, and direct access from parking spaces to buildings for people with disabilities. 2. Locate parking spaces allocated for people with disabilities as close as possible to the main entrance to ✓ a building. 3. Building entries should be: . a) clearly addressed with large numbers visible \ from the street; V b )_ .. directly accessed _from the street. with~ut stairs; ·- and c) provided with weather protection, exterior lighting, ap.d power-assisted door .ope_ners. -7:. -: -: ( ·, -J. Bicycle Storage and Parking 1. Provide short term bicycle parking facilities, such as bicycle racks, at grade clos·e to building entrances. Bicycle parking should be in well-lit locations and cle_arly visible from a main building entrance and/or public roads. Bicycle racks should be made of sturdy, theft-resistant material, securely anchored to the floor or grounds. v 2. Provide long term bicycle parking facilities in secure NIA storage areas within buildings. Bicycle storage areas provided as part of a parking structure should be located close to elevators and _access points. In mixed- use buildings, bicycle storage facilities for residents are to be separate from those for the commercial uses. ( 1-------------------------+----+-----+-------------1 3. Large-scale developments are encouraged to provide f.,1/ A end-of-trip. facilities, such as showers and lockers, within the development for the convenience of employees. Date: -.J YJe "2,,,,7 , --zo l °?' · Architect Name/Company - Municipal File No. ___________ _ Plan Description: . e=,~T~ c::;2. ~c,uo..:ncrv Project No.----,,.:--...------------- Signature ____.~...,__s::__,~~-·.lr-_, _:rv{_,.____ _. . .. ' ----=::::::=: ~ A___c :'~c:...:....c '"i...)~ ; ff •.. ·. -> • W.ll!,;:;:,alf-X -.~ - - E A S T ELEVATION N O R T H ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION SOUTH ELEVATION PLANTUST SYMBOi. QUANm'Y BOTANICAi.NAME TREE (-) 7 Glei:ltsiaT~hmrNl'"SLntxat" SHRUB (H) 2 ...,.,_ ____ 0 33 NandtDDamcdaD~ 0 8 ,,._....,,,,._ (R ) 12 Rhododendron Sid. ( Hjt>. 1BO) GROUND COVER ~ .. ~-""" """' 1./tJ ~ll'al'mNSar ~BCSt.N8CHT"~ .l."HJ'l>.TBO"-..¥,ldoo,-.,bc-at...-y. 3.. Al er.. to ba dakod,K i:-" BCSl.M3CNTA ~ ~ >- <( ~ :z: (!) COMMON NAME -- Hyd,,,ngca Ha.wlll1fyBamboo °""""'-9'- Stman1Rl1_,endron - :z: a UJ IJ.J :z: ,_'Sl,m,t' (--Tn,e) (!) PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN 1:200 P!ANTB>SIZE NOTE B&BBancal..1.Bms:ld. #5 p0l60an hi.. bushy #3 pat 40c:m ht. bllsfiy 112pot:lOCmllUrptoocl 115 pot 60an ht. busily #1 pol heavy, 60cm D.C.. I EXISTING DAIRY QUEEN I .I I L....., TBD.) HCP SPACE 14 L . ,.,... t'ldlll,g Plie Tree & .M'lpen; 1Dbol«c,I 2·-Sld.(H)O.lBO.) ~WoodFenc:a BTl!STATI§I!CS """-"""""""' "'"""' =-~I..OIJGtEmtf\W.liW'I.ERl:>GE,BC ,..... C01 ,..,,._,, 21;735J)OSf'rz;ms,D5SII) -----EXBTNlt 3,7.CU01'1"Pf7JMSM) ~,,968.!2~p11m.61,fJ ~COIIEMDPATIONEII! 7mllOfrF ('7'2.!15SM) ~NI.MDl:ROFS:A.1'5 PAT'RDK5: 111 BAQCOFHOUSESTAFP.: 6 FRONT OF l10USE; ST/ff: 7 ="-,,. HlMIBtOFPARl<NJ&PM:ES E>OS!Nl<'7 _,, ...,._,, (,-.KJIWilF\liFQ;;ll!--~·A'UI• SO-~U..ll,a(t!Oan0,0.) Exl5'lng Wood FMWZ Lian Chang Landscape Architect 3025 He:.lherSL, VaJHlDUY!lr, B.C.. V5Z3K1 (604)- david s. mah 0 architect □ □ □ □ □ llililDUARKET,.._\IANCOUVERB.C.. ~«IS TBJFAX(f.itM)W-1&55 POO.ECT.mue BROWNS SOCIAL HOUSE RESTAURANT 20490 LOUGHEED HWY, MAPLE RIDGE. BC PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN SCN.E DRA,:l,,"INGNO. '"" ..,. ......,,...,,, L-1 ...,..,_ , . .,.,. ,._., "' I ~--.-H------------------------="'-1',------------------------41=---~ EXIST. FLOOR PLAN 1:50 davids. mah 0 architect a a a a a HJ O MARKET HU VN«:OI..M:Ra.c. VR._ 11U'AX .. I01,te1,S BROWNS SOCIAL HOUSE RESTAURANT 20490 LOUGHEED HWY, MAPLE RIDGE. BC EXISTING FLOOR PLAN SCA&E """""'""- '"' .. ,. JU.a""' A-2 ...,..,_ . .,,,., ,__BY - ~ ·-AooF ~ ! PfAKOFHIPROOF ~ UISOFQOOFTFIUSS NORTH ELEVATION 1: 100 A PENCOfROOF A PEAXOfHIPROOF' A 11.J,!SOFffOQF'TRUSS SOUTH ELEVATION 1:100 Q """'""ROOF A PW(0Fltl'R00F ~ UISOF ROOF TRUSS A ¥AtH FIN.. R.00R. SECTION A-A 1:100 A_ 'PE:AKoFROOF ~-i PEAK OF HlP ROOF tui.\ _ ! UIS Of ROOF TRUSS ! EAST ELEVATION 1:100 A_ l'eAKOFROQf' -t-- A -! PEAKOFHIPROOF --1-- WEST ELEVATION 1:100 ~-UIS OF ROOF lRUSS SECTION 8-8 1:100 david-s. mah 0 architect a D D D D MO DWrRKETHU. VANCCIUVERB.C. VlliZ-4&5'1B.A'AXjl:iO,l)417-11155 ....... .... - BROWNS SOCIAL HOUSE RESTAURANT 20400 LOUGHEED HWY, MAPl.E RIDGE, !IC EXISTING ELEVATIONS & SECTIONS """" _,.,..NO. 1:1(D DATE '"-"'-""' A-3 ""'""-. ....,,, _.,. .... e ..... +------1--~=i_ ---_J ~--- EOGEOf' BUllDINGDEI..CNt' 1- PEAK Of Pl00f' .. .... . l I I L_ I I I I I I I I I I I I =r---L_ _j ---~ __r--~ _______r ----------------- I ..... EXIST. ROOF PLAN 1:50 davids. mah 0 architect a a a a a a,oMARICET ..... V.MICOUVmB.C. VSZ:"85 TBJFAX(eG4}437-1&56 -= BROWNS SOCIAL HOUSE RESTAURANT 20490 LOUGHEED HWY, MAPl£RIDGE.BC -= EXISTING ROOF PLAN S0\l.E -NO. '"" .. ,. ......,_.,,, A-4 .X,ONO. Ami.SU DOAWHBY - ·i I I ~ I I I L ·- ..... DEMOLITION FLOOR PLAN 1:50 ... 7 -T- l I\ I ____________ L/ .......__. _J david s. mah • 0 architect IJ Cl Cl D D &li:lOIIARICE'fHl.L VANCXll.NER B.C. V1:t4~r,oi,1m,\M "IIU ___ MK'l!I __ _ -... -&.-~-------------~----------~-------~~--'IH[- -lllllE - 'PROJECT·TrnE BROWNS SOCIAL HOUSE • RESTAURANT I =-~tf/M, -= I DEMOLITION FLOOR PLAN = """'"""°' ,2 Do\1E ....,..,., A-5 ...,..,_ A,OUU ..,....,. ... -----------l ~ I ,,1-___ _ (REMOVE EXIST.ROOF CLADDING& P/W ) DEMOLITION ROOF PLAN 1:50 £00£ OF BWDIHO s..- PE,lj(QFOOOf' C REMOVE EXIST. ROOF CLADDING & P/W C REMOVE EXIST. ROOF CLADDING &P/W (REMOVE EXIST.ROOF Cl.ADDING& PIW ) _r---7_ _f-----.::....::. --------- 71 fi davids. mah 0 architect a a a a a MJOMAA!CEY"t«..LV~fl.C. V5Z-48:i lll/FAX '3(M)"'37-1E . BROWNS SOCIAL HOUSE RESTAURANT 20480 LOUGHEED 1-N/Y, MAPLE RIDGE, BC ~-'ffl'LI;. DEMOLITION ROOF Pl.AN """' """"""""' 15> .... ,...,,,.,,. A-6 ........ Amt31S ""'"'"" .. .... ! ! lw I ~, i;:l! C L...; § ~ -- ~ ~u ~ ~ 5 ! 5 ~ ! § m< I ~ 8£<:.ROOM ~ ,_ ;; HEW WMl. fHR.1. PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN 1:50 ---\/ \/ \/ \( I l I I .... ~ \ I NEWv.,N. N'l:.WWAU..1..n.J. -WM.I. INFl..t. david s. mah 0 architect a D D a D f.iG'JO~'HUVH1COlHOll&C. VSZ: .. BS~(W4)437-1!aS . •••>.1a::nm• BROWNS SOCIAL HOUSE •• RESTAURANT 20490 LOUGHEED HWY, MAPLE RIDGE. BC PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN SCAl.E DRAWN3NO. '"' MTE ..,.,,_.,,, A-7 JOO HO. ,....,u OOAWNSY .. A_ PEAKOFROOF ~-Pf!N<OP'HPTOCJF ~-UISOFADOFTRUSS tacGatm.CCIUMG Dl'.D)MfM:~ Ol.Mll~a:MDt IQ_ MAIN AN. R.DOR A_ PEAK OF ROOF ~-MAIN AA A.OCR A_ PENCOFHPRQQF A_ ! USOFAEU'lRO:SS Q _ MAIHFIH.f\..OOR NORTH ELEVATION 1:100 .,._,,,_ ....,.,..,,, P~lm!E:ORA.'nVE--~---~ ""'"'""""" ......,._,_ IWWOIIIY Gl..'NIOI i'n:!NinDt SOUTH ELEVATION 1:100 211'\.YCBSGN..,.._~Cl'I' alD$0~0.C.tilJWa ,., .. _, '"' NCl~CQNC ~l'Qf ...... -- ~ Pl'AICOFROOF ! ~ PEAK OF HIP ROOF ~ ~ UIS OF ROOF TRUSS ! /u.\ MAIN AN. FLOOR StUOQO-FIN..Cllla;u:IH OM,ECe~ @3ttlrn'l'IO.COH38Xt-40 0~0.C. A PEN<OFAOOF IM,l,f10Jat00AA~~------,---, ........ .,,... °""""""""""""' ....,.,..,... IJEW!A"""UQHTS .,._.,_..,......., EAST ELEVATION 1:100 ~ WEST ELEVATION 1:100 <W.VANQEDR.ASHINO o,,,,.,.,.,.. tG)! PEAK OF HIP ROOF,.,,..+--~+-■ J g__ UISOF-RO()f""'ffllJSS J'EAKOFROCI' A MA.IN RH. ROOR david s. mah 0 architect D D a a D 66JOUARKET"Hl.1.V~B.C.. VSZ:485 TEU'Fo\X(&O']GT-111515 .... '""""'mus BROWNS SOCIAL HOUSE RESTAURANT 20490 LOUGHEED HWY, MAPLE RIDGE, BC ,,.,.,,..,mu; PROPOSED ELEVATIONS & SECTIONS SCALE _.., 1;1DO OI\TE ALI>.,.., A~8 ""'"" A.,..,. """"'BY . ..... ,._ ~ r:EOGEOf I BIJIIDING BEi.OW I I H~ ~ -.l __l i ! "' j, r l J, ➔~ r ~ ~ <I;), -PEN<OFAOOf I PEAK Of ROOF ~ 1 ! [=]~ ~[=] . r C EXIST_ SUNK FOR ELECTR SYSTEM ~ ~ 1 1 1 ! ,.,._ ~ P9J<Ol'ROOI' __,;,r l i i -T I --.- I I I ,..,. f PROPOSED ROOF PLAN 1:50 71 ~ I I .L I I J, / r r (,'~ 1/ PEAK OP ROOF ~ ~ 1 ' --~ ~ ~ r ) ROOF > HATCII 1 ~ I~ Pl!,\KOfRIOCF T i " ! ---~ ! david s. mah 0 architect D D a D a ..... - ,,,.,,,crnrua BROWNS SOCIAL HOUSE RESTAURANT 20490 LOUGHEED HWY, MN'lE RIDGE. BC -~ PROPOSED ROOF PLAN SCALE """"'"""· 1S ""'° .,,.._,,,,.,, A~9 JOBHO. .... ,,, ...,_.,, .. .. 4 .. // / PARTIAL ELEVATION I l I I I ZPLYS8SMBIBAANE10 ---- CARRY UP & OYER PARAPET & U111)81 I:» JUSKIIO FUTURE NEON COHT1NUOU8 80nm Bl.AOC SCREEH \IENTINO (PAJIIT WS OF CHORD Bl.ACK•WHERE VENT STRIP IS UlCATED) WOOO Pl.ANKING -----' 36X140@600mm0.C.CH,J. -------II.la.- EXPOSED--ME&i TO BE PAftlTB) Bl.AO() A.UM. 38X38 PICKETS@ 150mrn0.C. Wf60XB9TOP& BOTTOM RAILS OH BLACK MESH (l.AGSCREWEOTO Bl.DCONG lH Betita>) SLAPDASHSTUCCOANlSH -----"'11 ON K-t.AlH OH P.T.19'08 0 300mm O,C. ON2lAYERS OF B.P.DN 12.7rmlPNION 38X140 @61nnm 0.C. / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / -~""--0aS't.RP ROOF TO BE / / / // / // / // / - NEWSKYUGHT ASSBB.Y \ NEW CROSS BRACE TO \ EXIST. "TRUSSES -/.,.,--,-- // / .,.,,----- / +-------_l _ \ \ ::~ / ------------+ ---------·------r I I I • J~~D~~~e:, FRAMEANDltfTOREGlET ROD.&CAU.K .:..,_ ~ (B..P.TOOVERlAPPOlJRED I "'-L-I-UQUTDMEWRANEBY102mm) SLOPE 1-...;.•_·_....:i•-.:....--·"_. ___ :;;f'_JL.~--=--·---------.. _· _:_. __ ;_.,;_;...-'::r..._...;1•...;";_' ___ ,_· ...... I:\:~..,_ ______ ._;__._·_..._•_. __ ._.-'-::r.....;;.._....;i41... ________ ....;. ___ ....... 4 '-"-+---CREAT!ZillnDEEPCUT IJHI: Rlll U0Ul0 ·. --® ~~TAIL'1' 0 .. t .. ~a . ~ .. david s. mah 0 architect Cl a a D D BmD~HLLVN-ICOU'IIER:e.e. VSZ.485 TEI..IFAXtf,IW)437·1.ISl5 ""11! BROWNS SOCIAL HOUSE RESTAURANT 20400 LOUGHEED HWY, MAPl£ RIDGE, BC ;,· DETAIL '1' ~t '--------11 """' """"""'""' ""' .... ....,..., A-10 .K>BM>. ,__,., ......... .. I Jii:1i5iii I . d &. FLOOR PLAN NORTHfSOUTH ELEVAllON 1:50 1:50 JlftffFGIJCliwr::U I !I u ' § ,.,. .... ~ ~ EAST ELEVATION WEST ELEVATION 1:50 1:50 PROPOSED RECYCLE/GARBAGE ENCLOSURE 1:50 +-+--i...ff:w>-ili-POUREOIJQUlD_,.., Enm!WIDERAT -+-1--H STONETOMATCH ~ Cll.TUREOSTONE I . • " 4 • 0 .. .. . TO RUN IJPSIOE OF PIWBY ~ AND 17f1'0 REG.ET !UJ', TOovEl'IUI' POIIIS) IJOU!O IEMl'RAHEOY 1l0iam) • .. CREAlE Zinn DEEP cur UNEFORl.JQIJID MEMBRANE INSET DETAIL '2' 1:10 2PLYSBSMEJ.BRANETO ----~ CARRY UP & OVER PARAPET l Uf,IJER CAP FLASHING CONTINUOUS 60rrvn Bl.ACX SCREEN VEN'TING (PAINT UIS OF a-JORD Bl.ACK~ VENT STRIP IS UXATED) WOOD Pl.ANKllG ----- R 1031.Y 2 PLY S8$ IS,IBAANEON PROTECTION BOARD ON 12.7mm P/W ON 38X MEMBERS (REFER TD SlROC. DRAWINGS) SLOPE :1111<!<00-0C.IW--------111- E>O'OSED--MESH TO BE PAINTED Bl.AD<) Al.J.M.. 3IDC38 PK:KETS @: 150nm0.C. W/60XB9TOP& BOTTOM RAlL6 ONBI.ACK. MESH (l.AG SCREWBJTO BLOCKJNGIKBBUMJ} SLAP DASH 6TUCOJ ANISH ON K-t.ATI-1 ON P.T.19X38@ 30f)rint0.C.ON21AYERSOF BP. ON 12.7atra PIWON 38)(140 @600mn o.c. \ \ +---._,;IE::e~---POU1'EO UQUIOMEMBRANE 6C)mr WICE R.ATST'OHE.TO --..1---°"' TO RUN UPSIDE OF PrN SY' 305mm AND INTO REGl.ET (BP. TO OVERlAP POURED UQUID MEYIP.AHE fJV W,TotaA.TUREOSTOIE CO.CIA ". .• " 0 ® d • ... ~1---CRfA1E2StrmOEEP WT LINEFORUQUIO MBABRANE INSET ' "· . .. DETAIL '3' 1:10 \ PAtNTB) DECORA'JM" METALsmtPS CONTINUOUS 60rm, 9lAO( SCREEN'VENTING (PAJNT UIS OF CHORD BLACK WHERE VENT-STRIPlSLOCAlED) CLA.. lURED STONE ON K..tATii ON P.T.19X38@ 310nm0.C.ON2:LAYmSOF BP.Off t2.7mmPNJON ____ ..,,l;q/\,---L--- 38X184@80()rm0C. CUL TIJREO STONE ON KUnt ONP.T.19X38ft30Cknrn0.C.ON 2 LAYERS OFB.P. ON 12.1'nwn PNJ OH 3BX84@. Bl»rm O.C. ON 38X140@6'Drlm0.C. NEW38)(64 INAU. ---::::::::::::::::_-'t]u•fu....._...JII--- 2Pf..Y SB$ ~oN PROT£Cl10N_,., .... 12.7mm P/W ON 38X MBIBERS (REFER TO STRIJC. DRAWINGS) """'8(1'-(t 12Ubrn0.C. IMME>Gtl'T +----,.;"l!~l:-,➔':il---POUREOUClJIDMSIBRANE TO RUN UPSIDE OF P/W BY 305mn AND INTO REGt..Er(B P. TO a.tER1AP POUREDUClUID MEMBRANE BY t~ fiOnm\MDE.RATSTOtOITO --..!--◄ ""TOICU.11JREDSTOME col.OR .,, ' d • "· 0 . .. . .. ® DETAIL '4' 1:10 david s. mah 0 architect D D D D D fmOIUff<:ET'lfU VAHIXIWeRllC. VSZ-485 TELIFAX(IJIMJ43M1Wi --- BROWNS SOCIAL HOUSE RESTAURANT 20490 LOUGHEED lfNV, MAPLE RIDGE, BC DETAILS '2'-'4' & RECYCLE] GARBAGE ENCLOSURE SCALE ........,..,_ '"' D<TE ...._,,_,.,, A-11 .,,...,_ . ...,., -.... .., 2PLYSBSMEHJRANETO ----~ CARRY UP & 0/ER PA.R,.PET & UNDER CAP Fl.ASHING FUTURE NEON WOODPlAN!OMG ____ _, l8Xl.f0'960DmmO.C.VllJ. --------1-lf- e,,POSa)liBlllStOaeH> MEStlTOIIEPAJHTED B1ACQ A1l&l '""38PICKETS@ 102mrDO.C. Wf60X89TOP& BOTTC&I AA0..S ON Bl.AC( MESH~SCREWEDTO BLOCKINGINBEH/ND) st.AP MSH sruax, fNSH ONJC.I.A"'Tlt0NP.T.19X38@. 300mnOC. ON'2LAYERSOF BP. ON 12..7mm PNI ON 38X140@600mm o C. SIGNAGE PREFABRICATED METAL ---'t _ __J SCRml ,,,,·, 0 ® -.. .__. d • ·"· .. DETAIL'5' 1:10 2PL: -S8SMEMBRAHEOH PROTECTION BOARD ON 127mm PMON38XMB.EffiS (REFER TO smuc. DRAVrWGS) 51..0PE \ \ \ .. •. . PAlNJEl DECORATIVE METAL STRIPS CONTINUOUS 6<ftm BU.a{ SCREEN vefTING (PAINT U'S OF CHORD Bl.ACK WHERE VEl<T sm,p JS LOCATEl>) CULTIJREO STONE.ON K-l.Allf ON P.T.19"38 @3Mnm O.C. ON 2 lAYERS Of B.P. OH 12.711'1JJ PIWON3BX140@fl00rnm O.C. POURED UQt.lID MBilBRANE TORUNUPSICl:OFP/WFN 305nm AND INTO REG.ET (B.P. TO OVERl.AP f'OURED UQUID MEMBRANE BY 102nm) SOmmWIDERATSTONETO ----+-1 MATCH Cll.1URED STONE COLOR 0 . -. ROOF As:SD&.Y 2.PI.YSDS M ON PROTECTION BOARD ON 12.7nn PNiON38XMEWIER$ (REFER TO smuc. DRAWINGS) NEW CROSS BRACE TO ElOST. lRUSSES ., SLOPE .. . .• .... .. david s. mah • D architect a 1:1 a a a 6630~ HU. VAHCO.NalB.C. '\IKAS'ttllrAJCf,Ol)4:>MW ,.,.,JECT1111.E BROWNS SOCIAL HOUSE RESTAURANT 20490 LOUGHEED HWY, MAPtE RIDGE. BC ......... 1111.1 DETAILS '5'&'6' 6CN.E -NC> '"" ..,. ........, .. A-12 ""'"" """" _.,. "' • ~lliROUGl-l5KYUGHT ~SECOOHlliROUGH SKYLIGHT ~--"' \ I I/ I/ \/ ~OFSKYUGHT C►.LO ------~ VIBDCAL CftOSS SE'CJJON NTS I I I I I I I l l HOfflZONTAl CROSS S£CJJON NTS PRODUCT DIMENSIONS __ ,. ---------- ,..,_ I/ METRIC UNITS~ IMPERIAL UNITS (l,06) "" = -..... = -"""' -= -----""""" .... -,...., .-. ... --...,. -....,,. --. --. w -. I .. -. • --... 111 dav1ds. mah 0 architect D D a D D 68:1 IJMARl<EJHU. VNkXllNERO.C. VSZ485 .e.JFAXl'll(M)4l'Me.55 .,,.. ____ ..., ___ _ -·--------------____ -.ng __ _ l"IQDDl:ll.lallR-at-.cJa'K_ .. ___ -.c_ --------~-- BROWNS SOCIAL HOUSE RESTAURANT 20490 LOUGHEED HWY, MAPI.ERIDGE, BC PATIO DETAILS--1 .,,.,. ...,._..,_ ,..3.,.,, .. ,. ,.._,,_,.., A~13 JOBNO. • ..... u ........., I 1 , .. ... -~ li<EOFOOlll>IGIIJU:lt<G. ~ THROUGH TYPICAL PATIO fD\ 1Yi'ICAlSECOON@6UIIDING ~k.,,l;C!ll:IO SIGNAGE ~ m>JCAI. Rf.FIER SECTION 15/'"""'""'"" _tttt:-B I -~::::.---- ~fYPICOJ.SOCIION@ MJD WINDOW ~Jeo6al:J'> ..... . . -io~IIIC)ll)Nl,... ~I I-------~SECTION@BASE davids. mah 0 architect D D D D D CD UARl<ETHI..LYAHCOWERa.c. \i'Affl-mAIMf:-041-9'~ ......., ...,_,.,,,.mu; BROWNS SOCIAL HOUSE RESTAURANT 20490 LOUGHEED HWY MAP!£ RIDGE, 8C ' PATIO DETAILS--2 SCN.£ """""6NO. ,,,_ MlE "'-"'°" A~14 .JOBNO. A-d """"'"" I I I i